tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post3811393684843262032..comments2024-02-15T11:02:19.127-05:00Comments on On trying to see reality: Michael Albert and Alan Maas debate the relevance MarxismTomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02725175206527681317noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-75605523954615122652012-01-08T23:38:30.257-05:002012-01-08T23:38:30.257-05:00So for instance, under democratic centralism, a sk...So for instance, under democratic centralism, a skillful political maneuverer could claim that the economy is not sufficiently developed to provide abundance, and use that as an excuse for centralizing his or her power, rather than handing it to workers. They would likely have a lot of support in such a claim, as it is very difficult for a central body to create satisfactory living conditions for large numbers of people, as it's hard to predict what makes people feel satisfied, especially if you don't know them!Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02725175206527681317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-37562404786208600152012-01-08T23:31:00.503-05:002012-01-08T23:31:00.503-05:00Hey Royall, just saw your comment. I need to link ...Hey Royall, just saw your comment. I need to link this blog with my current e-mail address. <br /><br />The way I see Albert's argument about the danger of democratic centralism is that he is saying it can deteriorate into totalitarian control as it provides no system of checks and balances on a person's ego. Democratic centralism leaves open the possibility for someone who is a persuasive speaker or skillful at political manipulations, like Stalin, to grab power. This also has to do with the issue of whether the means of production can reach a point where "a atate of abundance" is available. What is abundance in America, for instance? The answer would differ from person to person. I greatly appreciate ISO's emphasis on the importance of worker control, but what about people who are not workers? What sort of control is given to them?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02725175206527681317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-10107143075842318542012-01-02T09:23:50.965-05:002012-01-02T09:23:50.965-05:00One important thing that I didn't see Albert o...One important thing that I didn't see Albert or Maas address (although truthfully I didn't read the whole debate, just your analysis and part of the debate) is that nearly all of the educated people in Russia were already a part of the Tsar's bureaucracy, and thus could not be replaced in any serious quantity by the Bolsheviks. These coordinators had their stranglehold on the bureaucracy long before the Bolsheviks came to power and were unfortunately the only people capable of managing the beast, and so could not be removed. This is important because these very people were the first generation of the coordinator class under soviet rule, and their creation was not accomplished by the Bolsheviks.<br /><br />Stalin's iron grasp on state power can't be described as a fault of democratic centralism because under Stalin, the decision making system ceased to be actually democratic and was central to Stalin himself rather than any collective party leadership. During Stalin's rule, the managerial strata were able to accumulate benefits for themselves above those of a typical worker (vacations, dacha access, food, clothing) which naturally created resentment among the proper working class. Stalin was well aware of this and used it to solidify his support among the working class. The victims of the NKVD included huge quantities of people from many backgrounds including any competent Bolshevik who would not become a bootlicker, random bootlickers, nationalists, anarchists, Mensheviks, Orthodox priests, and common criminals. The ones who bore the brunt of the onslaught, however, were the managers. Any underperformance of the factory (or even any fabricated reason) would be used to label the unfortunate bureaucrat or commissar a reactionary and send him off to the camps. The workers resented such people tremendously, and were often pleased to see them gone.<br /><br />Much of what I've said here comes from The Soviet Century by Moshe Lewin, which is to me critical reading for getting a basic grasp on the USSR, especially the Stalin phenomenon and how it differs from what came before Stalin and how it impacted what came after.Royallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04316683456785456211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10194329.post-66206621429302527202011-12-21T17:59:42.273-05:002011-12-21T17:59:42.273-05:00I think Albert would agree that Marx "was rig...I think Albert would agree that Marx "was right" in a broad sense. His issue is more whether or not Marxist-Leninist theory successfully communicates the socialist vision in a way that connects with everyone. My hope is that discussion of the debate would be to improve our abilities to raise awareness about the inherent oppressiveness of class rule.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15827877163011513893noreply@blogger.com