[Marxism] Sam Farber and other, better, things...

[S. Artesian]

One man's arcane and theoretical is another man's.... meat.

Trotsky's analysis of the bureaucracy as being Bonapartist and unstable was 
almost ALMOST self-contradictory; Trotsky's view being informed, IMO, by the 
old adage that Bonapartism represents a sort of "equalization" of the class 
struggle where the government appears as independent,  balanced between, or 
against the equal but opposing forces.

I don't think that is an accurate analysis of Bonapartism-- as it 
represents a real defeat of the working class through suppression and 
incorporation, literally, through government unions etc. into the state.

I think Trotsky saw the bureaucracy as balanced-- suspended actually---  
between proletariat and bourgeoisie on the world stage, a suspension that 
would give way when one class or the other gathered up just enough power. 
The problem here is that Trotsky's analysis underestimates the depth and 
breadth of the defeats the workers revolution had experienced-- in Germany, 
Spain, UK, Italy-- defeats that go hand in hand with the bureaucracy's 
consolidation of power.

The bureaucracy might have been defeated by the German invasion, but the 
invasion was not going to trigger an uprising of the Russian workers-- to 
cast aside the bureaucracy to better defend the revolution.  The bureaucracy 
had purchased for itself a certain "stability."

I agree that the future course of the USSR and the socialist bureaucracies 
was not SELF-evident in the 60s-- and that was part and parcel of the 
general confusion regarding the future course of capitalism that obscured 
the ongoing dynamics that would break the continuum of prosperty for US 
capitalism in 1969, leading to end of dollar convertibility, and in 1973, 
the emergence of the twin elements that have marked capitalism for 35 
years-- OPEC and Pinochet.

But not self-evident is not the same thing as not evident-- and it is 
precisely those critical moments of reproduction, those eruptions that, if 
not revealing the source and course of the instability, at the very least 
should produce a correspondingly critical appraisal of all previously held 
notions about stability/instability; should signal the need to examine the 
actual dynamics of the socialist economies.    Prague 68 was one such 
moment.  Another moment came in Poland 1970 (if I remember correctly) in a 
spreading strike wave.

Now I grasp JB's intent when he states that it is more important to 
understand Fidel's position in 1968 than to oppose it.  I have to disagree. 
When a vital moment in a revolutionary struggle erupted, Fidel despite his 
criticism of the bureaucracies, stood with and for the suppression of the 
struggle.  It's just that simple.  Fidel's position enhanced the power of 
the bureaucracy and thus its power to administer the impulse to capitalist 
restoration.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Sam Farber and other, better, things...