Re: [sixties-l] Re: Horowitz corporations >

From: Jeffrey Blankfort (
Date: Mon Jul 17 2000 - 05:16:49 CUT

  • Next message: William Mandel: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: Horowitz corporations"

    The problems with the Soviet Union and the East Bloc began with their
    opportunistic use of "democratic centralism," an oxymoron devised by
    Lenin to justify a largely undemocratic rule by a central committee
    which judged itself capable of sifting through what the people on the
    bottom wanted without having to actually consult them. This is a
    simplistic definition but it is essentially what it was and how it
    worked. Rosa Luxemberg dissected this theory very nicely, and in so
    doing, found herself isolated both before and after her murder at the
    hands of the German Friekorps, because democratic centralism was at the
    core of party rule.

    To give an example of what happened, here is an excerpt from an article
    by Arthur Starewicz, editor-in-chief of the journal, Polish
    Perspectives, #5, published in March, 1981, (which I was fortunate
    enough to purchase at the time from the estimable City Lights Book
    Store). Starewicz writes:

    "In theory the Political Bureau was elected by the Central Committee and
    the Central Committee by Congress. In actual fact -- barring periods
    of crisis --the ruling group chose those they considered appropriate to
    sit on the Central Committee, and the Central Committee selected, with
    the aid of the apparatus, suitable delegates for Congress. Thus
    meetings of the Central Committee only very rarely provided an
    opportunity for discussion of policy, and were usually called only to
    gain formal acceptance of decisions which had already been taken and as
    demonstrations of superficial unanimity and loyalty to the leadership.
    The occasional speeches of a few 'licensed fools' were neither here nor
    there; real differences of opinion were left on the doorstep.

    "The party congresses, whose task is to lay down general guidelines,
    were transformed into carefully stage-managed productions, all the
    really important decisions having been taken before-hand. Exchanges of
    opinion, criticism of mistakes, and real discussion simply died out. The
    overall structure was one of commands issued under the cloak of unity
    and discipline."

    Starewicz made no reference to the prescience of Luxemberg who predicted
    how democratic centralism would be perverted. While he was describing
    the situation in Poland 20 years ago, I think what he had to say could
    safely be used to understand what happened in the USSR and the other
    nations in the Soviet Bloc.

    While I understand that to the inhabitants of those countries, the
    appeal of obtaining the goods that were available to capitalist
    countries was considerable, but I think the role of market forces in
    bringing down the USSR and its allies, was secondary to that of the
    corruption of those societies brought about by the contradictions that
    were clearly inherent in "democratic centralism."

    Jeff Blankfort

    Elmer Lightman wrote:
    > I was a regular in Bill Mandel's KPFA audience for years. Taped the program
    > for it's rare information. And I admire his mind. Coming upon the current
    > dialogue, and the evolution in his views, I haven't seen addressed the
    > answer to three points for which I've always faulted capitalism:
    > 1) Waste. The enormous waste of resources in the production of redundant
    > consumer products, the over production (the new proliferation "99c stores"
    > to at least sell the left over stuff to someone rather than destroy it, is
    > small relief--why didn't it cost 99cents in the first place?)
    > 2) Immediate profit over any real interest in conserving dwindling
    > resources for any future there might be. A society that planned for the
    > future of the human race is what I'd hoped we'd get from the socialists, but
    > did they even have that ethic?
    > 3) Wasn't the Soviet Union's problem that it didn't have access to the
    > world's resources the way the U.S. did (and secured with it's military)?
    > Wasn't that a key reason USSR couldn't compete, notwithstanding any accuracy
    > of the other reasons Bill gives? And for that matter isn't the lack of
    > access to all the world's resources (and of course various social issues not
    > to the direct point of this thread) the reason inhabitants of countries like
    > Haiti emmigrate to the U.S.? The goodies are here, not the least of reasons
    > being that whatever is there has been brought here to manufacture U.S.
    > goodies out of. So: more goodies here, poverty there, people come here.
    > Elmer LIghman

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 19:57:10 CUT