The strategy of neo-communism: trotsky and the russian fumbled balls…
June 30th, 2018 •
At the risk of misunderstanding both trotsky and the russian revolution we might note the resemblance of trotsky’s perspective and our own: the idea of the need for a bourgeois democratic revolution to precede the passage to socialism was rejected by trotsky and the history of the russian revolution bears this out. We have essentially said the same thing with important differences all the way through.
Fist the idea of socialism in one country must coexist with an international. If one zone can construct a special kind of communism in one country this would actually be far more conducive to an international that succeeds.
We have consistently suggested that our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ can be applied to any social economy in any nation at any stage of development. We don’t have to be stuck in the illusory stages of production theory. The reason we can do this in our formulation is because we see the task at hand, creating communism as the task of creating a Commons in the wake of the abolition/expropriation of private property/capital: this is a constitutional foundationalism, not a blueprint for the economy to go with which must be constructed very carefully, possibly by a different group of people in no sense allowing stalinist caudillo ad hoc communism to gain dominance. After all, the bolsheviks soon saw the nullity of the bourgeois revolution in russia, and lenin stumbled via the NEP into trying to construct a hybrid, and of course the international aspect loomed in the background as still another confusion: we have suggested that the NEP tokens our idea of a market/planned double sector solution, while the international aspect can coexist with ‘socialism in one country’. Again the bolsheviks ended up agreeing with us: socialism in one country was their only option, which didn’t exclude a massive international. It looks like the bolsheviks were trying to agree with us!
Note also the way the chinese revolution aborted: it was again trying to invent our DMNC: they finally introduced a market sector but this failed and succeeded by not being truly communist: it let foreign capital perform a stealth market roll back of communism, a communism that could not tolerate a democratic resolution. Still another tragic near miss trying to invent our DMNC. What might have happened was a market communism that was under the rubric of a Commons. This is the bizarre outcome of all parties to the second international: they were braindead on how to proceed, mostly because the triad of planned, market, anarchist, democratic and one party/many party, one country/permanent revolution pairs of opposites eluded them. A solution is needed in advance that is ready for the juggernaut of contradictions with a strategy that can survive them.
n the early twentieth century, most Marxists held the view that any future Russian Revolution could only take the form of a “bourgeois-democratic” revolution.
Source: Assessing Trotsky