WIT Class: The Degeneration of the USSR PART I

THE DEGENERATION OF THE USSR: PART I

Alright comrades, after much self doubt, chess matches, im conversations, newgrounds lurking, sexy asians, and mild paranoia I present to you the first official What is Trotskyism? Class taught by me, Shabazz Freeman, a young studying Trotskyist revolutionary. Considering that this is the very first class, it would be naïve and arrogant of me (and you readers out there) to believe that I am single handedly capable of teaching you everything Trotsky has to offer to the wonderful political science that is Marxism. DO NOT READ THIS AND CALL YOURSELF A TROTSKYIST! Get your hands on his writings, read the books over and over, apply what you've learned to your everyday interpretation of the world around you. Note that this class will merely scratch the surface of Trotskyism, and as the class progresses I will pay more attention to historical details, certain political eras, concepts, etc. etc.

Without further procrasturbation cough fuck it here is the class

A very basic thing to understand about Marxism is that it is the “Science of Reality”. We search for the material reality that determines how civilization develops. Not for the “basic idea that shaped so-and-so civilization”. Capitalism did not develop when it did because someone thought of it, it developed because humans began to produce surplus from their labor and laid the foundation for a class and an accompanying state to determine WHO gets that surplus. The appropriation of surplus is the feeding tube for the idle ruling class, the bourgeoisie. I digress. Understanding this basic concept is important because it is the key to understanding WHY there seems to be such a retrogression in class consciousness. The majority of youth in the US believe there are classes in society but they are classes based on bourgeois illusions. When I first ran into legit communists, they asked me if I knew anything about classes and I told them about lower, middle, and upper classes...Not the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Why is it that the majority of youth today have no understanding of even the most basic terms of Marxism? This backwards flow of consciousness coincides with the collapse of the soviet union. This gave the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) the opportunity to shout “Communism is dead!” Our text books have been re-written to slander the valiant efforts of the Bolsheviks of 1917, vilify Lenin during the civil war, erase Trotsky completely, and buy into Stalin's falsifications. All of which contribute to the universal slogan, “Communism is good in theory but terrible in practice.” How many of us have heard that one? That idealism(attributing reality to ideas rather than the other way around) in itself is counterpoised to the science of reality-that is the study of what actually happens, what were the material conditions that caused the degeneration of the USSR, and what can we learn from the Soviet Union's collapse? If you're here, you're hopefully here because you are currently breaking from the current political system, but understand that this phenomenon of idealism permeates in all sects of the left as well as the right; anarchists (sorry guys), supposed communist groups like the CPUSA, ISO, IMT, RCP, PSL, reformists, and stalinists all have their particular brand of idealism in their understanding of the USSR. What qualitatively separates trotskyists from these under tendencies (aside from the opportunism and reformism of the fake socialist groups) is a material understanding of the USSR's degeneration and most of all, DEFENSE OF the deformed workers' states as opposed to the other tendencies that declare it “state capitalist” or refuse to defend it because of it's degeneration. Because this is the most fundamental point that trotskyists must understand, I am focusing on the USSR's degeneration for this class.

Before we dive into that, we must grasp a basic understanding of Marxist classes. Contrary to MY history text books, (dunno about yours) the Bourgeoisie is NOT the “middle class”, but the fabulously wealth few that own the means of production-that is the buildings and industry that create the goods society consumes. Because of the industrial revolution, the means of production are massive and require the labor power of many. Production of goods has become collectivized because of the industrial revolution, yet these centers of collective production are ran in the interest of one or a few “owners” of the means of production. The bourgeoisie is able to employ workers because they own the means of production. In capitalist society, without money you starve, without a job you have no money, and the bourgeoisie pay money for labor(they've effectively turned labor into a commodity). Lucky for them, the proletariat has NOTHING but it's labor force to sell as a means of survival. The proletariat is paid for his/her work and survives on what was given. If the bourgeoisie paid the proletariat the true value of their labor as dictated by the almighty market, then how is it that these few men become so wealthy? It's because the proletariat is NOT paid the true value of its labor. Part of the working shift is for earning the worker's actual wage and the other part is for surplus value, which is appropriated by the bourgeoisie. An example, a worker works at Taco Bell. She produces 50 items on the menu an hour, but is paid enough an hour to purchase maybe 5 of those items, she has no say in how those 50 items are distributed, just her insignificant wage. The value of the other 45 items is pocketed by the owner of that restaurant who essentially did nothing but throw money around. Yes some of it goes to maintenance of the place, etc. but the majority of it goes in his pocket. Such is the nature of production for PROFIT. No matter how “generous” ANY wage is, it is still not the full value of the labor. To simplify things, the bourgeoisie own the means of production, and the proletariat, produces. These two classes are the ONLY classes that have a real influence on society. These two classes are homogeneous, meaning that they both have clear and distinct motives. The bourgeoisie,always consciously strives to increase the gap between the cost of labor and the cost of commodities, and the proletariat unconsciously strives to get more of that surplus value back. I make this distinction to lay the foundation for the 3rd marxist class, the petty bourgeoisie. This class is heterogeneous, meaning that it does not have one motive. The petty bourgeoisie can be described as anyone without a major influence on the means of production. This would be youth ,students, managers, peasants, and small shop owners, etc. It isn't a bad thing necessarily to be part of the petty bourgeoisie as you can see. Part of this class sympathizes and fights with the proletariat and part aspires to become the bourgeoisie, i.e. the ruling class.

end part 1
part 2 of The Degeneration of the USSR will be posted tomorrow night

hope you enjoy
please excuse the grammar

now, i only have one question:

what defines the petty bourgeoisie? or is it just where everyone not distinctly in the proletariat or the bourgeois classes?

and does trotskyism take note of the lumpenproletariat? (sp?)

yes and yes

but for the USSR degeneration it wasn't too important i thought.

I can put in a note in tomorrows class about it but i am done for tonight lol

Interesting writting I must say, and don't excuse for your grammar, aside from "and and" I saw no flaw (maybe because I paid more attention to the writting itself perhaps).

Now, how would a proletarian that aspires to become like the Burgeoise qualify? Let's work with an example, a mason (here in Mexico they're paid 2-3 dollars an hour) that lives in a communal house in the city away from his family (they're usually from small villages in mountains, jungle, valleys or forests) and just goes from that house where he lives with other workers to the construction where he works and back to that house (denoting he's in practice just a worker and not a petty burgeoise) but that aspires to become a rich man with a succesful business?

Tonight I will address it because there is a basic and fundamental point about it.

Where are you getting your definition of petty-bourgeois from? My sources seem to differ. They all seem to say something along the lines that its a small business owner that works alongside his proles.

Quote :

sexy asians

i know your talking about me

writing part two now