|
Kuroda Kanichi's Theory of the USSR
(Obscurantist Development of Trotsky's Theory)
Written by Kennichi Suzuki (1970)
Translated by Roy West
Since Trotsky's explanation of Stalinist Soviet society as a "degenerated
workers' state", many theories have been made advanced, including
Tony Cliff's "bureaucratic state capitalism", Max Shachtman's
"bureaucratic collectivism", Mirovan Djilas (president of former
Yugoslavia) idea of "a new class society that is neither capitalism
nor socialism". There is nothing novel about Kuroda Kanichi's(*) theory
of the Soviet Union, which is fundamentally inherited from Trotsky's explanation,
and could be called its idealistic, and obscurantist "development".
Refuting the USSR theory of the mystical, self-proclaimed "revolutionary
Marxist", Kuroda Kanichi, is an unavoidable task for communists, along
with the exposure of the class nature of Soviet society, which has undergone
"liberalization", recently invaded Czechoslovakia, and become
increasingly bourgeois. The first thing we must recognize is that Kuroda
fails to positively develop any concrete elucidation of Soviet society
(the lack of concreteness is one of the characteristics of the "philosopher"
Kuroda). Therefore, as a result of the limitation in the objects of criticism,
the main focus of this essay is limited to the three points below that
mainly concern the level of methodology. Of course, this does not eliminate
the necessity of concretely elucidating Soviet society, and we will continue
to advance such concrete criticism in the future. This short paper is only
a starting point in this direction. Here we will criticize the following
three points:
(*)As pointed out in other footnotes, Kuroda's criticism of Stalinist philosophy
for its "objectivism" had a strong influence on the Japanese
New Left. He was one of the founders of the Japanese Trotskyist Association,
that latter became the Revolutionary Communist League.
The "Methodology of Kuroda's USSR Theory
According to Kuroda, Tsushima Tadayuki, who declared that the Soviet Union
is "Red Imperialism", employed a "fundamentally mistaken
methodology"(*1) He describes the "fundamental flaw" of
the "Tsushima-type theory of the Soviet Union" in the following
way:
(*1)Kuroda, Kakumei Marukusushugi wa nani ka? [What is Revolutionary Marxism?]
(Tokyo: Kobushi), p. 67.
The theory of the USSR as "red imperialism" is the result of
the failure to subjectively grasp Marx's theory of socialist society (Critique
of the Gotha Programme). In other words, Marx's theory is directly applied
to the reality of the politico-economic system of the USSR, but in the
style of an interpretive critic, instead of from the standpoint of the
subject applying theory (the practical standpoint of the subject trying
to carry out revolution).(*2)
(*2)Ibid., p. 96.There is not space here to examine Tsushima's theory,
but the question that must be raised here concerns Kuroda's juxtaposition
of Tsushima's methodology of "direct application", with that
of his own "standpoint of the subject applying theory (the practical
standpoint of the subject trying to carry out revolution)". On this
point Kuroda says the following:
However, even in cases where the theory to be applied (or universal, essential
laws) has already been established, if the above-mentioned practical standpoint,
i.e. the practical standpoint of applying theory and laws, is not present,
there will be nothing more than the application of theories (identification
of entity with theory). Theory to be applied can only first become a living
theory of reality by means of the subject applying it. Without this applying
and cognizing subject, theory will be forced onto reality and reality will
be cut out according to the theory. This is the logical foundation for
the occurrence of formulism.(*3)
(*3)Ibid., pp. 87-8.To sum up, what Kuroda calls the "correct methodology"
is the following: through the mediation of the "applying and cognizing
subject", the universal essence-theory first becomes a "real,
living theory". But Kuroda doesn't explain the content of this "applying
subject", or the "practical standpoint" which is equated
with it. He comes up with a totally indeterminate "subject" and
"standpoint", and fixes them as the foundation of cognition.
Ultimately, Kuroda's "subject" and "standpoint" are
clearly nothing more than subjectivistic things such as resolution, will,
or passion. This can be seen in the previous quotation in which the modifier
"trying to carry out revolution" is attached to "practical
standpoint". His method of subjectively establishing a completely
indeterminate, a priori "standpoint" and fixing it as the basis
of cognition clearly reveals the idealistic character of Kuroda's "methodology".
Of course, it is impossible to scientifically elucidate Soviet society
with this sort of empty, subjectivistic "standpoint". The only
correct "standpoint" one could speak of would be historical materialism,
i.e. the materialistic world-view of human society and its history. Human
society, and thus Stalinist Soviet society as well, must be grasped as
an objective existence formed as a definite historical social entity. This
approach rejects the idealistic standpoint that phenomenally understands
Soviet society as simply the outcome of the mistaken policies of Stalinists
or some ideological error, and grasps it instead as a historical society
determined by certain relations of production. On the basis of this materialistic
world-view, the class content and historical character of Soviet society
can become clear. In contrast to Kuroda's subjectivistic approach, we must
place particular emphasis on the materialistic perspective of the Marxist
world-view.
Another characteristic of the Marxist methodology is the consideration
of the dialectical nature of an object under consideration. Dialectics
requires, above all, the concrete study of an object. Studying all of the
aspects, connections and "mediations" of an object, grasping
it not as a placid or fixed entity, but rather in its development, change,
and "self-movement". This is the characteristic of the dialectical
method. In this way, one can begin to gain a living comprehension of the
totality of an object. Kuroda's so-called "standpoint" is unable
to produce any true content. The fact that Kuroda, despite standing on
this "standpoint" for more than a decade, has been unable to
scientifically elucidate Soviet society, demonstrates the emptiness and
superficiality of his "standpoint".
The Theory of Stalinism = Socialism in One Country
Another aspect of Kuroda's position is the idea that the "essence"
of Stalinism lies in the theory of "socialism in one country",
which he fixes as the basis of the "bureaucratization" of revolutionary
Russia. According to Kuroda, "Stalinism is essentially the ideology
of socialism (revolution and construction) in one country".(*4) He
also "defines" this in the following way: "In a word, the
overall definition of Stalinism is nothing but the theory of socialism
in one country, and the policies and systems based up it."(*5) Kuroda
goes on to discuss the premise of this "essential definition":
(*4)Kuroda, Sutaarin hihan igo 1 [After the Stalin Criticism vol. 1] (Tokyo:
Kobushi), p. 168.
(*5)Ibid, p. 166.
This sort of pseudo-Marxist ideology of Stalinism, which is the substantial
abandonment of prospect of world revolution, appeared domestically as the
bureaucratization of the politico-economic system, the collapse of the
legal order, and the strong-armed policies of the army and secret police,
and externally, in order to construct socialism in one country, this inevitably
demanded emergency measures to maintain peace and avoid or prevent invasion
from imperialism, as well as war preparations. This was Stalin's "defense
of the homeland" and the theory and policy of peaceful co-existence.(*6)
(*6)Ibid., p. 267.To sum up, using Kuroda's own expressions:
"Socialism in one country" cut off the practical prospect of
the realization of world revolution, and became an absolute goal in itself,
and this is the essence of Stalinism. The actual manifestation of this
was the Stalinist system and the present-day politico-economic system of
the Soviet Union which is determined by it.(*7)
(*7)Kuroda, Gendai ni okeru heiwa to kakumei [Peace and Revolution in the
ContemporaryPutting aside the idea that the "essence" of Stalinism
is the theory of "socialism in one country", we must first raise
the question: why does Kuroda attempt to explain the "Stalinist system",
i.e. the Stalinist social system, from its ideology (the theory of "socialism
in one country")? He says that the "actual manifestation"
of Stalinist "ideology" is the Stalinist social system. In other
words, reality is the "manifestation" of "ideology".
Kuroda, who doesn't view ideology as a reflection (in people's minds) of
connections with reality, but instead views reality as a "manifestation"
of ideology or forms of consciousness, is clearly nothing but a purely
subjective idealist.
The backbone of the Marxist world-view is the materialist view that "social
consciousness is determined by social existence". Against the idealistic
world-view which sees reality as the product of a "universal will",
or the "manifestation" of forms of consciousness, Marx, through
the establishment of this materialistic world-view, was able for the first
time to scientifically analyze the objective process of human history independent
of human consciousness, thus making it possible to revolutionize this reality.
All of this should be clear to a Marxist. Isn't it surprising that Kuroda,
the "revolutionary Marxist", is unable to explain the ABC's of
Marxism? Kuroda, who has abandoned the materialistic world view for the
company of pure subjectivists, has no choice but to arrive at the dead-end
of obscurantism and religiosity.
Now we must examine Kuroda's view, which is also the common view of all
followers of Trotsky, that the "essence" of Stalinism is the
theory of socialism in one country. Following the discussion of the "essential
definition", which we just cited, Kuroda goes on to say:
[Stalinism's] falsehood, as Leon Trotsky made clear through his struggles
and repeated exposure, was the abandonment of the Marxist principle of
the construction of socialism being first possible on the foundation of
the realization of world revolution, and basically severing the prospect
of world revolution which should be realized. In other words, the point
that it was actually possible to construct (a nationalistic) "socialism"
on a one-country scale. Moreover, this falsehood was also combined, at
the same time, to the Stalinist trickery of identifying the society of
a proletarian dictatorship- established through the realization of proletarian
revolution and headed towards a socialism where labor is exchanged according
to quantity alone (this at the same time is the period of permanent revolution
where proletarian revolution in every country is constantly and continuously
expanding)-with socialist society itself; and the idea that this "socialist
society" constructed in isolation in one country, required a "socialist
state" both externally (to defend against the imperialist great powers)
and internally (to crush the resistance of the rich peasants and bourgeoisie).(*8)
(*8)Kuroda, After the Stalin Criticism vol. 1, pp. 266-7.However, if the
theory of "socialism in one country" recognizes the "possibility
of socialist society" on the "national scale", as Kuroda
claims, one would have to say that Lenin was also a theorist of socialism
in one country in this sense, because after the end of the civil war he
"believed" in the "possibility" of reaching socialism
through NEP. For example, in the March 1921 report at the Tenth Congress
of the Russia Communist Party, Lenin said that in a country such as Russia
with a small number of industrial workers and an overwhelming majority
of peasants, "the socialist revolution can only triumph on two conditions".
"First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in
one or several advanced countries", and "the second condition
is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorshipcand
the majority of the peasant population."(*9) He said this even more
clearly in his "Plan of the Pamphlet The Tax in Kind", where
he wrote:
(*9)Lenin, Collected Works vol. 32, p. 215.
Ten or twenty years of regular relations with the peasantry and victory
is assured on a world scale (even if there is delay in the proletarian
revolutions, which are maturing); otherwise 20-40 years of tormenting whiteguard
terror.(*10)
(*10)Ibid., p. 323.Lenin's consistent view was that socialism could be
reached from NEP (this inevitably meant the revival of the freedom of commerce
and therefore capitalism) by means of the rail of state capitalism. Lenin,
the realist, despite unprecedented difficulties such as the ruin of the
country through four years of continuous imperialist war, three years of
civil war, the dispersion of the proletariat, the crisis of food, fuel
and raw materials, as well as setbacks in the German revolution, still
found a path towards socialism starting from this reality. Trotsky's theory
of "the impossibility of socialism in one country", objectively
speaking, was an evasion of this reality and signified nothing but defeatism.
Of course, in terms of always viewing the struggle for socialism in Russia
as one part of the class struggles of the European proletariat, Lenin's
position was totally different from Stalin's nationalism. Still, to say
that "socialism in one country" (revolution and construction)
is mistaken and is the "essence" of the "falsehood"
of socialism, is a meaningless criticism that objectively aids the Stalinists.
Kuroda comes up with his "essential definition" from a standpoint
starting from Trotsky's (abstract and idealistic) dogma of "permanent
revolution". Certainly, the proletariat throughout the world face
the same objective condition of being exploited by capitalists, and the
increasingly global connections of capital through the development of capital
provides an international content to the class struggles of the proletariat.
Here lies, needless to say, the objective conditions of the internationalism
of the proletariat. However, from this undeniable fact one cannot draw
the conclusion that the proletariat should immediately raise the banner
of "world revolution". This is because the proletariat is divided
into different nation-states under capitalism, and must thus first fight
the class struggle to the end against the bourgeoisie of their own country,
while linking this to the struggle of the proletariat in other countries.
There can be no other form of internationalism. To abstract out the real
task of overthrowing the bourgeoisie in one's own country (or building
socialism in one's own country and linking this to the revolutionary struggles
of the proletariat in other countries) and come up with the position of
"world revolution", in the manner of Trotsky and Kuroda, is nothing
but idealistic phrase-mongering and empty chatter. This is not proletarian
internationalism, in the true meaning of the term, but the idealistic "internationalism"
of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia. The meaninglessness and emptiness
of Trotsky's choice between "socialism in one country or world revolution",
can also be seen in Kuroda's idea that "Stalinism = socialism in one
country"
The Theory of a "Distorted Form of a Transitional Society"
Based on his subjectivistic "methodology", Kuroda's "USSR
theory" remains unavoidably abstract and idealistic. According to
him:
The reality of the present-day Soviet Union should be grasped as a bureaucratic
alienated form of a transitional society towards a world socialist system,
caused by the breakdown of world revolution.(*11)
(*11)Kuroda, Nihon no han-sut?rin und? 1 [Japan's Anti-Stalinist Movement
vol. 1] (Tokyo: Kobushi), p. 538.He formalizes this view in the following
way:
While fundamentally standing on Trotsky's theory of the Soviet Union, we
criticize the weakness of his theory of the state, and define the present-day
Soviet Union in the following way. In other words, as "a deformed
form of a workers' state or proletarian dictatorship", or as "a
transitional state directly phenomenalized as a proletarian dictatorship
in the distorted form of a bureaucratic government determined by delays
in world revolution". The material foundation is the nationalized
means of production through revolution, but due to the bureaucracy's direct
control of power (Trotsky calls this a "bureaucratic system"),
the universal interests of the working class or their state will is realized
as the will of the bureaucracy (therefore, there are cases where the special
interests of the bureaucracy appear to be the universal interests of the
working class) the workers' state-this is the way that we define the essence
of the Stalinist politico-economic system.(*12)
(*12)Kuroda, Gendai ni okeru heiwa to kakumei [Peace and Revolution in
the Modern Age] (Tokyo: Kobushi), p. 162-3.This is the backbone of Kuroda's
"USSR theory". First, we must deal with his reliance on the notion
of "alienated" or "distorted" forms. It is clear from
Kuroda's view that there is a need to "distinguish between the general
laws of a transitional society and the Stalinist distorted form (a particular
form of "refraction")"(*13) , that he bases himself upon
the idealistic methodology of positing the "general laws", and
then viewing reality as its "alienated" or "distorted"
form. Instead of explaining phenomenal forms from the actual social relations,
he cannot escape falling into phenomenalism by only indicating forms without
content and citing an array of phenomena. His enumeration of idealistic
jargon such as "alienated forms" or "distorted forms"
ends up blurring the social relations and class content of the Soviet Union,
turning them into something mysterious or incomprehensible. Kuroda's obscurantism
and reactionary character are plain to see in his defense of his own abstract
definition of the Soviet Union against the theory of "bureaucratic
state capitalism" (Tony Cliff).
(*13)Kuroda, What is Revolutionary Marxism?, p. 65.
In the present-day Soviet Union, distribution according to "the quantity
and quality of labor" is dominant, surplus labor is appropriated by
the Stalinist bureaucracy, and the economic calculations for the state-planned
economy are based upon a chaotic, bureaucratically operated "price"
system. There are phenomena that resemble state capitalism that have certainly
been generated, but the politico-economic system of the Soviet Union is
certainly not bureaucratic state capitalism. Rather, this Stalinist regime
is a bureaucratically alienated form of a transitional period society towards
a world socialist system. Its political power is a "workers' state
which degenerated and died" (Tony Cliff), i.e. an economic structure
of bureaucratic alienation determined by the transformation into a bureaucratic
state. This is directly phenomenalized by the direct producers who suffer
under a wage-rate or piece-rate system of labor and the appropriation or
plunder of surplus labor by the bureaucratic layers."(*14)
(*14)Kuroda, The Anti-Stalinist Movement in Japan vol. 1, p. 551.He says
that (state capitalistic) "phenomena" are "generated"
but this is not a (state capitalistic) system, even though divisions exist
within this society and the bureaucratic layers appropriate the surplus
labor of the direct producers. Logically speaking, however, this is irrational
and confused sophistry, in addition to being politically reactionary. Since
phenomena are "generated" from the essential relations, to recognize
the phenomena while denying the social relations which gave birth to them,
amounts to a separation of essence from phenomenon, and is a monk's logic
that mystifies all social relationships.
The important point here is that while Kuroda admits that there are "phenomena
resembling state capitalism", he avoids admitting that they are the
manifestation of bourgeois social relations and covers up the fact that
the bureaucracy exploited the workers through the use of idealistic jargon
such as "bureaucratic alienation" (notice how Kuroda is careful
to avoid the term "exploitation"!) Here the reactionary nature
of Kuroda is plain to see. The nature of the definition of the USSR as
an "alienated form of a transitional society", which we cited
at the beginning, should also be read within this context. In other words,
Kuroda's view is that the USSR does not have state capitalist content,
and is rather a "workers' state" or "proletarian dictatorship"
even though it is "distorted" or "alienated". The "anti-Stalinist"
Kuroda thus turns out to be the "semi-Stalinist"(*) Kuroda. Stripped
of its mystical "form", the "essence" of Kuroda's theory
is an apology for the Stalinist Soviet Union. Hence, it is certainly not
accidental that from 1956-58 Kuroda (following Trotsky) called for the
"defense" of the "nationalized means of production"
in the Soviet Union.
(*)Here Suzuki is making a pun based on the identical pronunciation (han)
of the prefix "anti" and "semi" in Japanese.
Clearly, on the basis of the state's centralization of the means of production,
the proletarian masses were exploited by the state and party bureaucrats
and organizers of state-run enterprises (directors and technicians). In
other words, this society was based on state capitalist relations between
the exploiters and exploited. The surplus labor of the workers was extracted
by the managers of the state-run enterprises through piece-work wages,
the most brutal form of wages, and accumulated in the hands of the state
bureaucrats (this was also derived in the distribution process by means
of the high consumption tax rate the workers had to pay.) This surplus
"value" was in turn applied to accumulation according to the
state bureaucrats' "plan", while state bureaucrats themselves
consumed another part as their special right. This bureaucracy was not,
as Trotsky claimed, merely a "caste" or "degenerated layer
of workers". They should be called a class, a particular existential
form of the bourgeoisie on the foundation of state capitalist relations
of production.
The existence of the law of value demonstrates the bourgeois character
of Soviet society. The fact that the Stalinist bureaucracy is now obliged
to press forward with "liberalization" (i.e. "introduce"
liberalistic bourgeois principles), is due to the manifestation of the
contradiction related to the extremely arbitrary "price" system
of the bureaucracy (the disequilibrium between the means of consumption
and production due to the business tax) as well as contradiction arising
between the bureaucratic "planned economy" and the law of value.
The Stalinists' claim that "the law of value and commodities can also
exist in socialist society", or expressions such as "the strengthening
of the socialist state", were only used to persevere their own class
rule by attaching the word "socialism" to the bourgeois reality
of Soviet society, thereby hiding its actual class nature and diverting
the frustration of the masses. Stalinism (as an ideology), therefore, as
we resolved at our Third Party Congress, can be defined as "the ideology
of the Soviet state capitalist bureaucracy".
These state capitalist relations of production certainly did not result,
as Trotsky and Kuroda suggest, solely from the "isolation" of
revolutionary Russia or the "fixing" of socialism construction
in one country" as the "absolute goal". Fundamentally this
was the outcome of Russia's small commodity relations of production. "Isolation"
sped up the transformation process of state capitalism, but it wasn't the
cause.
The construction of socialism is impossible without capitalist heavy industry.
Lenin aimed for the creation of this materialistic foundation by means
of the path of state capitalism. He thought that as long as state power
was in the hands of the workers, state capitalism was nothing to fear.
But the actual process of history clearly shows that when the state, which
was supposed to be controlled and supervised, was usurped and transformed
by a bureaucracy that grew along with the expansion of state capitalism,
this state capitalism became fixed a type of social system. In Russia,
the pressure of bourgeois relations was much stronger than Lenin had imagined.
This still does not mean that state capitalism was reactionary at that
time. For Russia, with its small commodity production, state capitalism
was progressive. If private capitalism had slowly developed from small
commodity production, the suffering of the proletariat would have dragged
on. State capitalism accomplished the great task of developing productive
power in Russia. This once small peasant country has now become an industrial
country, second only behind the United States. In Russia, however, the
historical role of state capitalism has come to an end. In recent years,
the tendency towards a lower "rate of economic growth", the chronic
stagnation of agricultural production, political reaction (the appearance
of ideological constraints) and interventionism abroad, show that the state
capitalist production relations have already become reactionary. Only the
overturning of the bureaucracy through true socialism can release the productive
power, and free the workers from oppression. The "second supplementary
revolution"(*) is unavoidable.
(*)"Second supplementary revolution" is a term used by Trotsky
to refer to a "political revolution" to sweep away the bureaucracy.
Suzuki is using this same term, in an ironical fashion, needless to say,
to refer to a socialist revolution in the Soviet Union.
Kuroda's view of the USSR as "an alienated form of a transitional
society" or "a deformed form of a workers' state", reinforces
the idealistic nature and mystically "develops" Trotsky's theory
of "a degenerated workers' state". This sort of theory conceals
the increasingly bourgeois character of Soviet society behind idealistic
rhetoric about "alienation" and "distortion", thereby
giving the impression that this society has some proletarian content, and
expanding illusions concerning Stalinism. We must thoroughly expose the
"semi-Stalinist" essence of this self-proclaimed pioneer of the
"anti-Stalinist movement in Japan" and "revolutionary Marxist".
|
