FACTOID # 141: Norwegians drink 10.7 kilograms of coffee per person each year. They also lead the globe in anxiety disorders. Maybe it’s time to switch to herbal tea.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   Countries A-Z   Flags   Maps   Education   Forum   FAQ   About 
 
WHAT'S NEW
RECENT ARTICLES
More Recent Articles »
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Bureaucratic collectivist

Bureaucratic collectivism is a theory of class society. It is used by some Trotskyists to describe the nature of the Soviet Union under Stalin, and other similar states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.


Like in state capitalism, a bureaucratic collectivist state owns the means of production, while the surplus ("profit") is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy, rather than among the workers. Also, most importantly, it is the bureaucracy - not the workers or the people in general - who controls the economy and the state. Thus, the system is not truly capitalist, but it is not socialist either. It is a new form of class society which exploits workers through new mechanisms. Most who hold this view believe that bureaucratic collectivism does not represent progress beyond capitalism _ that is, that it is no closer to being a workers' state than a capitalist state would be. Some even believe that certain kinds of capitalism are more progressive than a bureaucratic collectivist society.


"Bureaucratic collectivism" was first used as a term to describe a theory originating in England, shortly before the First World War, about a possible future social organisation. After the war, the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalin, Hugo Urbahns and Lucien Laurat both began to critique the nature of the Soviet state in a similar manner. Their theory was probably first named "bureaucratic collectivism" by Christian Rakovsky.


This theory was first taken up within Trotskyism by a small group in France around Yves Craipeau. It was also taken up by Bruno Rizzi, who unlike his predecessors believed that bureaucratic collectivism was a progressive form of government. It was with Rizzi that Trotsky debated in the late 1930s. Trotsky held that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state and that if it did not undergo a new workers' revolution, bureaucratic collectivism was a likely result. However, Trotsky did not believe that bureaucratic collectivism was an accurate term for the Soviet Union at that point in time.


Soon after the Workers Party in the USA (later the Independent Socialist League), led by Max Shachtman, split from the Fourth International, they adopted the theory of bureaucratic collectivism and developed it. As a result, it is often associated with Left Shachtmanism. Their version had much in common with Craipeau's, as developed by James Burnham, but little with Rizzi's.


The theory of bureaucratic collectivism was maintained by socialists such as Hal Draper, and is now held by sections of Solidarity in the USA and Workers Liberty in the United Kingdom and Australia.


George Orwell's famous novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" describes a fitional society of "Oligarchical Collectivism".


See also: coordinatorism, new class, state socialism, state capitalism, degenerated workers state and deformed workers state.




  Results from FactBites:
 
Tony Cliff: Bureaucratic collectivism - A critique (1948) (5798 words)
The place of Bureaucratic Collectivist society in the chain of historical development is not clearly stated, and, in any case, Shachtman’s account is often inconsistent.
Bureaucratic Collectivism now came to be called the new barbarism, the decline of civilisation, etc. Yet in no document did he give any new analysis of the Russian economy after the Resolution of the 1941 Convention.
The Bureaucratic Collectivist theory is thus entirely capricious and arbitrary in defining the limitation and direction of exploitation under the regime it presumes to define.
Worker Insurgency and Statist Containment in Portugal and Spain, 1974-1977 | libcom.org (13998 words)
This peculiarity of development, combined with the fact that the virtual entirety of the extreme-left tendencies and individuals in Portugal in 1974 had passed through the puberty rites of the PCP, created a situation in which few individuals or groups were capable of seeing their way clear to an autonomous, revolutionary perspective outside its shadow.
Their ideologies and their configuration were predicated on the existence of the bureaucratic stratum which rules the so-called socialist countries, and given the opportunity, the leading strata of these parties would have been perfectly capable of moving to create such a power for themselves.
Their very foundations, and conception of socialism as a bureaucratic rule over the working class, was a negation of the necessary content of such a revolution.
  More results at FactBites »


 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments
Please enter the 5-letter protection code

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Lesson Plans | Student Area | Student FAQ | Reviews | Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms.