Did Lenin really foreshadow Deng Xiao-ping’s thinking? The NEP suggests possibly so, but I don’t know enough about Lenin’s thinking in his last few years to know about this
I’ve never managed to find (not that I’ve tried terribly hard, but I have tried!) a good account of the debates within the Soviet leadership in the years just before Lenin’s death. I had guessed that the sort of arguments you attribute to Lenin in this piece were those put forward by Bukharin. But as I said, I have never found good texts. Can you point me to some, please?
(These views certainly seem to be in essence those of Deng, who made it clear that he saw the NEP as a prototype for the great “opening up", or so I understand)
By an amazing coincidence, I dreamt the same thing last night. I had been following your conversation on Google Translate and when you got up to speak to the Maestro, I came over and asked if I could take your place. Everyone was very polite and friendly, but I couldn’t help but wonder if there was a bit of underlying tension between them.
After a moment they looked over my shoulders and waved to a newcomer who got a spare seat and sat at our table, but pointedly not next to Mr Djugashvili for some reason. He introduced himself as Mr Broz. Mr Ulianov, who was the most authoritative in the group summarised our conversation. Our new arrival responded immediately with gusto: “Comrades should remember that the Maestro always taught that ownership was the key determinant. The restaurant should be turned into a co-operative of all who work there, and they should be free to make their business decisions independently. As both workers and owners, without exploitative relationships, we can be confident that all their decisions would be in the interests of socialist society as a whole.” A large moustache twitched twice, and Mr Djugashvili wondered aloud if a workers co-operative would ever get around to replacing the ancient kitchen equipment they were using.
Yet another of their friends arrived and, since the restaurant was now less crowded, we pushed two tables together so he could join us. I shook hands and asked his name, but he had an unfamiliar accent, and it sounded like “Dung Shopping”. That can’t be right, but I didn’t want to seem rude or ignorant by re-asking. After the introduction he responded: “Capitalist relationships are like weeds that sprout up everywhere. If you try to kill them all you poison the ground. Just make sure they only grow where you want them and never take over the house.” I was trying to puzzle that out when the alarm rang.
I am really sorry to have missed the second part of the dinner. But Maestro called & I had to go. When I was very young I met Mr Broz once or twice & I am really bummed not to have seen him last night. I wonder though if he would have remembered me....
I used to work with someone who claimed to be descended from Kerensky. He was a nice chap but didn't come over as a natural leader. The official picture of Tito makes him look like someone with enormous presence who could have been a film star. Was that your impression from real life?
Enjoyable but not realistic. If power and wealth exist at all, the first not so gentleman with the gazing knife was right, you can not keep a striver for power and wealth from getting power and wealth.
Only global direct daily cell phone democracy, for every person, over maybe 12 years old, will stop inequality and injustice, forever more. We needed the cell phones for anywhere emergency collaborative control.
Absent replacing all representatives that only represent keeping themselves in power and bigger tyrants out, we all just vote in more tyrants and thieves.
Cell phone democracy would normally take a couple minutes each day to read and vote on the days issue is the only way till all issues are settled. The app software system engineering design and limits of all best rights and practices declarations is forever better than the clown ruler shows we have today.
I liked your story though. Since a little kid I dream of an idyllic autumn in New York.
Brilliant, eloquent, and a lovely illustration for my little test of MBA students: describe the meaning of each little star on the Chinese flag. Even a few Chinese students struggle in the class. Ah, the class struggle again!
Most interesting since the Jing Fong restaurant in the illustration (note the Chinese lantern in the upper left) serves Dim Sum, not Italian, and has been family-owned for three generations:
I'm young at heart but 73, so I identified them at once. It was an interesting bit of past-time-forecasting, or is it future-time...? Lenin would have certainly recognized the NEPmen in many cultures today, and probably would have found a solution to the gray economy. His death, more than any other in his time and place, was unfortunate and fateful. If you can do an extended dream with him, by all means, I'd love to read it. This was very entertaining.
This is down right silly for someone with a PHD. Private firms that grow and expand rapidly would “go public” by becoming an SOE. The founders of the firm would be guaranteed a lifelong membership on the board of directors to ensure they have a say in how his project is ran. Public ownership does not mean the business goes away.
There are numerous ways to organize a business. The local government could simply rent out the production to the entrepreneur's management team. Most socialists are not against small local business owners. Once the restaurant wants to become a national chain, then it should become public. This puts a cap on individual wealth and solves your inequality problem you are always writing about.
«our nice owner here might run a whole chain of such-like restaurants, and turn out not be such a nice guy anymore. But we shall create larger enterprises which enjoy economies of scale, and they would expand even faster than these restaurants. Moreover, we shall keep the political power strongly in our hands, eliminate the corrupt cadres, and never let owners like our tonight’s friend come close to power. [...] we shall be proven to be a superior mode of production»
Ahhh that is a slip of terminology and a very common one, and for me it is very important to get the terminology right:
* A mode of production is the way productive processes are organized, strictly speaking. So the current dominant mode of production is the *industrial* one.
* Purely theoretically the industrial mode of production could be other than "capitalist" where workers do not personally own the means of production, but in practice it is "capitalist" because the means of production in many industrial processes are so expensive that no one worker can own them.
* A capitalist type of the industrial mode of production can have several different patterns of control/ownership of the means of production: personal, corporate, managerial, cooperative, public, etc.; so "capitalism" usually means "personal or corporate capitalism" and "socialism" usually means "cooperative or state capitalism".
* Every type of pattern of ownership is in principle possible with most or all types of political system, but in practice as Ioseb said control/ownership results in economic power and economic power gets wielded and results directly or indirectly in political power, so each type of ownership usually is compatible or results only with some type of political system.
Vladimir seemed to be very optimistic that the cadres in control of those "larger enterprises which enjoy economies of scale" would not eventually want to "privatize" their them to their benefit by suborning the political process.
As Vilfredo and Karl told me I guess that it is a dynamic process and constant struggle (Karl from the next table is looking over my shoulder as I type and keeps saying "dialectic" and "contradictions"... and Vilfredo is looking at us with a smile) :-).
«a bald fellow with a small barbiche, joined in: “[...] we shall keep the political power strongly in our hands, eliminate the corrupt cadres, and never let owners like our tonight’s friend come close to power. [...] I understand that the Chinese comrades have recently taken that approach and they seem to be doing well.»
For now they seem to be doing well, and keeping their oligarchs under control; but these are early decades of the chinese NEP and every indication is that Djugashvili's cynical view will be realized:
«Comrade Djugashvili said the following: “I do happen to agree with comrade Bronshtein in this particular case [...] the bigger scale enterprises will grow to an even bigger size and the people who run them will have money and will corrupt our cadres and will, directly or indirectly, become the political leaders. And you would not be sitting here tonight talking to us but you will be speaking to the people like Kerensky and Prince Lvov and they would laugh at us for being so naïve to let them come back to power.”»
However as I was reading this in the cafè table next to mine an italian and a german (they called each other Vilfredo and Karl) were arguing on similar topics so I asked them. They sort of agreed, for different reason,s that while the mode of production largely determines the power structure the actual outcomes depend on circumstances, and anyhow political and economic benefits are the result of a continuous struggle (one of them was quite insistent on the words "dialectical" and "contradiction", clearly an obsessive) and no system is definitive and can be expected to deliver all the time.
«the actual outcomes depend on circumstances, and anyhow political and economic benefits are the result of a continuous struggle»
That is the division of the value added created by the industrial mode of production between workers and controllers of the means of production can be more for one side or more for the other whether the political system is private capitalism, mixed capitalism, or state capitalism and how much each side gets depends on a continuing struggle. Even if private capitalism gives an advantage to the controllers of the means of production, state capitalism to workers, and mixed capitalism is more ambivalent even if it usually evolves into private capitalism. But Vilfredo and Karl were speaking with accents and talking sometimes over each other, so I may not have understood well.
'Tis a pity neither Bukharin nor Preobrazhensky sauntered along 9th avenue that evening. They would likely have had much to contribute that would have been on point
Nice one. However, what mr djugashvili wrote and mr djugashvili did differed a lot, as it often does. By 1954 from 40% to 70% of production in small scale services (like taylors), consumer goods, and in even in some specific fields like gold mining, was done by production cooperatives (артель).
One simply can't take Lenin's thinking out of the historical period he was thinking in. This is a big intellectual mistake you all are making.
If I were sitting at the table the point I would make is rather than nationalize a petty bourgeois small business or leave the owner in complete control as the entrepreneur, why wouldn't you insist that it become a worker owned enterprise?
Did Lenin really foreshadow Deng Xiao-ping’s thinking? The NEP suggests possibly so, but I don’t know enough about Lenin’s thinking in his last few years to know about this
Yes, he did.
I’ve never managed to find (not that I’ve tried terribly hard, but I have tried!) a good account of the debates within the Soviet leadership in the years just before Lenin’s death. I had guessed that the sort of arguments you attribute to Lenin in this piece were those put forward by Bukharin. But as I said, I have never found good texts. Can you point me to some, please?
(These views certainly seem to be in essence those of Deng, who made it clear that he saw the NEP as a prototype for the great “opening up", or so I understand)
By an amazing coincidence, I dreamt the same thing last night. I had been following your conversation on Google Translate and when you got up to speak to the Maestro, I came over and asked if I could take your place. Everyone was very polite and friendly, but I couldn’t help but wonder if there was a bit of underlying tension between them.
After a moment they looked over my shoulders and waved to a newcomer who got a spare seat and sat at our table, but pointedly not next to Mr Djugashvili for some reason. He introduced himself as Mr Broz. Mr Ulianov, who was the most authoritative in the group summarised our conversation. Our new arrival responded immediately with gusto: “Comrades should remember that the Maestro always taught that ownership was the key determinant. The restaurant should be turned into a co-operative of all who work there, and they should be free to make their business decisions independently. As both workers and owners, without exploitative relationships, we can be confident that all their decisions would be in the interests of socialist society as a whole.” A large moustache twitched twice, and Mr Djugashvili wondered aloud if a workers co-operative would ever get around to replacing the ancient kitchen equipment they were using.
Yet another of their friends arrived and, since the restaurant was now less crowded, we pushed two tables together so he could join us. I shook hands and asked his name, but he had an unfamiliar accent, and it sounded like “Dung Shopping”. That can’t be right, but I didn’t want to seem rude or ignorant by re-asking. After the introduction he responded: “Capitalist relationships are like weeds that sprout up everywhere. If you try to kill them all you poison the ground. Just make sure they only grow where you want them and never take over the house.” I was trying to puzzle that out when the alarm rang.
I am really sorry to have missed the second part of the dinner. But Maestro called & I had to go. When I was very young I met Mr Broz once or twice & I am really bummed not to have seen him last night. I wonder though if he would have remembered me....
I used to work with someone who claimed to be descended from Kerensky. He was a nice chap but didn't come over as a natural leader. The official picture of Tito makes him look like someone with enormous presence who could have been a film star. Was that your impression from real life?
Enjoyable but not realistic. If power and wealth exist at all, the first not so gentleman with the gazing knife was right, you can not keep a striver for power and wealth from getting power and wealth.
Only global direct daily cell phone democracy, for every person, over maybe 12 years old, will stop inequality and injustice, forever more. We needed the cell phones for anywhere emergency collaborative control.
Absent replacing all representatives that only represent keeping themselves in power and bigger tyrants out, we all just vote in more tyrants and thieves.
Cell phone democracy would normally take a couple minutes each day to read and vote on the days issue is the only way till all issues are settled. The app software system engineering design and limits of all best rights and practices declarations is forever better than the clown ruler shows we have today.
I liked your story though. Since a little kid I dream of an idyllic autumn in New York.
Jim Burden 402-416-5235, Call any time.
Nobody ever sends me messages in my life to my several thousand pages of comments. Could not find your references for whatsapp .
Brilliant, eloquent, and a lovely illustration for my little test of MBA students: describe the meaning of each little star on the Chinese flag. Even a few Chinese students struggle in the class. Ah, the class struggle again!
Most interesting since the Jing Fong restaurant in the illustration (note the Chinese lantern in the upper left) serves Dim Sum, not Italian, and has been family-owned for three generations:
https://www.nyctourism.com/articles/multigenerational-family-businesses-restaurants-in-chinatown/?cid=NYCOS_dining_IG
Really enjoyed your Kafkaesque dream.
Your younger readers may not be able to identify the dramatis personae.
I'm young at heart but 73, so I identified them at once. It was an interesting bit of past-time-forecasting, or is it future-time...? Lenin would have certainly recognized the NEPmen in many cultures today, and probably would have found a solution to the gray economy. His death, more than any other in his time and place, was unfortunate and fateful. If you can do an extended dream with him, by all means, I'd love to read it. This was very entertaining.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Yes, it may happen.
This is down right silly for someone with a PHD. Private firms that grow and expand rapidly would “go public” by becoming an SOE. The founders of the firm would be guaranteed a lifelong membership on the board of directors to ensure they have a say in how his project is ran. Public ownership does not mean the business goes away.
There are numerous ways to organize a business. The local government could simply rent out the production to the entrepreneur's management team. Most socialists are not against small local business owners. Once the restaurant wants to become a national chain, then it should become public. This puts a cap on individual wealth and solves your inequality problem you are always writing about.
Well written. BTW, not all sectors end up monopolizing. Lenin did not know competition policy, Stalin and Trotsky even less.
«our nice owner here might run a whole chain of such-like restaurants, and turn out not be such a nice guy anymore. But we shall create larger enterprises which enjoy economies of scale, and they would expand even faster than these restaurants. Moreover, we shall keep the political power strongly in our hands, eliminate the corrupt cadres, and never let owners like our tonight’s friend come close to power. [...] we shall be proven to be a superior mode of production»
Ahhh that is a slip of terminology and a very common one, and for me it is very important to get the terminology right:
* A mode of production is the way productive processes are organized, strictly speaking. So the current dominant mode of production is the *industrial* one.
* Purely theoretically the industrial mode of production could be other than "capitalist" where workers do not personally own the means of production, but in practice it is "capitalist" because the means of production in many industrial processes are so expensive that no one worker can own them.
* A capitalist type of the industrial mode of production can have several different patterns of control/ownership of the means of production: personal, corporate, managerial, cooperative, public, etc.; so "capitalism" usually means "personal or corporate capitalism" and "socialism" usually means "cooperative or state capitalism".
* Every type of pattern of ownership is in principle possible with most or all types of political system, but in practice as Ioseb said control/ownership results in economic power and economic power gets wielded and results directly or indirectly in political power, so each type of ownership usually is compatible or results only with some type of political system.
Vladimir seemed to be very optimistic that the cadres in control of those "larger enterprises which enjoy economies of scale" would not eventually want to "privatize" their them to their benefit by suborning the political process.
As Vilfredo and Karl told me I guess that it is a dynamic process and constant struggle (Karl from the next table is looking over my shoulder as I type and keeps saying "dialectic" and "contradictions"... and Vilfredo is looking at us with a smile) :-).
«a bald fellow with a small barbiche, joined in: “[...] we shall keep the political power strongly in our hands, eliminate the corrupt cadres, and never let owners like our tonight’s friend come close to power. [...] I understand that the Chinese comrades have recently taken that approach and they seem to be doing well.»
For now they seem to be doing well, and keeping their oligarchs under control; but these are early decades of the chinese NEP and every indication is that Djugashvili's cynical view will be realized:
«Comrade Djugashvili said the following: “I do happen to agree with comrade Bronshtein in this particular case [...] the bigger scale enterprises will grow to an even bigger size and the people who run them will have money and will corrupt our cadres and will, directly or indirectly, become the political leaders. And you would not be sitting here tonight talking to us but you will be speaking to the people like Kerensky and Prince Lvov and they would laugh at us for being so naïve to let them come back to power.”»
However as I was reading this in the cafè table next to mine an italian and a german (they called each other Vilfredo and Karl) were arguing on similar topics so I asked them. They sort of agreed, for different reason,s that while the mode of production largely determines the power structure the actual outcomes depend on circumstances, and anyhow political and economic benefits are the result of a continuous struggle (one of them was quite insistent on the words "dialectical" and "contradiction", clearly an obsessive) and no system is definitive and can be expected to deliver all the time.
«the actual outcomes depend on circumstances, and anyhow political and economic benefits are the result of a continuous struggle»
That is the division of the value added created by the industrial mode of production between workers and controllers of the means of production can be more for one side or more for the other whether the political system is private capitalism, mixed capitalism, or state capitalism and how much each side gets depends on a continuing struggle. Even if private capitalism gives an advantage to the controllers of the means of production, state capitalism to workers, and mixed capitalism is more ambivalent even if it usually evolves into private capitalism. But Vilfredo and Karl were speaking with accents and talking sometimes over each other, so I may not have understood well.
That small restaurant needs not to be nationalized. Its ownership should be turned over to the people who work there.
'Tis a pity neither Bukharin nor Preobrazhensky sauntered along 9th avenue that evening. They would likely have had much to contribute that would have been on point
Totally agree. Evgeniy seemed to have been busy that night. And Nikolai, well you know him...Larisa.
Nice one. However, what mr djugashvili wrote and mr djugashvili did differed a lot, as it often does. By 1954 from 40% to 70% of production in small scale services (like taylors), consumer goods, and in even in some specific fields like gold mining, was done by production cooperatives (артель).
One simply can't take Lenin's thinking out of the historical period he was thinking in. This is a big intellectual mistake you all are making.
If I were sitting at the table the point I would make is rather than nationalize a petty bourgeois small business or leave the owner in complete control as the entrepreneur, why wouldn't you insist that it become a worker owned enterprise?
Do you get the point?
Pl. see the previous comment by Mr Warren.
What a lovely fairy tale! What did comrade Dzhugashvili think of the -presumably- Italian wine? Was it to this Georgian taste?
He said, in passing, that he preferred Georgian wines because they are sweeter.
NYC communists have enough money to eat at a restaurant.