Reply to letter from Joanne Forman


Perry Sanders and Dianna Sitar,
reply to letter from Joanne Forman
from the New Unionist, February 1994, page 2

Joanne Forman displays confusion about exactly what is state capitalism and asserts "progressiveness" to the Russian Revolution which simply isn't true.

One major point in our article was that both Nazi Germany and the so-called Soviet Union called themselves socialist, yet they were in fact brutal state-capitalist regimes. To this, she agrees. But, since capitalist enterprises were private in Nazi Germany, and directly under state ownership in the Soviet Union, she finds the latter to be "progressive."

The profits in the so-called Soviet Union went to the managers of the enterprises, directors of state planning and the top leaders of the Bolshevik Party, insteadof to private capitalists. Tell us please, what is "progressive" about Lenin and Stalin passing this off as "socialist" or even "communist," when the workers had no control or management of these enterprises?

This "succeeded"in discrediting what should have been real workers' power, real workers; socialism, in the eyes of the national working class -- even now! This is not "progressive." In this sense, what happened in the Union damaged the cause workers' socialism much than what happened in Nazi Germany

The U.S., contrary to Joanne Forman's view, is not state capitalist, although it was during World War II, when the capitlaist state was mainly directing the economy toward the war effort (as in Nazi Germany). This imperialist war, which also included the imperialist Soviet Union, caused millions of workers to be murdered for the profits of big capital.

-- Perry Sanders and Dianna Sitar