From: achekhov@unity.ncsu.edu
To: ROZOV@nw.cnit.nsk.su
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
Concerning historical predictions
In his recent comment on the "collapse of communism" Dr. Rozov mentioned
Isaac Deutscher and Andrei Amalrik as its "more primary predictors." Since
the issue of historical prediction is inseparable from that of historical
understanding which is the subject of this net, I'd like to clarify a few
things about who was the real predictor of the events under consideration.
Leaving aside Amalrik who prophesied the end of the "Russian Empire" in a
Chinese-Soviet war, it must be pointed out that Deutscher never
acknowledged, let alone predicted, the possibility of capitalist
restoration in the SU/Russia. On the contrary, till his very end he
disagreed on this point with Trotsky who was and is the only one to have
envisioned the possibility of such development, outlined its stages, and
analyzed its social, political and economic causes, both internal and
international. This theoretical feat was accomplished 60 years ago in his
"Revolution Betrayed," the last fundamental work in the tradition of
classical Marxism. Deutscher, who called the book one of the seminal in
this century, rejected Trotsky's conclusion that unless the Soviet workers
restore the power of the soviets and overthrow the bureaucracy through a
political revolution the latter will eventually restore capitalism in the
country and convert itself into capitalist class.
Deutscher's optimism was based on the ongoing "de-stalinization from
above" that seemed to undermine Trotsky's thesis on the necessity of a
political revolution from below. Deutscher believed that--though uneven,
half-hearted and incomplete--this process was to awaken the political
consciousness of the masses whose activism would easily prevent any
attempt at a bureaucracy-led counterrevolution. Even when he finally had
to admit (in 1967, right before his death) the existence of a
"moral-psychological potential for restoration in the SU" Deutscher
continued to reject its possibility "if only because the rejection of
planned economy would deal a crushing blow to Russia's national interests
and her position in the world" (I quote from memory). He was wrong, wrong
out of despair. Not seeing any signs of the political awakening of the
Soviet workers Deutscher, contrary to his own Marxist convictions, put his
last hopes on the national sentiments of the Soviet ruling caste. (As
late as 1990 and by different reasons, Samir Amin made the same mistake in
"Delinking"). The theoretical power of Trotsky's analysis has been
confirmed by history itself and at a bitter price.
I cannot think of any other historical prognosis of such proven scientific
exactitude. Yet, Trotsky's achievement remains unrecognized by Western
academia, both left and right, except in the dubious form of partial, less
or more thinly disguised plagiarizing. But to discuss the reasons for
this scandalous silence would mean to go far beyond the usual academic
protocol.
Vladimir Bilenkin
Nikolai S. Rozov
Professor of Philosophy
PhD., Dr.Sc.
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
Dept. of Philosophy Tel.: (3832) 397488
Novosibirsk State University Fax.: (3832) 355237
630090, Novosibirsk E-mail: rozov@nw.cnit.nsk.su
Pirogova 2 rozov@adm.nsu.nsk.su