The nature of Stalinism - split from Maoist article thread

[Robespierre2.0]

"Not satisfied with inventing the no. 1 ideology to tarnish the name of communism in the eyes of the working class, Russian reformists adopt the slightly less successful Chinese ideology. Next: a new Chinese Pol Potist party in the making?"

I am sick of this fucking pathetic 'DURR STALIN TARNISHED THE NAME OF SOCIALISM' argument.
The bourgeois are going to slander socialism regardless of what happens.
If, in some parallel universe, your idiot messiah Trotsky ended up in charge of the CPSU (SHUDDER) and somehow managed to not run the country into the ground, he would be the one who 'tarnished the name of socialism', and we'd still have some group of ineffectual first-world 'leftist' crybabies whining about how 'Uncle Leon' ruined everything.

I'm sorry to be so rude, but sometimes all the whiny bourgeois-liberalism on this forum gets to me.

Anyway, I really liked OPs article. I never really thought of it that way, but now that I think of it, the Russian Federation is indeed pretty much the exact same thing as the Brezhnevite USSR.
I still have my own criticisms of Maoism, but this party's line is far better than any of the other Russian communist parties (mostly because of their stance on the Chechens and other national liberation struggles) so I wish them the best of luck.

[Yehuda Stern]

I am sick of this fucking pathetic 'DURR STALIN TARNISHED THE NAME OF SOCIALISM' argument.
The bourgeois are going to slander socialism regardless of what happens.

Which is, of course, why we should give them material for that too. That's brilliant.


If, in some parallel universe, your idiot messiah Trotsky ended up in charge of the CPSU (SHUDDER) and somehow managed to not run the country into the ground, he would be the one who 'tarnished the name of socialism'

1) Trotsky to me is not a messiah but a teacher. I think he was a great Marxist and I think he developed the ideas of Marxism greatly. I do not view him uncritically; I do not hysterically scream at his detractors that they are "first world crybabies."
At any rate, calling Trotsky an idiot is a sure sign of a complete ignorance of his writings, as even his most bitter opponents admit he was a great writer and intellectual. Try, on the other hand, to stay awake through the second paragraph of Uncle Joe's "Problems of Leninism," or the mind-annihilating "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics."

2) So basically, you echo the bourgeois line according to which the USSR would have failed no matter who led it?


we'd still have some group of ineffectual first-world 'leftist' crybabies whining about how 'Uncle Leon' ruined everything.

Yeah, the same crybabies who think their hyper-machoism and throwing around of pejoratives actually interests anyone.


I'm sorry to be so rude

You may or may have not noticed this, but I could not give a fuck.

[Robespierre2.0]

Which is, of course, why we should give them material for that too. That's brilliant.

But that's the thing- The case of Stalin is one in which the bourgeoisie are able to derail the working class movement by slandering the one who led it to the height of its power through a correct theoretical line. Real Marxist-Leninists follow the theoretical line that will create and consolidate socialism, not the one that is the 'most appealing to the masses'.
He didn't give them material for that, they made it up, and you fell for it because you're gullible.



1) Trotsky to me is not a messiah but a teacher. I think he was a great Marxist and I think he developed the ideas of Marxism greatly. I do not view him uncritically; I do not hysterically scream at his detractors that they are "first world crybabies."
At any rate, calling Trotsky an idiot is a sure sign of a complete ignorance of his writings, as even his most bitter opponents admit he was a great writer and intellectual. Try, on the other hand, to stay awake through the second paragraph of Uncle Joe's "Problems of Leninism," or the mind-annihilating "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics."


The reason you treat Trotsky as a messiah is because you act as if the USSR could have somehow solved the problems of the Kulaks and the (massive) problem of careerists and opportunists abusing their power in the regional governments WITHOUT getting their hands dirty if they would have only chosen Trotsky to head the CPSU.
Face it, if the Communist Party had chosen Trotsky over Stalin, he would have been forced to do the EXACT SAME THING as Stalin if the USSR were to survive.
However, he wouldn't have. His 'Permanent Revolution' theory, as I understand it, basically says 'fuck trying to consolidate our gains, let's go on some adventurist crusade against the rest of Europe RIGHT NOW'.

As for the rest of your paragraph, you're basically saying 'I find Trotsky's writings more interesting/less boring than Stalin's'. Great, that means absolutely nothing. I don't care if Trotsky used more colorful phrases, Stalin was the one who correctly assessed the circumstances and proposed a realistic plan of action.



2) So basically, you echo the bourgeois line according to which the USSR would have failed no matter who led it?


I don't think you understood me correctly. I implied that even if, in this parallel universe where Trotsky is General Secretary, the Soviet Union survives and prospers despite his incorrect line, it would still be labeled a 'totalitarian hellhole', and we'd still have 'defeatist leftists' mostly confined to the first world, who claim to support the struggle of working people, but capitulate to bourgeois lies whenever the working class ever succeeds in taking power somewhere.

About the 'First-world' thing- I'm no Maoist Third-Worldist, but I do think that living in industrialized, western countries is a lot like living in an ideological bubble, in which extreme revolutionary ideologies tend to get diluted with liberalism, to 'try to appeal to a larger audience', or 'not have to feel awkward around your bourgeois-liberal friends'.



Yeah, the same crybabies who think their hyper-machoism and throwing around of pejoratives actually interests anyone.


I'm not trying to be macho, and I don't care about trying to score 'cool points' on the internet. I'm using pejorative adjectives because you say that you support socialism, but do nothing but attack it whenever it is put into practice, which makes me quite upset.

[BobKKKindle$]

Face it, if the Communist Party had chosen Trotsky over Stalin, he would have been forced to do the EXACT SAME THING as Stalin if the USSR were to survive.
I agree - except that I don't think that what Stalin did constituted allowing the USSR to survive, or defending the USSR from attack. Instead, it was a process by which the bureaucracy established itself as the new ruling class of a state-capitalist regime, and rolled back many of the revolutionary gains that had been introduced through the October Revolution, including workers control, sexual liberation, and democratic planning, to name but a few. This is a position that is entirely consistent with historical materialism. In fact, Trotsky, as a good Marxist, recognized that the direction that a country takes is very rarely derived from the decisions of individuals, even powerful leaders such as the general-secretary of the only political organization in that country, but is ultimately dependent on material conditions, and so, when we want to explain a given historical process, such as the counter-revolution in the USSR, we should try and locate the material conditions that give rise to that process, at least as our analytical starting-point, before we consider the role that specific decisions and power struggles between individuals might have played. It was a historical impossibility for Trotsky to become the leader of the USSR after Lenin's death because he was not a component of the emerging party bureaucracy in the same way as Stalin, but if another bureaucrat had taken Stalin's place then it would be reasonable to assume that the same process would have occurred, and the individual in question would have acted in (generally) the same way, because Stalin acted in the way he did as a result of his structural position as the representative of a bureaucratic class, such that, if he had attempted to act differently - if, for example, he had given full support to the revolution in Spain with no strings attached - he would have posed a threat to the interests of the class of which he was the key representative.

In much the same way, the ideological conflict between Stalinism and "Trotskyism" is not a genuine ideological conflict, in the sense of both ideologies having an equal claim to validity as sets of analyses and revolutionary strategies. Rather, Stalinism, in addition to being a socio-economic system, is a set of ideas that emerged in order to justify the behavior of the bureaucracy with revolutionary rhetoric and a superficial reading of Lenin's ideas, so as to hide the fact that the bureaucracy had assumed the position of a new ruling class. Thus, "socialism in one country" allowed the bureaucracy to legitimize its position of entering into alliances with the imperialist powers and not supporting revolutionary movements seeking to overthrow capitalism in other countries, just as "social-fascism" meant that the bureaucracy could obstruct a revolution in Germany, and yet pretend that it was being principled and revolutionary.

[redarmyfaction38]

I agree - except that I don't think that what Stalin did constituted allowing the USSR to survive, or defending the USSR from attack. Instead, it was a process by which the bureaucracy established itself as the new ruling class of a state-capitalist regime, and rolled back many of the revolutionary gains that had been introduced through the October Revolution, including workers control, sexual liberation, and democratic planning, to name but a few. This is a position that is entirely consistent with historical materialism. In fact, Trotsky, as a good Marxist, recognized that the direction that a country takes is very rarely derived from the decisions of individuals, even powerful leaders such as the general-secretary of the only political organization in that country, but is ultimately dependent on material conditions, and so, when we want to explain a given historical process, such as the counter-revolution in the USSR, we should try and locate the material conditions that give rise to that process, at least as our analytical starting-point, before we consider the role that specific decisions and power struggles between individuals might have played. It was a historical impossibility for Trotsky to become the leader of the USSR after Lenin's death because he was not a component of the emerging party bureaucracy in the same way as Stalin, but if another bureaucrat had taken Stalin's place then it would be reasonable to assume that the same process would have occurred, and the individual in question would have acted in (generally) the same way, because Stalin acted in the way he did as a result of his structural position as the representative of a bureaucratic class, such that, if he had attempted to act differently - if, for example, he had given full support to the revolution in Spain with no strings attached - he would have posed a threat to the interests of the class of which he was the key representative.

In much the same way, the ideological conflict between Stalinism and "Trotskyism" is not a genuine ideological conflict, in the sense of both ideologies having an equal claim to validity as sets of analyses and revolutionary strategies. Rather, Stalinism, in addition to being a socio-economic system, is a set of ideas that emerged in order to justify the behavior of the bureaucracy with revolutionary rhetoric and a superficial reading of Lenin's ideas, so as to hide the fact that the bureaucracy had assumed the position of a new ruling class. Thus, "socialism in one country" allowed the bureaucracy to legitimize its position of entering into alliances with the imperialist powers and not supporting revolutionary movements seeking to overthrow capitalism in other countries, just as "social-fascism" meant that the bureaucracy could obstruct a revolution in Germany, and yet pretend that it was being principled and revolutionary.
complicated, yet understandable and probably along the right lines, it's dead easy with the benefit of hindsight to see "where it all went wrong".
me. i'll never understand why trotsky never used the red army to sieze power from stalin while he had the influence to do so, all his explanations sound like shit to me, he had the balls to shoot the anarchists when their actions (rather than their intent) threatened the revolution, so why didn't he treat stalin in the same manner?
but that's an easy criticism for me, i have the benefit of hindsight.

[Il Medico]

Stalin destroyed the attempt at communism that was the U.S.S.R. Trotsky on the other hand correctly predicted why the USSR would fail, 50 years before hand in The Revolution Betrayed. The nature of Stalinism is totalitarianism and state capitalism. And yes the bourgeois will attack socialism no matter what, but it helps to be able to refute their claims instead of having try to convinece them that Stalin didn't actually repersent communism or marxist theory.

[bcbm]

in which extreme revolutionary ideologies tend to get diluted with liberalism, to 'try to appeal to a larger audience', or 'not have to feel awkward around your bourgeois-liberal friends'.Last I checked we are trying to move our entire class (a larger audience) towards revolution, not just those who absorb themselves in arguing over historical issues that mean very little to the class struggle as it stands right now.

[Yehuda Stern]

Mantis - "gullible" is certainly great class analysis. I have had to learn quite a lot to come to where I am now, and I certainly don't believe things because bourgeois writers told me so. So keep your patronizing to yourself.

As for living in an ideological bubble - I'm a member of a radically anti-Zionist group active in Israel. Whatever 'bubble' I may have been in has been burst long ago. You, of course, would not now, because those who whine the most about people being "first world crybabies" are the most spoiled middle class brats around.

[Prairie Fire]

Mantis:

am sick of this fucking pathetic 'DURR STALIN TARNISHED THE NAME OF SOCIALISM' argument.
The bourgeois are going to slander socialism regardless of what happens.
If, in some parallel universe, your idiot messiah Trotsky ended up in charge of the CPSU (SHUDDER) and somehow managed to not run the country into the ground, he would be the one who 'tarnished the name of socialism', and we'd still have some group of ineffectual first-world 'leftist' crybabies whining about how 'Uncle Leon' ruined everything.

Mantis, don't bother. I've tried to drive that point home several times in past threads, even citing historical precedents, but to no avail.

The truth is that, in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, the only good socialist is a dead socialist. They are opposed to any emancipation of the working class (let alone political power in the hands of the workers,), so any and all workers movements and their prominent voices will be demonized.

If it had been "Uncle Leon" instead of Koba, the difference in bourgeois propaganda would be the face on the posters.

(Actual white army propaganda poster)
http://incogman.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/trotsky-poster-cropped.jpg?w=497&h=632



You can lead a Trot to water, but you can't make them drink.

Yehuda:

Which is, of course, why we should give them material for that too. That's brilliant.


You mean like when Leon was going to testify before the House comittee on UnAmerican Activities?

Anyways, Marx wasn't wrong when he said "The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination."(Manifesto of the Communist party). You seem to be taking the position that the CPSU circa 1924-1953 gave the bourgeoisie "fuel for the fire" in terms of propaganda.

Interestingly, you have provided a cute two-sentence response, but no actual reference to a specific historical incident. You have made no specific charges, because if you did, I would be happy to try and refute them.

All that you provided was a lazy, dismissive reply that shows that you are resisting the point.


At any rate, calling Trotsky an idiot is a sure sign of a complete ignorance of his writings, as even his most bitter opponents admit he was a great writer and intellectual.

Okay.........

All of the revisionists and anti-Marxists of various stripes, from Bakunin to the second international, to the present day, are generally well read and "intellectual".

And.......


Try, on the other hand, to stay awake through the second paragraph of Uncle Joe's "Problems of Leninism," or the mind-annihilating "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics."


Oh noes! Stalinizm is teh seriouz bizness?

If you are looking for riveting reading, go read "Twilight", or something. As for the communists, we are more concerned with correct political theories and analysis from our books.

Also, persynally, I don't know what you are talking about. I've most likely read more Stalin than you have, and I don't see that it is dull in the least.

That is just a matter of persynal preferences though. The difference is, I'm not trying to posture my preferences of literary-prose as a political argument of theoretical legitimacy.


2) So basically, you echo the bourgeois line according to which the USSR would have failed no matter who led it?

Erm, Noooooooo..... That is actually not remotely close to what he said.

Mantis allready re-explained his point. At first I thought Yehuda was resisting the point, but now I see he didn't understand it to begin with.


Yeah, the same crybabies who think their hyper-machoism and throwing around of pejoratives actually interests anyone.


"Hyper Machoism"? You're the one being aggressive in all of your replies, and trying to act like you " don't give a fuck".

As far as pejoratives are concerned, "Stalinist" is a pejorative. Contemporary Marxist-Leninists refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists.
While I generally (except in occasion of frusteration), use the term Trotskyist (the term Trotskyite is no longer used in my vocabulary, even in arguments), yourself (and most other Trots) casually use your meaningless political slur for J.V. Stalin, the USSR/CPSU from 1924 onwards, or any other political entity that annoys you.

This is also the second time in my memory that you have put forward that line, that no-one is "interested" in our replies (in my case, carefully researched sources and documents). Translation: You are intellectually lazy, willfully ignorant, and a peddler of the readily available dominant-narative of historical analysis, rather than trying to exercising critical thinking in opposition to bourgeois analysis. In short, you're a Trotskyist.



You may or may have not noticed this, but I could not give a fuck.

My, aren't you too cool for school.

Anyways, that was not productive to the discussion.

That Mantis is even concerned about the tone of his arguing style is admirable, but again, he shouldn't even bother. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

redarmyfaction38


i'll never understand why trotsky never used the red army to sieze power from stalin while he had the influence to do so


Are you for real?:lol:

The total disdain that "non-authortarians" seem to have for models of workers democracy never ceases to amaze me. Here this persyn, obviously an opponent of J.V. Stalin, is advocating a Military Coup to overturn the decision and consensus of the Bolshevik party on deciding their own leadership.

Sad, but true.

CaptainJack:


Stalin destroyed the attempt at communism that was the U.S.S.R.

Does anyone else wonder if some people even read the other posts on the thread, before making a post themselves?

Anyways, thanks for the cliched, accusitory, yet simultaneously vague, talking-point Jack. In the future, reading what other people have to say before you post might be useful.


The nature of Stalinism is totalitarianism and state capitalism.

See, Revleft in general is doing nothing to try and politically educate these dumb-ass noobs who keep coming here, and it is giving me high blood pressure.

I really don't want to go over the "Totalitarianism" argument again, so I will simply challenge "Captain Jack" to produce a single source of the word "Totalitarianism" in the english language, prior to 1917. "Totalitarianism" is a bullshit term, invented to draw non-existant parrallels between the USSR and fascist regimes such as Germany and Italy (regimes which were political reactions to socialist upheaval and working class rumblings, to preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie).

If revleft (and I realize that revleft isn't monolithic, but still,) can't at least act to educate new-comers, than this forum isn't serving much of a constructive purpose.

To Captain Jack, please lose the "talking points" one-liner arguing style. If you are going to make bold statements, such as alleging that the USSR was "state capitalist", then you had best be prepared to back that up with statistics and sources, and do so.


And yes the bourgeois will attack socialism no matter what, but it helps to be able to refute their claims instead of having try to convinece them that Stalin didn't actually repersent communism or marxist theory.

As if those are the only two choices.:rolleyes:

Backing down, denouncing revolutionary figures, and trying to conform your "socialism" to the sensibilities of bourgeois ideologues is the tactic of petty-bourgeois leftists, not Marxists (Which you claim to be).

In general, the claims against Stalin by bourgeois critics can, and have, been refuted. If you want more reading material on the subject, PM me.

bcbm:

Last I checked we are trying to move our entire class (a larger audience) towards revolution, not just those who absorb themselves in arguing over historical issues that mean very little to the class struggle as it stands right now.

Yes, but there is a way to do things, and a way not to.

For example, I am involved with a Marxist-Leninist party at the moment. We don't carry huge portraits of Stalin in the streets to demonstrations (incidently, I have one,), but we also won't denounce him, even when pressed in public.

There is a large difference between pursuing practicle politics for the organization of the working class, and conciliating to the every whim of your detractors.

Yehuda:


Mantis - "gullible" is certainly great class analysis.


Would you prefer "bourgeois", then? Your point of view, while it is gullible/intellectually lazy, has it's foundations in the dominant narrative of historical events in the USSR. The dominant narrative reflects the perceptions and aspirations of the bourgeoisie, and is perpetuated by them.

Because you hold views that perpetuate the analysis and justify the goals of the bourgeoisie, the mantle of "bourgeois" would perhaps suit you better.


I have had to learn quite a lot to come to where I am now, and I certainly don't believe things because bourgeois writers told me so.

You have learned a lot, perhaps, but like many of my ex-Trotskyist comrades (and I have several,) you have a ways to go.

And, yes, I would say that you do. The narrative that you hold is not based on your persynal experience, so therefore it is based on the statements of others, which in this case are bourgeois ideologues.

If, for example, you are one of the many Trots who cites Orwells works as historical analysis (even though the mysoginistic racist never set foot inside the USSR), then you are accepting the line of a bourgeois writer hook, line and sinker, over more qualified sources with more direct experience.

Also, on another note, you have rejected my sources with disdain when I have presented them to you. Do you think that your education on Marxism-Leninism is complete?


I'm a member of a radically anti-Zionist group active in Israel.

Admirable. Still, even those in the thick of a situation and organizing can have incorrect lines and outlooks.



Whatever 'bubble' I may have been in has been burst long ago.


Not entirely. You have yet to abandon the dominant historical narative of the bourgeoisie.



You, of course, would not now, because those who whine the most about people being "first world crybabies" are the most spoiled middle class brats around.


Pure speculation based on no information. This statement is not useful to this discourse.

[bcbm]

Yes, but there is a way to do things, and a way not to.The amount of effort devoted to, say, this issue would probably fall into the latter. I'm a big fan of history and have studied a lot of it and am always willing to examine things from a number of angles but really I don't feel arguing over who did what over half a century ago has any real value in practical politics at the shop, or even movement, level.

[More Fire for the People]

There is a difference between the historical role of Stalin and Stalinisim. Stalin wasn't a Stalinist until the 1920s. Stalinism is basically a coup against soviet democracy by means of bureaucratization of the means of production. The 'authoritarian state', 'cult of personality', and 'bonapartism' are appendages to the economic core of Stalinist counter-revolution. And while critiques of Stalinism--particular the interesting critiques put forth by the Frankfurt School--offer profound implications for revolutarionies. But 'defeating' Stalinism will never be acheived as long as revolutionaries neglect to criticize the economic core--the perpetual problem of socialist states--bureaucratization of the economic and political spheres.

I would like to acknowledge that most modern Stalinists and Maoists criticize this bureaucratization and are genuine revolutarionaries that merely overlook the proto-beuacratic part of Stalin's writings and ignore or willy-washes Stalin's historical role.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is a difference between the historical role of Stalin and Stalinisim. Stalin wasn't a Stalinist until the 1920s. Stalinism is basically a coup against soviet democracy by means of bureaucratization of the means of production. The 'authoritarian state', 'cult of personality', and 'bonapartism' are appendages to the economic core of Stalinist counter-revolution. And while critiques of Stalinism--particular the interesting critiques put forth by the Frankfurt School--offer profound implications for revolutarionies. But 'defeating' Stalinism will never be acheived as long as revolutionaries neglect to criticize the economic core--the perpetual problem of socialist states--bureaucratization of the economic and political spheres.

I would like to acknowledge that most modern Stalinists and Maoists criticize this bureaucratization and are genuine revolutarionaries that merely overlook the proto-beuacratic part of Stalin's writings and ignore or willy-washes Stalin's historical role.

I would like to add that, in addition to your post-sectarian remarks above, what is known today as "Stalinism" is in fact a spinoff of a much larger problem: bureaucracy-building within the worker-class movement before any sort of political revolution.

I have said before and again that the SPD model is the party-building model for today, precisely because revolutionaries need to address the bureaucracy question before any sort of political revolution. Lenin repeatedly acknowledged this "Marxist-Kautskyist" problem like his theoretical mentor, but the repressive climate in czarist Russia and the small Russian proletariat didn't enable the Bolsheviks to tackle the bureaucracy question to the fullest... as revolutionary centrists.

On the other hand, those on the left-wing of worker movements who are content with agitating and agitating without organizing holistically will always get caught by nasty surprises, from Luxemburg's death down to Trotsky's post-revolutionary fetish for bureaucratic administration to the irrelevance of sects.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I agree - except that I don't think that what Stalin did constituted allowing the USSR to survive, or defending the USSR from attack. Instead, it was a process by which the bureaucracy established itself as the new ruling class of a state-capitalist regime, and rolled back many of the revolutionary gains that had been introduced through the October Revolution, including workers control, sexual liberation, and democratic planning, to name but a few. This is a position that is entirely consistent with historical materialism. In fact, Trotsky, as a good Marxist, recognized that the direction that a country takes is very rarely derived from the decisions of individuals, even powerful leaders such as the general-secretary of the only political organization in that country, but is ultimately dependent on material conditions, and so, when we want to explain a given historical process, such as the counter-revolution in the USSR, we should try and locate the material conditions that give rise to that process, at least as our analytical starting-point, before we consider the role that specific decisions and power struggles between individuals might have played. It was a historical impossibility for Trotsky to become the leader of the USSR after Lenin's death because he was not a component of the emerging party bureaucracy in the same way as Stalin, but if another bureaucrat had taken Stalin's place then it would be reasonable to assume that the same process would have occurred, and the individual in question would have acted in (generally) the same way, because Stalin acted in the way he did as a result of his structural position as the representative of a bureaucratic class, such that, if he had attempted to act differently - if, for example, he had given full support to the revolution in Spain with no strings attached - he would have posed a threat to the interests of the class of which he was the key representative.

In much the same way, the ideological conflict between Stalinism and "Trotskyism" is not a genuine ideological conflict, in the sense of both ideologies having an equal claim to validity as sets of analyses and revolutionary strategies. Rather, Stalinism, in addition to being a socio-economic system, is a set of ideas that emerged in order to justify the behavior of the bureaucracy with revolutionary rhetoric and a superficial reading of Lenin's ideas, so as to hide the fact that the bureaucracy had assumed the position of a new ruling class. Thus, "socialism in one country" allowed the bureaucracy to legitimize its position of entering into alliances with the imperialist powers and not supporting revolutionary movements seeking to overthrow capitalism in other countries, just as "social-fascism" meant that the bureaucracy could obstruct a revolution in Germany, and yet pretend that it was being principled and revolutionary.
Jesus khrist Bob. While I disagree to the extent to which the bureaucracy represented a threat to the Soviet Masses even into the 1930's and also to the degree that "socialism in one country" was merely a justification meant to shrine the party bureaucracy in their positions of power, this post is totally spot on.

I really don't know what it is, but i really like your posts.

But, [But] to say that Stalin did not recognize the degree which bureaucracy had become entrenched in the SU and did not attempt to combat it is a bit ill representative. There was a whole series of purges and anti-corruption campaigns. As you said the formation of a bureaucracy is a process that is above Stalin. Obviously his line in combating this trend did not work.

Going back to Maoism(sorry), and why it is an elevation above Leninism or "Stalinism," is that Maoism understand that a new bourgeoisie will form under socialism out of the remnants of the old (that is old customs and habits acquired under capitalism will be reproduced to some extent under socialism) and out of those in positions of power. [I would also add that two other things contribute to the formation of a new bourgeoisie. First is threats from imperialism-obviously this is going to produce centralization and hierarchy as there are few other successful models for states to operate by. Second, the siren song coming from the West. That is, the projected image that the exploitation-fatten western-"worker" is representative of an 'successful' capitalism. At one point before that Cultural Revolution, a Chinese official actually argued that since America was a capitalist country and since its workers were qualitative better off than the average Chinese citizen, that maybe a more capitalistic way of running things wouldn't be so bad. He was rather crude about it and labeled a capitalist roader early on.]

While this itself represents a qualitative lead from Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, it is also understood that this new bourgeoisie must be combatted through mass struggle, replacing bureaucracy with mass participation.

I think an interesting thing is the cults of personality. Whereas Stalin's was used to solidify support in the Soviet state system, for a period it seems like people such as Chen Boda and Lin Biao used the cult of Mao to actually circumvent the state through direct excitement of the masses themselves (through slogan ready quotes such as "bombard the headquarters").

While Trotsky's analysis of all of this may have gotten it partially right, early on through direct experience, he never provided anything close to a workable model on how to combat this tendency nor was able, as his ideological descendents, to produce a situation (i.e. a revolution) where this trend was better combatted.

Maoism itself has led to a higher elevation of Leninism, Trotskyism or "Stalinism" precisely in this manner.

[Yehuda Stern]

Oh noes! Stalinizm is teh seriouz bizness?

Prairie Fire, things like this maybe impress people in Chit Chat, but around here no one really notices how cool you are. "Not useful to the discourse"... hehehe.

[Prairie Fire]

^ Thanks for capitalizing on the frivolous comments that I made, rather than trying to address any of the rest of my points. :rolleyes:

[Yehuda Stern]

I have no need to address the rest of your points; in quality they are no better than the stupid line I quoted. As usual, you twist the points I really did make to try and make it seem like for me things are just a popularity contest between Stalin and Trotsky. I'm not impressed. No one else is, either.

[Dimentio]

I am sick of this fucking pathetic 'DURR STALIN TARNISHED THE NAME OF SOCIALISM' argument.
The bourgeois are going to slander socialism regardless of what happens.
If, in some parallel universe, your idiot messiah Trotsky ended up in charge of the CPSU (SHUDDER) and somehow managed to not run the country into the ground, he would be the one who 'tarnished the name of socialism', and we'd still have some group of ineffectual first-world 'leftist' crybabies whining about how 'Uncle Leon' ruined everything.

I'm sorry to be so rude, but sometimes all the whiny bourgeois-liberalism on this forum gets to me.

Anyway, I really liked OPs article. I never really thought of it that way, but now that I think of it, the Russian Federation is indeed pretty much the exact same thing as the Brezhnevite USSR.
I still have my own criticisms of Maoism, but this party's line is far better than any of the other Russian communist parties (mostly because of their stance on the Chechens and other national liberation struggles) so I wish them the best of luck.

I think that marxist-leninists of the stalinist variety actually are honest and really love the working class. The problem is the idea that the working class somehow is'nt mature enough yet to understand "their interests". I do not feel particularily much about Stalin vs Trotsky (it feels a lot like the popes vs Arius, or Muawiya vs Ali), but I think that trotskyism partially suffers from the very same problem. The trotskyists are partially right that the problem in an infant socialist state is bureaucratisation, as well as isolation (to some extent I admit).

But I think the main problem is the vanguard party. It is an excellent tool for taking power in a revolutionary situation, but all usage of that power will serve to just create a new ruling class, which like the earlier one would claim to rule in the name of the people. I don't say that it will theoretically always happen, but a vanguard party which is centrally led by a party leadership utilising democratic centralism is per definition a tool for centralisation.

And centralisation per definition will always lead to a system where we have a small, tight core of rulers, a somewhat larger periphery of bureaucrats and administrators, and then the masses.

If marxist-leninists would not or could not transform their ideas after past experiences, I fear they would become more and more irrelevant except for in countries still dominated by illiteracy and some sort of feudalism.

What strikes me as interesting and quite entertaining, is that marxist-leninists whom have noted that the experiments have not yielded the results hoped for, generally are claiming that it was because it was'nt "enough" democratically centralist, or vanguardist, or that we did ot follow the words of that and that prophet.... erm... marxist-leninist theoretician.

[Yehuda Stern]

What strikes me as interesting and quite entertaining, is that marxist-leninists whom have noted that the experiments have not yielded the results hoped for, generally are claiming that it was because it was'nt "enough" democratically centralist, or vanguardist, or that we did ot follow the words of that and that prophet.... erm... marxist-leninist theoretician.

Some people might claim that. We, however, would say that it was the isolation of the revolution that caused all the other problems.

[Dimentio]

Some people might claim that. We, however, would say that it was the isolation of the revolution that caused all the other problems.

I basically think that Lenin blew it when he declared war on the Orthodox Church.

Most Russian peasants and workers were friendly to the idea of collective ownership of property. That had been the tradition in Russian villages for centuries. But most peasants were also warmly religious.

Most capital in Russia to be nationalised was in foreign hands, and the nobility had fled. What I think Lenin did for mistake was that he tightened the vanguard party's grasp over society instead of trying to widen it as much as possible. I mean, the Orthodox church had already been crushed as a significant political force by Peter I. With demands of loyalty in turn of protection, Lenin could have neutralised them. That was what Stalin did in 1943 out of desperation anyway, but then the church demolitions had already caused irreparable damage to the legitimacy of the regime.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think you're mistaken historically. Before Stalin, the Bolsheviks fought the church quite successfully through propaganda, especially by the League of Militant Atheists. Suppression of the church and other religious institutions was first instigated by the Stalinists in the 1930s.

[Dimentio]

I think you're mistaken historically. Before Stalin, the Bolsheviks fought the church quite successfully through propaganda, especially by the League of Militant Atheists. Suppression of the church and other religious institutions was first instigated by the Stalinists in the 1930s.


A lot of churches were teared down in the 1920;s as well, not to speak about mosques in the Central Asian parts of the USSR. I feel quite a lot of pity with the "national-communists" around Sultan Galyev. They were also correct that national conflicts were not strangled by socialism.

It seems like already in 1922, there were a lot of destructions of churches and monasteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Russian_revolution

If you want to see a country which has managed to defeat christianity as a political force, you should look at Sweden.

[Red Isa]

Stalin was a fascist, and a terrorist, and he had Trotsky and many of the Old Bolsheviks killed in order to gain power.

He was an anti-semite and he made a pact with the Nazis! His five-year plan was a terrible failure, and the way he attempted retaliation was counterproductive to the Soviet Union. (All he did was try another five year plan, and that was a failure as well)

I've heard about the terror-famine, I'm sure you all have. I am not denying or confirming that it was engineered by Stalin. But it killed 20 million people, and even if he didn't cause it he should have helped the people in the Ukraine. It's what a good leader does to help their people get provisions in times of need.

Okay I am finished. Let the hate comments begin. LOL. have fun... ;)

[Spawn of Stalin]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Stalin establish an autonomous region in Russia as a place where Jews could preserve their heritage? I know that some people think Stalin was an anti-Semite but judging on his actions, he basically loved Jews, and let's face it, who doesn't?

Also please justify the fascist comment.

[bailey_187]

Stalin was a fascist,

Mistaken definition of Fascism.



and a terrorist, and he had Trotsky and many of the Old Bolsheviks killed in order to gain power.

Trotsky wasnt an Old Bolshevik, Stalin had been a Bolshevik for 15 years longer. Many Old Bolsheviks were not killed" Budyonny, Dzerzhinsky, Frunze, Joffe, Kalinin, Kirov, Kollontai, Krasikov, Litvinov, Molotov, Shaumyan, Sverdlov, Voroshilov, Yurovsky, Ordzhonikidze, Zhdanov, etc, were all Old Bolsheviks, and none of them were executed in the purges



He was an anti-semite

No he wasnt.



and he made a pact with the Nazis!

He made a non-aggression pact after failing to make an anti-Nazi pact with France and Britain. The two year pact allowed Stalin to use troops to fight the Japanese attack in the east IIRC.



His five-year plan was a terrible failure, and the way he attempted retaliation was counterproductive to the Soviet Union. (All he did was try another five year plan, and that was a failure as well)

LOL, come on, really? I cant even be bothered to attempt to answer that. Not even the post Ant-Stalin people would make such a stupid claim.



I've heard about the terror-famine, I'm sure you all have. I am not denying or confirming that it was engineered by Stalin. But it killed 20 million people, and even if he didn't cause it he should have helped the people in the Ukraine. It's what a good leader does to help their people get provisions in times of need.

the Ukrainian Famine killed 20million? Ukraine's population was only 30 million. How is that even possible?

Besides, Robert Conquest's disrcredited guess put it at about 8million
The number was calculated like this:
This number is calculated like this:
"Taking the data according to the 1926 census and the january 1939 census and the average (population) increase before collectivisation (2.36% a year), it can be calculated that Ukraine lost 7.5million people between the two censuses"

however, there is a problem with this seemingly scientific method of calculated how many died in this famine is very inaccurate.
The World War, Civil War etc all provoked a considerable large fall in the birth rate. The generation born/who would of been born in these years (1914-1923) would be reaching physical maturity and reproductive age in the 1930s. Hence, there would be a drop in the birth rate in the 1930s. Another factor contributing to the drop in birth rates in the 1930s in the huge upsurges of 1929-1933. Blame these on Stalin or blame them on a class struggle between the poor peasants and Kulaks - either way a situation was created where people are less likely to be reproducing.
Also, the number of people registering as Ukrainians would have dropped due to interracial marriages.
Also, the Kuban Cossacks, between 2 and 3 million people, were classified as Ukrainian in 1926 but were reclassified as Russian at the end of the 1920s. "
[/QUOTE]

[Red Isa]

Also please justify the fascist comment.

Alright I will. but first: I researched and yes, you are correct he did not target jews directly, but many jews did die as a result of his actions (like the whole doctor prosecution thing)

Okay as for the Fascism comment: He made it legal to lock people in asylums because of a disease called "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia". Basically he used this to silence people who were against his place in power.
The members of the "communist" party were an elite class with Stalin, while others were left in dire condition. Famines, Starvation, etcetera...
Also the party controlled everything. Stalin was a complete dictator. Total state control is NOT socialism. It is fascism.

Party officials were well off, while others were poor. Is that economic equality? I think not. If Marx had lived to see Stalin, he would have been appalled.

[Red Isa]

to Baily187:

My apologies:
Okay, you are correct and I was misinformed about the famine and jew stuff. Lol xD


but let's see...His five-year plan was a success??? Explain this to me. I'm not sure I see things from your point of view...

Trotsky:
And I am aware that Trotsky was not an old bolshevik he joined in 1917 i believe. Which was why I said that he killed Trotsky AND the Old Bolsheviks. (You'll notice I did not put them in the same category)

FASCISM:
Dictionary definition:
Complete dictatorship, Severe economic and social regimentation, forcible suppression of opposition.

This basically covers Stalin's reign. Is this not what you would call fascism? What is your definition?

[red cat]

If we assume that the dictatorship is that of the proletariat, doesn't your definition of fascism coincide with that of the first stage of socialism?

[RedScare]

My question to Stalinist is this, then. How do you explain the economic stagnation and careerism rampant in the Soviet Union during and after Stalin's reign? The nomenklutura system and such is supposedly was supposedly what Stalin fought against in the Party, and yet they dominated politics from the time Stalin took power to 1989.

[Red Isa]

He was not. He actually wrote this (http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm):

Also, the reason he made a pact with Hitler was not because of anti-semitism, but to prepare for a war with the Nazis. If he really meant to get cozy with the Nazis, how do you explain the fact that the Soviet Union defeated fascism and went beyond the Soviet borders upto Berlin to do so?

That misunderstanding of mine has been cleared up, thanks though :)

[Red Isa]

If we assume that the dictatorship is that of the proletariat, doesn't your definition of fascism coincide with that of the first stage of socialism?

no, because one person (or a small group) completely controlling a country is fascism, but a large group of workers and underprivileged people rising up against a small group of upper-class right-winged egocentric capitalists is justice.

[red cat]

no, because one person (or a small group) completely controlling a country is fascism, but a large group of workers and underprivileged people rising up against a small group of upper-class right-winged egocentric capitalists is justice.

Correct. But your previous definition lacked what you are saying now.

So, provided that the dictatorship is by the class which forms the vast majority of the population, that is, the proletariat, oppression of the former ruling class which is only a small minority is justified.

And now my question to you is that, assuming that there indeed was a proletarian dictatorship, how would you proceed to prove it?

[Labor Shall Rule]

It sucks that so many posts on this board are focused on opposing twentieth century socialism. I don't think an oppositional movement to Moscow is necessary anymore, so why are we still talking about 'Stalinism'?

[Pogue]

It sucks that so many posts on this board are focused on opposing twentieth century socialism. I don't think an oppositional movement to Moscow is necessary anymore, so why are we still talking about 'Stalinism'?

Because Stalinism still exists and is a dangerous anti-working class ideolgoy that needs to be opposed wherever it emerges.

[BobKKKindle$]

Because Stalinism still exists and is a dangerous anti-working class ideolgoy that needs to be opposed wherever it emerges.

Exactly. The people who think that the USSR was socialist are the same people who cheered on the Chinese state when it crushed workers and students in 1989, and when it represses strikes and demonstrations today, and they're also generally the same people who took the side of the Iranian state this year. As a tool of analysis, Stalinism is still relevant because there is still a division between those who believe that socialism can only come through the struggles of working people, and those who believed that it can be imposed by armed gangs and tanks, and that socialism is the same as an economy being under the control of the state.

[The Author]

Because Stalinism still exists and is a dangerous anti-working class ideolgoy that needs to be opposed wherever it emerges.

Where? Because there is no such thing as Stalinism. Especially the Cold War conception of it imagined by Westerners. You should be focusing on...I don't know...capitalism instead and opposing that wherever it emerges and where it already exists.

You want to live like it's 1969 or 1989, be my guest. Want to actually give a shit about what's going on now, live in 2009. Most like dwelling on the past because they don't have the balls to actually stand up and make a difference but rather choose to mud-fling because that's all they're capable of doing. We're in the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Working class struggles going on in the here and now is what I give a fuck about most, not what happened in 1871 or 1917 or 1937 or 1956 or whatever. I study those things only in an historical sense for knowledge learned and experience gained. Dwelling on the past is fucking pointless. I'm more concerned on whether I'll make next month's rent, and if and when this supposed working class revolution is going to happen to make life much easier for me and the rest of my fellow family and loved ones and friends and people around the world who experience nothing but hardship and misery.

That's what needs to be focused on, not some phony-ass crusade about a particular tendency which never existed except in the minds of some renegade writers and thinkers.

[Scary Monster]

Why are stalinists so full of shit? Stalin had over half a million people, maybe much more (workers, peasants, teachers etc), executed or sent to labor camps, assassinated all his political opponents, deported ethnic minorities to siberia, where almost half of them died fom hunger and disease. Stalin was completely counter-revolutionary and no better than Hitler. How in the hell can any of you defend this fuck? Youd have to be insane.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Where? Because there is no such thing as Stalinism. Especially the Cold War conception of it imagined by Westerners. You should be focusing on...I don't know...capitalism instead and opposing that wherever it emerges and where it already exists.

You want to live like it's 1969 or 1989, be my guest. Want to actually give a shit about what's going on now, live in 2009. Most like dwelling on the past because they don't have the balls to actually stand up and make a difference but rather choose to mud-fling because that's all they're capable of doing. We're in the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Working class struggles going on in the here and now is what I give a fuck about most, not what happened in 1871 or 1917 or 1937 or 1956 or whatever. I study those things only in an historical sense for knowledge learned and experience gained. Dwelling on the past is fucking pointless. I'm more concerned on whether I'll make next month's rent, and if and when this supposed working class revolution is going to happen to make life much easier for me and the rest of my fellow family and loved ones and friends and people around the world who experience nothing but hardship and misery.

That's what needs to be focused on, not some phony-ass crusade about a particular tendency which never existed except in the minds of some renegade writers and thinkers.

But this is RevLeft, it is meant to be a place of debate between different tendencies within the revolutionary left. And Pogue, myself and I'm sure many others hold the belief that Stalinism is a counter-revolutionary anti-working class deviation from actual class struggle and should be opposed. Fascism is not in place today but we still oppose it. Just as we oppose other anti-working class ideas like Stalinism.

[Glenn Beck]

Stalin was a fascist, and a terrorist, and he had Trotsky and many of the Old Bolsheviks killed in order to gain power.

He was an anti-semite and he made a pact with the Nazis! His five-year plan was a terrible failure, and the way he attempted retaliation was counterproductive to the Soviet Union. (All he did was try another five year plan, and that was a failure as well)

I've heard about the terror-famine, I'm sure you all have. I am not denying or confirming that it was engineered by Stalin. But it killed 20 million people, and even if he didn't cause it he should have helped the people in the Ukraine. It's what a good leader does to help their people get provisions in times of need.

Okay I am finished. Let the hate comments begin. LOL. have fun... ;)

No need to apologize, these are not controversial opinions ;).

[Glenn Beck]

This is fucking thread necro. Of an abortive off-topic split, no less. Somebody close this.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

On what do you base such beliefs on? Why do continue believing such things in spite of them having been proven wrong countless times on these forums and in lots of other academic and working class literature? Even if evidence is provided to the contrary, would you still continue to hold such beliefs?

Yes but the character of this evidence is something I'm sure we would disagree on. I would need to be reassured there was indeed workers control over the means of production, Stalin wasn't a dictator and in fact power lied with each community and which was communicated through the idea of workers councils, that the state capitalist economy was a myth, that centralisation of political authority did not exist and power did not lie absolutely with the Communist party itself.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So you want the evidence to fit your theory, not the other way round?

Well I want evidence which fits my idea of what constitutes working class revolution and communism yes that is true. What is the other way around?

[Red Isa]

This is fucking thread necro. Of an abortive off-topic split, no less. Somebody close this.

Why "Glenn Beck" ?! :confused:

[Saorsa]

Exactly. The people who think that the USSR was socialist are the same people who cheered on the Chinese state when it crushed workers and students in 1989, and when it represses strikes and demonstrations today, and they're also generally the same people who took the side of the Iranian state this year. As a tool of analysis, Stalinism is still relevant because there is still a division between those who believe that socialism can only come through the struggles of working people, and those who believed that it can be imposed by armed gangs and tanks, and that socialism is the same as an economy being under the control of the state.Trouble is Bob, those uprisings you mention were supported by a lot of people you would refer to as 'Stalinist.' For example, Maoists generally support those uprisings just like you did. Maoists supported the uprising in Tiananmen (the RCP has a good selection of images n their website in tribute to it, the ones of students and workers waving little red books and carrying Mao's image are particularly good), cheer on enthusiastically any struggles by workers and peasants in China against the revisionist, counter-revolutionary 'Communist' regime in Beijing, essentially no different in character to the openly capitalist regimes of countries around the world. And Maoists again staunchly supported the uprisings in Iran. In fact, there are Maoist groups in Iran now, working both amongst the exile communities and underground in Iran itself, risking (and in many cases losing) their lives to try and organise against the regime. The regime in Tehran has spilled the blood of a shitload of communists, including many who would call themselves Maoists or influenced by Maoism, and I frankly find it a bit insulting when someone defends that government.

I'm not a Stalinist (I wouldn't even refer to myself as a Maoist, as I don't think Mao's contributions develop Lenin's to the same extent that Lenin's writings and practice did Marx's). I have a hell of a lot of criticisms of the the practice and theory of many socialist leaders and movements in the 20th century, and in particular of Stalin's. I think anyone who openly defends the purges and the use of violence and state terror against political opponents should be kept as far away as possible from the levers of power in any future revolution.

Under Stalin's leadership the USSR achieved amazing things, and there's a hell of a lot to be defended about it. But his leadership was also heavily flawed, and effectvely killed the succesful maintenance of socialism in Russia.

I do not subscribe to the defeatist attitude of most Trotskyists that since it was impossible for the revolution to immediatley spread across the world after the initial revolutionary surges that followed 1917 died away, it was inevitable that socialism would fail in the Soviet Union and travel down the path it did. There's a heavy dose of determinism in a lot of Trotskyist thought. I believe that after analysing the world situation and the chances of the revolution spreading rapidly and succesfully, it was correct of the Bolsheviks to take the line that they should focus on consolidating the gains made so far, pending the success of revolution abroad.

Under Stalin's leadership I believe they failed at both. The gains of 1917 were lost as a society of fear, suspicion and deference to higher authority arose, due largely (I believe) to Stalin's use of murder and general violence against his political opponents in the party, and dissidents in general. There was a time when this could be defended, during the Civil War, but afterwards it had no place in a socialist society.

And as for spreading the revolution at the same time as consolidating, under Stalin's leadership the CPs of other countries began to be directed to serve Soviet foreign policy. The USSR was putting out incorrect political advice and political lines to foreign parties, which had negative results (to say the least) in everywhere from Spain to China. And it executed Bela Kun ffs, a man who led a revolution in Hungary. Stalin's leadership set the USSR on a path to authoritarian, capitalist style management, and ultimately a return to capitalism.

But we should not lose sight of how good the society Stalin helped to create was in many ways. Once the socialistic economy was put on it's feet, it provided the secure knowledge of food, a job, all the things you need to get by in life, for every worker and peasant in the country (although the second world war ended up destroying a large percentage of all that was created in the 30s through the herculean effort of the Soviet people). And more than just the basics, the USSR also ensured that everyone could have access to entertainment and culture, things to make life more enjoyable. From theater, film and art to all expenses paid trips to seaside resorts for ordinary factory workers, the USSR provided a better quality of life to it's people in many ways than the more advanced and industrialised wealthy capitalist countries.

I read this passage recently that is worth popularising.


“A Ride on the Moscow Metro


I had been particularly impressed with this calm when I found myself in a subway crush in Moscow's Metro that could rival our own in New York. Ploschad Revolutsii (Revolution Square) is the conjunction (it can also be described as the bottleneck) of three major stations. The other two are Sverdlov Square and Karl Marx Avenue. It is one of the major transportation problems on which Moscow is concentrating. The crowd Alia and I were swept into as we changed trains, could only be compared to the outpouring from a Yankee Stadium World Series game. Muscovites were not only jostling and pushing one another; they were literally breathing down each others' necks—men, women, children of all ages. Yet there are no subway police to keep you in your lane, to prevent dangerous crushes or break up fights (no police patrol Moscow's Metro trains as in New York). I must confess I became tense, uneasy, and eyed my fellow subway "sardines" with some suspicion and even hostility. I was just reacting normally—as a New Yorker. I looked at Alia to see her reactions. She was as patient and as relaxed as other Muscovites. The crowd moved imperceptibly—but it moved. Not an angry word was exchanged. No one was watching to maintain order and no directives were being blared over loudspeakers. People were either moving along, silently lost in their own thoughts or were spending the time in light, lively conversation with their friends or new subway acquaintances.


My thoughts flashed back to a frightening subway experience I had had in New York the summer before I left for my assignment in Moscow. I was coming home from work during the five o'clock crush on a typically humid summer day. I had been propelled into the train by the burly subway guards whose function it was to pack in the "sardines." Angry words as well as threatening elbow digs accompanied our en-iranee. The first fight—and it was a no-holds-barred struggle—was for seats. They were, of course, occupied by the fastest and the most aggressive, and least of all by those who most needed them—the elderly and tired women long past their prime. Few indeed surrendered the prized seat to these women after such a struggle. Instead, the victors sat stony-faced or hid their faces in their newspapers, while the weaker, older riders clung to each other and the overhanging train straps.


Nowhere is the free enterprise principle of the "survival of the fitist" better revealed than in the daily subway struggle. And the reasons lor this inhuman behavior were written on the faces of my fellow New York subway riders. They were the faces of people exhausted by the rat i ace that begins with awakening—when you gulp down your cup of coffee, and gobble up your toast and rush to catch the train; that rises in intensity with the inhuman speedup that is the foundation of our unparalleled mass production, profits and nervous breakdowns; that is unrelieved by the hurried lunch, coffee and sandwich break, and that meets its most grueling test in the rush-hour ride home. The subway ride home is not just another train ride—it is a trip in an underground that gives one a good conception of what hell must be like. It is the last straw—the running over of the daily cup of bitterness. And for Black and Puerto Rican workers to whose bitter cup is added the daily dash of racist discrimination, who know they are returning to rat-ridden ghetto slums where the battle for survival is far from over at the end of a day's work—the train ride is, indeed, the last straw. These are the invisible but very much present passengers that accompany New York working people on their daily subway rides.


Suddenly the New York subway train came to a dead stop. The electric fans, which had been circulating the humid polluted air, stopped. The lights, too, went out. The sweating, tightly packed passengers gasped for breath and recoiled from each other in fear. Someone shouted angrily at his neighbor. A woman screamed in terror. The fear was made more contagious by the darkness. A few voices began to reflect the rising panic. There were cries for air. Only the fortunate quick restoration of the train's operation prevented what may well have resulted in a terrible panic. This was the event I now recalled as I shuffled along with my fellow Moscow subway riders.


Later on, as I came to know the daily life of the Soviet people better, I understood why in Moscow a subway ride was a pleasant means of transportation, and a crowd was just an unusually large number of people gathered together at the same time and at the same place. But during my first ride, I could already see the reason. It was present in the very subway itself. A most delightful place in Moscow—and in all Soviet cities with metros—is the subway. In another chapter I will describe in detail how they are operated and maintained. If New Yorkers could spend just one week riding to and from work in the Moscow subway, an awful lot of the anti-Soviet, anti-Communist pap they had been fed about the suppression of the individual under communism would evaporate in those subway rides.”


This passage is taken from “Cities without Crisis” Mike Davidow 1976.



Stalin oversaw the closure of democratic space and the institutionalisation of violence against the people that led to the degeneration and eventually the disintegration of the USSR. But there was always a lot to be defended about it - the gains of October, and more importantly the gains of the first Five Year Plan and those that followed, in healthcare, education, employment and quality of life, were never totally lost.

And they shouldn't be ignored.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The other way than your misguided idealist way is to


first, acknowledge the facts as they are
then, start building your theories

Have you tried this ever? Its constitutes the "scientific method". The problem with your approach is that your "of what constitutes working class revolution and communism" can never be falsified.

Let me give you an analogous example. I start having a particular idea of what a cow is: its a green colored being with five legs. So, never mind if anyone shows me thousands of cows, I'll never acknowledge any of them as cows. Why? Because the evidence doesn't fit the idea in my head!

So, we have to decide: which is more important? Ideas in our head or solid evidence that is presented to our senses.

So tell me you evidence, because the only evidence I have seen so far is somebody saying Stalin killed less people than they say he did. But I know you will not produce evidence that I am satisfied with, because in truth the idea of your scientific method is a mask for that fact that there was not workers control in the Soviet Union. Now let me ask you this, are you telling me you do not believe in workers control?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You do realize you're being prejudiced here by requiring the evidence to match your theory. If you know anything about the scientific method, you'd know that such an approach never works. You have the evidence for the dictatorship of tye proleteariat in a few past instances. We need to recogize that evidence and then move forward in our theory. If we expect historical events to match our preconceived notions, it will never happen.

Also, I am not an anarchist. I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual trsnsition into communism.

I am not being prejudiced, I don't support struggle based on if they have Anarchist influence or not. I support them based on their credentials as working class revolutions. All I do is look through history and support the working class, it is not siding with Anarchist theory.

[chegitz guevara]

no, because one person (or a small group) completely controlling a country is fascism,

No, it's not. Fascism may share that characteristic with other forms of authoritarian governments, but it is not the defining characteristic of fascism.

Fascism is a mass movement, primarily composed of the enraged petty-bourgeoisie, ruined or threatened with ruin by the decay of capitalism.

[pranabjyoti]

Trouble is Bob, those uprisings you mention were supported by a lot of people you would refer to as 'Stalinist.' For example, Maoists generally support those uprisings just like you did. Maoists supported the uprising in Tiananmen (the RCP has a good selection of images n their website in tribute to it, the ones of students and workers waving little red books and carrying Mao's image are particularly good), cheer on enthusiastically any struggles by workers and peasants in China against the revisionist, counter-revolutionary 'Communist' regime in Beijing, essentially no different in character to the openly capitalist regimes of countries around the world. And Maoists again staunchly supported the uprisings in Iran. In fact, there are Maoist groups in Iran now, working both amongst the exile communities and underground in Iran itself, risking (and in many cases losing) their lives to try and organise against the regime. The regime in Tehran has spilled the blood of a shitload of communists, including many who would call themselves Maoists or influenced by Maoism, and I frankly find it a bit insulting when someone defends that government.
I'm not a Stalinist (I wouldn't even refer to myself as a Maoist, as I don't think Mao's contributions develop Lenin's to the same extent that Lenin's writings and practice did Marx's). I have a hell of a lot of criticisms of the the practice and theory of many socialist leaders and movements in the 20th century, and in particular of Stalin's. I think anyone who openly defends the purges and the use of violence and state terror against political opponents should be kept as far away as possible from the levers of power in any future revolution.
Under Stalin's leadership the USSR achieved amazing things, and there's a hell of a lot to be defended about it. But his leadership was also heavily flawed, and effectvely killed the succesful maintenance of socialism in Russia.
I do not subscribe to the defeatist attitude of most Trotskyists that since it was impossible for the revolution to immediatley spread across the world after the initial revolutionary surges that followed 1917 died away, it was inevitable that socialism would fail in the Soviet Union and travel down the path it did. There's a heavy dose of determinism in a lot of Trotskyist thought. I believe that after analysing the world situation and the chances of the revolution spreading rapidly and succesfully, it was correct of the Bolsheviks to take the line that they should focus on consolidating the gains made so far, pending the success of revolution abroad.
Under Stalin's leadership I believe they failed at both. The gains of 1917 were lost as a society of fear, suspicion and deference to higher authority arose, due largely (I believe) to Stalin's use of murder and general violence against his political opponents in the party, and dissidents in general. There was a time when this could be defended, during the Civil War, but afterwards it had no place in a socialist society.
And as for spreading the revolution at the same time as consolidating, under Stalin's leadership the CPs of other countries began to be directed to serve Soviet foreign policy. The USSR was putting out incorrect political advice and political lines to foreign parties, which had negative results (to say the least) in everywhere from Spain to China. And it executed Bela Kun ffs, a man who led a revolution in Hungary. Stalin's leadership set the USSR on a path to authoritarian, capitalist style management, and ultimately a return to capitalism.
But we should not lose sight of how good the society Stalin helped to create was in many ways. Once the socialistic economy was put on it's feet, it provided the secure knowledge of food, a job, all the things you need to get by in life, for every worker and peasant in the country (although the second world war ended up destroying a large percentage of all that was created in the 30s through the herculean effort of the Soviet people). And more than just the basics, the USSR also ensured that everyone could have access to entertainment and culture, things to make life more enjoyable. From theater, film and art to all expenses paid trips to seaside resorts for ordinary factory workers, the USSR provided a better quality of life to it's people in many ways than the more advanced and industrialised wealthy capitalist countries.
I read this passage recently that is worth popularising.
Stalin oversaw the closure of democratic space and the institutionalisation of violence against the people that led to the degeneration and eventually the disintegration of the USSR. But there was always a lot to be defended about it - the gains of October, and more importantly the gains of the first Five Year Plan and those that followed, in healthcare, education, employment and quality of life, were never totally lost.
And they shouldn't be ignored.
Comrade Alstair, even with your very good contributions so far in this website, I am clearly disagreeing with you in this matter. At that time, USSR and Stalin alone have to bear the responsibility of defeating the capitalist imperialist powers and most worst, the "Nazis". The proletarians and oppressed people of the third world, constituting most of the world population was in deep sleep. Those who are able and awake, have nearly about no means to fight for USSR other than just "praying for victory to the USSR". When you have to do some kind of very stranious jobs alone, you have take very very strict measures, even knowing well that it can harm you. USSR had suffered very worst kind of loss and suffering in the WWII and got very little help to stand up after that.
I have always said that "criticism (even if it is right) is very easy and doing something in reality is too tough". I guess that none of us, in this forum have even the experience of running a country. Running a country on such a difficult condition is a far cry. He (Stalin) had done that job and he should be respected for that. In my opinion, only that kind of persons are capable to criticize him, who had run a country on such or tougher condition.

[RedSonRising]

Running a country on such a difficult condition is a far cry. He (Stalin) had done that job and he should be respected for that. In my opinion, only that kind of persons are capable to criticize him, who had run a country on such or tougher condition.

Would you then use the same logic to conclude that one cannot criticize a capitalist president in a troubled nation because of the lack of experience that a nearly universal amount of socialists have? You cannot use experience to quantify 'good' leadership, especially if 'good' depends on class character and proletarian representation, which it does on the context of Marxism.

Alastaire is making a fair conclusion in acknowledging the significant and impressive progress made by the USSR, as well as choosing to acknowledge the flawed leadership that led to the global tarnishing (or to many, betrayal) of socialism in Russia and states which modeled their own states after the one established by Lenin.

I do not agree with all of the criticisms of the Soviet Union, however criticism is important in order to tease out the truth and asses situations for what they are and were, regardless of whether or not the bourgeoisie is exploiting/exaggerating the truth for their own benefit.

[Pogue]

You do realize you're being prejudiced here by requiring the evidence to match your theory. If you know anything about the scientific method, you'd know that such an approach never works. You have the evidence for the dictatorship of tye proleteariat in a few past instances. We need to recogize that evidence and then move forward in our theory. If we expect historical events to match our preconceived notions, it will never happen.

Also, I am not an anarchist. I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual trsnsition into communism.

What are you talking about? This 'scientific' bollocks? I think its pretty obvious why we oppose Stalin. If I was in Stalin's Russia and said what I beleived, i.e. that we should have full social and economic democracy through an itnernational revolution, I would have been killed. People were killed for doing such things. His system was also a class system, in which the working class were not in control.

People with the same ideas as me who put them into practice were killed by Stalin's people in Spain, on his orders. How could you ever expect me to beleive this is a man I should admire or a regime I should support. Your evidence is pathetic, your trying to somehow defend what was essentially a one party social democracy from attack through the only way possible, a complete rejection of the facts. Because Stalin was so bad, its almost as if you think you can reason out support for him along the lines of 'Oh, only 4 million people were killed'. its utterly absurd, and hypocritical, given the amount of criticism and scepticism you give western leaders, or even other people in their ideas. Obama bombs an Pakistani village - immediately, he is denounced, and rightly so, yet when Salin sends thousands to a gulag, supresses a revolution, makes a pact with Hitler, kills other Bolsheviks, its somehow excusable. Its utterly absurd.

And I am going to make an argument now that will be controversial, but your line is similar to the 'revisionist' historical line, or a Christian fundamentalist line. I quite admire your technique. You are very staunch in your beliefs to the extent that you define an argument in such a way that you make our claims seem absurd. I think a major problem is, you do fucktonnes of research into trying to find a way to justify Stalin, using, and elts be honest, predominantly pro-Stalin sources, whereas most people reject Stalin out of hand because of how obvious what he did was. Its like when you'd argue with someone on revisionism - because their views (the holocaust didn't happen etc) are so absurd, so twisted and so utterly reprehensible, and the evidence against them so strong, most people don't feel a need or can't find a way to coutner their bullshit. Its like this with you. You'll find the most inane, peculiar and obscure way to defend idea after idea, or action after action, and most people don't want to get roped into an argument in which you have set the conditions for, or where the precondition to arguing is to accept killing innocent working class people is somehow acceptable. Like the religious nut or the revisionist you have passion and arguments based upon ridiculous and insulting premises.

I think its the same with you and I admire it as a technique. You are very thorough. You find alot of arguments. The point is they are all wrong, or are based upon absurd notions of what socialism is. I find it confusing that you'd follow this line of advocating Stalinism even now, because theres not even the hopefulness of an existing 'socialist' state being around to maintain your interest.

The point is, humans tend to be disgusted by things such as gulags and mass purges, funnilly enough. You call this moralism, emotionalsm, an 'unscientific' approach, I call it being human. You also almost want us to argue against our class interests - class struggle existed in Stalinist Russia, would you expect me not to fight it? Would you expect me to ignore everything I materially know about my class, the working class, and throw my support behind an unaccountable leader such as Stalin, with all his power asnd prestige? Can you really expect a nation's working class to dot that?

And what about those of us who grew up with the more libertarian tradition. I don't think an aprpeciation of people having individual freedoms as an inherent thing is a bad thing to have. Its a value that the best people have, its what causes moral outrage at pruges and work camps. I don't like the idea of mass purges because I can emphasise with innocent people suffering, which leads me to reject Stalinism. Thats just one approach, its not the sole basis of my ideology, my class itnerest is more important, but for alot of people you have to understand that base human emotion has a massive impact. If I was a Russian worker or peasant, having suffered years of oppresion, and having finnally done what marx wanted, what Lenin wanted, what every marxist and socialist theorist had advocated and had a revolution where I set up organs of working class power, and it was crushed by Stalin, how do you think I would feel? How could I justify that? Stalin was clearly acting against my class interests.

Quite frankly, your 'ideology' is a massive historical delusion at best, or at wrost the concious abandonment of any genuine class politics in favour of supporting a man just because he happened to call himself socialist and have a big army to back it up. Its sad and you can't expect us to take it lying down and you most certainly can't tell us we're ignoring the historical facts. We're looking at the facts. Maybe if you lvied in Russia you wouldn't suffer from this self delusion. Years of 'leaders' and struggles being betrayed time after time under the masquerade of 'socialism' has amde us somewhat cynical of the glorious leader who has our best itnerests at heart. Thats why we reject your 'facts' about Stalin.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I am sick of this fucking pathetic 'DURR STALIN TARNISHED THE NAME OF SOCIALISM' argument.
The bourgeois are going to slander socialism regardless of what happens.
If, in some parallel universe, your idiot messiah Trotsky ended up in charge of the CPSU (SHUDDER) and somehow managed to not run the country into the ground, he would be the one who 'tarnished the name of socialism', and we'd still have some group of ineffectual first-world 'leftist' crybabies whining about how 'Uncle Leon' ruined everything.

I'm sorry to be so rude, but sometimes all the whiny bourgeois-liberalism on this forum gets to me.

Anyway, I really liked OPs article. I never really thought of it that way, but now that I think of it, the Russian Federation is indeed pretty much the exact same thing as the Brezhnevite USSR.
I still have my own criticisms of Maoism, but this party's line is far better than any of the other Russian communist parties (mostly because of their
stance on the Chechens and other national liberation struggles) so I wish them the best of luck.

Guess how much the rest of the world gives a shit. Go on.


Answer: They don't.

[pranabjyoti]

Would you then use the same logic to conclude that one cannot criticize a capitalist president in a troubled nation because of the lack of experience that a nearly universal amount of socialists have? You cannot use experience to quantify 'good' leadership, especially if 'good' depends on class character and proletarian representation, which it does on the context of Marxism.
A capitalist President would face the problems that eventually come out from consequences of capitalism itself. NO capitalist President have to face such a situation that Stalin felt during his leadership time. IT IS JUST UNCOMPAREBLE.

Alastaire is making a fair conclusion in acknowledging the significant and impressive progress made by the USSR, as well as choosing to acknowledge the flawed leadership that led to the global tarnishing (or to many, betrayal) of socialism in Russia and states which modeled their own states after the one established by Lenin.
In my opinion, the flaw lies in global incapability of the workers to stand beside the Russian workers. The imperialist and capitalist forces are united against USSR, but the workers and other oppressed people are not awake up to that level to stand beside it. It is the root cause of the all the FLAWS.

I do not agree with all of the criticisms of the Soviet Union, however criticism is important in order to tease out the truth and asses situations for what they are and were, regardless of whether or not the bourgeoisie is exploiting/exaggerating the truth for their own benefit.
But, criticism is only good, when we are able to build something better. Can we do that at present?

[FSL]

Obama bombs an Pakistani village - immediately, he is denounced, and rightly so, yet when Salin sends thousands to a gulag, supresses a revolution, makes a pact with Hitler, kills other Bolsheviks, its somehow excusable. Its utterly absurd.



This summarises very well why some people can't just let go talking of what an awful dictatorship the USSR was. They can only understand the world in today's terms, notions of good and evil are unchanged and permanent in their minds.

Obama would be denounced by the conscious part of the working class because his actions hurt other workers. His pro-war policy would be praised by capitalists.

Let's assume a workers' state, a genuine one unlike that awful Soviet Union. Some people support Obama and his policies and to demostrate their ideas they choose to light a fire in their enterprise. The workers' state punishes them in the fittest way. If it means serving time in a gulag, then yes that way too. These actions are rightly denounced by bourgeoisie but workers praise them this time as it is their interests this policy was protecting.

So please quit that neverending "freedoms" and "rights" mumbling. There is systematic oppresion in socialism and will continue to exist until there isn't a need for it. This opression depending on the height of reactionary resistance will have its highs and lows. For example, abolishing the death penalty like the Bolshevicks did as 1917 came to an end and instigating the red terror as the Bolshevicks again did 9 months later.

If you 're raised with a diferent set of values, if your can't help but getting sick at the premise of being the one doing the opression, then pretty much you're useless to the working class. World isn't moving in the ways you so conveniently decided it needs to move. One can be for the opression of the workers or for the opression of the bourgeoisie, one can't sit in the back and judge the barbaric methods used.



The only thing remaining then is not arguing if Stalin killed so many people but if he was killing the right ones. Let's please have a conversation where we research and explain the aims of the Kulaks, of the trotskyists, of the bukharinists, of Stalinists, of revisionists, of every colliding force in the USSR and see whose policy was defending the interests of the working class. Sounds reasonable?

[RedSonRising]

A capitalist President would face the problems that eventually come out from consequences of capitalism itself. NO capitalist President have to face such a situation that Stalin felt during his leadership time. IT IS JUST UNCOMPAREBLE.

So you're saying that no capitalist president in history has ruled over a country with as many problems as Russia, and that capitalism itself could never create as many problems as this country you consider a messy but socialist country? Sounds a bit odd and a little too convenient in the advent of shedding off responsibility of the leadership.


In my opinion, the flaw lies in global incapability of the workers to stand beside the Russian workers. The imperialist and capitalist forces are united against USSR, but the workers and other oppressed people are not awake up to that level to stand beside it. It is the root cause of the all the FLAWS.

From what I understand, you believe that the leadership in the USSR failed because the workers under capitalism in the rest of the world did not revolt. I suppose then that you do not believe the USSR could have maintained itself were it not for worldwide socialism. You seem to agree with the notion that socialism in one country is impossible, which directly contradicts Stalin's open declaration that socialism in one country is possible and that it is beneficial to cooperate and peacefully coexist with capitalist/imperialist States. Do you think this is an error on his part, or the fault of the non-russian workers?


But, criticism is only good, when we are able to build something better. Can we do that at present?

We must look to the past and learn from our mistakes and successes, without being uncritical (or overly critical) and incorporate objective historical observation into our proposals in order to effectively reach and educate the masses. Making scientific adjustments in plans for political economy is important in order to ensure the survival of socialism and its ideal goals. We cannot use every successful shift in power as a crutch of faith. I am not trying to entirely condemn or worship the Soviet Union, just trying to get at the train of thought used when determining the various aspects of this State.

[bcbm]

If you 're raised with a diferent set of values, if your can't help but getting sick at the premise of being the one doing the opression, then pretty much you're useless to the working class.

i think it would be more accurate to say "then pretty much you're useless to a selection of parties and individuals who would trip over themselves to man the guillotine," given the focus on praising barbarism. if any have to die in the struggle for communism, i think that is something to be regretted and mourned, not celebrated with a morbid glee. i have no desire to be an executioner.

[FSL]

i think it would be more accurate to say "then pretty much you're useless to a selection of parties and individuals who would trip over themselves to man the guillotine," given the focus on praising barbarism. if any have to die in the struggle for communism, i think that is something to be regretted and mourned, not celebrated with a morbid glee. i have no desire to be an executioner.


This is an excellent example. Compare yourself to Guevara. Now, he was useful.

[bcbm]

This is an excellent example. Compare yourself to Guevara. Now, he was useful.

i don't think it was a particularly excellent example because i don't get "sick" over the idea of oppressing the bourgeois, nor do i even oppose the death penalty in a revolutionary situation, and i didn't express either sentiment in my statement. what i find sickening is the glorification of execution, especially by those who have most likely never been anywhere near a situation that could have ended in the end of another person's life. i don't deny the possible necessity of revolutionary violence, but i don't relish in it either.

[Pogue]

Yes. Let us see why you oppose him.


Because he exploited the working class, and killed a number of its best militants, because he supressed the Spanish revolution and murdered or imprisoned many of its best militants.



Doesn't make any sense. What are you basing this off? This is just historical conjecture. I could listen to a sermon by a priest than such anti-materialist drivel that has no basis in reality.


If I had set up an independent union in Russia to advance the class interest of the working class, what would have happened to me? If I spoke out against the policies of the government, what would have happened to me?


Well, the "people" with the same idea as yours clearly screwed up which is why we don't have an anarchist Spain or was this even possible as it would have to be "socialism in one country"http://www.revleft.com/vb/nature-stalinism-split-t109719/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif.


This sentence doesn't make sense but I think I understand what your trying to say. Obviously I believe the isolation of the Spanish revolution was and would have been a problem if it had lasted longer. You've failed to deal with the fact Stalin supressed it by the way.


Wait, how is claiming Stalinist Russia was a social democracy not a rejection of the facts?




Its economic model was somewhat closest to social democracy although state capitalist dictatorship is a more appropriate term.

Most people also reject revolution and would much rather prefer this world to stay as it is, you being one of them, no doubt.



:lol:

OK, so we've come so far in this argument we've got to the stage where its OK for you to tell me I don't advocate revolutionary socialism, OK, thats really clever of you. I wonder why I've made so many posts in favour of it :confused:

Honestly :rolleyes:


So, you're comparing Stalinists to Nazi historical revisionists. Let us see: most of your "facts" about the "crimes" of Stalin comes from Nazi sources, since the way you frame your arguments, its clear you believe there were countless millions poor working class people killed, while the actual evidence by modern academics suggests a vastly different number. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that they were working class people either. If they were workers, why do you think there are so many millions of working people around the world who defend Stalin. Is it because they're stupid or they have been "brainwashed"?


As I said you have alot in common with Nazi historical revisionists in your denial of mass murder in the defense of a man and his ideology. Simply saying people defend Stalin doesn't make it true. I am sure I could find more people who rightfully reject Stalin.


No, its not only moralistic, emotionalistic, but its also counterrevolutionary. Such "human" sentiments, which every conservative and social democrat would readily apply to any and every revolution, do not aid the working class, who can only be emancipated by a revolution. You cannot expect a revolution to be bloodless and peaceful and you cannot expect there would not be class enemies who would need to be eliminated. If you think otherwise, why did your Spanish anarchists kill so many fascists and why don't you feel any "disgust" towards them as a "human"?

Being a member of a revolutionary socialist organisation and having made a number of posts supporting the concept of a violent revolution and even going so far as to argue violence is entirely neccesary as a tactic, I think its absurd to act as if I am naive of the concept of a violent revolution. I think a violent revolution would have been neccesary to overthrow Stalin and establish a socialist society in the USSR too, as nearly happened in 1956 and 1968.

I wasn't aware that as socialists we are not allowed to have morals or emotions. Regardless, I don't think its moralism or emotionalism to not want working class people to be sent to labour camps or otherwise murdered by a regime run by a centralised totalitarian beurecracy. I think its just a matter of defending my class.

I also don't think its counter-revolutionary to oppose to supression of a revolutionary movement in Spain using state military force. I think it shows how confused your analysis is that somehow crushing workers power is 'revolutionary'. I also think the fact you constantly refer to 'my anarchists' shows how you view politics in terms of factions, not in terms of the working class.

I think your tendency to defend a 'faction' or figure such as Stalin even against the working class shows how bankrupt your politics are. I don't even know why you are allowed to post on this forum to be honest, seeing as you don't advocate revolution. You almost seem to consistently reject revolution. Even Stalin himself said that, for in example Britain, there was no need for a revolution to establish socialism. Your view of 'revolution' is of an unelected government enacting state control of industry before fighting an imperialsit power struggle. Your not a revolutionary leftist, Stalinism is thoroughly reformist, as your politics prove.

[bcbm]

Only you're like that. The rest of us are all bloodthirsty murderous rogues hellbent on bloodshed and eating babies.

i'm glad you find a troubling and all too common phenomenon amongst communists to be a big joke, though its unfortunate you seem to think my concerns only pertain to stalinists (i assume from the "baby eating" stereotype). personally i think it is exemplified as much in anarchist currents as marxist ones, albeit in different ways.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I also don't think its counter-revolutionary to oppose to supression of a revolutionary movement in Spain using state military force. I think it shows how confused your analysis is that somehow crushing workers power is 'revolutionary'. I also think the fact you constantly refer to 'my anarchists' shows how you view politics in terms of factions, not in terms of the working class.
And yet you are just as guilty of this, you talk about Marxist-Leninists as if they are a different species. So let's all be friends.

[FSL]

i don't think it was a particularly excellent example because i don't get "sick" over the idea of oppressing the bourgeois, nor do i even oppose the death penalty in a revolutionary situation, and i didn't express either sentiment in my statement. what i find sickening is the glorification of execution, especially by those who have most likely never been anywhere near a situation that could have ended in the end of another person's life. i don't deny the possible necessity of revolutionary violence, but i don't relish in it either.


No one glorified executions. They were described accurately as one form of opression used in periods of strong counter-revolutionary resistance.

How come you didn't attack Guevara btw? He *was* an executioner (actually a revolutionary who interpreted correctly the existing conditions in the struggle), the thing you would never want to become. You are politically opposed to him of course, aren't you? You think he spent all his time crying and mourning? No, he did not. So, there is no other option for him other than being among "individuals who would trip over themselves to man the guillotine". Has your luck of criticism anything to do with his face being on t-shirts? I 'd hope not.

PS You took a small turn from saying you do not want to be an executioner to not opposing it, or even denying it can be necessary. You 're on your way to becoming a stalinist! *sobs*

[FSL]

i'm glad you find a troubling and all too common phenomenon amongst communists to be a big joke, though its unfortunate you seem to think my concerns only pertain to stalinists (i assume from the "baby eating" stereotype). personally i think it is exemplified as much in anarchist currents as marxist ones, albeit in different ways.



Have you ever thought that a misconseption on your part is likely? Even a tiny, miniscule possibility?

[bcbm]

No one glorified executions. They were described accurately as one form of opression used in periods of strong counter-revolutionary resistance.

i find a general eagerness to excuse and justify various barbaric practices in a lot of posts, not just in this thread but throughout the board. certainly there is a desire for "political" killings to not be questioned.


How come you didn't attack Guevara btw? He *was* an executioner (actually a revolutionary who interpreted correctly the existing conditions in the struggle), the thing you would never want to become.possibly because bringing guevara into the argument had no relationship to the point i was was making.


You think he spent all his time crying and mourning? No, he did not.i'm not sure where i suggested one spend "all their time" on those things. though this is actually what i am talking about in a way, this idea of a "true revolutionary" being one who is cold and calculating, without human emotions, without any hesitance to pull the trigger or regret.


PS You took a small turn from saying you do not want to be an executioner to not opposing it, or even denying it can be necessary.i didn't take any turn. there is a difference between reluctance and refusal.



Have you ever thought that a misconseption on your part is likely? Even a tiny, miniscule possibility?

i've been involved on the left for some time and i've noticed these things and even been guilty of them myself. perhaps what i am saying does not apply to anyone here (though i'd be surprised), but to say it doesn't exist at all on the left is fanciful.

[bailey_187]

Because he exploited the working class

How exactly did Stalin enrich himself at the expense of workers? How did Stalin benefit from Magnitogorsk? He just loved that Iron didnt he. Where were Stalin's millions?.
Yes, there was benefits to party members, this was wrong in my opinion.



and killed a number of its best militants

Yes, unfortunately many innocent people were killed. Stalin himself admitted this at the 18th Congress of the CPSU(B)

Also, as (bourgeois) Historian Josh Wheatcroft points out in the article "On German and Soviet killings" (Europe-Asia Studies, Dec 1996 v48 n8 p1319)

The extent to which the executions were documented, with Stalin regularly reading through charge sheets making annotations would suggest Stalin genuinely beleived those killed to be guilty.

Also as John Arch Getty's book "the road to terror" shows, much of the killings were the result of Yezhov (Also documents show that Stalin often wished for less harsh punishment than many other members of the Politburo). Yezhov was himself executed for this.



If I had set up an independent union in Russia to advance the class interest of the working class, what would have happened to me? If I spoke out against the policies of the government, what would have happened to me?


You have already said that you would have wanted to overthrow the Soviet government, so take a guess. In your opinion the "interest of the working class" in the USSR would be the overthrow of the Soviet leadership, so take a guess.
In Anarchist Spain, if I spoke out against the CNT, if i spoke out against anarchism - what would have happened to me?



You've failed to deal with the fact Stalin supressed it by the way.

I will too because i know next to nothing about Spain. All i know is that the USSR organised the international brigades to fight the fascists and sent guns to shoot the fascists.



As I said you have alot in common with Nazi historical revisionists in your denial of mass murder in the defense of a man and his ideology.

If i told you Hitler killed 20million Jews, you would correct me that actually it was 6million, right? And theres nothing wrong with that - thats just stating the truth. If i told you 1 billion slaves were taken from Africa, you correct me it was actually 50million, right?
And whereas (nearly) only David Irving denies the Holocaust, many respected bourgeois historians dispute the numbers killed by the CPSU and are not outcasted like Irving is.

Also, the article i mentioned earlier by the bourgeois and anti-soviet historian Wheatcroft shows how stupid it is to compare the killings of the Nazis with the killings in the USSR.


Simply saying people defend Stalin doesn't make it true. I am sure I could find more people who rightfully reject Stalin.

over 90% of the world believe God exists - that doesn't make God real, it makes over 90% of people wrong.
I am pretty sure i can find more people who reject Anarchism as "unworkable" than that do, yet you wont accept that as a fact do you?

[Pogue]

How exactly did Stalin enrich himself at the expense of workers? How did Stalin benefit from Magnitogorsk? He just loved that Iron didnt he. Where were Stalin's millions?.
Yes, there was benefits to party members, this was wrong in my opinion.




Yes, unfortunately many innocent people were killed. Stalin himself admitted this at the 18th Congress of the CPSU(B)

Also, as (bourgeois) Historian Josh Wheatcroft points out in the article "On German and Soviet killings" (Europe-Asia Studies, Dec 1996 v48 n8 p1319)

The extent to which the executions were documented, with Stalin regularly reading through charge sheets making annotations would suggest Stalin genuinely beleived those killed to be guilty.

Also as John Arch Getty's book "the road to terror" shows, much of the killings were the result of Yezhov (Also documents show that Stalin often wished for less harsh punishment than many other members of the Politburo). Yezhov was himself executed for this.



You have already said that you would have wanted to overthrow the Soviet government, so take a guess. In your opinion the "interest of the working class" in the USSR would be the overthrow of the Soviet leadership, so take a guess.
In Anarchist Spain, if I spoke out against the CNT, if i spoke out against anarchism - what would have happened to me?




I will too because i know next to nothing about Spain. All i know is that the USSR organised the international brigades to fight the fascists and sent guns to shoot the fascists.




If i told you Hitler killed 20million Jews, you would correct me that actually it was 6million, right? And theres nothing wrong with that - thats just stating the truth. If i told you 1 billion slaves were taken from Africa, you correct me it was actually 50million, right?
And whereas (nearly) only David Irving denies the Holocaust, many respected bourgeois historians dispute the numbers killed by the CPSU and are not outcasted like Irving is.

Also, the article i mentioned earlier by the bourgeois and anti-soviet historian Wheatcroft shows how stupid it is to compare the killings of the Nazis with the killings in the USSR.



over 90% of the world believe God exists - that doesn't make God real, it makes over 90% of people wrong.
I am pretty sure i can find more people who reject Anarchism as "unworkable" than that do, yet you wont accept that as a fact do you?

How is it acceptable fr him to kill good militants? Why is it that with Stalin certain acts are excusable?

What I am talking about how there is this pathetic numbercrunching with Stalinists, they play number games, deducting a few milion here, proving another free million deserved it there.

You talk of party member priviliges, well you seemed to answer your own question there.

The spanish workers were members of the working class inr evolution, fighitng fascism and also building socialism. How could a supposed socialist object to this? Surely this would be the spread of international revolution Stalin wanted to see?

The point is, in Spain you could speak out against 'the CNT'. It wasn't the CNT who called the shots as some dictatorial body, the point is this revolution was democratic, so you could actively vote against decisions, express and debate your opinions, its called socialist democracy for christs sake.

[bailey_187]

How is it acceptable fr him to kill good militants? Why is it that with Stalin certain acts are excusable?

Yezhov was killed for the excesses. It wasn't excusable to unduly execute people.



What I am talking about how there is this pathetic numbercrunching with Stalinists, they play number games, deducting a few milion here, proving another free million deserved it there.

If you are going to state Stalin killed X number of people and its wrong, I am going to correct you. You didnt say how many you think Stalin killed so i didnt tell you how many (approximately) he killed.




You talk of party member priviliges, well you seemed to answer your own question there.

What question?
Its funny, you denounce (rightly) that the party should not have had the amount of privileges it did, but at the same time you argue about how awful it was to purge the party.



The spanish workers were members of the working class inr evolution, fighitng fascism and also building socialism. How could a supposed socialist object to this?

The Soviet Workers were members of the working class in revolution, fighting fascism and building socialism. How could a supposed socialist object to this?



Surely this would be the spread of international revolution Stalin wanted to see?

Did Spain have the chance of spreading? I dont know. I dont know much about it, so i am not going to discuss Spain.
My point was, that those who were believed to be working against Anarchism were not tolerated, correct?

[FSL]

i'm not sure where i suggested one spend "all their time" on those things. though this is actually what i am talking about in a way, this idea of a "true revolutionary" being one who is cold and calculating, without human emotions, without any hesitance to pull the trigger or regret.



This is where it's at then. Imagine a capitalist crying over how many people starve because of the market? But a worker should because he wants to be "humane"? These concepts are harmful in the long term.

Workers need to feel guilty for thinking of a revolution, while their own kind dies everyday for a million reasons without anyone sheding a tear, without them being mentioned. There is a very real need for the workers to own and control the means of production. Thusly, the revolutionary behaviour is shaped to be the one that leads them there. They aren't cold and calculating when they participate in a strike and they aren't afraid to use all the weapons in their arsenal.

The "cold-blooded" revolutionaries didn't wonder around with guns killing people but at the same time they didn't feel regret when they shot at someone if that was the only way available to advance the struggle. And yes, you do need to get rid of the false morality -handed to you by those that murder people as we speak- to get there.

[bcbm]

This is where it's at then. Imagine a capitalist crying over how many people starve because of the market? But a worker should because he wants to be "humane"? These concepts are harmful in the long term.

its interesting that you keep coming back to this idea of "crying," despite my having never used the word. i think this is indicative of the machismo this sort of perspective represents.


Workers need to feel guilty for thinking of a revolution, while their own kind dies everyday for a million reasons without anyone sheding a tear, without them being mentioned.

i don't think a strawman and an emotional appeal are going to help this discussion much.



They aren't cold and calculating when they participate in a strike and they aren't afraid to use all the weapons in their arsenal.

you seem to be under the impression that i am suggesting workers cannot or should not use whatever means are necessary to defend their power, despite my having said the opposite. i'll try to be clear- i think we should have and be prepared to use weapons and i think we should do everything possible to make their use unnecessary.


The "cold-blooded" revolutionaries didn't wonder around with guns killing people but at the same time they didn't feel regret when they shot at someone if that was the only way available to advance the struggle.

i think the idea that in so many cases it was the only way available is worth questioning. i also think its rather absurd to talk about what human beings who have executed other human beings have felt in the hours, days, months, years since that event as some sort of absolute rule. even those trained to be professional killers by the imperialists return scarred; i've never met a person who has taken a human life who didn't feel troubled in some way by that fact.


And yes, you do need to get rid of the false morality -handed to you by those that murder people as we speak- to get there.

i don't think maintaining one's humanity is "false morality," nor an obstacle to revolution.

[pranabjyoti]

i don't think maintaining one's humanity is "false morality," nor an obstacle to revolution.
Humanity to which class? The bourgeoisie and their compradors, who showed no mercy when they are winning.

[bcbm]

Humanity to which class? The bourgeoisie and their compradors, who showed no mercy when they are winning.

is it a fundamental that when we have removed our enemies from power we show them the same barbarism they visited upon us?

[pranabjyoti]

is it a fundamental that when we have removed our enemies from power we show them the same barbarism they visited upon us?
Struggle is not barbarism. In a single country, when you know well, if they are allowed to roam free, they will use that opportunity to sabotage productions processes, supply secret information to the imperialists and will take arms against the working class whenever they will get a chance, that it is certainly not "civilized attitude", it is just "idiocy".
We will only thinking of forgiving them, when there will be a worldwide overwhelming win of the working class and there will be probably little or no chance of their returning into power.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I really do find the whole Stalinism v Trotskyism argument extremely petty.

It is naive on the part of Trotskyists to believe that because of what happened to him in the 1920s, he was somehow denied some sort of 'earnt right' to lead the USSR.

Have none of you remembered the basic principles of Socialism? I get so annoyed when terms like 'Stalinism' or 'Maoism' are thrown around. If they are associated with a movement, you can bet that there is something wrong with this movement. Socialism is meant to be implemented by the people, via democratic means, by the widest possible inclusion and discussion. No good socialist should participate in such debate as Stalin v Trotsky. In reality, they both had a similar revolutionary upbringing (1910 onwards) and I highly doubt whether the USSR would have become genuinely socialist under Trotsky.

Socialism is about the people, not about the leader. Sometimes I think there are those on the left who let the leadership question become one of dogma, and forget the bigger picture.

[pranabjyoti]

Have none of you remembered the basic principles of Socialism? I get so annoyed when terms like 'Stalinism' or 'Maoism' are thrown around. If they are associated with a movement, you can bet that there is something wrong with this movement. Socialism is meant to be implemented by the people, via democratic means, by the widest possible inclusion and discussion. No good socialist should participate in such debate as Stalin v Trotsky. In reality, they both had a similar revolutionary upbringing (1910 onwards) and I highly doubt whether the USSR would have become genuinely socialist under Trotsky.
Correction, Socialism wouldn't be implemented by "people", it will be implemented by the working class. The "petty-bourgeoisie" "people" don't have the political power and will to implement socialism.

Socialism is about the people, not about the leader. Sometimes I think there are those on the left who let the leadership question become one of dogma, and forget the bigger picture.
Socialism is about class and in a class based society, every class should have a leader to represent its view and interest. No conscious worker will support a petty-bourgeoisie anarchist "leaderless" party or upsurge to build a classless society.

[bcbm]

Struggle is not barbarism.

i think its pretty clear what i am talking about.


In a single country, when you know well, if they are allowed to roam free, they will use that opportunity to sabotage productions processes, supply secret information to the imperialists and will take arms against the working class whenever they will get a chance, that it is certainly not "civilized attitude", it is just "idiocy".

i don't recall saying that those who would sabotage revolutionary efforts should be allowed to "roam free?"


We will only thinking of forgiving them, when there will be a worldwide overwhelming win of the working class and there will be probably little or no chance of their returning into power.

its not about forgiving them, but rendering them impotent.

[FSL]

its interesting that you keep coming back to this idea of "crying," despite my having never used the word. i think this is indicative of the machismo this sort of perspective represents.



You actually went as far as using the word "mourn" so I did you a favour.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/kamenev/1920/x01/x01.htm

Take a look, it's written by someone that unlike us did participate in a revolutionary struggle.

[bcbm]

You actually went as far as using the word "mourn" so I did you a favour.
yes, in that we should find it regrettable that people have to be killed, that things should have to come to bloodshed.


Take a look, it's written by someone that unlike us did participate in a revolutionary struggle."the revolution needs to defend itself." yes, and? when have i said it should not?

[pranabjyoti]

its not about forgiving them, but rendering them impotent.
To make them impotent, what we need is "Stalinist" measures. In my opening, vasectomy i.e. making one impotent against will is a kind of "cruelty".:lol:

[bcbm]

To make them impotent, what we need is "Stalinist" measures.obviously i don't think this is the case and, really, i don't think any revolutionary should. its asinine to talk about what is "needed" outside of material conditions surrounding an actual event.

[pranabjyoti]

obviously i don't think this is the case and, really, i don't think any revolutionary should. its asinine to talk about what is "needed" outside of material conditions surrounding an actual event.
If you ever take part in any kind of revolutionary activity and hope to withstand till the victory of the revolution, I hope you too will come to the same conclusion.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Correction, Socialism wouldn't be implemented by "people", it will be implemented by the working class. The "petty-bourgeoisie" "people" don't have the political power and will to implement socialism.

Socialism is about class and in a class based society, every class should have a leader to represent its view and interest. No conscious worker will support a petty-bourgeoisie anarchist "leaderless" party or upsurge to build a classless society.

The working class are the vast majority of people, by socialist definiton. They have to be, otherwise you are implementing a revolution based on a minority interest.
It depends what you mean by the 'petty-bourgeoisie'. There are many in this class who would reject a socialist revolution, however we should be careful not to shun this entire grouping. They are not bankers, they are not elites and they are not the political class. Thus, they deserve a chance to come on board.

As for the leader, I agree that leadership is needed, but not to the extent of ignorant reverance and hero worship in the case of Lenin and Stalin.

[pranabjyoti]

The working class are the vast majority of people, by socialist definiton. They have to be, otherwise you are implementing a revolution based on a minority interest.
WRONG. The vast majority of the people is petty-bourgeoisie. Small businessman, small service providers etc. Workers means those people, who are attached to production or service sector. If you strictly follow Marxian concept, then worker means those people who just give labor and have no or very little right to take decision.

It depends what you mean by the 'petty-bourgeoisie'. There are many in this class who would reject a socialist revolution, however we should be careful not to shun this entire grouping. They are not bankers, they are not elites and they are not the political class. Thus, they deserve a chance to come on board.
Petty-bourgeoisie are a dubious character. We can't rely on them totally. Petty-bourgeoisie means those people, who give labor but retain the right to take decision. As for example, a small shop owner, who can open and close his shop at his/her will. Basically, he/she is giving the same kind of service as a person working in a departmental store. But, those who works in a departmental stores are workers because they don't retain the right to join in work as per his/her will. The problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that, they are often less educated and jealous to the working class. Due to their small size of capital, they can not invest in sufficient amount to increase their productivity of labor sufficiently and their income grows slower than the working class. But, while due to their collective bargaining capability, the working class can snatch a part of the results of increased productivity (both production and service) from the bourgeoisie. That capability make the petty-bourgeoisie envious to the working class and very often they stand beside the capitalists and oppose working class. Just read Marx's "18th Brumiere of Louis Bonaparte", you can see that in the struggle of June, 1848, the petty-bourgeoisie part like the small shop-keepers, peasants fought ferociously shoulder to shoulder with the capitalists to defeat the worker uprising. In India, the mentality of the petty-bourgeoisie section to the workers is like "they want salary without working". On a any case of lock-out of industry, they often said that "the workers are responsible for the lockout and their own distress because they are demanding too much from the capitalist owner".

As for the leader, I agree that leadership is needed, but not to the extent of ignorant reverance and hero worship in the case of Lenin and Stalin.
That hero warship was a result of total lack of action from a vast majority of the workers and oppressed people of the world. At that time, they were just unable to do nearly anything and most stand by with their fingers crossing. In such a scenario, when the USSR defeated Nazi Germany, Lenin and Stalin become just hero. In my opinion, this hero warship is a kind of expression of respect to their immense sacrifice during and before the WWII.

[bcbm]

If you ever take part in any kind of revolutionary activity and hope to withstand till the victory of the revolution, I hope you too will come to the same conclusion.

even if we accept that the ussr was at some point a proletarian dictatorship, clearly the "stalinist" ultimately method failed there and the bourgeois counter-revolution triumphed, so i think it would be more sensible to hope that one evaluates the material conditions correctly and takes a pragmatic, rather than ideological, line.

[pranabjyoti]

even if we accept that the ussr was at some point a proletarian dictatorship, clearly the "stalinist" ultimately method failed there and the bourgeois counter-revolution triumphed, so i think it would be more sensible to hope that one evaluates the material conditions correctly and takes a pragmatic, rather than ideological, line.
The "Stalinist" method have been "failed" because the imperialists of world was and is united but the workers are not at present. The whole sector of imperialism stood against "Stalinist" USSR with all its tooth and claw, but most of workers and oppressed people of the world, specially from the third world hadn't been able to stand and fight shoulder to shoulder with USSR. Just think of the situation, a huge army of volunteers around the world, specially from Asia, Africa and Latin America had gone to USSR to fight and take part in the production process, what can possibly be happen? Hitler would be kicked out even before entering Minsk, far far far away from Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow.

[bcbm]

i'm not really interested in discussing historical "what-if" scenarios, my main point was in regards to the future. i would wonder why a "united working class" as you describe would travel to defend the ussr and not make revolution in their own countries.

[pranabjyoti]

i'm not really interested in discussing historical "what-if" scenarios, my main point was in regards to the future. i would wonder why a "united working class" as you describe would travel to defend the ussr and not make revolution in their own countries.
Pretty simple, an USSR can be a very good example of what socialism can be and can do and that will inspire more and more part of the working class and other part of the masses, which at the end will end up in a revolution. I, as a part of the working class, want to say that the struggle between capitalist and working class is a world phenomenon and win of working class in a single country is like winning a frontier. As a soldier of socialism, we should strengthen that frontier to penetrate deep in the enemy territory, which will weaken the enemy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

WRONG. The vast majority of the people is petty-bourgeoisie. Small businessman, small service providers etc. Workers means those people, who are attached to production or service sector. If you strictly follow Marxian concept, then worker means those people who just give labor and have no or very little right to take decision.

Petty-bourgeoisie are a dubious character. We can't rely on them totally. Petty-bourgeoisie means those people, who give labor but retain the right to take decision. As for example, a small shop owner, who can open and close his shop at his/her will. Basically, he/she is giving the same kind of service as a person working in a departmental store. But, those who works in a departmental stores are workers because they don't retain the right to join in work as per his/her will. The problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that, they are often less educated and jealous to the working class. Due to their small size of capital, they can not invest in sufficient amount to increase their productivity of labor sufficiently and their income grows slower than the working class. But, while due to their collective bargaining capability, the working class can snatch a part of the results of increased productivity (both production and service) from the bourgeoisie. That capability make the petty-bourgeoisie envious to the working class and very often they stand beside the capitalists and oppose working class. Just read Marx's "18th Brumiere of Louis Bonaparte", you can see that in the struggle of June, 1848, the petty-bourgeoisie part like the small shop-keepers, peasants fought ferociously shoulder to shoulder with the capitalists to defeat the worker uprising. In India, the mentality of the petty-bourgeoisie section to the workers is like "they want salary without working". On a any case of lock-out of industry, they often said that "the workers are responsible for the lockout and their own distress because they are demanding too much from the capitalist owner".

That hero warship was a result of total lack of action from a vast majority of the workers and oppressed people of the world. At that time, they were just unable to do nearly anything and most stand by with their fingers crossing. In such a scenario, when the USSR defeated Nazi Germany, Lenin and Stalin become just hero. In my opinion, this hero warship is a kind of expression of respect to their immense sacrifice during and before the WWII.

I think you will find that the petty-borgeoisie attitudes are moulded by the educational tools of the time. In a period of burgeoning capitalism, it is unfortunate that the majority of people in the country have reactionary, 'populist' right wing views.

You cannot have a revolution to empower a minority. The petty-bourgeoisie, by and large, are not of 'dubious character.' They are mostly ordinary people. In fact many of the petty-bourgeoisie share so much more, in terms of cultural attitudes, with workers than with the elites.

Marx is not my gospel. I suspect this is where we differ. I don't believe that Marxism has ever been a scientific concept, though I do agree with many of his ideas which is why I wouldn't say I am not a Marxist. I simply believe that we must be more pragmatic if we are to connect with people.

The ordinary person in the street is the next revolutionary, whether they own a shop, work in a store, are self-employed or slog away in a factory 50 hours a week.

[bcbm]

Pretty simple, an USSR can be a very good example of what socialism can be and can do and that will inspire more and more part of the working class and other part of the masses, which at the end will end up in a revolution. I, as a part of the working class, want to say that the struggle between capitalist and working class is a world phenomenon and win of working class in a single country is like winning a frontier. As a soldier of socialism, we should strengthen that frontier to penetrate deep in the enemy territory, which will weaken the enemy.

surely if the working class had enough strength to travel to the ussr, etc, it would possess the strength to launch numerous offensives world wide, which would do far more to weaken the bourgeoisie globally than a single outpost?

[pranabjyoti]

surely if the working class had enough strength to travel to the ussr, etc, it would possess the strength to launch numerous offensives world wide, which would do far more to weaken the bourgeoisie globally than a single outpost?
When the world imperialist force is united against USSR and the huge mass of my own country is not awake upto the level, then fighting (not travelling) for USSR would be far better option for conscious proletariat.