Question for anti-revisionists about bureaucracy

[No Capitalism]

Lot of communists say that USSR and other similar countries were not/ are not socialist, and the main argument is that bureaucracy was the ruling class elite and it exploited workers. How can you answer to this argument? Sorry if this have been answered in forum before, I just can`t find it.

[Ismail]

We also hold that the bureaucracy took hold of the Soviet Union, etc. and turned them on the road from constructing socialism to establishing state-capitalism. As to how this worked in economic terms, see the two links in my signature.

The difference is that we believe that under Lenin and Stalin the USSR was constructing socialism and that the economic system could not be called state-capitalist. (Unlike the post-50's USSR which in our view had its own bourgeoisie, etc., once again see links)

We do not believe that the bureaucracy in itself exploited workers. Bureaucracies however are at constant risk of degeneration because they lack direct contact with the proletariat, and it truly reaches a bad level when the bureaucracy becomes a thing and culture of itself, specific schools where bureaucrats send their children, etc. From this develops an atmosphere of privilege and from that basis a desire to control the state in order to retain those privileges. From this economic 'reforms' are pursued, state-capitalism is created with the managers of enterprises gaining increasingly elevated roles; ability to set wages, hire and fire workers; extract surplus-value and allocate it in the same way that the bourgeoisie under capitalism do ([spend]money-[create]commodity-[gain more]money; M-C-M), etc.

At that point the bureaucracy and new bourgeoisie are allied with each other, connections are established between the two groups, etc. Obviously significantly before this part workers control was just about completely supplanted with state control in the hands of revisionism, and instead of the socialist state moving towards giving more economic power to the workers (collectives, more control over factories, etc.) the absolute reverse occurs.

If we use the example of the Soviet Union, there was certainly a bureaucracy at play. As Lenin himself said: "It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words." (See Lenin: Collected Works Volume 32; pp. 56-57) As noted, the bureaucracy itself is not bad per se, because in any state (especially such a huge and rapidly growing state as the Soviet Union) there is bound to be some bureaucracy, but under both Lenin and Stalin both states were still on the road towards constructing socialism, all elements of the bureaucracy had to follow this line or else face punishment. Since it was pretty easy to say "Lenin/Stalin is awesome," they were able to keep said jobs.

After World War II, there was a sense of euphoria, it seems that the further construction of socialism took a bit of a backseat to international affairs. The anti-communist elements of the bureaucracy (which had steadily grown due to the economic situation of the country; they also became a culture and group within themselves) began to appear with their revisionist views on economics.

As noted in the MIA bio (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/l.htm#bland-william) of Bill Bland (whose book The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union is in my signature):

Bland came to the conclusion that Stalin had been in a minority position in the Politburo, surrounded by hidden revisionists too clever to openly attack Marxism-Leninism; further, they had straight-jacketed Stalin by means of erecting the “Cult of Personality,” which was then used as a weapon against him. Bland felt that Yezhov had subverted the secret services, who had been replaced at Stalin’s behest by Beria. Bland pointed for example, to the release of many thousands of wrongly imprisoned Bolsheviks. Bland then argued that by the 18th Party Congress Stalin had been excluded from the highest echelons of the party decision making apparatus, and had counter-attacked with his pamphlet “Economic Problems of the USSR.”

Stalin’s essay was a seminal attack on Nikolai Vosnosensky, who was linked to Khrushchev. Cosequently argued Bland, the later economic changes re-establishing capitalism in the USSR had been fought to a standstill by Stalin. Bland therefore argued a special significance for Stalin’s last work. As Bland saw it, once Stalin was dead, the capitalist “reforms” of Vosnosensky were enacted by Khrushchev and his successors.On the personality cult, see Bland's 'The Cult of the Individual': http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

The fact of the matter is that by the time Stalin died, revisionism had become ascendant in most areas of the Soviet government. When Khrushchev delivered his "secret speech" in 1956, only a few remaining Marxist-Leninists were there to be against it. (Molotov as an example, this group was later expelled as the "Anti-Party Group") In the end, the workers lacked a sufficient amount of control over the means of production and also lacked in an understanding of Marxism. In the succeeding decades Marxism-Leninism in the USSR became hopelessly corrupted. The dictatorship of the proletariat, an essential feature of Marxism, was replaced with the "party of the whole people."* Along with this came Brezhnev's "Real and Existing Socialism" which pretty much said "We're socialists; this is socialism, if you disagree then you're not a communist."

Obviously mistakes were made in the construction of socialism, but we do not really hold Lenin or Stalin responsible. Both, in our view, were genuine Communists who did the best they felt possible.

So yeah, in a nutshell that is the anti-revisionist view.

* From Bland's book:

"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary...
Our Marxist-Leninist Party, which arose as a party of the working class, has become the Party of the entire people."
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58, 90.).

[F9]

Yikes! A Stalinist!

BabylonHoruv, consider this a verbal warning, for trolling-derailing this thread.The OP makes it clear in his title, and attends his question to anti-revisionists, he didnt came to post here to listen from anyone else.Its his question, its learning, and some people should start respect this particular forum.If you have nothing(positive) to add to the conversation, or you werent asked to answer, avoid answering. Keep doing it, further action will be taken.

[Nwoye]

The difference is that we believe that under Lenin and Stalin the USSR was constructing socialism and that the economic system could not be called state-capitalist. (Unlike the post-50's USSR which in our view had its own bourgeoisie, etc., once again see links)

We do not believe that the bureaucracy in itself exploited workers. Bureaucracies however are at constant risk of degeneration because they lack direct contact with the proletariat, and it truly reaches a bad level when the bureaucracy becomes a thing and culture of itself, specific schools where bureaucrats send their children, etc. From this develops an atmosphere of privilege and from that basis a desire to control the state in order to retain those privileges. From this economic 'reforms' are pursued, state-capitalism is created with the managers of enterprises gaining increasingly elevated roles; ability to set wages, hire and fire workers; extract surplus-value and allocate it in the same way that the bourgeoisie under capitalism do ([spend]money-[create]commodity-[gain more]money; M-C-M), etc.

At that point the bureaucracy and new bourgeoisie are allied with each other, connections are established between the two groups, etc. Obviously significantly before this part workers control was just about completely supplanted with state control in the hands of revisionism, and instead of the socialist state moving towards giving more economic power to the workers (collectives, more control over factories, etc.) the absolute reverse occurs.

If we use the example of the Soviet Union, there was certainly a bureaucracy at play. As Lenin himself said: "It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words." (See Lenin: Collected Works Volume 32; pp. 56-57) As noted, the bureaucracy itself is not bad per se, because in any state (especially such a huge and rapidly growing state as the Soviet Union) there is bound to be some bureaucracy, but under both Lenin and Stalin both states were still on the road towards constructing socialism, all elements of the bureaucracy had to follow this line or else face punishment. Since it was pretty easy to say "Lenin/Stalin is awesome," they were able to keep said jobs.
this is great analysis, I'm just curious as to why we couldn't apply it to Stalin-era Soviet Union, or even the period after the Civil War and before Lenin's death. As you noted there was a large and powerful bureaucratic class in both of these respective time periods, albeit at different stages in development. So what separates Stalinist bureaucracy from post-stalinist bureaucracy? You hinted that it had something to do with the bureaucracy being accountable to Stalin, but this isn't totally true and it makes the assumption that Stalin was a genuine socialist.

[Ismail]

So what separates Stalinist bureaucracy from post-stalinist bureaucracy?Mainly that it was at least nominally in the service of the people of the Soviet Union and was restricted from establishing state-capitalism. To say that there was no difference between them would be erroneous. A vast majority of the bureaucracy carried over flawlessly to Khrushchev—yet Khrushchev was opposed to Stalin, as was said vast majority of the bureaucracy. Khrushchev happily revised and/or bastardized various Marxist pillars as part of his "destalinization" drive, and the only real opposition within the party was a relatively small group of people, and within the upper echelons there was almost none save Molotov, Kaganovich, and a few others that were easily overwhelmed.


You hinted that it had something to do with the bureaucracy being accountable to Stalin, but this isn't totally trueTo say that the bureaucracy was 100% accountable to Stalin and had to bow to his every move is of course the flip-side of "Stalin was omnipotently evil," but the bureaucracy gained its legitimacy by upholding Stalin. As Bland noted in that personality cult thing I linked to, bureaucrats were happy to promote Stalin's cult of personality because it served their own interests.

In Stalin: Man of History (1979) by Ian Grey, he notes that (p. 233):

On December 21, 1929, the nation celebrated Stalin's fiftieth birthday with unprecedented extravagance... It was the beginning of the Stalin cult, which developed on a phenomenal scale.

The frenetic adulation was in part the enthusiastic work of the party machine in Moscow and of the party officials throughout the country. They were praising and ensuring that the people joined by praising their chief, the General Secretary of the party. They owed their positions to him and they knew how his authority could reach into the most distant corners of the party organization. But servility and self-interest were accompanied by genuine veneration...

While accepting the need for the cult, however, Stalin probably took little active part in promoting it. The Yugoslav communist Milovan Djilas, meeting him in 1945, formed the opinion that "the deification of Stalin . . . was at least as much the work of Stalin's circle and the bureaucracy, who required such a leader, as it was his own doing."Source cited by Grey for Djilas quote: Milovan Djilas, Conversations with Stalin (London, 1962), p. 98.

Molotov in his 1970's-80's recollections of Stalin (in Molotov Remembers, 1994) recounts that Stalin was critical of the cult at first, but he was able to get used to it; to secure himself from criticism and keep factional disputes at bay simply because Stalin's words equaled the words of God as far as the party went.


it makes the assumption that Stalin was a genuine socialist.... which just so happens to be what Anti-Revisionists believe.

[Nwoye]

Mainly that it was at least nominally in the service of the people of the Soviet Union and was restricted from establishing state-capitalism.
There's the key word. Of course the bureaucratic class said they were acting in accordance with the people's goal of achieving socialism, but that doesn't mean they were. I


To say that there was no difference between them would be erroneous. A vast majority of the bureaucracy carried over flawlessly to Khrushchev—yet Khrushchev was opposed to Stalin, as was said vast majority of the bureaucracy. Khrushchev happily revised and/or bastardized various Marxist pillars as part of his "destalinization" drive, and the only real opposition within the party was a relatively small group of people, and within the upper echelons there was almost none save Molotov, Kaganovich, and a few others that were easily overwhelmed.

To say that the bureaucracy was 100% accountable to Stalin and had to bow to his every move is of course the flip-side of "Stalin was omnipotently evil," but the bureaucracy gained its legitimacy by upholding Stalin. As Bland noted in that personality cult thing I linked to, bureaucrats were happy to promote Stalin's cult of personality because it served their own interests.I'm not arguing for continuity between Staling and Khrushchev, and I recognize that Stalin did attempt to purge the bourgeois elements of the bureaucracy. The point remains however that the bureaucratic state apparatus was largely independent from civilian input (and only indirectly accountable to Bolsheviks), and that its existence created a controlling class who directed production and distribution through capitalist productive relations - the M-C-M cycle.

You can argue that this bureaucracy was "constructing socialism", but I don't really know what that means and I don't think socialism can come about through the concentration of control of capital in a state apparatus.


In Stalin: Man of History (1979) by Ian Grey, he notes that (p. 233):
Source cited by Grey for Djilas quote: Milovan Djilas, Conversations with Stalin (London, 1962), p. 98.

Molotov in his 1970's-80's recollections of Stalin (in Molotov Remembers, 1994) recounts that Stalin was critical of the cult at first, but he was able to get used to it; to secure himself from criticism and keep factional disputes at bay simply because Stalin's words equaled the words of God as far as the party went.I'm not going to argue with your interpretation of the personality cult, because I don't know enough about it. It's also interesting to hear that Stalin wasn't the driving force behind it.


... which just so happens to be what Anti-Revisionists believe.I know, but you're kind of assuming what you're trying to prove here.

[Ismail]

Of course the bureaucratic class said they were acting in accordance with the people's goal of achieving socialism, but that doesn't mean they were.I would say that collectivization, for example, was an example of the bureaucracy working towards the construction of socialism. Many bureaucrats at the same time, however, took the Bukharin line and had to be forced into accepting collectivization to retain their jobs. Many bureaucrats also had to abide by quotas to ensure that they were doing a "good job," which led to incidents of friction among them and the people. For example, in the book Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan the author noted how local party leaders pretty much threatened peasants who didn't collectivize by vowing to remove their voting rights. Of course, since these peasants were already critical of the government and didn't really participate in politics to begin with, the result was largely ineffective.


You can argue that this bureaucracy was "constructing socialism", but I don't really know what that means and I don't think socialism can come about through the concentration of control of capital in a state apparatus."Constructing socialism" in this case pretty much refers to ending/reducing exploitation and promoting socialist economics, etc. Obviously workers lacked adequate control over the means of production, which was a serious problem and played a big part in revisionism and state-capitalism becoming ascendant. The drive towards centralization in state hands, of course, has its origins in the industrialization campaigns and such. Since the bureaucracy is based in the state, they are thus hostile to the devolution of control from the state to the workers.


I know, but you're kind of assuming what you're trying to prove here.That's because I've argued plenty of times that Stalin was a socialist in other threads. I don't think it needs to be repeated here since we're talking about the bureaucracy.

[No Capitalism]

Thanks for good explanation, Ismail.:)

[cb9's_unity]

Ok so now I have a question. Do anti-revisionists believe that democracy is essential to socialism? From the way this article has gone it sounds like the bureaucracy was not a democratic organ. To anti-revisionists is the socialist economy more important than democratic rights. Do you support only having a single party control the state?

Also Ismail seems to say that Stalin and Lenin were putting the USSR on the road to socialism or constructing socialism. Yet many other anti-revisionists seem to say that the USSR was in fact already socialist by the time Stalin died, or even by the time Lenin died. So was the USSR on the road to socialism or did it already arrive at its destination?

[Nwoye]

I would say that collectivization, for example, was an example of the bureaucracy working towards the construction of socialism. Many bureaucrats at the same time, however, took the Bukharin line and had to be forced into accepting collectivization to retain their jobs. Many bureaucrats also had to abide by quotas to ensure that they were doing a "good job," which led to incidents of friction among them and the people. For example, in the book Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan the author noted how local party leaders pretty much threatened peasants who didn't collectivize by vowing to remove their voting rights. Of course, since these peasants were already critical of the government and didn't really participate in politics to begin with, the result was largely ineffective.

"Constructing socialism" in this case pretty much refers to ending/reducing exploitation and promoting socialist economics, etc. Obviously workers lacked adequate control over the means of production, which was a serious problem and played a big part in revisionism and state-capitalism becoming ascendant. The drive towards centralization in state hands, of course, has its origins in the industrialization campaigns and such. Since the bureaucracy is based in the state, they are thus hostile to the devolution of control from the state to the workers.
Exactly. I appreciate your agreement that workers lacked adequate control of production (and I would argue governmental functions as well). I think it would follow from this that constructing socialism could only come about through the expansion of worker control - ie putting power back into the hands of localized worker-controlled organs. But this isn't what happened - for pretty much the entirety of the Soviet Union's existence, economic and political power was centralized in a bureaucracy, as you've acknowledged.

And I think you're example of collectivization can be used to illustrate my point. When stalin and the USSR underwent the collectivization drive, they were often taking away the small and private plots of poor peasants (i don't want to get into a debate over kulaks here) and incorporating them into collective farms, which were managed by state-appointed bureaucrats/CP members. There wasn't really any collectivization going on - it was the breaking up of the village mirs (which Bolsheviks viewed as backwards and reactionary) and the institution of state control over agriculture. The peasants gained no real control over their own land or their own well being, and arguably lost a little bit of it.

From a mode of production standpoint, I think it's actually a reasonable opinion to hold that Stalin's collectivization represented a shift to feudal relations of production in rural Russia. There still existed separation in relations to production (class society), and I think it's fair to say that that workers had no real control over the governmental process, so it's not really socialism. However, I don't think it's accurate to characterize it as capitalism since the distinct features of capitalism (alienation from production, selling of labor on a market) did not exist. I probably don't know enough about the feudal mode of production, but it's the only way I can describe it.

Now why did this happen. I think you explained it well in your post, and it has nothing to do with an evil men/great men theory of history, but rather a analysis of the class conflict underlying the situation. It's clear that a strong and independent bureaucratic class existed at this time and had significant control of economic production and political power. If we want to consider all states a dictatorship of a class, then the soviet union was the dictatorship of a bureaucratic class. And as you know, classes have fundamentally different interests, and as such the bureaucracy's interests did not match that of the working class'. We can understand the drive towards collectivization as, not the construction of socialism, but the institution of state control over agriculture - ie the rule of one class over another.

Anywho that's why I don't think the USSR was socialist or was constructing socialism at that given time.


That's because I've argued plenty of times that Stalin was a socialist in other threads. I don't think it needs to be repeated here since we're talking about the bureaucracy.fair enough. I don't want to get into such an argument anyway.

[Ismail]

Ok so now I have a question. Do anti-revisionists believe that democracy is essential to socialism? From the way this article has gone it sounds like the bureaucracy was not a democratic organ. To anti-revisionists is the socialist economy more important than democratic rights.Democracy is essential to socialism, yes. Democracy was evidently lacking except in the most local of areas, hence why we cannot honestly say that the USSR was an actual socialist society in the sense of "You want socialism? Look at the USSR."


Do you support only having a single party control the state?I believe that the vanguard party is important for the success of the revolution, but after that the state and party should be separated, and the party itself should have an educational role. If it cannot do this without degenerating, then it should be abolished.

Grover Furr actually noted that this was also Stalin's position (well, not abolishing the party). As he noted (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html):

Stalin seems to have believed that, once the Party was out of direct control over society, its role should be confined to agitation and propaganda, and participation in the selection of cadres. What would this have meant? Perhaps something like this.
*The Party would revert to its essential function of winning people to the ideals of communism as they understood it.
*This would mean the end of cushy sinecure-type jobs, and a reversion to the style of hard work and selfless dedication that characterized the Bolsheviks during the Tsarist period, the Revolution and Civil War, the period of NEP, and the very hard period of crash industrialization and collectivization. During these periods Party membership, for most, meant hard work and sacrifice, often among non-Party members, many of whom were hostile to the Bolsheviks. It meant the need for a real base among the masses. (Zhukov, KP Nov. 13 02; Mukhin, Ubiystvo)
This, along with the proposal to allow multiple candidates/organizations to contests elections, was refused by the party during the "Stalin constitution" discussions.


Also Ismail seems to say that Stalin and Lenin were putting the USSR on the road to socialism or constructing socialism. Yet many other anti-revisionists seem to say that the USSR was in fact already socialist by the time Stalin died, or even by the time Lenin died. So was the USSR on the road to socialism or did it already arrive at its destination?In Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism (1980), Enver Hoxha said this about the USSR:

When Khrushchev began to advocate these theses, the construction of communism in the Soviet Union not only had not begun, but moreover, the construction of socialism was not yet completed. True, the exploiting classes had been eliminated as classes, but there were many remnants of them still existing physically, let alone ideologically. The Second World War had hindered the broad emancipation of relations of production, while the productive forces, which constitute the necessary and indispensable basis for this, had been gravely impaired. The Marxist-Leninist ideology was predominant, but this does not mean that the old ideologies had been completely eradicated from the consciousness of the masses.

The Soviet Union had won the war against fascism, but another war, with other means, and no less dangerous, had commenced against it. Imperialism, headed by American imperialism, had proclaimed the "cold war" against communism and all the poisoned arrows of world capitalism were aimed at the Soviet Union first of all. Great pressure was exerted on the Soviet state and the Soviet peoples, with the aim of instilling the fear of war amongst them, diminishing their revolutionary enthusiasm, and restraining their internationalist spirit and opposition to imperialism. In the face of these internal and external pressures, Khrushchev surrendered and capitulated. He began to present the situation in rosy colours, in order to conceal his own pacifist illusions. His theses about the "construction of communism," the "end of the class struggle," and the "final victory of socialism" looked like something new, but in fact they were reactionary. They were the expression of the concealment of a new reality which was being created, of the birth and development of the new bourgeois stratum and its pretensions to establish its own power in the Soviet Union.I agree with Hoxha; USSR was generally constructing socialism, it wasn't socialist. Even Hoxha himself said towards the end of his life that Albania was not an ideal socialist society.


The peasants gained no real control over their own land or their own well being, and arguably lost a little bit of it.It is important not to overstate the "freedom" the peasants had either under the USSR's kolkhozes or, especially, pre-collectivization. While many had small plots and such, they still pretty much all faced intimidation and exploitation from kulaks.


However, I don't think it's accurate to characterize it as capitalism since the distinct features of capitalism (alienation from production, selling of labor on a market) did not exist. I probably don't know enough about the feudal mode of production, but it's the only way I can describe it.Here is a good thing on feudalism: http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm


We can understand the drive towards collectivization as, not the construction of socialism, but the institution of state control over agriculture - ie the rule of one class over another.It was still a step in the right direction. From a strategic viewpoint (although of course not very good from a socialist viewpoint), the centralization of the collectives made sense in light of Stalin's desire to achieve fast industrialization, which was validated by World War II. I would also say that the collectives, though evidently not perfect or a shining example, were a step closer to socialism, if only because one could easily move from state control to the devolution of powers to the collectives.

[Nwoye]

I agree with Hoxha; USSR was generally constructing socialism, it wasn't socialist. Even Hoxha himself said towards the end of his life that Albania was not an ideal socialist society.
I understand your sentiment here I just see no reason to believe that the USSR was genuinely constructing socialism. In my opinion this conclusion rests on the belief that an elite, bureaucratic class was acting in the interests of the working class. And I find that notion to be contrary to the very essence of Marxist theory. I think it's reasonable to accept that the bureaucracy and the social elites acted in their interests as a class, and that these interests conflicted with the interests of the working class (socialism). I also think historical record, as I explained with the example of collectivization, supports this theory.


It is important not to overstate the "freedom" the peasants had either under the USSR's kolkhozes or, especially, pre-collectivization. While many had small plots and such, they still pretty much all faced intimidation and exploitation from kulaks.
I'm on the fence as to whether or not a large and significant kulak class existed at the time (or whether it was just manufactured class warfare to justify forced collectivization), but I don't think that the methods of collectivization were a positive step towards removing all forms of intimidation and exploitation of the peasantry. As I said, I don't totally accept the view of widespread and rampant economic exploitation by wealthy peasants, and even if it did exist, I don't think taking control of villages through a state apparatus which is not accountable to the working class is an effective means of removing exploitative circumstances, ie dismantling capitalism and installing socialism.


Here is a good thing on feudalism: http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm
thanks. I simply don't have time to read all of it in depth but I'll look through it.


It was still a step in the right direction. From a strategic viewpoint (although of course not very good from a socialist viewpoint), the centralization of the collectives made sense in light of Stalin's desire to achieve fast industrialization, which was validated by World War II. I would also say that the collectives, though evidently not perfect or a shining example, were a step closer to socialism, if only because one could easily move from state control to the devolution of powers to the collectives.
But this devolution of powers in many cases already existed with the village mir, and was corrupted or outright abolished by the institution of state control. And I don't think that one could easily move from state control to devolution of powers, because, as you said: "since the bureaucracy is based in the state, they are thus hostile to the devolution of control from the state to the workers."

[cb9's_unity]

Democracy is essential to socialism, yes. Democracy was evidently lacking except in the most local of areas, hence why we cannot honestly say that the USSR was an actual socialist society in the sense of "You want socialism? Look at the USSR."But what of democratic rights? Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, again how can socialist economy trump these things. How can the socialist himself deny these things in any society.

The apparent problem with Stalin's (which I usually defended by anti-revisionists) ideology is that it makes the observant socialist choose between two imperfect society's. On one side is capitalism which, though exploitative, allows such things as freedom of speech and various other human rights. Communists and Socialists often have the right to organize and speak in capitalist society. Yet in Stalin's society these rights were clearly abolished. Even fellow Leninist's who were dissident, such as Trotsky, were thrown out of the party and thus thrown out of the leadership of the country. The positive side should be that the economy is more organized and more pro-worker. The problem is that the USSR developed its own exploitative class and never actually came to give the working class power. So while the economy of the USSR grew massively during Stalin's time in power it came at the cost of democratic and human rights. Beyond that the USSR eventually failed to ever create socialism and only served to bridge the gap between the epoch of Russian feudalism and the current epoch of Russian capitalism.

So why would socialists ever look back in any sort of positive way at Stalin? Not only did he take away any rights that socialists strive for but to put it simply, he failed at creating socialism.


I believe that the vanguard party is important for the success of the revolution, but after that the state and party should be separated, and the party itself should have an educational role. If it cannot do this without degenerating, then it should be abolished.On a different note I have a question about the importance of this vanguard. Is it essential to have one for the revolution. Is the anti-revisionist more loyal to the vanguard or the revolution as a whole? What I mean is that if there is a socialist revolution and a majority of the socialists reject the idea of a vanguard will you support that revolution?

[Ismail]

@Organized Confusion:

I'm on the fence as to whether or not a large and significant kulak class existed at the time (or whether it was just manufactured class warfare to justify forced collectivization)This is from an obviously pro-Stalin source, but it does go into some detail about the influence of the kulaks and such: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node19.html#SECTION00700000000000000000


The apparent problem with Stalin's (which I usually defended by anti-revisionists) ideology is that it makes the observant socialist choose between two imperfect society's. On one side is capitalism which, though exploitative, allows such things as freedom of speech and various other human rights. Communists and Socialists often have the right to organize and speak in capitalist society.Check this out by Lenin: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm


Even fellow Leninist's who were dissident, such as Trotsky, were thrown out of the party and thus thrown out of the leadership of the country.The question is if Trotsky represented genuine socialism or just ultra-leftism that helped the right and played into the hands of capitalism. More numerous than the Trotskyists were the Bukharinists, who were obviously to the right. (Anti-collectivization, supported the continued existence of the NEP, believed that kulaks and such could "peacefully" adapt to socialism, etc.)

Look at China during the 50's-70's. There were many lines which were represented by people. Wang Ming (pro-Soviet, 'traditional' Marxist-Leninist), Liu Shaoqi ("cautious," Bukharin-esque type), Lin Biao (third-worldist, either anti-soviet/anti-US or pro-soviet comprador depending on ones view of his alleged coup d'état plot, pro-cultural revolution), Jiang Qing/the Gang of Four (either the inheritors of Maoism or ultra-leftist pseudo-communists opportunists, very pro-cultural revolution), Zhou Enlai (anti-Cultural Revolution) and Deng Xiaoping ("market socialist," pro-US). All of these lines were distinct and it would be incorrect to say that all were pro-socialist just because they upheld socialism in words.

For example, let's take Molotov or Khrushchev. Molotov would have probably fought to keep Stalin's line alive (although he himself had his own views on things), whereas Khrushchev openly repudiated the concept of proletarian class dictatorship, preached "peaceful co-existence," etc.


So why would socialists ever look back in any sort of positive way at Stalin? Not only did he take away any rights that socialists strive for but to put it simply, he failed at creating socialism.Because he was a genuine socialist and generally did his best under the circumstances. His line was also (in our view) superior to Trotsky's, Bukharin's, Khrushchev's, etc.


On a different note I have a question about the importance of this vanguard. Is it essential to have one for the revolution. Is the anti-revisionist more loyal to the vanguard or the revolution as a whole?Leninism is the belief that the vanguard party is at least essential or near-essential for the victory of revolution. The point of the vanguard party is that it's literally the working class; the most advanced segment, the organization of the government and such, so to speak.

As Hoxha noted in 1968, one may happily turn against a revisionist "vanguard party" that has ceased to be a weapon of the proletariat:

The implementation of the norms of the Bolshevik Party or, to put it better, their deep ideological and political understanding and their actual carrying out in a revolutionary way, were not up to the mark. All these norms were correct. They were laid down and established through a titanic struggle by Lenin. They were affirmed, defended and carried out by Stalin. But in actual life, in the process of development in the practice of work and struggle, we see these norms, which at first were properly implemented, later falling into disuse, becoming rustly and, finally, distorted and turned into a sharp and very dangerous weapon in the hands of the enemies of the class and of the party. This was the case with all the revisionist parties. In these parties, they speak loudly of democratic centralism, but that is Leninist no longer.

They speak of "Bolshevik" criticism and self-criticism, but they are Bolshevik no longer. They speak of party discipline, but it is no longer a Leninist, but a fascist discipline; of proletarian morality, but the morality is bourgeois, anti-proletarian, anti-Marxist; of free expression of opinions in the Party, about everything and everybody, but the expression of thoughts in the party spirit, in the proletarian spirit, in the revisionist countries leads to jail and concentration camps. The same may be said with regard to all the genuine Leninist party norms. Thus, the official norms, irrespective of how they are disguised, are anti-Leninist, they are bourgeois, reactionary, fascist norms. Such a departure from the Leninist norms, which make up the strength of the party as a steel-like vanguard organisation of the proletariat, and the adoption of the revisionist norms, is the greatest evil that can befall a Marxist-Leninist party. It is a terrible weapon degenerating and disintegrating the party, making it depart from its historic role of transforming society....

They [the proletariat] are becoming more and more aware that, in reality, power is being wielded by a clique of renegades and their bureaucratic anti-worker administration, that the party has been transformed into a bourgeois party and the dictatorship is a bourgeois dictatorship of the new capitalist class which oppresses the masses and the working class, exploits them economically for the benefit of the new revisionist bourgeoisie, does not allow them for a single moment to demonstrate their power and to demand their rights....

Under the present-day conditions, when the revisionist cliques are completely liquidating all the victories of socialism in their respective countries, the working class of these countries must clearly understand that the revisionist party in power is no longer a party of the proletariat, but a weapon in the hands of treacherous leaders in tending to restore capitalism, to deceive the masses. Today there is no longer room for illusions, hesitations and procrastination. The working class of the revisionist countries is now faced with the historic necessity of taking its place again on the battlefield, of launching a ruthless and thoroughly consistent struggle to overthrow and smash the treacherous cliques, to carry out once more the proletarian revolution, to restore the dictatorship of the proletariat.
What I mean is that if there is a socialist revolution and a majority of the socialists reject the idea of a vanguard will you support that revolution?Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc. considered Luxemburg to have been a genuine revolutionary despite her incorrect lines. Unfortunately, those lines led to the fall of the revolution and her head being smashed in by the Social-Democrats.

Anti-revisionists support all movements that objectively weaken imperialism and capitalism, and obviously socialism is the best way to accomplish that.