Stalin's collected works completed at MIA

[anticap]

I guess this is the best place to mention that the complete transcription of Stalin's collected works (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/collected/index.htm) is now available at the Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/):


13 September 2009 (http://www.marxists.org/admin/new/index.htm): The Marxists Internet Archive is pleased to announce the completion of the year long project to transcribe all 16 volumes of the J. V. Stalin Works (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/collected/index.htm). With this accomplishment, the J. V. Stalin Archive is not only the fourth largest writer’s archive in the MIA after Marx/Engels, V. I. Lenin and Daniel Deleon, but, to our knowledge, the only site on the internet that houses the complete set of Stalin’s Works.
[Thanks primarily to Salil Sen, but also Brian Reid, Mike B. and Victor Barraza]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx2Mao has a lot of catching up to do. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's already on my reading list just below the entire Tokyo telephone directory.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That's strange - I was always under the impression that Stalin's Collected Works would be a very thin volume indeed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

His more politico-theoretical works only ;)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

From An interview with H.G. Wells (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm):


Wells : I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation with President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . .
Stalin : Not so very much.Quoted for truth. :lol:

[Revy]

I have noticed that some of MIA's archives are incomplete. Like Nahuel Moreno. The Spanish archive has plenty of writings, but only two in the English one.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky's needs completion BIG TIME!!!

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think any of the major archives - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg - are complete, let alone the lesser ones. But with Stalin it doesn't take much effort - unlike most people on the list, he was the head of a regime which never subsequently had any interest in repressing some of his works.

[bailey_187]

unlike most people on the list, he was the head of a regime which never subsequently had any interest in repressing some of his works.

Im fairly sure that after Stalin died his works were repressed.

[Yehuda Stern]

I doubt it; at any rate, with the sort of cult of personality he enjoyed during his lifetime, it was hardly possible to hide all that literature worldwide.

[Paul Cockshott]

I doubt it; at any rate, with the sort of cult of personality he enjoyed during his lifetime, it was hardly possible to hide all that literature worldwide.
The Soviets stopped publication of the latter volumes of his works after his death. These were published later in Western countries. In particular this meant that some interesting articles from the late 30s and early 50s were not included.

[ComradeOm]

Its nothing short of a crime that Stalin's archive has been completed while that of an infinitely more advanced, innovative, and relevant thinker as Gramsci remains almost entirely bare

[Black Sheep]

I guess this is the best place to mention that the complete transcription of Stalin's collected works (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/collected/index.htm) is now available at the Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/):
Wow,someone actually sat down and took the time to collect all of Stalin's works? :D

[Q]

From An interview with H.G. Wells (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm):

Quoted for truth. :lol:
Put in my sig. That is just too good to leave :D

[Random Precision]

Its nothing short of a crime that Stalin's archive has been completed while that of an infinitely more advanced, innovative, and relevant thinker as Gramsci remains almost entirely bare

It's exactly because he's more advanced, innovative and relevant that they could claim copyright on him and keep him off the MIA. :(

[Q]

It's exactly because he's more advanced, innovative and relevant that they could claim copyright on him and keep him off the MIA. :(
Isn't the copyright expired by now?

[bailey_187]

Its nothing short of a crime that Stalin's archive has been completed while that of an infinitely more advanced, innovative, and relevant thinker as Gramsci remains almost entirely bare

More relevant for intellectual masturbation: yes

Stalins works are more relevant for actually constructing Socialism. Something Trots/anarchists/ultra-leftists haven't had and i suspect never will have any use for.

(Im not attacking Gramsci BTW)

[ComradeOm]

Isn't the copyright expired by now?There is still a copyright holder. Not sure on the details but it may be only on the English translation. Then again, there may be complications arising from the fact that the Notebooks were never published while Gramsci was alive

Its annoying to say the least


Stalins works are more relevant for actually constructing SocialismActually no. In the first place the theoretical value of Stalin's works is limited at best. Only his most fanatical of apologists would claim that he was an innovative theorist on par with contemporaries such as Lenin, Bukharin, Gramsci, etc

Secondly, the actual historical worth of this collection is only slightly greater. Leaving aside the scrubbed and selective nature (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/02/16.htm) of his Works, the problem is that Stalin was not one for open and transparent governance. His time in power was marked by simple lies, shadowy cliques, contradictory policies, oblique signals, and plenty of smoke and mirrors. Sheila Fitzpatrick (Everyday Stalinism) mentions the curious practice - of which Dizzy With Success (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm) is the best example - whereby Stalin's government would enact a flawed policy through normal government channels only to have Stalin himself later publicly criticise the policy, blame subordinates for misinterpreting his will, and demand a reversal!

So no, there's no real merit in these Works because, unlike with Lenin for example, what Stalin wrote and what Stalin did were very different. These articles show only the public face of Stalin, and indeed can be considered part of his cult, rather than the rather more ruthless and skilled operator who ruled the USSR for over two decades. If you want to know how Stalin set about "constructing Socialism" then the state archives (with their secret orders and death warrants) are of far more practical use

[The Author]

The works on Stalin at the MIA are by no means exhaustive on his writings. There is a lot more material to be found from http://stalinism.ru/, particularly his correspondence with Molotov, some of his correspondence with Kaganovich, and maybe a little with Dimitrov. I don't know, because my Russian of course is very poor and I use web translators to overcome the language barrier. I haven't even begun to include the materials published by the Yale University's Annals of Communism series. And the materials remaining in the archives throughout the USSR. If more of this material were published, there would certainly be more literature from Comrade Stalin than what is offered by MIA. In fact, it would be enough literature to give a good picture of the workings of Soviet government, its accomplishments, and the problems encountered throughout administration.

I'm disappointed in MIA's inability to finish the Lenin section in English, and especially the Marx/Engels section in English. I had to download word documents off the Internet of each volume of the Russian editions of both the Marx-Engels Collected Works, and the Lenin Collected Works. Despite the language barrier, I'm satisfied with the fact that I have more material on Marx, Engels, and Lenin than MIA, even if it's in Russian. There's also an extreme shortage on MIA of materials from Hoxha, Tito, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Kim Jong Il, Janos Kadar, Todor Zhivkov, Karl Kautsky (you should read his Materialist Conception of History- it's an interesting tome), Matyas Rakosi, Georgi Dimitrov, Klement Gottwald, Horloogin Choibalsan, and the list goes on and on and on. Some websites like http://leninist.biz/ and http://nglib-free.ru/ offer materials that make up for the shortcomings. But it is certainly by no means exhaustive.

[Yehuda Stern]

Stalins works are more relevant for actually constructing Socialism. Something Trots/anarchists/ultra-leftists haven't had and i suspect never will have any use for.

That's hilarious. Can anyone here actually say with a straight face that he can stay awake reading one of Stalin's "works" for more than a paragraph?

[The Author]

Actually no. In the first place the theoretical value of Stalin's works is limited at best. Only his most fanatical of apologists would claim that he was an innovative theorist on par with contemporaries such as Lenin, Bukharin, Gramsci, etc

Actually, he's right. "Relevant for actually constructing socialism" means practical considerations, not theory. Of course you're not going to find "theory" because the key problem during Stalin's tenure in office as General Secretary was how to successfully implement the ideas of Lenin into socialist construction. He wasn't out trying to indulge in mental masturbation into the complexities and issues of Marxist-Leninist theory like a lot of the "thinkers" many on the left like to dally with have a fetish for. His problem was how to deal with day-to-day problems and utilizing theory according to practical considerations. See the Annals of Communism series for a hint of this when Stalin communicates with officials of the Soviet state and on matters of economic development, foreign policy, how to assist other communist parties, providing for agricultural and industrial development, and political policies of the day.


Secondly, the actual historical worth of this collection is only slightly greater. Leaving aside the scrubbed and selective nature (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/02/16.htm) of his Works, the problem is that Stalin was not one for open and transparent governance. His time in power was marked by simple lies, shadowy cliques, contradictory policies, oblique signals, and plenty of smoke and mirrors. Sheila Fitzpatrick (Everyday Stalinism) mentions the curious practice - of which Dizzy With Success (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm) is the best example - whereby Stalin's government would enact a flawed policy through normal government channels only to have Stalin himself later publicly criticise the policy, blame subordinates for misinterpreting his will, and demand a reversal!While I agree that the Stalin Works are by no means exhaustive, the fact of the matter is that the countering of "open and transparent" governance is a trend which has been followed in socialist countries since even Lenin himself. The "smoke and mirrors" talk is a mere representation of Soviet life brought on during the Khrushchev years as a smear tactic in order to legitimize the market and political reforms of the revisionists that has been parroted by Western scholars for many years afterwards. In the documents that have been released from Soviet archives, you get the picture that Stalin and his associates always remained true to the Marxist-Leninist ideals and that they were fanatic revolutionaries who constantly had to criticize, learn, and work from their achievements and their mistakes. Stalin's official writings which were published were a mere repetition of what he often said at Politburo, closed Central Committee, Secretariat, and Presidium of the Supreme Soviet hearings or whatever Head of State discussions transpired in his Kremlin office or his dacha at Kuntsevo for instance. This was not merely an issue of a particular personality enforcing his will, as has been portrayed over and over again (rather falsely!) by Western historians and Russian historians with a career in mind and a bone to pick with the Soviet past.


So no, there's no real merit in these Works because, unlike with Lenin for example, what Stalin wrote and what Stalin did were very different. These articles show only the public face of Stalin, and indeed can be considered part of his cult, rather than the rather more ruthless and skilled operator who ruled the USSR for over two decades. If you want to know how Stalin set about "constructing Socialism" then the state archives (with their secret orders and death warrants) are of far more practical useLike I said, his officially published Works are a reflection of what exists in the archives. Again, I recommend the Annals of Communism series from Yale, to help dispel the notions of "paranoia" or "manipulation" pushed by Khrushchev, Alexander Yakovlev, Adam Ulam, Dimitri Volkogonov, and so on that shows Stalin as a politician dedicated to Leninist ideals. There's a hell of a lot more in the archives than merely death warrants, that shows how socialism is actually constructed. In fact, Volume 14 of the Works mentioned in MIA listed above gives a very small hint of what you can find in the archives. Snippets of titles from the Annals of Communism series can be found on Google Books. The material that has been published from the archives has been very helpful in showing people the complexities of socialist construction and the fact that when socialist revolution is achieved, we will have to encounter the same problems ourselves, and that what transpired in the past offers us a great treasure trove of experience and knowledge which will most certainly help us in future revolutions.

[red cat]

That's hilarious. Can anyone here actually say with a straight face that he can stay awake reading one of Stalin's "works" for more than a paragraph?

Third-world Trots must be reading Stalin every now and then... no wonder they are sleeping through the ongoing revolutions.

[bailey_187]

Q, would i be right in assuming these two posts were also penalised for trolling?


That's strange - I was always under the impression that Stalin's Collected Works would be a very thin volume indeed.


It's already on my reading list just below the entire Tokyo telephone directory.


That's hilarious. Can anyone here actually say with a straight face that he can stay awake reading one of Stalin's "works" for more than a paragraph?


(nothing personal to the posters, i dont care about your posts but they seem to be what Q may consider "trolling")

[Q]

I'm not going to discuss my mod actions inhere.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


That's hilarious. Can anyone here actually say with a straight face that he can stay awake reading one of Stalin's "works" for more than a paragraph?

No problem, in fact, Stalin's writings on, say, dialectics are no worse than Trotsky's, Engels's, Plekhanov's or Lenin's (indeed, they are somewhat similar, in many cases, almost word for word).

[Paul Cockshott]

That's hilarious. Can anyone here actually say with a straight face that he can stay awake reading one of Stalin's "works" for more than a paragraph?

Yes. Economic Problems of Socialism is an intellectually serious work, and was treated as worthy of debate by for example Bordiga.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes. Economic Problems of Socialism is an intellectually serious work, and was treated as worthy of debate by for example Bordiga.

That work by Stalin was merely the finishing touch to a flawed, monetary framework of "socialism" that was first outlined in Kautsky's The Social Revolution. ;)

The Trotskyist equivalent can be found in at least one of the economic works of Ernest Mandel:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/index.htm

[Ismail]

What's wrong with Stalin not being a genius innovator in the field of theory? Compare this with Khrushchev, who indeed "moved forward" with such "great" ideas like repudiating the dictatorship of the proletariat:

"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. 90).

Not to mention the "Brezhnev doctrine" and "real and existing Socialism" under his successor. I'll take someone who defends Leninism over someone like Khrushchev who bastardizes Lenin as part of glorious new revelations (enacting NEP policies under the guise of "constructing socialism" rather than noting that Lenin said the policies were capitalist and temporary) or Kim Il Sung, whose Juche ideological "innovations" clearly contributed a whole lot to the world and Marxism in particular. :rolleyes:


Its nothing short of a crime that Stalin's archive has been completed while that of an infinitely more advanced, innovative, and relevant thinker as Gramsci remains almost entirely bareMainly due to copyright issues with International Publishers IIRC. Also, both men were significantly different (comparing Stalin who was a state leader to a cultural theoretician like Gramsci is like comparing Lenin to Zinn), but Gramsci was the same man who called Trotsky a "puttina" (prostitute) of Fascism while being a PCI member, so he wasn't exactly a guy who detested Stalin.


That's hilarious. Can anyone here actually say with a straight face that he can stay awake reading one of Stalin's "works" for more than a paragraph?I couldn't really sit through Trotsky's "biography" of Stalin, I basically had to read it with a friend and we both picked out absurd parts to stay awake. Most of Stalin's works were very internally-based ("SPEECH TO A WOMEN'S COLLECTIVE IN BIROBIDZHAN 1935" or whatever), but works like Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR and the previously noted interview of Stalin by Wells are in fact worth reading.


Put in my sig. That is just too good to leaveThe funniest thing is that the rest of the interview is Stalin showing the futility of Well's liberal "socialism" as Stalin defends Marxism. I'm pretty sure Stalin was being humble there. I don't think he's going to say "I'm doing a lot, like right now we're covertly arming the Popular Front and International Brigades in Spain" or something to Wells.

[Random Precision]

Isn't the copyright expired by now?


There is still a copyright holder. Not sure on the details but it may be only on the English translation. Then again, there may be complications arising from the fact that the Notebooks were never published while Gramsci was alive

The issue is over the current standard translation- Selections from the Prison Notebooks by Quintin Hoare. Originally the translator gave the MIA permission to have his translation on the archive (linky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm)) but this was in breach of the contract with his publishers, who requested it to be removed. Funnily enough the publisher is Lawrence & Wishart, which started as the publisher for the British CP, which I think puts them in with the American SWP, who sued the MIA when they began hosting Trotsky's works.

The solution might be to publish another translation- I don't think the complete Notebooks have ever been translated- but this would probably run afoul of copyright law, at least in the United States, since texts here don't go into the public domain until 95 years after the writer's death. :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

95 years? What then of my information that Kautsky's stuff was eligible after 2008 (from MIA volunteers themselves)?

[Random Precision]

Mainly due to copyright issues with International Publishers IIRC. Also, both men were significantly different (comparing Stalin who was a state leader to a cultural theoretician like Gramsci is like comparing Lenin to Zinn), but Gramsci was the same man who called Trotsky a "puttina" (prostitute) of Fascism while being a PCI member, so he wasn't exactly a guy who detested Stalin.

I actually looked this up after hearing it. Apparently Ercoli said that Gramsci had told him something like "Trotskyism is the puttana of fascism", in a letter from prison which to my knowledge he never produced. Of course, Ercoli was the same one who later tied Gramsci's name to Eurocommunism in keeping with his orders from Moscow to retreat from even the pretense of revolution.

On the other hand, Gramsci's fellow communist inmate Angelo Scucchia said that Gramsci went to great difficulty to obtain copies of Trotsky's My Life, The Revolution Betrayed and Towards Capitalism or Towards Socialism? while he was in prison. He records Gramsci saying at one point that Trotsky was "A great historian, a great revolutionary, but he's an egotist, he sees himself at the center of all events, he has no sense of the party". Which of course was the same critique of him that Lenin had toward the end of his life, and does not at all line up with the 1930s Stalinist view of Trotsky as the omnipresent demon behind every attack on socialism in the world.

(Source: Frank Rosengarten, "The Gramsci-Trotsky Question" in Social Text 11, pp. 65-95)


I couldn't really sit through Trotsky's "biography" of Stalin, I basically had to read it with a friend and we both picked out absurd parts to stay awake.

I think it's probably worth noting that while Trotsky was writing this he was in between assassination attempts ordered by the Stalinist state. Sure he may have strayed from objectivity, but it's hard to be objective about someone who's ordering you killed on the other hand.

[Random Precision]

95 years? What then of my information that Kautsky's stuff was eligible after 2008 (from MIA volunteers themselves)?

There's a lot of complexity in the law- linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, his last Marxist work was in 1909, so I'm not worried about the American law. I'm more worried about the European Union law - copyright revivals?

Sheesh, I wrote recently a programmatic commentary on IP, but I never thought copyright law was this bad (revivals)!!!

Thanks, anyway.

[Yehuda Stern]

Third-world Trots must be reading Stalin every now and then... no wonder they are sleeping through the ongoing revolutions.

Or maybe they were just slaughtered by your scum comrades back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and are repressed by them to this day when they attempt to organize.


Stalin's writings on, say, dialectics are no worse than Trotsky's, Engels's, Plekhanov's or Lenin's

Nice try.

(Man, is the RevLeft comedy parade on today)

[ZeroNowhere]

More relevant for intellectual masturbation: yes

Stalins works are more relevant for actually constructing Socialism. Something Trots/anarchists/ultra-leftists haven't had and i suspect never will have any use for.
Agreed. Stalin's works are very relevant in case there's another revolution in early 20th Century Russia.

Anyways, nobody's yet fully translated Grossman's work? What the hell. Must the workers rationally plan translation too?

[Ismail]

Or maybe they were just slaughtered by your scum comrades back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and are repressed by them to this day when they attempt to organize.Yes, the dreaded "Stalinists" are repressing Trotskyists to this day, 50+ years after Stalin died. No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labour) "Stalinist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Tunisian_Workers) party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party_of_Nicaragua) was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Comunista_de_Espa%C3%B1a) ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Labour_of_Iran) repressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_League_of_Tigray) by bourgeois governments.

For that matter, no "Stalinist" (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n1/gdrkpd.htm) party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Poland_%28Mijal%29) was repressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Revolutionary_Communists_%28Bolsheviks%29) within "Stalinist" (revisionist) states either.

It's all the work of "Stalinists."

[ComradeOm]

I had a rather lengthy rebuttal to MarxistLeninist's post but decided to delete it. In my experience its simply not worth the time arguing with Stalinists. We've seen all the usual tricks in this thread - the constant whataboutism, anti-intellectualism, blind faith in official propaganda, ridiculous double standards, constant harping about Khurshchev, etc - used to justify their exaltation of a regime whose record for executing socialist revolutionaries is amongst the worst in European history. Its an absolute waste of time presenting historical sources or arguments for these questions when they are simply to be dismissed out of hand for not conforming to their own ideological criteria


The solution might be to publish another translation- I don't think the complete Notebooks have ever been translated- but this would probably run afoul of copyright law, at least in the United States, since texts here don't go into the public domain until 95 years after the writer's deathHmmm, my translation of The Modern Prince is not by Hoare. I might contact MIA and see if they'd be interested

[Ismail]

constant harping about Khurshchev, etcWhat's wrong with "harping" about a revisionist pseudo-Marxist who openly repudiated proletarian dictatorship and (according to anti-Stalin types like Jan Šejna) purged Maoist sympathizers? And according to George Paloczi-Horvath in his 1960 book Khrushchev, he states on pages 263-4 that: "But during this struggle, the anti-Khrushchev factions in Moscow were supporting Mao... the execution of a large number of pro-Chinese Party and government officials in Outer Mongolia..."

Or do you see Khrushchev as some sort of hero? I notice you quasi-defend him a bit, you've said in another topic that revisionism shouldn't always be viewed as bad, etc. (Even though it's pretty obvious that revisionism means intentional distortion of Marxism to suit anti-Marxist ends, not general changes in policies)

[red cat]

What's wrong with "harping" about a revisionist pseudo-Marxist who openly repudiated proletarian dictatorship and (according to anti-Stalin types like Jan Šejna) executed Maoist sympathizers?

Don't... it hurts Trots.

[BobKKKindle$]

(Even though it's pretty obvious that revisionism means intentional distortion of Marxism to suit anti-Marxist ends, not general changes in policies)The problem is that I've never seen an informed account that shows that the USSR did undergo major changes in the years after Stalin's death, nor has it ever been explained what "revisionism" actually is. Marxists analyze political changes in terms of material conditions, and the balance of class forces, but as far as I can tell, all accounts of "revisionism" succeeding in both the USSR and the PRC rely on the idea of a conspiracy, and it's never explained whether revisionism is conscious or unconscious in nature, the material conditions that produce it, and so on. This stands in contrast to the Trotskyist account of bureaucratic degeneration in the 1920s, as Trotsky always took care to emphasize that the struggle within the party should not be understood as a struggle between individuals, the outcome of which would depend on personal qualities; rather Trotsky contended that he and Stalin were the personal manifestations of different social forces within Soviet society, and that the intra-party struggle was bound up with the impact of the Civil War, and the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries, as these developments had undermined the role of the Soviets as the basis of the state.

On the "state of the whole people" analysis, it's a bit simplistic to suggest that the USSR ceased to be socialist only when the dictatorship of the proletariat was abandoned as a slogan. Stalin may have claimed to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat, but then so did Mao and other socialist leaders whom Hoxhaists such as yourself reject as revisionist; this is not surprising as Marxists recognize that elites always need to justify their position through the promotion of ideologies that frequently appeal to popular sentiment and expectations, especially in states that have previously experienced revolutionary change, such as the USSR. A relevant example would be the PRC today, where the government still seeks to acknowledge Mao, and associate itself with the declaration of the People's Republic in 1949.

[Ismail]

The problem is that I've never seen an informed account that shows that the USSR did undergo major changes in the years after Stalin's death, nor has it ever been explained what "revisionism" actually is.You should read The Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html) by Bill Bland, then. It focuses on the economic changes conducted under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, none of it is based on personalities or "conspiracies."

I explained how revisionism became ascendant here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-anti-revisionists-t115738/index.html?t=115738


This stands in contrast to the Trotskyist account of bureaucratic degeneration in the 1920s...Trotsky committed quite a few mistakes himself. First off, he never realized the existence of state capitalism, which is pretty bad.

"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counter-revolutionary coup d’état which would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war."
(L. Trotsky, On the Kirov Assassination, December 1934)

Furthermore, as Charles Bettelheim noted in his work Class Struggles in the USSR: 1917-1923 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi76NB.html) on the fetishization of "the productive forces must grow" (later co-opted to revisionist heights under Khrushchev and Deng):

Like Stalin, Trotsky accepted that, after the collectivization or statization of the means of production, "there are no possessing classes,"[31 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen31)] since "private property" no longer exists. Explaining his idea, Trotsky added that there were no "possessing classes" in the USSR because the establishment of "state property" prevented any "bureaucrat" from acquiring "stocks or goods" which he could "transmit to his heirs."[32 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen32)] He also observed that "in civilised societies, property relations are validated by laws,"[33 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen33)] leaving it to be assumed that production relations belong to the superstructure and do not correspond to the relations established in the social process of production and reproduction.

We also find in Trotsky, although in caricatured form, Stalin's formula according to which the communist program must "proceed primarily from the laws of development of production," as when he writes: "Marxism sets out from the development of technique as the fundamental spring of progress, and constructs the communist programme upon the dynamic of the productive forces."[34 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen34)]

These similarities render all the more striking the difference between the practical conclusions drawn by Stalin and Trotsky respectively.

For Stalin, socialism had been achieved, in essentials, at the end of the first five year plan. For Trotsky, this conclusion was inacceptable for two main reasons: on the one hand, as he saw it, there could be no question of "socialism in a single country," and, on the other (and this calls for particular notice), "the achieved productivity of labour" was too low in the Soviet Union for it to be possible to talk of socialism having been realized there.[35 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen35)] Thus, Trotsky acknowledges that the social content of one and the same legal form can vary, but this variation is not related, for him, to different production relations (indeed, the concept of production relations is practically absent from his writings on this subject), but to "the achieved productivity of labour," and this leads him to declare that "the 'root' of every social organization is the productive forces."[36 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen36)]

Finally, from the standpoint with which we are concerned here, what characterizes Trotsky's conception is that it accepts the thesis of the primacy of the development of the productive forces in its uttermost implications, notably in the two following respects.

First, reference to the level of the productive forces enables Trotsky to bring in the notion of "bourgeois norms of distribution,"[37 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen37)] which have been dictated to the USSR by the low level of the productive forces, and which could lead to a restoration of private property. The idea of a restoration of bourgeois domination within the setting of state property is thus implicitly rejected by Trotsky, though he is unable to bring forward any genuine arguments to justify this rejection.

Second, the role which Trotsky ascribes to the development of the productive forces goes so far that it completely replaces the class struggle, so that he can write: "The strength and stability of regimes are determined in the long run by the relative productivity of their labour. A socialist economy possessing a technique superior to that of capitalism would really be guaranteed in its socialist development for sure -- so to speak, automatically . . . "[38 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/CSSUi.76i.html#pen38)]

I have quoted Trotsky at this length, alongside Stalin, in order to show the extent to which, despite the different conclusions drawn, the two theses (on the disappearance of antagonistic classes in the USSR and on the primacy of the development of the productive forces) were a sort of "commonplace" in "European Marxism" in the 1930s (remaining so until a comparatively recent date), which tended to obstruct analysis of the transformation of society in terms of the class struggle.
On the "state of the whole people" analysis, it's a bit simplistic to suggest that the USSR ceased to be socialist only when the dictatorship of the proletariat was abandoned as a slogan.The fact is that abandoning proletarian dictatorship is a pretty obvious example that Khrushchev was a revisionist. Does it explain how the USSR became state capitalist? No. (Read Bland's work for that) It does, however, show that in the field of theory he was clearly revisionist, just like Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" was revisionist, or Dengism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Nice try.

(Man, is the RevLeft comedy parade on today)

You being the biggest laugh. Here are some selections from Trotskyist and Stalinist texts, including several from Trotsky and Stalin themselves (spot the difference!):


[1] "Its conception of the inter-relation of Theory and Practice, is the vital essence of Marxism and is that one aspect of its many-faceted unity in which the significance of Dialectical Materialism is most clearly seen…. This unity is a unity of inter-relation: it is Materialist in that it is based on the primacy of practice, and Dialectical in its postulation of the indispensable precondition for both the practice and the unity….

"Its world-conception is Materialist alike in its Objectivity and in its Activity -- in that the world is conceived as a totality, and by means of its inseparably connected and never ceasing interacting movements.

"And it is Dialectical in that these inter-acting movements are recognised as begetting, of necessity, a perpetual self-transformation of the Universe as a whole -- a universally inter-connected series of processes in which old forms, formations, and inter-relations are constantly being destroyed and replaced by new forms…."

[2] "Materialist dialectics was born of the generalisation of scientific achievements and also of mankind's historical experience, which showed that social life and human consciousness, like nature itself, are in a state of constant change and development….

"Every system in the world is formed through interaction between its constituent elements. In exactly the same way all bodies acquire their properties through interaction and motion, through which their properties are manifested. Interaction is universal…."

[3] "Dialectics is the logic of movement, of evolution, of change. Reality is too full of contradictions, too elusive, too manifold, too mutable to be snared in any single formula…. Each particular phase of reality has its own laws and its own peculiar categories…. These laws and categories have to be discovered by direct investigation of the concrete whole; they cannot be excogitated by mind alone before the material reality is analysed. Moreover, all reality is constantly changing, disclosing ever new aspects of itself which have to be taken into account and which cannot be encompassed in the old formulas, because they are not only different from but often contradictory to them."

[4] "Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as just an agglomeration of things, each existing independently of the others, but it considers things as 'connected with, dependent on and determined by each other'. Hence, it considers that nothing can be understood taken by itself, in isolation….

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics considers everything as in 'a state of continuous movement and change, of renewal and development….'

"The dialectical method demands, first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in their interconnection with other things."

[5] "The dialectical [method]…involves, first and foremost, three principles: totality, change and contradiction….

"Totality refers to the insistence that the various seemingly separate elements of which the world is composed are in fact related to one another….

"In a dialectical system, the entire nature of the part is determined by its relationships with the other parts and so with the whole. The part makes the whole, and the whole makes the parts….

"Totality alone is not, however, a sufficient definition of the dialectic….

"Change, development, instability…are the very conditions for which a dialectical approach is designed to account….

"A dialectical approach seeks to find the cause of change within the system…. If change is internally generated, it must be a result of contradiction, of instability and development as inherent properties of the system itself."

[6] "Marxist dialectics…examines the world in constant motion, change and development….

"To gain knowledge of objects and phenomena, it is necessary first of all to study their constant change and development. To really know an object we must examine it in its development, 'self-motion', change.

"…Dialectics sees the sources of development in the contradictions inherent in objects and phenomena….

"The material world is not only a developing, but also a connected, integral whole. Its objects and phenomena do not develop of themselves, in isolation, but in inseverable [sic] connection or unity with other objects and phenomena….

"One of the most important aims of materialist dialectics is the study of the world as an integral connected whole, the examination of the universal connections of things."

[7] "Dialectics is also the totality of the forms of natural and socio-historical development it its universal form. For this reason the laws of dialectics are the laws of development of things themselves, the laws of development of the self-same world of natural and historical development. These laws are realised by mankind (in philosophy) and verified by the practice of transforming both nature and socio-economic relations."

[8] "Everything is not only part of the great world process but is essentially a process. Its 'nature' cannot be understood apart from the form of change it undergoes, that is, inherent in it….

"But this development is not something that proceeds in an automatic fashion, without cause…. Development is always the result of internal conflict as well as of external relations, themselves including conflict. It can only be explained and rationally grasped to the extent that the internal contradictions of the thing have been investigated."

[9] "[Dialectics] is a critique of static, fixed categories usually used in science -- categories valid within certain limits, which differ according to the case, but which prove inadequate to fully grasp the nature of reality….

"[A] further characteristic typical of processes of change is the 'negation of the negation' -- development through a new synthesis emerging which surpasses and transforms the elements of the 'contradiction'."

[10] "Dialectical thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change…. Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into quality, development through contradictions."

[11] "Dialectics is the logic of motion, development, evolution…. Engels, following Hegel, called those who think in absolute and unchanging categories, that is, who visualize the world as an aggregate of unchanging qualities, metaphysicians….

"In these abstract formulas we have the most general laws (forms) of motion, change, the transformation of the stars of the heaven, of the earth, nature, and human society….

"Dialectics is the logic of development. It examines the world -- completely without exception -- not as a result of creation, of a sudden beginning, the realization of a plan, but as a result of motion, of transformation. Everything that is became the way it is as a result of lawlike development….

"Thus, 'the materialist dialectic' (or 'dialectical materialism') is not an arbitrary combination of two independent terms, but is a differentiated unity -- a short formula for a whole and indivisible worldview, which rests exclusively on the entire development of scientific thought in all its branches, and which alone serves as a scientific support for human praxis."

[12] "Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard Nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things…are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.

"The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in Nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena….

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that Nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development….

"The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being….

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of Nature…."

The provenance of these quotations can be found here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

Go to Note 49.

Similar and mind-numbingly repetitive quotes can be added from Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin.

[ComradeOm]

What's wrong with "harping" about a revisionist pseudo-Marxist who openly repudiated proletarian dictatorship and (according to anti-Stalin types like Jan Šejna) executed Maoist sympathizers?Because he has been transformed into some sort of scapegoat who must take responsibility for every flaw and every criticism of the Stalinist system. You can't criticise Stalin or his regime without some Stalinist (in this case both you and MarxistLeninist obliged) jumping up and jabbering on about Khrushchev and the 'revisionists'. Its ridiculous and it says a lot about Stalinists


Or do you see Khrushchev as some sort of hero? I notice you quasi-defend him a bit, you've said in another topic that revisionism shouldn't always be viewed as bad, etcI have no particular preference for Khrushchev (at least no more than I would for any non-revolutionary head of state) but I do entirely reject the role in history assigned to him by 'anti-revisionists' as a, typical, reversion to Great Man histories. His time in power also compares favourably to Stalin in terms of numbers of revolutionaries executed


The problem is that I've never seen an informed account that shows that the USSR did undergo major changes in the years after Stalin's deathOh there were changes all right. Particularly so in the economic sphere where many of these were beneficial to the working class. There was a marked rise in real wages and living standards (accompanied by building campaigns to resolve the two-decades old housing crisis) as the economy moved away from a coercive model. The most obviously example of the latter was the dismantling of the MVD's industrial empire - the number of detainees fell from 5,223,000 in 1953 to 997,000 in 1959 - and a reasserting of judicial power. This is not even going into the administrative reforms of the planned economy. On the political front there was a decisive end to individual dictatorship, the zhdanovshchina 'courts of honour', constant purges, and the trappings of Tsarism that late-Stalinism had accumulated. Nonetheless none of these can be seriously called a "restoration of capitalism" and were largely administrative in nature

Where the 'anti-revisionists' completely abandon Marxism is by imagining that these reforms were either revolutionary in nature (ie, suddenly wresting the USSR from socialism and directing it down a capitalist path) or enacted by a small camarilla. The reality is that the Stalinist economic system, particularly its Party apparatus, had been under intense strain for some years and by the late 1940s was in decline. The reforms that followed his death were not the product of some external conspiracy but rather the existing government's recognition that change was necessary. The figures that embarked on these reforms (which, despite the above, were not as profound as the Stalinists make out) were almost uniformly part of the Soviet elite prior to Stalin's death

See M Lewin, The Soviet Century and M Ellman, Socialist Planning

[Ismail]

Because he has been transformed into some sort of scapegoat who must take responsibility for every flaw and every criticism of the Stalinist system.No, not really. Can you give any examples?


I have no particular preference for Khrushchev (at least no more than I would for any non-revolutionary head of state) but I do entirely reject the role in history assigned to him by 'anti-revisionists' as a, typical, reversion to Great Man histories.Except we don't claim that Khrushchev single-handedly brought state capitalism to the USSR. There are the thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats and the rising Soviet bourgeoisie from Khrushchev's economic reforms (which Bland goes into detail with and cites every step of the way). Public figures besides Khrushchev are numerous. I can name Gromyko and Liberman, for example. If we want to go into revisionism in the field of economics, Liberman was obviously far more responsible than Khrushchev in actually theorizing revisionist economics.


Oh there were changes all right. Particularly so in the economic sphere where many of these were beneficial to the working class... Nonetheless none of these can be seriously called a "restoration of capitalism" and were largely administrative in natureThese are indeed mainly administrative reforms, which is why they don't really matter. I'm talking about the buying and selling of commodities between the state and enterprises, the buying and selling of labor power, the extraction of surplus value, etc., which, once again, Bland notes in his book. You could at least take a peek at it.

As a note:

The most obviously example of the latter was the dismantling of the MVD's industrial empireThe GULAG system was a drain on the budget by the 1950's. See The Economics of Forced Labor: The Soviet Gulag (http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/6619837.html).


Where the 'anti-revisionists' completely abandon Marxism is by imagining that these reforms were either revolutionary in nature (ie, suddenly wresting the USSR from socialism and directing it down a capitalist path)Except the reforms you mentioned had little to do with state capitalism becoming ascendant.


or enacted by a small camarilla.Are you saying these were mass movements?


The figures that embarked on these reforms (which, despite the above, were not as profound as the Stalinists make out) were almost uniformly part of the Soviet elite prior to Stalin's deathYes, that's why we note the Soviet bureaucracy's existence and how it took power from actual Marxist-Leninists quite easily after Stalin's death. For example, the "Anti-Party Group" of Molotov and Kaganovich, etc., was easily defeated by revisionists with aid by Zhukov.

As Bill Bland noted in his speech on "the cult of the individual (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm)," Khrushchev was an especially noted promoter of Stalin's personality cult:

It was Khrushchev who introduced the term `vozhd' (`leader', corresponding to the German word `Führer'). At the Moscow Party Conference in January 1932, Khrushchev finished his speech by saying:

"The Moscow Bolsheviks, rallied around the Leninist Central Committee as never before, and around the `vozhd' of our Party, Comrade Stalin, are cheerfully and confidently marching toward new victories in the battles for socialism, for world proletarian revolution." (Rabochaya Moskva, 26 January 1932, cited in: L. Pistrak: The Grand Tactician: Khrushchev's Rise to Power; London; 1961; p. 159).

At the 17th Party Conference in January 1934 it was Khrushchev, and Khrushchev alone, who called Stalin

"...`vozhd' of genius." (XVII S'ezd Vsesoiuznoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii (B.); p. 145, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 160).

In August 1936, during the treason trial of Lev Kamenev(19) and Grigory Zinoviev,(20) Khrushchev, in his capacity as Moscow Party Secretary, said:

"Miserable pygmies! They lifted their hands against the greatest of all men,... our wise `vozhd', Comrade Stalin!... Thou, Comrade Stalin, hast raised the great banner of Marxism-Leninism high over the entire world and carried it forward. We assure thee, Comrade Stalin, that the Moscow Bolshevik organisation -- the faithful supporter of the Stalinist Central Committee -- will increase Stalinist vigilance still more, will extirpate the Trotskyite-Zinovievite remnants, and close the ranks of the Party and non-Party Bolsheviks even more around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin." (Pravda, 23 August 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 162).

At the Eighth All-Union Congress of Soviets in November 1936 it was again Khrushchev who proposed that the new Soviet Constitution, which was before the Congress for approval, should be called the `Stalinist Constitution' because

"...it was written from beginning to end by Comrade Stalin himself." (Pravda, 30 November 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 161).

It has to be noted that Vyacheslav Molotov,(21) then Prime Minister, and Andrey Zhdanov,(22) then Party Secretary in Leningrad, did not mention any special role by Stalin in the drafting of the Constitution.

In the same speech Khrushchev coined the term `Stalinism':

"Our Constitution is the Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism that has conquered one sixth of the globe." (Ibid.).

Khrushchev's speech in Moscow to an audience of 200,000 at the time of the treason trial of Grigory Pyatakov(23) and Karl Radek in January 1937 was in a similar vein:

"By lifting their hands against comrade Stalin they lifted them against all the best that humanity possesses. For Stalin is hope; he is expectation; he is the beacon that guides all progressive mankind. Stalin is our banner! Stalin is our will! Stalin is our victory!" (Pravda, 31 January 1937), cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 162).This same Khrushchev, of course, promptly shat upon Stalin in 1956 and condemned the personality cult. Ian Grey in his book Stalin: Man of History also notes how the bureaucracy upheld the cult of personality, how Djilas was of the same opinion, etc. The former singers of praises for Stalin being revisionists is no revelation.

[Paul Cockshott]

That was useful putting up the link to Clifford's Economics of Revisionism

[ComradeOm]

No, not really. Can you give any examples?"The "smoke and mirrors" talk is a mere representation of Soviet life brought on during the Khrushchev years as a smear tactic in order to legitimize the market and political reforms of the revisionists"

Here the opaque and bureaucratic practices of Stalinist governance are written off simply as lies spread by Khrushchev. A simple "smear tactic" that everyone has subsequently swallowed whole. Similarly, both yourself and Bland contend that the 'cult of personality' was significant furthered by... Khrushchev (surprise!) who is nicely tied to the "traitors" of the Great Purge and was obviously acting with disregard to Stalin's wishes. Bland even accuses the revisionist 'opposition' of collaborating with the Germans to overthrow Stalin in 1941! :rolleyes:

Its a testament to the sheer indefensible nature of the Stalinist regime that it is almost impossible, in my experience, for a Stalinist to study or comment on this period without reference to its opponents. Instead of evaluating the regime according to its own merits we get bouts of 'whataboutism' that define Stalinism in terms of what it was not. For example, your response to my charge as to Stalin's lack of "genius" in the field of theory was to immediately direct a knee-jerk insult at Khrushchev


There are the thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats and the rising Soviet bourgeoisie from Khrushchev's economic reformsOne might even say that a substantial majority of the Soviet state favoured the reforms, no? With the exception of a few die hard ideological Stalinists at the top there was indeed remarkably little dissent throughout the state structures. You yourself admit that the 'Anti-Party Group' was "easily defeated". Which is of course the final irony of Stalinism - it itself created the state and the conditions through which Stalin's system of government would ultimately be dissolved. Those that pioneered the reforms were not some alien faction or closed camarilla but the Party leaders and bureaucrats who had risen to power during the Stalinist period. 'Revisionism' was first and foremost a product of Stalinism

[Pogue]

More relevant for intellectual masturbation: yes

Stalins works are more relevant for actually constructing Socialism. Something Trots/anarchists/ultra-leftists haven't had and i suspect never will have any use for.

(Im not attacking Gramsci BTW)

I agree. For example, collaborating with Hitler in massacring Poles and murdering revolutionaries in Spain is a great way to build socialism. And us Anarchists are revolution-virgins, I do believe Spain never happened.

[Ismail]

"The "smoke and mirrors" talk is a mere representation of Soviet life brought on during the Khrushchev years as a smear tactic in order to legitimize the market and political reforms of the revisionists"What?


Here the opaque and bureaucratic practices of Stalinist governance are written off simply as lies spread by Khrushchev.No?


Similarly, both yourself and Bland contend that the 'cult of personality' was significant furthered by... Khrushchev (surprise!) who is nicely tied to the "traitors" of the Great Purge and was obviously acting with disregard to Stalin's wishes.Khrushchev played a large part in the government, so it's natural that he would play a big part in building up the personality cult. As Molotov noted in his memoirs (Molotov Speaks), Stalin disliked the cult, but he found it necessary to build up a support base within the party.

Quoting from Ian Grey:
"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.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 233-34.)

As for Khrushchev being tied to Trotskyists and such, he was identified at one in the 1930's. As Kaganovich noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n2/chuyev.htm) in the 1980's:

I was the one who pushed him up as I thought him to be a capable person. But he had been a Trotskyist. I informed Stalin that he had been a Trotskyist. I told this to Stalin when Khrushchev was elected a member of the Moscow Committee. Stalin asked: 'How is he now?' I replied: 'He is fighting against the Trotskyists, genuinely, actively'. Stalin then asked me to support him on behalf of the CC at the conference.
Instead of evaluating the regime according to its own merits we get bouts of 'whataboutism' that define Stalinism in terms of what it was not. For example, your response to my charge as to Stalin's lack of "genius" in the field of theory was to immediately direct a knee-jerk insult at KhrushchevBecause the charge of "Stalin didn't bring glorious innovations to Marxism" is baseless when said ideological innovations of state leaders are generally revisionist, and I gave the examples of Khrushchev and Kim Il Sung as basic examples of that.


One might even say that a substantial majority of the Soviet state favoured the reforms, no?It certainly kept them more secure and in a far better position than having to worry about their livelihood under Stalin.


With the exception of a few die hard ideological Stalinists at the top there was indeed remarkably little dissent throughout the state structures. You yourself admit that the 'Anti-Party Group' was "easily defeated". Which is of course the final irony of Stalinism - it itself created the state and the conditions through which Stalin's system of government would ultimately be dissolved.I would not blame this on Stalin, nor particularly Lenin. Both made mistakes. As I noted in my posts about bureaucracy:

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.

[...]

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.The bureaucracy started with Lenin as an inevitable process of constructing socialism. The fight against it under both Lenin and Stalin evidently failed, just as it had under Hoxha and, in a different way (more so open conflict) in China. To say that it began with Stalin is not a Marxist analysis. To suggest (as you seem to be) that Khrushchev was moving towards a more socialist path is also a strange thing to say. ("Oh there were changes all right. Particularly so in the economic sphere where many of these were beneficial to the working class...")


'Revisionism' was first and foremost a product of StalinismYet those same "Stalinists" condemned the ascending revisionist leadership. This is like saying that Eurocommunism was the offspring of "Stalinism" (which some Trots certainly do) even though "Stalinist" leaders like Hoxha condemned those obviously revisionist movements to the utmost. You could say that revisionism developed out the system in place, and you'd clearly be correct. This same system was also in place under Lenin in a less developed form, and spawned opportunists and revisionists of its own (such as Bukharin, who everyone from Trotsky to Stalin seems to agree was a revisionist).

Eurocommunism, for example, was the product of revisionism and had its predecessor in Togliati's "polycentrism" theory which was wholly endorsed by the CPSU under Khrushchev while the Maoists rightfully condemned it as an excuse for opportunism which would inevitably lead to outright reformism. You could say that Togliati and Khrushchev drew some "inspiration" from the concept of people's democracies, which was a concept that developed under Stalin, but it's little different than, say, Bukharin using selective Lenin quotes to "show" how Lenin would have been against collectivization and such.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, the dreaded "Stalinists" are repressing Trotskyists to this day, 50+ years after Stalin died.

Trotskyists attempting to organize in the Stalinist states or in states where Stalinist parties were powerful were repressed long after the 1930s. Well known are the massacres of Trotskyists by Stalinists in Yugoslavia in the 1940s and Vietnam in the 1950s. Frankly, the only states in which Trotskyists could organize were those in which the Stalinist parties were too weak to commit such vile acts.


No (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labour) "Stalinist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Tunisian_Workers) party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party_of_Nicaragua) was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Comunista_de_Espa%C3%B1a) ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Labour_of_Iran) repressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_League_of_Tigray) by bourgeois governments.

What does this prove? Social-democratic parties often get repressed as well, as do liberal or nationalist parties.



It's all the work of "Stalinists."

No, but they were always happy to offer their help when they could. In the 1930s and 1940s, the CPs happily took part in bourgeois governments and assisted in the hounding of members of the FI who were fighting for working class independence. This has repeated itself several times since. Sadly, pseudo-Trotskyist groups in some cases participated in such popular front governments (Sri Lanka and possibly Bolivia), but never had any part in persecuting members of other workers' parties.

[Ismail]

What does this prove? Social-democratic parties often get repressed as well, as do liberal or nationalist parties.It shows that "Stalinism" isn't quite so pro-bourgeoisie as you seem to think when most "Stalinist" parties were condemned and had to publically moderate their positions and participate in Popular Front governments. In France, the Communists ("Stalinists") were still marginalized and due to the insistence of Dimitrov and thus the Comintern they had to follow the Popular Front along constantly without criticizing it.

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20020918070908/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/PopularFrontFranceSpain_Final.htm

Also I would imagine that the parties of the Fourth International, although certainly repressed by the bourgeoisie when acceptable, were probably more so because the "Stalinist" parties had ties with the Soviet Union, and the USSR did much to ensure that these parties would be allowed to operate in bourgeois-democratic states without harassment. Anarchists got repressed by these states too in ways similar to FI parties. The FI was backed up by a dude living in a fortress-like house in Mexico, the Comintern was backed up by a superpower, so it's only natural.

I would also like to note this:
"A second, very serious blow to Mexico's left came when Trotsky and his Mexican followers disseminated the rumor that communists and Nazis had formed a coalition in Mexico to prepare a coup against the Cárdenas administration in the context of the approaching presidential elections. This rumor had first emerged in the U.S. Congress's Dies Investigative Committee, and it gained widespread popular attention on October 2, 1939, through a Ultimas Noticias newspaper article with the title 'Ofensiva Contra los Stali-Nazis.' It created a pro-Allied propaganda monster that, in the end, almost convinced Allied governments that its own propaganda were fact. In November 1939, the artist and sometimes Communist party member Diego Rivera reinforced existing fears when he stated that Mexico was already in the hands of the 'Communazis.' Right away, conservative Mexican anticommunist senators of Mexico's Congress jumped on Rivera's bandwagon and demanded the dissolution of the Mexican Communist Party and the denunciation of its members as traitors to the country. Against the background of the Soviet invasion of Finland, they argued 'that taking orders from Stalin and to agitate in such a manner as to be subversive in character and to undermine the framework of Mexican Governmental procedure' was un-Mexican!

The debate received new fuel on April 13, 1940, this time during the German invasions of the Benelux countries and France. Again, Ultimas Noticias published an article about 'outstanding members of the Comintern in Mexico.' Quoting Diego Rivera, a German exile, and other confidential agents as sources, the article claimed that the Comintern's goal in Mexico was to foment a civil war through agitation, with the intention of distracting U.S. attention from Europe and, subsequently, preventing the United States from entering the European conflict. Most importantly, it claimed again that Russian and German agents were working together to start a revolt in Mexico."
(Schuler, Friedrich. Mexico between Hitler and Roosevelt: Mexican Foreign Relations in the Age of Lázaro Cárdenas, 1934-1940. 1st ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1998., p. 144.)


Sadly, pseudo-Trotskyist groups in some cases participated in such popular front governments (Sri Lanka and possibly Bolivia)The Democratic People's Movement in Ecuador (which is the electoral wing of the "Stalinist," Hoxhaist MLCPE) is doing pretty well so far in that country, having a militia tradition dating back to the 1970's and not being submerged into a Popular Front. It has 5 seats and got 4% of vote in April. Also the LSSP in Sri Lanka is indeed a pretty sad excuse for a Trotskyist party, considering it was mainly popular due to the absence of any other Communist tendency.


Trotskyists attempting to organize in the Stalinist states or in states where Stalinist parties were powerful were repressed long after the 1930s. Well known are the massacres of Trotskyists by Stalinists in Yugoslavia in the 1940s and Vietnam in the 1950s.I was talking more about bourgeois-democratic states in the 1960's-today, not "states" (a warzone, a French colony in the process of fighting national liberation movements) where "Stalinist" militants fought with Trotskyists.

[Ismail]

LTTE were never "Trotskyist". They claimed to be "Marxist-Leninist" at some point but it was never official.They sound like the CPUSA of Sri Lanka, only pseudo-Trotskyist instead of pseudo-Marxist-Leninist.

[Ismail]

^Who?The LSSP...

I made a typo and intended to write LSSP instead of LTTE, considering that both organizations are obviously not similar. I corrected the typo.

[Yehuda Stern]

It shows that "Stalinism" isn't quite so pro-bourgeoisie as you seem to think when most "Stalinist" parties were condemned and had to publically moderate their positions and participate in Popular Front governments.

My point is that Stalinist parties were repressed because they were workers parties, and contained some of the most militant and/or advanced sections of the class at times. In this sense they are no different than social-democratic parties that were also repressed at times.

And what do you mean by "had to"? Who other than possibly the Comintern leaders forced them to do this? If the CPs were really revolutionary parties, certainly they wouldn't let Dimitrov shove a policy they strongly opposed down their throats.


Also I would imagine that the parties of the Fourth International, although certainly repressed by the bourgeoisie when acceptable, were probably more so because the "Stalinist" parties had ties with the Soviet Union, and the USSR did much to ensure that these parties would be allowed to operate in bourgeois-democratic states without harassment.

This isn't the only place where the symmetry breaks. When the Smith act was first used against the American Trotskyist SWP in 1941, the Stalinists applauded their persecution. When the same law was used against the CP, the Trotskyists defended the party against the state. So despite the rivalry, Trotskyists refused to allow the bourgeois state to repress a workers party. The Stalinists had no such moral qualms.


I would also like to note this:
"A second, very serious blow to Mexico's left came when Trotsky and his Mexican followers disseminated the rumor that communists and Nazis had formed a coalition in Mexico to prepare a coup against the Cárdenas administration...

This is the first time I've heard about this - in all other versions, this charge was raised by the Stalinists against Trotsky, not the other way around. Considering how strong the CP was in Mexico at the time as opposed to the Trotskyist group, I find it quite hard to believe that it was Trotskyist claims that damaged the Stalinists and not the other way around.


Also the LTTE in Sri Lanka is indeed a pretty sad excuse for a Trotskyist party, considering it was mainly popular due to the absence of any other Communist tendency.

You're a bit confused, I'm afraid. The LTTE is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam which, as far as I know, never pretended to be Marxist, let alone Trotskyist. You're referring probably to the LSSE, and if you are, you're wrong again, as it was in fact in competition with several other communist tendencies, among them the Communist Party and the VLSSP. The latter was a split from the LTTE. Still, the the LSSE seems to have been bigger than any of them, but it betrayed the workers when it joined the bourgeois government in 1964.


I was talking more about bourgeois-democratic states in the 1960's-today

In bourgeois democratic states, the only ones doing well are those parties that have historically had mass support. Where that is not the case, the CPs are as miserable as the Trotskyist groups, if not more.

[Ismail]

And what do you mean by "had to"? Who other than possibly the Comintern leaders forced them to do this?The Soviet Union would threaten to alter diplomatic relations in some cases, etc. Just like how Trotsky had to move from country to country because the USSR kept on insisting over and over to countries where he was exiled at to expel him.


If the CPs were really revolutionary parties, certainly they wouldn't let Dimitrov shove a policy they strongly opposed down their throats.They would in the name of unity and because it was the Comintern, which was ostensibly far more advanced then them in theory. This is why, for example, many Chinese Communists followed it blindly or semi-blindly and why Mao later noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_36.htm) in 1943:

It is a principle of Marxism-Leninism that the forms of revolutionary organizations must be adapted to the necessities of the revolutionary struggle. If a form of organization is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle, then this form of organization must be abolished... at present the form of revolutionary organization known as the Communist International is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle. To continue this organizational form would, on the contrary, hinder the development of the revolutionary struggle in each country. What is needed now is the strengthening of the national Communist Party of each country, and we no longer need this international leading centre.
You're a bit confused, I'm afraid...
The LSSP...

I made a typo and intended to write LSSP instead of LTTE, considering that both organizations are obviously not similar. I corrected the typo.On the Mexico thing, these the notes of the author (the notes lack numbers, so this is an approximation) to see where he got his sources:

Herman, Comintern in Mexico, 137-40.
For example, see National Archive of the United States, Record Group 59, 812.00/30809, Vice Consul K. Peyton , "Convention of the CTM in Chihuahua", Aug. 17, 1939.
Ibid., 812.00B/435, Daniels, "Discussion Protocol by Gibson about talk with Lic. Cuesta Soto/Gobernación", Sept. 7, 1939.
Ibid., 812.00/30840, Pierre Boal, Report to Secretary of State, Oct. 2, 1939.
A copy of his allegations can be found in ibid., 812.00/30862, Oct. 13, 1939. Recently, William Chase and Dana Reed have gained access to Diego Rivera's FBI file and explored Rivera's activities more closely. A summary of their work was published in the Spanish magazine Al Piñon. An English version, "The Strange Case of Diego Rivera and the U.S. State Department," can be obtained by contacting them at the University of Pittsburgh.
NAUS , RG 59, 812.00B/446, U.S. Consul Blocker, Report to Secretary of State, Dec. 14, 1939. This was later defeated and the publications of the Communist party of Mexico tried to walk a tightrope by emphasizing their adherence to Cárdenas's domestic politics.
Ibid., 862.20212/1867, Report, Apr. 16, 1940; it appeared in Ultimas Noticias on the same day.

[Hit The North]

Although this is an excellent discussion, it doesn't belong in Learning, so I'm moving it to History. I hope this doesn't hinder the discussion.

[The Author]

I had a rather lengthy rebuttal to MarxistLeninist's post but decided to delete it. In my experience its simply not worth the time arguing with Stalinists. We've seen all the usual tricks in this thread - the constant whataboutism, anti-intellectualism, blind faith in official propaganda, ridiculous double standards, constant harping about Khurshchev, etc - used to justify their exaltation of a regime whose record for executing socialist revolutionaries is amongst the worst in European history. Its an absolute waste of time presenting historical sources or arguments for these questions when they are simply to be dismissed out of hand for not conforming to their own ideological criteria

They aren't "tricks." It's just a criticism of the usual sectarian tripe that gets spewed by many around here on a regular basis. I've heard the tired old comments about "blind faith in official propaganda" and so-called "exaltation" from people who criticize us for supposedly following blindly ideological criteria, yet at the same time are very much guilty of doing it themselves. It's humorous every time I read a remark that "Stalinists just don't get it" when I have seen numerous times over and over that "Stalinists" do take the time to explain the facts and get the record straight. The problem is that others belonging to different tendencies are so brainwashed into their sectarian ways either are too ignorant or too arrogant to pay attention to what is being said. And it's in cases like these when I can't accept such "criticisms" because they are merely hot air. There is a lot more in terms of literature, history, and material, than what you have been taught in school or have had access to in your libraries or the Internet. The key is to open your mind. That's what Marxists do. Sectarians follow lines, and complain about other tendencies "following lines" when they do the same exact thing at the same time.

I do not care if some Trotskyist or Anarchist feels in their hearts that the "revolution was betrayed" and they keep harping on "Stalin" and "Stalinism." It's irrelevant to me because: 1- I've been doing more research on Stalin, the USSR, socialist countries, and communist history for the past five years much more extensively and have read more literature and media and been in more contact with people than these people have, and 2- I present information only to those who are interested in reading, be they fellow Marxist-Leninists or members of other tendencies (it makes no difference to me) who feel the sectarian barriers need to be dropped and are very capable of doing that. If one doesn't want to read what I write, and dismiss me as a "dogmatic Stalinist," so be it. I'm not losing any sleep over it.


The problem is that I've never seen an informed account that shows that the USSR did undergo major changes in the years after Stalin's death

I would recommend Power in the Kremlin by Michel Tatu for starters. Gives the reader a lot of political and economic information on the changes which occurred in the U.S.S.R.

I also recommend researching the Machine-Tractor Stations, the Shchekino Method, and Evsei Liberman as examples of the attempts at market reform performed during this period in question.


as Trotsky always took care to emphasize that the struggle within the party should not be understood as a struggle between individualsReading his literature, I tend to get the opposite impression. Just enter the term "Stalin" after clicking Alt-Edit-Find into numerous works written by Trotsky in the 1920s and 1930s, and it becomes apparent to comrades that Trotsky is having a personal grudge match with the man, has a bone to pick with him for being "wronged" as Lenin's "successor."

[Woland]

The reality is that the Stalinist economic system, particularly its Party apparatus, had been under intense strain for some years and by the late 1940s was in decline. The reforms that followed his death were not the product of some external conspiracy but rather the existing government's recognition that change was necessary.

I would think you are joking- or atleast, if that is not the case, outright lying. Certainly, this is the consequence of your constant whining which we have seen so far in this thread, to which I will not respond- for exactly the same reasons you wouldn't answer MarxistLeninist's post - but the lie that the ''Stalinist economic system'' was in a decline must be dealt with, using the works of actual economists.

''The reality'' is that:

1. USSR was the first country in Europe to abandon ration cards after the war- in 1947, several years before, for example, Great Britain, which was damaged considerably less in the war, while getting aid from the USA.

2. In the 5 post-war years the growth of industrial production, in comparison with 1940, more than doubled - 123% (compared with 1929 industrial production in the USSR grew by 12.6 times, in USA it doubled, GB- 60%, Italy- 34%, France- 4%). Reconstruction took only 3 years, compared to 30 years as was thought to be the case by the West.

Source: D. T. Shepilov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepilov


accompanied by building campaigns to resolve the two-decades old housing crisis

3. Already in 1943 the State Defense Committee was drawing up plans on returning production to general peacetime industry. In May 1944, the SDC already gave out orders on production of especially needed equipment- for the construction industry. If anything, Stalin was known for always planning far ahead (not to mention his support for things like cybernetics)- They were still building factories in the 60's with orders signed by Stalin.

The huge amount of poor quality suburban houses built by Khrushchev is nothing but a testimony to his wasteful capitalist mentality- get more land instead of improving what is already used, build more tractors instead of repairing the old and broken ones, build lots of shabby houses instead of large centralized complexes, etc.


There was a marked rise in real wages and living standards

4. Yes- but under Stalin- In 1953, the 10 most consumed goods (bread, meat, fish, milk, eggs, etc.), on average, cost almost twice as less as they did in 1947. This is counting the fact that every year the rouble became more expensive- meaning, that, every year, pensions, stipends, wages, all were worth even more (something quickly destroyed by Khrushchev). So basically, every year people were earning more and more, while consumer goods were becoming less and less expensive due to the great increase in their production. D. T. Shepilov, who joined Khrushchev in slandering Stalin, and who I already mentioned above, wrote, that:


In 1952, state shops and kolkhoz markets were all overwhelmed with products. The policy of annual decreasing of prices meant a visible increase in real wages.

Now this is a very interesting phenomenon, because at the same time, in the capitalist countries, prices were increasing- in 1952, compared to 1947, bread became 28% more expensive in USA, GB- 90%, France- 108%, meat- 26%, 35%, 88%, oil- 4%, 125%, 92%, respectively.

From 1928 to 1955, growth of production of consumer goods in the USSR was 595% per capita.

In fact, people in the 50's USSR were eating much better than people in the 1990's. In 1994, people ate 1.7 times less bread, 1.25 times less meat, 1.4 times less fish, 2.2 times less fruit, etc. than in 1952- and by 1960 people in the USSR were eating almost twice as much as they did then, having caught up with developed countries.

Prices at kolkhoz markets were more or less the same as those of the state shops- before becoming twice as expensive when Khrushchev took away land from kolkhoz worker's private plots in 1959.

If the ''Stalinist'' economic system would have been kept and reasonably modernized, and Stalin stressed such development in Economic problems of socialism, and if it would have been focused on further increasing the standard of living, and there were no problems with that in 1953, by 1970 USSR would have been in the top 3 of countries with the highest standard of living.

Note: All of the above statistics come from the economist V. Sharapov, his sources being archives.


dismantling of the MVD's industrial empire

Getting rid of forced labor did hardly any damage to the economy, and was of practically no importance in the post-war years, unlike before.


Now, this is just about the 40's and early 50's- when Stalin was still alive- however- the 50's were much much more impressive than even the 30's- to put it simply, if the 30's was the decade when the Soviet planned economy was built, the 50's was the decade when it boomed- with the 60's-80's being the decades of its dismantling.

Some statistics for 1950's, from the economist G. Hanin:

GDP growth, 1951-1960, with 1951 taken for 100%:

USSR- 244%
USA- 133%
GB- 127%
France- 158%
FRG- 217%
Japan- 253%

Source: USSR- ''National economy of USSR, 1922-1982''
Other countries- ''National economy of USSR in 1967''.

Industrial production, 1951-1960, with 1951 taken for 100%:

USSR- 228%
USA- 145%
GB- 135%
France- 180%
FRG- 242%
Japan- 476%

Source: USSR- G. I. Hanin, ''Dynamics of the economic development of USSR''
Other countries- ''National economy of USSR in 1967''.

Changes in labor productivity in industry, 1951-1960, with 1951 taken for 100%:

USSR- 146%
USA- 134%
GB- 122%
France- 159%
FRG- 153%
Japan- n.d.

Now, this means that, because the GDP grew by more than 100%, and the number of employed increased only by 22%, over 80% of the GPD increase came from the increase in labor productivity- while before the war, it was about 50%.

Furthermore:

1. Between 1951 and 1960, the number of new types of machines and equipment taken for production grew from 650 units to 3089.

2. Great successes in science and technology- first satellite, nuclear power plant, etc. Soviet computing technology at that time was not behind that of the USA, together with things like metallurgy, electricity generation (such as a single electroenergetic system in the European part of the country), etc.

3. Rapidly growing urbanization, new branches of the economy (production of computer technology, instrumentation, chemical industry, air transport, production of rare metals), fundamental technical reconstruction of railway transport, modernization of the system of scientific institutions in various fields of science and technology.

4. Eradication of malnutrition, doubling of consumption of more expensive clothing, shoes, several times increased the consumption of goods such as radios, clocks, bicycles, sewing machines, etc. reaching a rather high level. First mass production of new technology like TV sets, refrigerators, washing machines, etc.

5. Increase of average living space per capita by 2.5 times, reaching the levels of highly developed countries.

6. Life expectancy of 69 (higher than today), the level of other highly developed countries.

7. Basic production funds rose by 70% in the decade. The number of machine tools grew from 1.2 million units in 1951 to 2.44 million in 1962.

8. Electricity generation grew from 19.6 million kw in 1950 to 66.7 million kw in 1960- an increase of over 3 times. Number of commissioned housing units increased by more than 2.5 times.

9. Mass production of nuclear weapons, missile technology for various purposes, creation of powerful jet aircraft, formidable air defense systems, a huge submarine fleet on the basis of modern diesel and nuclear submarines - it is important to emphasize not only the enormous numbers, but the high technical level of equipment, often not inferior to that in the U.S. Army, that would have been impossible without a highly developed arms industry, other related branches of industry, and a developed scientific base for defense studies.

10. The budget for education grew from 5.7 billion roubles in 1950 to 10.3 in 1960, the health and sport budget- from 2.1 billion to 4.8 billion. The percentage of spending on education, health and science from the Soviet GDP, was, as it is known, one of the highest in the world.

11. High efficiency and stability in finances.

12. A great increase in trained specialists in high positions, qualifications of workers and technical personnel.

The economic successes of the 1950's were so great that many Soviet economists, and the vast majority of Western economists studying the Soviet economy, together with the western leaders, all had the idea that in the future, the USSR will inevitably exceed the U.S. economy. Most of the Soviet leadership thought it would happen in the 1970's (''Communism by 1980''), or what most of western economists expected: 1980-90's.

Sources: G. I. Hanin, ''Dynamics of the economic development of USSR'', ''National economy of USSR in 1967'', M. Hlusov, ''Development of Soviet industry'', S. Strumilen, ''On the ways of building communism''.

In fact, there was quite a lot of hysteria in the West about this in the 50's, coming from economists, even presidential candidates, pointing out the insane rates of growth, all fearing that if this would happen, the capitalist system would be doomed, as the world's largest industry and the highest standard of living would be the undefeatable argument for socialism- no wonder the only thing they could do was to constantly repeat that the USSR is a ''totalitarian country where everyone is killed...''

However, already by the end of the decade, the planning process was more or less dismantled, and already by the mid 60's there were signs of a large problem as plans couldn't be met. Some of the changes happened right after Stalin's death- for example, the number of economic indicators grew from 4744 in 1940 to 9490 in 1953, and then they steadily decreased to 6308 in 1954, 3390 in 1957, and only 1780 in 1958. Things like shortening of the work day to 6, and later 5 hours, (It was 7 in the 30's), suggested by Stalin, were abandoned. A lot of the people in the ''anti-Party'' group were highly skilled directors- Molotov, Kaganovich, etc. Indeed, it's no wonder that people say that Stalin contributed more to practice than to theory- because, Stalin, during his time, actively studied many branches of the economy, and was probably one of the most technically skilled people, besides Beria, in the Soviet leadership.

[Paul Cockshott]

Woland provided some very useful statistics there.
I am interested if the sources are only in Russian?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I read some of his things, and indeed I can confirm what I already though: Stalin was more a man of the deed, he practised ideas instead of inventing new ones:cool:.

[pranabjyoti]

Sorry to say to the critics of Stalin that none have mentioned so far HOW STRAINOUS THE PERIOD OF LEADERSHIP WAS. The baby socialist country is under attack from all sides by the imperialist forces and the workers in the other countrirs, specially in the third world was in deep sleep. So, he, alone with the proletariat of USSR have to fight and win over. None of the critics so far have been in such a position I guess. I am VERY VERY CURIOUS to see what else they can do if they were in the leadership in such a critical situation.
DOING SOMETHING IS VERY HARD, CRITICISING ANYTHING IS VERY EASY.

[pranabjyoti]

The problem with Trotskytes is that. They are talking about Marxism and Dialectic Materialism but what they are practising is the "Trotskyte" religion. Where Trotsky is the God and Stalin is the Devil. What I think, instead of fighting against "Stalinism", why he hadn't tried to make revolutions in other part of the world, even tried to go to any communist party and as a leader help them to continue struggle against capitalism and lead to revolution. In that case, there would be much more trotskytes today. PLEASE, DON'T TELL ME THAT THE STALINISTS ARE POKING THIER IN EVERY COMMUNIST PARTY AND FORBID TROTSKY TO DO SO. That would mean that Stalin is controlling not only USSR, but also other communist parties of the world too in his own "Stalinist" (as said by trotskyte and imperialists together) fashion. That will mean that you are vomitting the same capitalist-imperialist lies.

[red cat]

PLEASE, DON'T TELL ME THAT THE STALINISTS ARE POKING THIER IN EVERY COMMUNIST PARTY AND FORBID TROTSKY TO DO SO.

Stalinists had to do it wherever they could; they wanted to save the communist parties, you know.

[pranabjyoti]

I can understand red cat. The problem with Trotskytes and anarchist is that, I have always heard them to say "it is not"; I have never heard them to say "it is that". As for example, the USSR (under Stalin) is not a socialist country, but a capitalist. Even China under Mao Ze Dong too is a "capitalist" country, Cuba too. But, I just want to ask them, instead of fighting "Stalinism" and is most of the cases vomitting the same damn shit of propaganda from capitalist-imperialists against Stalin and Mao Ze Dong, if they themselves had put a small percentage of their effort in fighting capitalist imperialism (which in my opinion is the ACUTAL job of marxists at present), they just concentrate their effort in fighting "Stalinism", which I have so far haven't seen any adverse effect on capitalism-imperialism.
So far, I know that the real minds of neo-liberal ideology are the former Trotskytes of USA. Is it true?

[pranabjyoti]

I read some of his things, and indeed I can confirm what I already though: Stalin was more a man of the deed, he practised ideas instead of inventing new ones:cool:.
No, he is also an inventor too. Actually, like an engineer, he is trying to apply the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and on the way, to overcome the obstacles, he is inventing. Actually, he never emphasised his findings like a true communist. But, without his leadership, USSR at its early stage can't overcome the obstacles that it had faced.
For a long time, I have thought of the grabing of power by the Khruschen-Zukov revisionist block. In my opinion, the actualy fact is continuous fighting with external and internal enemies and loss of many pricessless lives of real partisans in the process. From 1917 onwards to until 1st May, 1945, continuous fight and other problems have nearly wiped out the workers and other fighters, who had created the first socialsit country of the world.
As a part of world proletariat, I think the capturing of power and party by revisionists and petty-burgeoise forces in both USSR and China is a result of the inability of the world proletariat. Marx, in his writing about the Paris Commune, said that "while the communers are fighting the Germans, the whole France stay aloof". The same is true for USSR too, while they are fighting the imperialist forces and the nazis, the world porletariat, basically the oppressed people from the third, like my own country India, was in deep sleep. If there was sufficient consciousness among the people from third world, the damage to USSR done by nazis and other imperialist forces would be much more minimal. Just think of the idea that there is a flow of human resources to USSR from Asia, Africa, Latin America, I CAN CLEARLY TELL THE THE NAZI ARMY WOULD BE KICKED OUT BEFORE ENTERING EVEN MINSK, FAR FAR AWAY BEFORE STALINGRAD, LENINGRAD.
Moreover, the capitalist-imperialist countries like USA, UK always and still having a huge flow of human resources from the third world. Because, with their domination in the world economy, they have successfully thrown the English language to a huge part of the world. In my own country, the language of the higher education, specially subjects related to science and technology is English still today. So, naturally, those who are studying in English, will have a natural tendency for USA, UK, Canada like countries. USSR lags far behind the imperialist countries in this aspect of having human resources and so naturally, in the long run, it lags behind in the technological and scientific development.
Today, at this age of internet, in my opinion, if any country i.e. the countries workers and other general public have done some kind of coup for grabing power from the ruling elite class and burgeoise sect, they should put great emphasis on having human resource help from all over the world. I am pretty sure that there are many more people, with capability to contribute cerebrally, are willing to work for progress of socialism, but are compelled to work with imperialism.

[red cat]

No, he is also an inventor too. Actually, like an engineer, he is trying to apply the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and on the way, to overcome the obstacles, he is inventing. Actually, he never emphasised his findings like a true communist.


I think that what we are actually referring to is a qualitative development of Marxism Leninism. Stalin did not develop Marxism Leninism in that sense. He mainly extended Leninism to the practical development of socialism.




But, without his leadership, USSR at its early stage can't overcome the obstacles that it had faced.

Correct.



For a long time, I have thought of the grabing of power by the Khruschen-Zukov revisionist block. In my opinion, the actualy fact is continuous fighting with external and internal enemies and loss of many pricessless lives of real partisans in the process. From 1917 onwards to until 1st May, 1945, continuous fight and other problems have nearly wiped out the workers and other fighters, who had created the first socialsit country of the world.
As a part of world proletariat, I think the capturing of power and party by revisionists and petty-burgeoise forces in both USSR and China is a result of the inability of the world proletariat. Marx, in his writing about the Paris Commune, said that "while the communers are fighting the Germans, the whole France stay aloof". The same is true for USSR too, while they are fighting the imperialist forces and the nazis, the world porletariat, basically the oppressed people from the third, like my own country India, was in deep sleep. If there was sufficient consciousness among the people from third world, the damage to USSR done by nazis and other imperialist forces would be much more minimal. Just think of the idea that there is a flow of human resources to USSR from Asia, Africa, Latin America, I CAN CLEARLY TELL THE THE NAZI ARMY WOULD BE KICKED OUT BEFORE ENTERING EVEN MINSK, FAR FAR AWAY BEFORE STALINGRAD, LENINGRAD.


Yes, the martyring of countless communists in WW2 left a space in the RCPB which the revisionists quickly filled up.
However, the blame for losing the first base of the world revolution should not be on the world proletariat. I would rather blame RCPB, because it was the vanguard of the Russian preoletariat, the CC of the RCPB, because they were elected to lead the RCPB, and mainly Stalin, because he had been elected to lead the CC.

Stalin's main fault was not being able to develop Lenin's mass line properly. While he directed the state machinery correctly against the remnants of the bourgeoisie, he did not initiate it from the bottom, i.e. from the masses. This led to a very powerful bourgeois dictatorship once the revisionists usurped power. I think that if Stalin had been able to develop the mass-line correctly, the counter-revolution would not take place despite the damage inflicted on the USSR by WW2.

However, since the establishment and consolidation of socialism in USSR was the first phenomenon of its kind, it was particularly diffcult to extend Leninist mass-line and implement it. Actually no one could come up with it until the counter-revolution took place. It is after a thorough observation and analysis that Mao Dze Dong was able to this later. Hence, our stand on Stalin is, that first of all we uphold him as a great Marxist-Leninist who enriched our revolutionary experiences by building socialism in the USSR and helped the communist revolutionaries worldwide. Then we criticize him for his failure to save USSR from the revisionists.

[YKTMX]

It's already on my reading list just below the entire Tokyo telephone directory.

:cool:

Having tried to read some of his works (I doubt he even wrote most of the stuff attributed to him), I'm convinced his name is attached to some of the worst writing, never mind "Marxist" "theory", ever produced.

[bailey_187]

:cool:

Having tried to read some of his works (I doubt he even wrote most of the stuff attributed to him), I'm convinced his name is attached to some of the worst writing, never mind "Marxist" "theory", ever produced.

Why do you doubt this?

Which of his writings did you find so awful?

[Spawn of Stalin]

A few of Stalin's writings are pretty mediocre, but the bulk of his work is solid, there are some real gems too. Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Anarchism or Socialism? and his writings on the national question are all Lenin standard in my opinion. And yeah, Stalin wrote all of his own work, I've never seen any evidence contrary, it's pretty great that people think that just because the general consensus is that Stalin was a "butcher", and a "power mad tyrant", that the man couldn't write well. I love Stalin's critics because they will just do anything to make a dig at the man, so what's next? Stalin couldn't swim? Couldn't ride a bike? Maybe we can all have a laugh and a joke about the size of his penis? Jesus.

[RHIZOMES]

I think it's probably worth noting that while Trotsky was writing this he was in between assassination attempts ordered by the Stalinist state. Sure he may have strayed from objectivity, but it's hard to be objective about someone who's ordering you killed on the other hand.

Isn't there a bit about Stalin's "sinister semi-asiatic eyes" or something?

[Ismail]

Isn't there a bit about Stalin's "sinister semi-asiatic eyes" or something?He does mention "Asiatic" (including the first sentence of Chapter I) 11 times in the first chapter, and none after that. For example: "Of course, in two centuries the Petersburg bureaucracy could not replace the old Asiatic barbarism with a European culture of which its own country was still in sad need."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/stalin/index.htm

[red cat]

He does mention "Asiatic" (including the first sentence of Chapter I) 11 times in the first chapter, and none after that. For example: "Of course, in two centuries the Petersburg bureaucracy could not replace the old Asiatic barbarism with a European culture of which its own country was still in sad need."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/stalin/index.htm


So Trotsky was openly racist?

[Lenin II]

So Trotsky was openly racist?

Can you honestly say you are surprised?

I predict this thread to be free of Trots now.

[scarletghoul]

"Asiatic" was a commonly used word back then, referring to what was percieved as the crazy backwards nature of 'the east'. It was racist orientalism (something which is still around very much today, though its not stated so explicitly).
Russia was seen by early marxists (including marx) as an oriental despotism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_despotism

The racist orientalist attitude can be seen today when people talk about various asian countries, most noticably China and the DPRK

[red cat]

Can you honestly say you are surprised?

I predict this thread to be free of Trots now.

:D

[Yehuda Stern]

So Trotsky was openly racist?

Can you honestly say you are surprised?

Please, let's not start with the debate over who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Murdered_Poets) was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitans) the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot) racist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Trials)

[red cat]

Agreed. The evidences are too strong this time to even have a debate. Trotsky's own works couldn't have been bourgeois propaganda(like all the stuff you have linked to) against him, you know.

[Yehuda Stern]

There is no evidence. There's one quote of Trotsky using the word "Asiatic," against many cases of persecution and murder of Jews by Stalinists, the denial of which is to be frank no better in essence than holocaust denial.

[red cat]

There is no evidence.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:



There's one quote of Trotsky using the word "Asiatic," against many cases of persecution and murder of Jews by Stalinists, the denial of which is to be frank no better in essence than holocaust denial.

You should also take into consideration the destruction of Atlantis by Trotsky.
He wiped out a whole civilization.

[Led Zeppelin]

He does mention "Asiatic" (including the first sentence of Chapter I) 11 times in the first chapter, and none after that. For example: "Of course, in two centuries the Petersburg bureaucracy could not replace the old Asiatic barbarism with a European culture of which its own country was still in sad need."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/stalin/index.htm


Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution. What does this mean? It means that the democratic reforms in the political system and the social and economic reforms, which have become a necessity for Russia, do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, the undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid, European, and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will, for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm)

One is naturally inclined to compare the provisional President of the Republic in benighted, inert, Asiatic China with the presidents of various republics in Europe and America, in countries of advanced culture.
Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1912/jul/15.htm)

The Chinese people suffer from the same evils as those from which the Russian people suffer—they suffer from an Asiatic government that squeezes taxes from the starving peasantry and that suppresses every aspiration towards liberty by military force; they suffer from the oppression of capital, which has penetrated into the Middle Kingdom.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/dec/china.htm)

The epoch of the bourgeois revolution in Russia, no less than in other countries, is distinguished by a relatively undeveloped state of the class contradictions peculiar to capitalist society. True, in Russia capitalism is more highly developed at the present time than it was in Germany in 1848, to say nothing of France in 1789; but there is no doubt about the fact that in Russia purely capitalist antagonisms are very very much overshadowed by the antagonisms between “culture” and Asiatic barbarism, Europeanism and Tartarism, capitalism and feudalism; in other words, the demands that are being put first today are those the satisfaction of which will develop capitalism, cleanse it of the slag of feudalism and improve the conditions of life and struggle both for the pro letariat and for the bourgeoisie.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/02.htm)

Russia is a semi-Asiatic country, and therefore in Russia the policy of "encroachments" not infrequently assumes the grossest form, the form of pogroms. It need hardly be said that in Russia "guarantees" have been reduced to the very minimum.

Germany is, however, European, and she enjoys a measure of political freedom. It is not surprising that the policy of "encroachments" there never takes the form of pogroms.

In France, of course, there are still more "guarantees," for France is more democratic than Germany.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm)

[Ismail]

Please, let's not start with the debate over who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Murdered_Poets) was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitans) the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot) racist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Trials)Stalin was skeptical of Timashuk's allegations according to both Ian Grey and Stalin's daughter, Svetlana.

On the Doctors Plot: http://web.archive.org/web/20020918064001/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All30v.htm
On Cosmopolitanism: http://web.archive.org/web/20020918064926/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/COSMOPOLITANISM-COMPASS131-1998.HTM

Furthermore, in places like Poland, Soviet soldiers happily defended Jews from pogroms: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n2/furr.htm

MarxistLeninist (then known as CriticizeEverythingAlways) PM'd me in 2007 his thoughts on the "Night of the Murdered Poets":

I'm thinking that what transpired was this: some of the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia of Jewish background, started to put their faith behind the state of Israel and might have written a number of articles attacking the Soviet Union for its denunciations of Zionism which got them in trouble. I don't doubt Western imperialists starting supporting them as spies, either. It wasn't a "Soviet pogrom," I believe these events were examples of fights against the trend of Zionist nationalism building up among the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia and revisionist-leaners.
*Lenin quotes*When did I ever deny that Lenin used the word? So did Kautsky (saying that the DOTP was "more Asiatic than European (http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1932/commsoc/ch04.htm)" as a concept), etc.

[scarletghoul]

It's really not news. Racism was common then, and the idea of the backwards asiatic society was common among marxists.

And Lenin saying it doesnt make it right lool

[Led Zeppelin]

You're not getting the point; the terms "European" and "Asiatic" were used by Marxists to describe the difference between feudalist and bourgeois systems. Not only Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin used it in that manner, so did practically any other Marxist from that period. It doesn't have anything to do with racism, it was reality. Feudalism was, and still is, considered backward by Marxists in comparison to bourgeois society.

Calling the one "European" and the other "Asiatic" would be anachronous at this point though, for obvious reasons.


When did I ever deny that Lenin used the word? So did Kautsky (saying that the DOTP was "more Asiatic than European" as a concept), etc.

Yeah, and so did Stalin.

The point is that you were being, or trying to be, intellectually dishonest by only pointing out Trotsky's use of the word and hinting at him being a racist at the same time.

[Ismail]

You're not getting the point; the terms "European" and "Asiatic" were used by Marxists to describe the difference between feudalist and bourgeois systems. Not only Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin used it in that manner, so did practically any other Marxist from that period. It doesn't have anything to do with racism, it was reality. Feudalism was, and still is, considered backward by Marxists in comparison to bourgeois society.It was racist because it was used to indicate that Europeans should "guide" colonies and such towards revolution.

Engels: "In my opinion the colonies proper, i.e., the countries occupied by a European population, Canada, the Cape, Australia, will all become independent; on the other hand the countries inhabited by a native population, which are simply subjugated, India, Algiers, the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish possessions, must be taken over for the time being by the proletariat and led as rapidly as possible towards independence." (Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_09_12.htm))

Lenin himself held this view, as noted in A Peace to End All Peace (p. 476):

The Bashkir leader, Zeki Velidi Togan, writes (years later) that in 1920 Lenin had told him that the problem in the colonial countries was that they lacked a proletariat. In communist theory the proletariat was to dictate and to lead, but the peasantry of the East did not have an industrial working class to do that for them. In effect this meant that the peoples of the East were not yet ready to exercise their right to be free. According to Togan, Lenin said that even after the socialist revolution had succeeded everywhere in the world, the former colonies of the European Great Powers would have to remain in tutelage to their former masters until such a time as they developed an industrial working class of their own.
The point is that you were being, or trying to be, intellectually dishonest by only pointing out Trotsky's use of the word and hinting at him being a racist at the same time.Trotsky applied it towards Stalin; a person. He does it over and over. There's clearly a racist undertone to it. Portraying Stalin as a backwards peasant, presenting his homeland as a place with "romantic traditions of highway robbery and gory feuds still very much alive," etc. It's perhaps excusable, but it's still racism. He wasn't the only one to do it (Kamanev said that one could "expect anything from that Asiatic" in 1925, see Stalin: A New History, p. 18) among others.

[Led Zeppelin]

It was racist because it was used to indicate that Europeans should "guide" colonies and such towards revolution.

Lenin himself held this view, as noted in A Peace to End All Peace (p. 476)

I'm not interested in you trying to prove that Lenin was a racist and believed that Europeans had to "guide colonies to revolution".

If you want to believe that go ahead. I personally believe Lenin's own writings on the subject which state the opposite and stress the importance of the "Asiatic revolution". In one early article of his, ironically, Lenin says that the momentum of revolution is changing from the west to the east and that this is a great development.


Trotsky applied it towards Stalin; a person.

And Stalin applied it to Russia; a whole nation.

This is pointless.

[Ismail]

In one early article of his, ironically, Lenin says that the momentum of revolution is changing from the west to the east and that this is a great development.I am aware of this, it is "Tactics of the Russian Communist Party, Report to the Third Congress of the Communist International" in 1921.


And Stalin applied it to Russia; a whole nation.Tell me where Stalin basically compares Russians to a bunch of barbarians who love to engage in thievery, or something to that extent.

The "Asiatic" analysis can easily succumb, and has often succumbed, to racism. For example, can you say this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1921/georgia/ch01b.htm) from Kautsky is not racist? "Still more important was the fact that Georgia was once more able to enter into relations with Europe. But the representatives of European civilisation were practically confined to Russian officials, generals and aristocrats, who brought from Europe what they themselves had assimilated, the external gloss which did not always sufficiently hide Asiatic barbarism."

[RotStern]

Communism is cool.

[Led Zeppelin]

I am aware of this, it is "Tactics of the Russian Communist Party, Report to the Third Congress of the Communist International" in 1921.

No, I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to other writings of his like this one, from 1913:


However, the opportunists had scarcely congratulated themselves on “social peace” and on the non-necessity of storms under “democracy” when a new source of great world storms opened up in Asia. The Russian revolution was followed by revolutions in Turkey, Persia and China. It is in this era of storms and their “repercussions” in Europe that we are now living. No matter what the fate of the great Chinese republic, against which various “civilised” hyenas are now whetting their teeth, no power on earth can restore the old serfdom in Asia or wipe out the heroic democracy of the masses in the Asiatic and semi-Asiatic countries.

Certain people who were inattentive to the conditions for preparing and developing the mass struggle were driven to despair and to anarchism by the lengthy delays in the decisive struggle against capitalism in Europe. We can now see how short-sighted and faint-hearted this anarchist despair is.

The fact that Asia, with its population of eight hundred million, has been drawn into the struggle for these same European ideals should inspire us with optimism and not despair.

The Asiatic revolutions have again shown us the spinelessness and baseness of liberalism, the exceptional importance of the independence of the democratic masses, and the pronounced demarcation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie of all kinds. After the experience both of Europe and Asia, anyone who speaks of non-class politics and non-class socialism, ought simply to be put in a cage and exhibited alongside the Australian kangaroo or something like that.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/01.htm)

Do you want others from earlier?


Tell me where Stalin basically compares Russians to a bunch of barbarians who love to engage in thievery, or something to that extent.

Tell me where Trotsky compares "Asians" or Russians to a bunch of barbarians who love to engage in thievery, or something to that extent.


The "Asiatic" analysis can easily succumb, and has often succumbed, to racism. For example, can you say this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1921/georgia/ch01b.htm) from Kautsky is not racist?

I'm not going to defend Kautsky, mostly because he was a petty-bourgeois reactionary on who the accusation of "racism" sticks very well.

[Ismail]

No, I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to other writings of his like this one, from 1913:Even then he throws in "Asiatic" under a different guise: "The fact that Asia, with its population of eight hundred million, has been drawn into the struggle for these same European ideals should inspire us with optimism and not despair."

It doesn't contradict what Togan claimed Lenin said to him. No one is saying that "Asiatic" types were incapable of being Communists.


Tell me where Trotsky compares "Asians" or Russians to a bunch of barbarians who love to engage in thievery, or something to that extent.
Once again, from Trotsky's bio:

The Tsarist government laid down the necessary strategic roads, partially renovated the cities, and established a rudimentary network of schools, primarily for the purpose of Russifying these alien subjects. Of course, in two centuries the Petersburg bureaucracy could not replace the old Asiatic barbarism with a European culture of which its own country was still in sad need.
In the Caucasus, with its romantic traditions of highway robbery and gory feuds still very much alive


The fact remains that Stalin was not among those who understood the inadmissibility of guerrilla actions under conditions of revolutionary retreat. And that was no accident. To him the Party was first of all a machine. The machine required financial means in order to exist. The financial means could be obtained with the aid of another machine, independent of life and of the struggle of the masses. There Stalin was in his own element.(A friend of mine summed up the last one nicely: "Not racist but Stalin was most in his element when he was pillaging and thieving")

[Led Zeppelin]

So you think that those quotes say what you claimed they say, that saying something about Stalin equals saying the same thing about all Russians or "Asians", and that Lenin was a racist up until 1921.

Ok, I'm going to leave this discussion now if you don't mind.

[Ismail]

So you think that those quotes say what you claimed they say, that saying something about Stalin equals saying the same thing about all Russians or "Asians",I'm saying that rather than limit "European" versus "Asiatic" analyses to capitalism versus "particular" feudalism (which can still create racist overtones), Trotsky went a bit further than some. His case was by no means unique, people from across spectrums and occupations said similar things, such as Walter Duranty saying that (http://www.colley.co.uk/garethjones/soviet_articles/duranty_1931_1.htm): "In thirteen years Russia has transformed Marxism—which was only a theory anyway—to suit its racial needs and characteristics, which are strange and peculiar, and fundamentally more Asiatic than European. The dominant principle in Russia today is not Marxism or even Leninism although the latter is its official title, but Stalinism—to use a word which Joseph Stalin deprecates and rejects. I mean that, just as Leninism meant Marxian theory plus practical application, plus Russia, so Stalinism denotes a further development from Leninism and bears witness to the prodigious influence of the Russian character and folkways upon what seemed the rigid theory of Marx."


and that Lenin was a racist up until 1921.If Togan's account is true (and it's only a year before 1921), then Lenin's view was certainly distorted, yes. If such is the case then that's the way it is. It has no permanent bearing on Leninism anymore than Marx apparently being a supporter of phrenology.*

* "Of course, the science of that time was often wrong just like ours is. Marx, for instance, was also a convert to phrenology, the theory that the shape of peoples' skulls indicated their mental tendencies and talents. He would examine the bare heads of young workers who had volunteered to help him in his endless research, to try and see if they had the requisite mental abilities." (Link (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/texts/crisistheory.php))

[Yehuda Stern]

Ismail, I'm not really interested in your covering up for Stalinist anti-Semitism. I don't debate whether or not the holocaust happened; I'm not going to debate this, either. It's impossible to believe that there have been so many reports over the years of anti-Semitic incidents and that they were all bourgeois propaganda. This is simply mass murder of Jews without trial or proof; it's a pogrom. If Soviet soldiers defended Polish Jews from pogroms, good; too bad they weren't around to defend Russian Jews from Stalin's pogroms.

[Qayin]

Trotsky vs Stalin? not more of this.

[Revy]

Why hasn't the "population transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union)" been mentioned?

This 1922 memo (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) by Lenin (kept secret all throughout Stalin's reign) might also be relevant. Lenin exposes Stalin's accusations of "nationalist-socialism" against the non-Russian Soviet republics (because they did not want to become Mother Russia's children), and refers to Stalin as a true nationalist-socialist, a "vulgar Great-Russian bully".

[Ismail]

Why hasn't the "population transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union)" been mentioned?I am still doing research into the transfers, specifically why some populations were able to return and why some weren't. I think that local disapprovals of bringing back "Asiatic" (Turkish) citizens might have played a role in places such as the Ukraine. As for the transfers themselves, I generally accept the reasoning (though it is unfortunate) due to the necessities of war, but it no doubt greatly strengthened Russian and Ukrainian chauvinism.


This 1922 memo (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) by Lenin (kept secret all throughout Stalin's reign) might also be relevant. Lenin exposes Stalin's accusations of "nationalist-socialism" against the non-Russian Soviet republics (because they did not want to become Mother Russia's children), and refers to Stalin as a true nationalist-socialist, a "vulgar Great-Russian bully".Lenin's position on that issue had abruptly changed from supporting Stalin, Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze to opposing them.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020918055903/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/TESTAMENT.HTM
(Look under "The Georgian 'Deviation'")

The Georgian issue isn't extraordinarily important for two reasons:
1. It was Georgia, and it was over whether it should be its own SSR within the USSR or whether it should be part of the TSFSR.
2. The true influence of Russian chauvinism and imperialism could be found in the Central Asian SSRs. In the European SSRs under Stalin (Ukrainian SSR, Georgian SSR, etc.) the cultures of these SSRs were promoted (the Ukrainian language was pretty much saved by having Russians subscribe to Pravda Ukrainy among other things, etc., see The Affirmative Action Empire for more info) whereas in Central Asia the Bolsheviks did the opposite, and in such a way undermined their own position within these Republics. This resulted in the creation of the SADUM in 1943 by Stalin to improve ties with Muslims, which was good, but Russian chauvinism had already risen to dominant levels by 1953, and had certainly consolidated itself after the Great Purges were used to execute nationalists in Central Asia.

The examples of Great Russian Chauvinism can be found post-Stalin, such as the 1978 attempt to remove Georgian as the language of the Georgian SSR, the economic exploitation of the Central Asian SSRs; turned into neo-colonies of the Russian SFSR, etc.

I take Mirza Sultan-Galiev's line on Russia (he was purged for trying to ally with Trotsky, who wasn't willing to ally with him, against Stalin). The USSR was Russo-centric, and the development of a labor aristocracy among such lines was nigh inevitable unless the Central Asian SSRs were given true self-rule, otherwise the situation would centralize (as it did) and turn the SSRs into de facto administrative regions rather than independent Republics within a Union.

As noted in The Middle East in Transition: Studies in Contemporary History (1958, pp. 401-2):

But what is most original in Sultan Galiev is that, starting from the Marxian theory created in reaction to Western industrialism, he modified and adapted it to the needs of an Asiatic, and essentially agrarian, society. Well aware that Communism was endangered by its dependence upon the Germanic model alone, Sultan Galiev also denied that the interpretation of dialectical materialism could be a Russian monopoly; for he knew that as soon as Russia was industrialized, the German prototype would become the Russian one and give birth to a Greater-Russian chauvinism superposed upon Communism...

Finally, the keystone of his system was to be a union of colonized peoples against the industrial metropolitans, for Galiev held that the Western proletariat, which inherited the bourgeois colonial tradition, would be as great a menace as the bourgeoisie had been to the colonized peoples. With this aim, Sultan Galiev drew up a scheme for a colonial International, independent of the Comintern. He justified his distrust of the Western proletariat by citing instances of the 'colonialist' attitudes of the French and English working classes.

[...]


Galiev's attitude of mistrust was wholly justified by the actions of the Communist authorities during the Revolution, for the pretext of the struggle between classes in the Mohammedan fringe was abused by the Russians in order to usurp all the positions in the party and the administration. As the President Kolesov had said, at the Third Regional Congress of Soviets of Turkestan: "One cannot let the Mohammedans into the highest organs of revolutionary authority on account of the uncertain attitude of the local population towards the power of the Soviets, and because the native population lacks a proletarian organization. We cannot therefore let them take part in the government." (Nasha Gazeta (Tashkent), November 28, 1917.)

This is simply mass murder of Jews without trial or proof; it's a pogrom.Yes, the killings of a few petty-bourgeois Jews = mass murder and Stalin was totally an anti-Semite. Never mind the fact that Stalin constantly condemned anti-Semites, that he generally supported the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and Mikhoels (even as Mikhoels was clearly not a Communist), and that it was people like Suslov who were calling for the dissolving of the JAFC two years before this "Soviet Holocaust" of less than like 30 people in the span of five years was carried out.

Give some examples of "mass murder" of normal, proletarian Jews. Petty-bourgeois reactionaries of any ethnicity do not concern me. Proletarian Jews didn't exactly live hard lives in the USSR during this period.

It's also interesting to note (due to the whole chauvinism thing) that Mikhoels and others were advocating a Crimean Jewish Republic after the fact that the Crimean Tatars had been removed from the area.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I have found the quote that I have posted in my signature in Stalin's collected works, I thought it was a magnificent example of Stalin's stance on devotion to persons.

[heiss93]

Does anyone know what the politics of Red Star Press were, and if they were associated with any political party? I would assume either Maoist or Hoxhaist?

For those interested here is some more background info on the "unofficial" works.

J. V. Stalin
Volume 14

Preface

Source: Works, Vol. 14, July, 1934 - March 1339
Publisher: Red Star Press, London 1978
Transcription/Markup: Salil Sen for MIA, 2008
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.
The Original Russian edition of J. Stalin's works as published by decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) contains thirteen volumes and covers the period from 1901 up to January 1934 and has been published in English by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow.
After this time, writings of J. Stalin in the English language could so far only be found in numerous pamphlets, Congress reports, newspaper articles etc.
After reprinting the 13 Volume Moscow edition, we now present five further volumes of works of J. Stalin. Three volumes: (14 -16) contain a collection of writings, speeches, messages, orders and reports. One volume (17) contains war telegrams and messages as sent by Stalin to Churchill and Attlee, Roosevelt and Truman: And volume 18 will be a reprint of the History of the C.P.S.U.(B), short course, which has been written under the close supervision of J. Stalin. The collection of writings in the volumes 14 - 16 should give a close insight into Stalin's politics and activities in the period up to his death in 1953, but by no means can we claim that this collection could be complete. At times where no material seemed to be available, we have included material that reflects Stalin's activity; as for instance in volume 14 there are some reports from Kolkhozine leaders to Stalin to show the range of problems Soviet leadership had to handle and solve. As well in volume 14 after Stalin's explanatory speech on the Draft Constitution, we have included the full text of the Constitution as finally adopted by the Supreme Soviet.
Not included in volume 14 though, is Stalin's article Dialectical and Historical Materialism as it is to be found in the History of the C.P.S.U.(B), short course, (volume 18) where it was originally published. In assembling the material for volume 14, we have avoided splitting it into different parts and appendices, so the partially indirect material is to be found under its appropriate date. In researching the material we have made use of the 17 volume German edition of Stalin's works as published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany (Marxist-Leninist), and also of the recent French edition of Stalin's works as published by "Nouveau Bureau d' Edition", Paris.
THE EDITORS
RED STAR PRESS
MAY 1978


Prior to the 20th Congress of the CPSU 13 Volumes of the Works (note: not
Collected Works) of Stalin were published from the USSR in most of the
principal languages of the world.

Volume 14 was announced two weeks prior to the 20th Congress but never
published. The dummy of Volume 14 lies in the former Central Party Archives in
Moscow.

A volume 14 was published by the PLA from Tirana in Albanian.

A Volume 14 was published by Spanish comrades from Madrid.

Volumes 14-18 were published by Red Star Press from London in the 1970s and
1980s.

A volume 14 and 15 were published by German comrades in association with Red
Star Press, London.

Volumes 13-16 were published in Russian from Stanford University.

Volumes 14-18 have been published in Russian from Russia after the complete
restoration of capitalism there. Volume 18 came out earlier this year from the
city of Tver and has a number of important writings.

A number of rare writings of Stalin have been published in the journal
Revolutionary Democracy from Delhi.

All the above publications are just the tip of the iceberg so far as Stalin’s
writings are converned.

Stalin was the head of the commission which drafted the History of the CPSU B.
The chapter on Dialectical and Historical Materialism was authored by Stalin
personally.

In its current "new releases" email, Marxists Internet Archive has announced
the completion of its project to digitize all of Iosif Stalin's "Works." This
includes the 13 volumes officially published by the Foreign Languages
Publishing House through 1955 as well as three additional volumes published by
the British publisher Red Star Press.

The URL for the Stalin Works index page is : http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/collected/index.htm

MIA as a matter of standard practice does not produce "fat" pdf files,
facsimiles of the original document, but rather uses Optical Character
Recognition to produce web-searchable html documents. This has its negative and
positive aspects — one will still need to consult hardcopy to cite page
numbers in a journal article on the one hand, but it will be a simple thing to
search and then use cut-and-paste when one is actually writing on the other.

There are legitimate concerns with the veracity of the translations in the
"Works" edition — but those apply equally to the hardcopy or digital forms of
the source. In short, the "Works" translations are particularly marred by
dishonest deletions of the word "Comrade" throughout. If a person fell under
secret police suspicion and was killed in 1937 and Stalin had referred to him
as "Comrade" in 1926, for example, that word is dropped in the "Works" edition
of the 1950s. Nor are the "Works" articles anything like a "Complete Collected
Works" — some material does not appear, and not nece
ssarily for reasons of controversial content. One should always check content
and translations used in "Works" to the various incarnations of "Problems of
Leninism" when one is quoting Stalin in a journal article — and to the
original source in Russian whenever possible.

See Robert H. McNeal's "Stalin's Works," published by the Hoover Institution
Press in 1967 for additional commentary.

That said, this new Stalin internet archive should prove to be a valuable tool
for historians of communism.

[Ismail]

Does anyone know what the politics of Red Star Press were, and if they were associated with any political party? I would assume either Maoist or Hoxhaist?Probably Chinese. The Albanians probably got their hands on it early due to being in Europe and being able to distribute it in Europe, since back then Albania was very pro-China and basically served as China's "European embassy" of sorts.

[heiss93]

Well, it was published in 1978 after the China-Albanian split, so I would assume most factions would have chosen sides between Mao and Hoxha by that time.

Does anyone know where RSP obtained volumes 14-18 from, and how much of Stalin's post-1934 works are missing?

[Leo]

So Trotsky was openly racist?


Can you honestly say you are surprised?

This is ridiculous, Trotsky's usage of the term "Asiatic" is as racist as Marx's usage of the Asiatic mode of production and Asian despotism.

[red cat]

This is ridiculous, Trotsky's usage of the term "Asiatic" is as racist as Marx's usage of the Asiatic mode of production and Asian despotism.

This time I am really surprised.

[red cat]

Please tell me why exactly he links "barbarism" with Asia.

[scarletghoul]

It was quite a standard attitude back in the old days. Asiatic was taken to mean despotic and backwards partly out of racism/orientalism and partly because Asian countries were generally quite poor and undeveloped at the time.

[red cat]

But that condition was mostly due to European imperialism. And the kind of exploitation that European capitalists practiced all over the rest of the world cannot be distinguished from barbarism.

[scarletghoul]

Yes, it's something that pisses me off. An orientalist elitism which certain people on the left even today still exhibit

[Leo]

Please tell me why exactly he links "barbarism" with Asia. He is not linking barbarism to Asia, he is linking Stalin to what Marx called Asiatic despotism:


The late Leonid Krassin, old revolutionist, eminent engineer, brilliant Soviet diplomat and, above all, intelligent human being, was the first, if I am not mistaken, to call Stalin an “Asiatic”. In saying that, he had in mind no problematical racial attributes, but rather that blending of grit, shrewdness, craftiness and cruelty which has been considered characteristic of the statesmen of Asia.You lot should read a bit of marxist theory on Asiatic modes of production before you start screaming about Trotsky's racism, you are really making a fool of yourselves.

[scarletghoul]

In saying that, he had in mind no problematical racial attributes, but rather that blending of grit, shrewdness, craftiness and cruelty which has been considered characteristic of the statesmen of Asia. These are racial atributes (or at least, they are percieved to be). It is orientalism. It is racism.

[Random Precision]

You lot should read a bit of marxist theory on Asiatic modes of production before you start screaming about Trotsky's racism, you are really making a fool of yourselves.

... which was also filled with orientalist assumptions and has now been largely discarded by historians. But then, who cares? The thing that's great about Marxism is that it's not about what Marx or Trotsky said, but about the method they used. The only reason the Stalinists harp on Trotsky's supposed racism here is that they think poking holes in Trotsky the man discredits the revolutionary Marxism he upheld. Having an ideology primarily based on moralism and the worship or vilification of certain figures, they assume that all other ideologies are similar.

[Cheung Mo]

There's also an extreme shortage on MIA of materials from Hoxha, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong IlFor some reason I can't find Mein Kampf either. I mean, Ceaucescu's ideas amount to racialism, anti-feminism, and sucking off Richard Nixon for money and starving his own people to pay down the resulting debt.

[pranabjyoti]

This is ridiculous, Trotsky's usage of the term "Asiatic" is as racist as Marx's usage of the Asiatic mode of production and Asian despotism.
Trotsky use the words to a person he hated most and the term 'asiatic' is an expression of his personnel hatered. MARX ON CONTRARY NEVER USED THIS KIND OF WORDS TO ANY PERSONE TO EXPRESS HIS PERSONNEL GRIVENCE.

[Cheung Mo]

I'm sure I've said far worse things about Mormons than Trotsky has ever said about Asians. But that's understandable given as how those reactionary fucks stole my cousin's kids.

[Ismail]

I mean, Ceaucescu's ideas amount to racialism, anti-feminism, and sucking off Richard Nixon for money and starving his own people to pay down the resulting debt.Pretty much, yeah. Ceaușescu doesn't belong with Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, or even Kim Jong Il. Ceaușescu was just shit.

As for the term "Asiatic" it certainly did carry a racist tone. "It is our opinion that if Autonomous Mongolia has every reason to tie its fate with the fate of Russia, then Russia has every sufficient reason to manifest its special interest toward Autonomous Mongolia... will not only serve its own interests but also accomplish its natural mission... for the victory of the advanced European civilization over the backward civilization of the Asiatic Continent." (Ivan Maisky, [I]Sovremennaia Mongoliia, 1921, pp. 331-2)

If that isn't racist then you might as well concede that European efforts to spread "civilization" to Africa weren't racist either.

No one's saying Marx was like "FUCK THE COOLIES" but when his entire concept basically rested on "Asia fucked up, but Europe has come to the rescue" then well, yeah. Bill Bland (http://web.archive.org/web/20020917213518/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/OrientalDespot1.htm) tried to justify it too, so it isn't just "Hurr Stalinists are randomly attacking something they know nothing about."

[revolt4thewin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LMrdcs4ucc&feature=related
Marxist rejoice.:laugh:

[anticap]

It's already on my reading list just below the entire Tokyo telephone directory.

:lol: (One of those rare occasions when "LOL" is literal.)

Apologies to anyone who was annoyed by the six pages of inane squabbling generated by my simple heads-up. I just figured it was worth mentioning; I've got no use for Stalin, personally.