A very interesting article on Stalin

[pranabjyoti]

I recently have found a very interesting article on http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1999/x01/x01.htm regarding the last years of Stains life and the condition of the Soviet Union and the CPSU there. I want comments and information from others regarding this issue.

[heiss93]

The article claims the revisionists were in control as early as 1926, only 2 years after Lenin's death. So then the entire period after the death of Lenin, the USSR was revisionist? That sounds like the Trotsky line, except instead of blaming Stalin, Stalin is made a mere figurehead.

Some of the Lin Biaoists claim that Mao didn't hold real power pretty much the entire period between 1949-1976.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually in my opinion, it is nothing but CLASS STRUGGLE INSIDE THE PARTY, BOTH IN USSR AND IN CHINA. As per Dialectic materialism, nothing in this universe (I guess in the other universes too) can exist without a conflict and this conflict is the driving force behind its progress. Inside both and CPSU and the CPC, there had been always struggle between the petty-bourgeoisie faction and the proletariat faction. And in both cases, sadly for the proletariat and the human kind, the petty-bourgeoisie faction won. And this petty-bourgeoisie faction in turn invited the bourgeoisie. In case of CPSU, the massive death of revolutionary workers by counter revolution and the Nazi attack together have weakened the proletariat faction and when WWII was over, the petty-bourgeoisie faction (with Khrushchev, Zhukov) came into power and they introduced their petty-bourgeoisie ideology into the party and in the country. Which at end, had gradually led to occupation of both the party and country by bourgeoisie minded people. In case of CPC, the matter is very hard from the very beginning. Peasants and other petty-bourgeoisie always had a very strong position in CPC and the proletariat faction is small compared to the petty-bourgeoisie faction. So, despite Mao being the Chairman, CPC always had a petty-bourgeoisie tendency throughout its history.
Actually, it is a very basic nature of petty-bourgeoisie. Before the revolution, they were revolutionary and after the revolution, they quickly become counter revolutionary. Before the revolution, they are very eager to overthrow the bourgeoisie and compradors, BECAUSE THAT POWER STAND IN THE PATH OF THEY THEMSELVES BECOMING BOURGEOISIE. BUT, AFTER THE REVOLUTION, THEY FOUND THAT THE PROLETARIAT STANDS IN THE WAY, SO THEY VERY QUICKLY TURNED AGAINST REVOLUTION. So far, as far as I have read the articles on revleft, there are very few discussions on the very nature of the petty-bourgeoisie and their influence in the events in the later part of the 20th century.

[Random Precision]

It makes a whole lot of a very few things. Everything that it cites (Stalin only writing about linguistics in his later years, Stalin not being asked to give some address, only 13 volumes of Stalin's works being produced etc.) have nothing more than the feel of an emotional Johnny Cochran speech trying to draw cast doubt onto a very solid case.

No doubt this would be laughed at by serious historians of the USSR, such as Sheila Fitzpatrick and Arch Getty, whose research affirms that Stalin held tremendous power within the Party. Furthermore serious research has yet to make note of any unified opposition, "revisionist" or otherwise during those years.

Also, pranabjyoti, can you please not capitalize so much? It makes my eyes hurt.

[pranabjyoti]

The same mistake again. Instead of class, pointing on person. Well, at that time may Stalin was very powerful due to overwhelming victory of USSR over Nazi Germany and huge support from conscious proletariat all over the world behind him, but it was a fact that the proletariat part of of CPSU was nearly about abolished. IF NOT SO, THEN THE REVISIONIST KHRUSHCHEV, ZHUKOV CAN NOT COME INTO POWER SO EASILY AFTER HIS DEATH.
The problem I have faced so far with many so-called Marxists is that instead of class, they always put stress on person, which in itself is against the very nature of dialectic materialism.

[Random Precision]

The same mistake again. Instead of class, pointing on person.

But the article that you linked to is all about Stalin. Stalin did this, Stalin did not do that, because of the revisionist presence in the party. It amounts to a conspiracy theory. Nowhere does the author point to how the proletarian section of the CPSU was "abolished", he does not cite any sort of figures to support this. The text is all about Stalin and the "revisionist" cabal.


Well, at that time may Stalin was very powerful due to overwhelming victory of USSR over Nazi Germany and huge support from conscious proletariat all over the world behind him, but it was a fact that the proletariat part of of CPSU was nearly about abolished. IF NOT SO, THEN THE REVISIONIST KHRUSHCHEV, ZHUKOV CAN NOT COME INTO POWER SO EASILY AFTER HIS DEATH.

If Stalin was so powerful, then why did he not take decisive steps against the "revisionists"? According to the article you linked to, it was because he wasn't powerful at all! This is the problem of conspiracy theories: trying to create a conflict where none exists.

[red cat]

This is the problem of conspiracy theories: trying to create a conflict where none exists.

You are pretty good at identifying the smaller conspiracy theories. :D

[red cat]

The same mistake again. Instead of class, pointing on person. Well, at that time may Stalin was very powerful due to overwhelming victory of USSR over Nazi Germany and huge support from conscious proletariat all over the world behind him, but it was a fact that the proletariat part of of CPSU was nearly about abolished. IF NOT SO, THEN THE REVISIONIST KHRUSHCHEV, ZHUKOV CAN NOT COME INTO POWER SO EASILY AFTER HIS DEATH.


True, but let's face it; the main cause of the fall of the big CPs, like those in Russia and China was the partial inability of the respective CCs to implement the mass line. In Russia it was done quite wrongly, while in China it began so late that though it prevented the counter-revolution for a decade, it could not completely eliminate the bourgeoisie and hence ultimately failed.

[pranabjyoti]

I want a very clear cut answer of my question. Which class did Stalin represent and which class did Trotsky represent?

[Random Precision]

I want a very clear cut answer of my question. Which class did Stalin represent and which class did Trotsky represent?

From me? I think that Stalin represented the Soviet bureaucracy which turned itself into the Soviet capitalist class during the 1920s. I think that Trotsky represented the working-class opposition that resisted the restoration of capitalism from within the Party. Other Trotskyists, and Trotsky himself, would say differently though.

[pranabjyoti]

From me? I think that Stalin represented the Soviet bureaucracy which turned itself into the Soviet capitalist class during the 1920s. I think that Trotsky represented the working-class opposition that resisted the restoration of capitalism from within the Party. Other Trotskyists, and Trotsky himself, would say differently though.
A capitalist, but so much "maddeningly" hated by all kind of imperialist forces worldwide? So much interesting to think about. And you too have admitted that Trotsky and other trotskites don't think of themselves in the same way as you think about them. Then what did they think about themselves?

[Random Precision]

A capitalist, but so much "maddeningly" hated by all kind of imperialist forces worldwide? So much interesting to think about.


Capitalist nations have hated and fought each other since that form of production existed.


And you too have admitted that Trotsky and other trotskites don't think of themselves in the same way as you think about them. Then what did they think about themselves?

The other point of view is that Stalin represented the power of a bureaucratic "caste" over what was still essentially a workers state. Trotsky thought of himself as a revolutionary committed at the same time to defense of the USSR's nationalized production against counterrevolution, and to a "political revolution" by the workers against the bureaucratic caste that Stalin represented. The difference between my opinion and this one is that I think the counterrevolution had already happened.

[Dave B]

A capitalist, but so much "maddeningly" hated by all kind of imperialist forces worldwide?

Ah come on, Stalin wasn't hated by everybody.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/nazsov.asp


.

[pranabjyoti]

Worthless imperialist trash.

[heiss93]

If the revisionists held power as early as the 1920s, what would have been the point of building a cult around Stalin in the first place? With Mao it makes more sense since he had already legendary status by 1949. But there was no obvious reason to chose Stalin as the frontman for their plot in 1926.

[narcomprom]

That article is rediculous! So Stalin was a victim? He didn't want a cult of personality, he just wanted to build communism and then he would, of course, resign! Blame Beria, Yegoda, Khrushev and Yezhov, those filthy saboteurs and traitors.

Why do so many west communists mix their materialism with some weird idealist personality cult when it comes to soviet history?

[Dave B]

Indeed it is Stalin himself who was the greatest Revisionist of them all.



J. V. Stalin

ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM? 1906-7






As you see, in the opinion of the Social-Democrats, socialist society is a society in which there will be no room for the so-called state, political power, with its ministers, governors, gendarmes, police and soldiers. The last stage in the existence of the state will be the period of the socialist revolution, when the proletariat will capture political power and set up its own government (dictatorship) for the final abolition of the bourgeoisie. But when the bourgeoisie is abolished, when classes are abolished, when socialism becomes firmly established, there will be no need for any political power -- and the so-called state will retire into the sphere of history.

As you see, in Marx's opinion, the higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society will be a system under which the division of work into "dirty" and "clean," and the contradiction between mental and physical labour will be completely abolished, labour will be equal, and in society the genuine communist principle will prevail: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Here there is no room for wage-labour.

Clearly this "accusation" is also devoid of all foundation.
One of two things: either Messieurs the Anarchisls have never seen the above-mentioned works of Marx and Engels and indulge in "criticism" on the basis of hearsay, or they are familiar with the above-mentioned works of Marx and Engels and are deliberately Iying.





that this dictatorship must be not the dictatorship of a few individuals, but the dictatorship of the entire proletariat as a class:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands . . . of the proletariat organised as the ruling class . . . " (see the Communist Manifesto).

That is to say, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a dictatorship of the entire proletariat as a class over the bourgeoisie and not the domination of a few individuals over the proletariat.







The people as the "only rulers," "not the dictatorship of one man, but of the whole people" -- this is what the Paris Commune was.

"Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat" -- exclaimed Engels for the information of philistines.
So this is the dictatorship of the proletariat as conceived of by Marx and Engels.

As you see, Messieurs the Anarchists know as much about the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Paris Commune, and Marxism, which they so often "criticise," as you and I, dear reader, know about the Chinese language.

Clearly, there are two kinds of dictatorship. There is the dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a small group, the dictatorship of the Trepovs and Ignatyevs, which is directed against the people. This kind of dictatorship is usually headed by a camarilla which adopts secret decisions and tightens the noose around the neck of the majority of the people.

Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists.


There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletarian majority,the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against the minority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the masses; here there is no room either for a camarilla or for secret decisions, here everything is done openly, in the streets, at meetings -- because it is the dictatorship of the street, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all oppressors.

Marxists support this kind of dictatorship "with both hands" -- and that is because such a dictatorship is the magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution.


Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day. . . .

Such is the fate of the third "accusation."


http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

The

"Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat"

quote comes from the end of;



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm)

‘camarilla’ was a popular buzz word of Marx and Engels meaning I suppose ‘a group of courtiers or favourites which surround a king or ruler.’

[noway]

Stalinn.. how much do you know about the guy