Help me decide on a theory

[BonnyPortmore]

Revleft seems to house people of all political influences.
I am new to politics in general, only looking at "politics" as having an effect on my, and my classes "working class" life since i decided to turn my life around a few months ago.
At first i tried to see the point of view of labour, then the tories, i even looked at the BNP.
But i saw these organizations very similar to the criminalized ones i used to admire.
And as my social morality developed, and i turned my back to crime, i have felt my social morality rejecting the values of these political groups.
Capitalism is Gangsterism with mass following of ignorant people like me, who instead of rebeling against the system that keeps them down, realize that it is criminal, so they set out to beat it and go into buisness for themself.
Others never realize it is criminal at all.
I have bought a copy of the communist manifesto and am trying to read it, this is really hard for me as i am not an educated man.
I wanted to know what political theory best fights for the cause of the emancipation of the working class.
Trotskyism
Marxist leninism
Maoism

What would you say was the best theory and why.

Also, after a few hours browsing on here, there seem to be alot of 18 year old preachers making comments suggesting us working class are incapable of helping ourselves, this pissed me off, this type of thing will not help you in the long run.

[zapatista]

Hey there!
Most people are going to respond and advertise their ideology..I'm no different :P.
But basically, i think Trotskyism is the way to go, as I think it represents the true ideals of the Russian revolution, and is in the best interests of the international proletariat.

[Axle]

Welcome to the forum.

First off, don't sweat The Communist Manifesto too much. Marx is notoriously hard to read and comprehend. Try reading Engels "Principles of Communism" first. Its got much of the same information as The Communist Manifesto, but is much easier to read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm (Marxists.org is an invaluable site for learning about different theories).

As far as theory goes, don't get hung up on that too much right now, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. My advice to you is to get familiar with Marx and Engels first before moving on.

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist, but I'm not a strict one.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Why not look at what has been most successful in the past? I'm pretty confident that you will arrive at the conclusion that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the truest path a socialist can follow. Trotskyists talk the talk but have never really achieved anything, or even attempted to for that matter. Marxism-Leninism is not idealist but materialist, we see the current conditions for what they are and work to change them them, attempting to bring about revolution and creating the best possible society for the proletariat. Marxism-Leninism is by no means perfect, but neither is the world in which we live, we are realistic in our demands, actions, and end goals, but we are revolutionaries, not reformists. Marxism is a science and therefore it makes no time for utopianism, Marxism-Leninism is the only practice to have proven that socialism is scientific, anyone who says otherwise is living in a dream.

[A.R.Amistad]

I don't really feel comfortable with people separating the term "Marxist-Leninist" from "Trotskyist." Trotskyists function off of Leninist theory too. I think even the "anti-revisionists" need to concede that point. In fact, I myself don't like using the term Trotskyist except to separate myself from Stalinism and Maoism. I think Comrade Zapatista is very right in that "Trotskyism," Bolshevist-Leninism, whatever you want to call it is the true path to revolution. I also think you will be more pleasantly surprised to see that being in league with the Bolsheviks will completely change your view on communism and help you separate and understand true communism from the USSR under and after Stalin, the DPRK, etc. In response to "motionless" (by the way the name is ironic to the argument) Trotskyists have been very active, active at times when the Stalinists were not. The POUM in the Spanish Civil War (Trotskyist but not affiliated with the FI) had twice the membership of the Stalinist Communist Party, and therefore more manpower, more capable leadership, more influence, etc. It was very much the infighting and betrayal of the Stalinists to the working class that allowed fascism to rise. During the sixties, although the Bourgeois historians ignore it, the SWP in America took advantage of the growing revolutionary sentiment and its membership grew immensly. Meanwhile, the CP dwindled to almost nothing during a time of mass upheaval. In summary, if you believe in Marxism, if you value the true accomplishments, ideals and goals of the 1917 revolution and Lenin, if you champion true democracy, workers' democracy and oppose tyranny in every form, whether it be Hitler or Pol Pott, if you believe in revolution and want a truly communist world, Bolshevism ("Trotskyism" but again I prefer to call it just actual Bolshevism) is the way to go.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Why not look at what has been most successful in the past? I'm pretty confident that you will arrive at the conclusion that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the truest path a socialist can follow.
LOL and when did Marxism lead to communism? Let alone Marixist-Leninist-Maoist-Sadist-MichaelJacksonist-Obama_ist etc...

Try not to lock your mind into a certain ideology. You will change as you keep reading different things. What sounded great at first may sound like a joke after you read more and more history. I think anarchism is the best way to keep an open mind about everything but maybe it's not idk keep reading.

[scarletghoul]

motionless is right; just look at all socialist revolutions past and present. The most successful ones are all under the banner of Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (which is simply a modern fresh developed version of ML). Trotskyists haven't accomplished nothing.

Of course it's important not to be too rigid. We should be open to all ideas and accept eachother as comrades in the struggle for revolution, but it's clear from the facts that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the most efficient theoretical weapon for the working class.


LOL and when did Marxism lead to communism? Let alone Marixist-Leninist-Maoist-Sadist-MichaelJacksonist-Obama_ist etc...
It's a long hard struggle bro, no one has reached the higher stage of communism yet and no one will for quite some time ...

[Tribune]

Too much managerial theory, too little time in the soup lines.

If you want to understand what approach to justice works best for you - give your time. Give it away. Cook at a homeless shelter, wash clothing for working mothers, labor for a poor family or a whole impoverished community and have your labor be your reward, get down in the muck of capitalist discontent.

Do this work as a gift, as a free contribution - as you would in a socialist society.

Perhaps, in the labor you give, you will find the sort of local emancipation which allows you to see clearly how social emancipation, how liberation, can best be done.

Less theory, more labor.

[Pawn Power]

If you are looking for a 'theory' to follow you came to the wrong place. People who are looking to be told what to follow go to churches or the DNC/RNC, here we try to think for ourselves (I hope!).

[NecroCommie]

I would have to agree with pawn power. Only way to decide your theory is to find out what different theories advocate, and then choose what corresponds to your oppinions and views. Also, do not pick a school of communism if you do not find one that fits you. If you follow some theory just for the sake of following that theory you might end up being sectarian, which in my books is barely better than a capitalist.

If you just acknowledge class war and communist values you are a comrade of mine.

[chegitz guevara]

My theory is best. I'll let you know what it is as soon as I think it up.

[RHIZOMES]

Thank you for the story of your political development comrade, I find it deeply moving. I'm a Leninist (not Stalinist, Maoist or Trotskyist specifically). My politics have been quite profoundly influenced by the Kasama blog, you should take some time reading what's on there as well as Marx:
http://mikeely.wordpress.com

Also be careful not to read Marx and Engels too abstractly comrade, remember to always relate it to the present day rather than wanking over past socialist experiments all the time and not relating it to the actual living working class (which is a plague on this board). I found my politics were quite limited and naive when all I did was think about Marx and Engels and socialism as experienced in the USSR rather than applying that to my own context, and I ended up taking some abhorrent positions on the present-day. It's sort of hard to explain.


LOL and when did Marxism lead to communism? Let alone Marixist-Leninist-Maoist-Sadist-MichaelJacksonist-Obama_ist etc...

Pot kettle black

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Communism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What is the point of just coming here and trying to recruit a newcomer to your ideology. I honestly do not care what ideology you follow as long as you accept the tenets of Communism. If you want to look into what ideology you might follow here are some useful resources for each ideology:

For nearly any type of Marxist ideology the encyclopedia of Marxism would be helpful:
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/index.htm

Libertarian Communist theories can be found on this site:
http://www.libcom.org

For a specific FAQ on Anarcho-Syndicalism look here:
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/faq

For specifically Left Communist theory see here:
http://en.internationalism.org/platform

There are plenty other ideologies which I am sure will not be covered by these sites and you should look to explore all ideologies. It does not matter really about pinning yourself to one ideology, if you agree with some of all that is perfectly fine. Most important is your commitment to class struggle and your ultimate goal being the emancipation of the working class.

[Искра]

This thread looks like TV commercials instead of "this is the best work out machine" people go "this is the best ideology".
You can't ask other people to say you which is the best theory. That's just indoctrination. You should decide on yourself what's best option for you.
People here can only give you good books and sources to read about things you are interested in, they can debate with you or you can read their idiotic comments.

[BonnyPortmore]

I am asking what they think is best and why, that way i can take into account all points of view.

[Искра]

I am asking what they think is best and why, that way i can take into account all points of view.
Ok, I understand. I'm sorry if it looked that I'm being hostile, 'cause I'm not. I just think that you won't learn much in this topic.

I'm anarcho-syndicalist, I believe that this is best theory and method, although I never exclude Marx's theory, since I consider my self as "original" Marxist (with big criticism on few "authoritarian" aspects). Since, I think that you'll never learn anything if I try to write you what's anarcho-syndicalism and why it's "the best" in my opinion I'll post you here text I made to introduce anarcho-syndicalism to people on revleft. I hope it will help you.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-syndicalism-dummies-t121236/index.html

[ZeroNowhere]

If you are looking for a 'theory' to follow you came to the wrong place. People who are looking to be told what to follow go to churches or the DNC/RNC, here we try to think for ourselves (I hope!).Lovely wordplay, if a waste of pixels.


You can't ask other people to say you which is the best theory. That's just indoctrination. You should decide on yourself what's best option for you.Of course, surely it makes no sense to hear arguments for why some theory is valid before deciding whether it is.

[Spawn of Stalin]

LOL and when did Marxism lead to communism? Let alone Marixist-Leninist-Maoist-Sadist-MichaelJacksonist-Obama_ist etc...
With respect, Comrade, when did any theory lead to Communism? Communism is a goal we should work towards but I myself am under no illusions, I am sure that I, and everyone else here on RevLeft will be long dead before Communism is achieved.

In response to "motionless" (by the way the name is ironic to the argument) Trotskyists have been very active, active at times when the Stalinists were not. The POUM in the Spanish Civil War (Trotskyist but not affiliated with the FI) had twice the membership of the Stalinist Communist Party, and therefore more manpower, more capable leadership, more influence, etc.
More manpower, better leadership, more influence, and yet somehow, they still failed. Really makes you think huh?

[Искра]

More manpower, better leadership, more influence, and yet somehow, they still failed. Really makes you think huh?
Yup, really makes you think why do we always depend on some "divine creatures" which only follow their own interest? :confused:

[Uncle Ho]

Rigid adherence to doctrine is the last haven of the unimaginative.

Socialism isn't about idol worshiping. Fight alongside your brothers, read some books (Not just Marx and Mao, either. Read books that aren't even about socialism, but are about the plight of the poor and oppressed) and your own beliefs will eventually form.

You don't need some long dead philosipher to do what your mind is perfectly capable of doing on it's own.

[Muzk]

I might be late but don't listen to any of those, just agree with class struggle and the need of a revolution - there you have a marxist basis.

Trotskyism? Just no. Seriously. Not relevant anymore.
Learn about one of those things:

Go for right-wing communism (way of Lenin) , the need of long organisation, a long struggle in which a party leads the way and gains more members through participating in class-struggle, opening minds etc

or left-wing communism (Luxemburg) , spontaneity, freedom of mind, revolution has to be done by the masses for the masses, anti-authority, elitism

The ones in the brackets are probably the best ones to read about.
Library: www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org)

All you need is some knowledge of how economics and politics work and you'll be a good revolutionary, so you can counter the simple arguments, leave the ultimate theoretical fighting to the wise grandpas

[Chicano Shamrock]

With respect, Comrade, when did any theory lead to Communism? Communism is a goal we should work towards but I myself am under no illusions, I am sure that I, and everyone else here on RevLeft will be long dead before Communism is achieved.

That was my point. Nothing has led to communism yet so to say some ideological branch is successful while another is not is just silly.

[Che Guevara]

Alright, first, I'll give a brief overview of what just happened. First, I started to reply to this.. Then, I got carried away with another task. I came back and finished it. I tried to post it, and it said my session was expired. Sooo, I have to retype my whole reply.

I'll give a shorter reply, than my other one. It's really late here, and I'm tireeed, so.

There was one post that I thought was absolutely absurd, and I'll quote part of the post.

"Why not look at what has been most successful in the past?" - Motionless.

This, I thought was absurd, because I'll give a example that you'll have to study, to find the deeper meaning. "Why not just follow capitalism, then?"

If you're going to follow what has been successful in the past (Which nothing has been too successful, more of a failure, to be honest), then you could be following something that you might totally not agree with. Socialism in the Soviet Union and China? There was no socialism in USSR/China. Socialism is punishing dissidents and other intellectuals? Hell no it isn't. I could go further, but I will not, due to the fact that I'm tired.

Also, I consider myself, unlike others, a general socialist. I believe in various points from various types of socialism.

Two more points I'd like to bring up. 1) No country can 'follow' a type of socialism. That was the downfall of the iron curtain; because the USSR forced their type of socialism upon the satellite countries. Countries need to develope their own type of socialism in their own different way. Because the USSR spread THEIR form of socialism among their satellite countries, this led to the crippling affect on the growth of socialism. Socialism, as an ideology, has grown very slowly, compared to other ideologies (e.g. capitalism).

2) I guess this really isn't a point, BUT, I'd suggest you read very types of political literature, and then pick out various points that you agree/disagree with. Maybe you'll turn out like me, and become a 'general' socialist. OR, you might agree with all the poitns of a type of socialism, and ultimately, 'follow' that type of Socialism..

Sorry about various typos, etc. I didn't have a lot of time to do this. I hope you find this helpful. I encourage my other comrades to reply to this and tell me what you think.

CG.


EDIT -- Don't know if I said, but because it's so late, I didn't get to read all my other comrades posts, sorry if some of this might've been already stated.

[lin biao fan club]

Maoism-Third Worldism is the revolutionary path of the future. Everything else is stuck in the past, dogmatic, and boring. Global People's War is the way to go. Like Lin Biao said. If you click on my sig, you can learn more.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That was my point. Nothing has led to communism yet so to say some ideological branch is successful while another is not is just silly.
Not at all, it is a fact that certain ideas have been more successful than others, just because they haven't reached the final end goal of Communism, we can not ignore the fact that some have got further than others. Planning ahead is logical and entirely necessary, especially given the differences between certain anti-capitalist tendencies on issues such as the role of the state, etc. Perhaps you would rather we all just lived in denial, ignoring those differences and pretending that everything will be okay? I do not think that we should attempt to mimic past revolutionary events such as October, but just letting things happen without any kind of ideological or theoretical guidance would be potentially catastrophic.

[Tablo]

I'm pretty sure that the Anarchists in Catalonia achieved Communism, even though it was for only a brief period of time. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Communism is classless, the anarchists executed many people who they considered to be bourgeois thus tightening the gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, certainly, after this happened, Catalonia was a little more classless than it was before. However, the mass murder of the bourgeoisie does not equate to a classless society, it is barbaric, and it's kind of cheating, the aim is to expropriate the wealth, not to slaughter those who own it.

[Tablo]

Communism is classless, the anarchists executed many people who they considered to be bourgeois thus tightening the gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, certainly, after this happened, Catalonia was a little more classless than it was before. However, the mass murder of the bourgeoisie does not equate to a classless society, it is barbaric, and it's kind of cheating, the aim is to expropriate the wealth, not to slaughter those who own it.
So killing counter-revolutionaries isn't Communist?

[red cat]

I'm pretty sure that the Anarchists in Catalonia achieved Communism, even though it was for only a brief period of time. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Communism is a society where no classes exist. And it is valid only globally. Remember, after revolution in a country, the proletariat of that country still has to struggle with the bourgeoisie of other countries. Also, I believe that even in a single country, doing away with the whole bourgeois class, their politics, culture etc. is not possible in a very short period of time.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Communism is classless, the anarchists executed many people who they considered to be bourgeois thus tightening the gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, certainly, after this happened, Catalonia was a little more classless than it was before. However, the mass murder of the bourgeoisie does not equate to a classless society, it is barbaric, and it's kind of cheating, the aim is to expropriate the wealth, not to slaughter those who own it.

Well that's why they did expropriate the wealth and seized control of the means of production. They DIDN'T execute the bourgeoisie with mass killings.

[Spawn of Stalin]

So killing counter-revolutionaries isn't Communist?
Who said anything about counter-revolutionaries?

[ZeroNowhere]

That was my point. Nothing has led to communism yet so to say some ideological branch is successful while another is not is just silly.
I find it amusing how people managed to completely miss this point, which was quite clear.


Rigid adherence to doctrine is the last haven of the unimaginative.Whereas adherence to a doctrine is what makes people communist in the first place.

[Tablo]

Communism is a society where no classes exist. And it is valid only globally. Remember, after revolution in a country, the proletariat of that country still has to struggle with the bourgeoisie of other countries. Also, I believe that even in a single country, doing away with the whole bourgeois class, their politics, culture etc. is not possible in a very short period of time.
Oh, I see your point. I do believe however that they achieved some level of classlessness in Catalonia. It may possibly have not been quite Communist, but it was certainly a major move in that direction.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well that's why they did expropriate the wealth and seized control of the means of production. They DIDN'T execute the bourgeoisie with mass killings.
Indeed, Diego Abad de Santillán admitted it himself when he said "it is possible our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia". There is some good information on it in a book called Blood of Spain, I forget the author's name, but it's worth reading, especially for anarchists who cry over Stalinists executing real counter-revolutionaries, while forgetting their own bloody history.

[Tablo]

Who said anything about counter-revolutionaries?
You said the Anarchists were killing bourgeois and I assume you also know about the Catholic priests they killed. Both these groups were acting as counter-revolutionaries during the civil war. Unless the bourgeois are no longer considered counter-revolutionary...

[Spawn of Stalin]

No, I said the anarchists killed people they deemed to be bourgeois.

[Tablo]

No, I said the anarchists killed people they deemed to be bourgeois.
I see. How do you know these people deemed to be bourgeois were not actually bourgeois?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't, I wasn't there, but from what I've read (eyewitness accounts in Blood of Spain), some anarchists were pretty indiscriminate.

[Tablo]

I don't, I wasn't there, but from what I've read (eyewitness accounts in Blood of Spain), some anarchists were pretty indiscriminate.
I'm sure some innocents died. I don't doubt that, but for the most part I do believe the knew what they were doing. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't think any of us can expect revolution to come without some innocent people getting hurt. I only hope we can minimalize such casualties.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Indeed, Diego Abad de Santillán admitted it himself when he said "it is possible our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia". There is some good information on it in a book called Blood of Spain, I forget the author's name, but it's worth reading, especially for anarchists who cry over Stalinists executing real counter-revolutionaries, while forgetting their own bloody history.

I don't see what this has to do with the mass executing of members of the bourgeoisie. It was a civil war. I don't know how you can say stalin killed REAL counter revolutionaries, somehow you deem the bourgeoisie not REAL counter-revolutionaries but trotskyists, communists and anarchist are.

[FSL]

I don't see what this has to do with the mass executing of members of the bourgeoisie. It was a civil war. I don't know how you can say stalin killed REAL counter revolutionaries, somehow you deem the bourgeoisie not REAL counter-revolutionaries but trotskyists, communists and anarchist are.


Deng Xiaping was a revolutionary then? How nice of you to share.


(Waiting an answer that somehow sets Deng apart from say Bukharin even though their positions came to be identical)

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't see what this has to do with the mass executing of members of the bourgeoisie. It was a civil war. I don't know how you can say stalin killed REAL counter revolutionaries, somehow you deem the bourgeoisie not REAL counter-revolutionaries but trotskyists, communists and anarchist are.
A person is not inherently counter-revolutionary because of their class, sect, or political affiliation, a counter-revolutionary is counter-revolutionary in their actions alone. If somebody actively tries to sabotage a revolution or shows significant support for such an act then yes, they should be executed, regardless of class, regardless of the fact that they might be Communist. But if someone who doesn't agree with the revolutionary agenda sits by and does nothing, then I do not believe they should be executed. These people generally either accept that it is the will of the people to bring about socialism, or they know that there is nothing they can do to stop it so they let it happen and try their best to adapt.

[Tablo]

A person is not inherently counter-revolutionary because of their class, sect, or political affiliation, a counter-revolutionary is counter-revolutionary in their actions alone. If somebody actively tries to sabotage a revolution or shows significant support for such an act then yes, they should be executed, regardless of class, regardless of the fact that they might be Communist. But if someone who doesn't agree with the revolutionary agenda sits by and does nothing, then I do not believe they should be executed. These people generally either accept that it is the will of the people to bring about socialism, or they know that there is nothing they can do to stop it so they let it happen and try their best to adapt.
The bourgeois executed in Catalonia actively supported the Fascists. So did the Catholics priests! If this is not counter-revolutionary activity then what is? I really do not see why you are so adamant on discrediting the Anarchists. They were clearly acting in favor of the working class and fighting in defense of the Revolution.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I have already explained why I do not think this is true, if it is true then they were well within their rights, I am sure that many if not most of the bourgeoisie supported the fascists, but to say that all of the bourgeoisie were fascists and that all of the fascists were bourgeois is extremely ignorant of the fact that human beings are individuals.

[Tablo]

I have already explained why I do not think this is true, if it is true then they were well within their rights, I am sure that many if not most of the bourgeoisie supported the fascists, but to say that all of the bourgeoisie were fascists and that all of the fascists were bourgeois is extremely ignorant of the fact that human beings are individuals.
You are right in this, but who says they killed all of the bourgeois? Like I said before, I am sure some innocent people died, but that should not be enough to discredit what the Anarchists achieved.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Deng Xiaping was a revolutionary then? How nice of you to share.


(Waiting an answer that somehow sets Deng apart from say Bukharin even though their positions came to be identical)

What? What has the execution of Communists, Anarchists and Trotskyists got to do with Deng Xiaping?

[FSL]

What? What has the execution of Communists, Anarchists and Trotskyists got to do with Deng Xiaping?


Figure it out.

[Tablo]

Figure it out.
It would be nice if you could post some sources for us to read..

[FSL]

It would be nice if you could post some sources for us to read..


There is no need of sourses. Someone raises a claim that the enemies of the proletariat are the bourgeoisie -he's of course correct. But neither are countries governed today by businesses nor did that happen back then.
Deng was a politician, a member of the CPC and a self-proclaimed communist who acted in the interests of the owners class.

The communists/anarchists/trotskyists executed weren't executed on the account of belonging to that tendency but on the charges of wanting to reverse socialist policies and undermine the country. They were real counter-revolutionaries in the same way a bourgeois or a priest in Spain could be. Fighting against them is fundamental and, if necessary, executions are a way to do that.

I 'm not in agreement with anarchists in matters of organization of the struggle before the revolution,the direction of the economy afterwards, on how it genuinely stands for workers and not petty owners etc. I won't squeal "murderer!" however when a popular movement dominated by anarchists is involved in class strugle. Mistakes leading to excesses of course will happen, but they aren't a ground to criticize the general direction of the movement.
Many anarchists hold a less comradely stance when it's the other way around.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Deng was a politician, a member of the CPC and a self-proclaimed communist who acted in the interests of the owners class.

As did Stalin. If anyone deserved execution in the USSR on the grounds of counter-revolutionary activities despite claiming to be communist it was Stalin and the party bureaucracy.



The communists/anarchists/trotskyists executed weren't executed on the account of belonging to that tendency but on the charges of wanting to reverse socialist policies and undermine the country. They were real counter-revolutionaries in the same way a bourgeois or a priest in Spain could be. Fighting against them is fundamental and, if necessary, executions are a way to do that.

Well anyone who opposed Stalinism in favour of a democratic worker-controlled economy could be considered as counter-revolutionary by you but they would be considered revolutionaries to me.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And honestly, do you not think it is more justifiable to execute fascists in a civil war than to crush expressions of working class power such as federations of rural collectives as the Stalinists did?

[FSL]

As did Stalin. If anyone deserved execution in the USSR on the grounds of counter-revolutionary activities despite claiming to be communist it was Stalin and the party bureaucracy.




Everyone should be aware that those forming the rightist deviation during the late 20s-early 30s stood opposite to the socialization of the economy until relations of productions had matured. A position shared by the majority of CPC today.
What less people know is that the champion of workers Trotsky also opposed collectivization (in The revolution betrayed)for at least one or two more decades, provided the external conditions at that time in the future were favourable enough to proceed.

So it is a matter of debate how we define counter-revolutionary policies but if giving land to Kulaks can be found to be such a policy, it is not Stalin and the entirety of the Soviet bureaucrasy to be held responsible but these two sides.



Well anyone who opposed Stalinism in favour of a democratic worker-controlled economy could be considered as counter-revolutionary by you but they would be considered revolutionaries to me.


This is a quite common misconseption about the Soviet Union. Stalinism is thought to be the extreme opposite of workers' control. Stalin and the bureaucrats around him did not only fight worker's control and democracy, they succeded in erasing it from the USSR!

But then how will someone explain this? http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/04/19-2.htm

The statutes of the agricultural artels demand that the management of the Kolkhozes spend, only in that measure and only on those articles stipulated by the budget which was fixed at the conclusion of the general assembly of the Kolkhozines. In practice, however, several managements of Kolkhozes, firstly, themselves establish the budget with additional expenses, taking no notice of the budget already established and without asking for a general assembly of Kolkhozines, transferring arbitrarily, the expenditure from one article to another, without taking into consideration the realization of the plan for the revenues. These presidents and managements of the Kolkhozes do not have the right to change the fixed budget in an independent fashion, without the agreement of the Kolkhozines, to do this or that with the expenses; they forget that they are totally accountable to the general assembly of the Kolkhoz.


Members of the Kolkhozes did vote on the collective's budget then? And when the administration "arbitrarily" and against soviet policy and government directives changed the budget they were denounced? So, workers' control was still present, weakened and undermined but present. And instead of Stalin flattering the administration, laws were put forward to help bring a control to the issue.
And, quite the surprise, members of the revisionist group would in the proceeding years argue not only for less regulation but for total emancipation of Kolkhozes and every other enterprise from the burden of the workers' state. Whith every manager being given a much larger share of "responsibilities" and thusly allowed to reap a much larger share of the profits.

These are the policies that weakened worker's control until it was no more and not those enacted by "Stalinists".

[Lyev]

Everyone should be aware that those forming the rightist deviation during the late 20s-early 30s stood opposite to the socialization of the economy until relations of productions had matured. A position shared by the majority of CPC today.
What less people know is that the champion of workers Trotsky also opposed collectivization (in The revolution betrayed)for at least one or two more decades, provided the external conditions at that time in the future were favourable enough to proceed.

So it is a matter of debate how we define counter-revolutionary policies but if giving land to Kulaks can be found to be such a policy, it is not Stalin and the entirety of the Soviet bureaucrasy to be held responsible but these two sides.





This is a quite common misconseption about the Soviet Union. Stalinism is thought to be the extreme opposite of workers' control. Stalin and the bureaucrats around him did not only fight worker's control and democracy, they succeded in erasing it from the USSR!

But then how will someone explain this? http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/04/19-2.htm

The statutes of the agricultural artels demand that the management of the Kolkhozes spend, only in that measure and only on those articles stipulated by the budget which was fixed at the conclusion of the general assembly of the Kolkhozines. In practice, however, several managements of Kolkhozes, firstly, themselves establish the budget with additional expenses, taking no notice of the budget already established and without asking for a general assembly of Kolkhozines, transferring arbitrarily, the expenditure from one article to another, without taking into consideration the realization of the plan for the revenues. These presidents and managements of the Kolkhozes do not have the right to change the fixed budget in an independent fashion, without the agreement of the Kolkhozines, to do this or that with the expenses; they forget that they are totally accountable to the general assembly of the Kolkhoz.


Members of the Kolkhozes did vote on the collective's budget then? And when the administration "arbitrarily" and against soviet policy and government directives changed the budget they were denounced? So, workers' control was still present, weakened and undermined but present. And instead of Stalin flattering the administration, laws were put forward to help bring a control to the issue.
And, quite the surprise, members of the revisionist group would in the proceeding years argue not only for less regulation but for total emancipation of Kolkhozes and every other enterprise from the burden of the workers' state. Whith every manager being given a much larger share of "responsibilities" and thusly allowed to reap a much larger share of the profits.

These are the policies that weakened worker's control until it was no more and not those enacted by "Stalinists".

Surely the very fact that Stalin was a bureaucrat and the Soviet Union did degenerate into bureaucracy negates any notion of true worker-control. You even say yourself that the workers movement was 'weakened and undermined', if you're a Marxist why do you affiliate yourself with a man that you actually said 'weakened and undermined' worker-control?

[FSL]

Surely the very fact that Stalin was a bureaucrat and the Soviet Union did degenerate into bureaucracy negates any notion of true worker-control. You even say yourself that the workers movement was 'weakened and undermined', if you're a Marxist why do you affiliate yourself with a man that you actually said 'weakened and undermined' worker-control?


Why do you need to lie and use strawmans? Why is it easier to lie than maybe assume your views on that country and that person are a bit misguided?

Soviet Union was a great example of a bureaucratic regime where the state stopped putting forward meaningful 5 year plans since the 50s, where each enterprise would act on its own after the Kosygin reforms in the 60s, where black market was allowed to flourish and then legalised even. Yes, oh how right you are.

There exists no claim that Stalin weakened workers control in what you quoted. In fact, not even any evidence that could lead anyone to that assumption. What is presented is a suggestion that antagonisms continued to pursist in the USSR. Stalin wasn't undermining workers' control, the social forces that had differing interests in some matters were and these forces manifested their views politically with the birth of the revisionist thought in the party.

In society's base, in the economic relations workers were undermined by parts of the intelligentsia, the educated personel, the enterprises' administrations, the Kolkhozes in general as they mostly produced for the market, people that had concentrated wealth during NEP etc.
In hyperstructure, meaning in the political sphere, in the party, "Stalinist bureaucrats" were undermined by revisionist democrats who wanted to relax the state's (the workers' state) grip on these social forces, allowing them to strengthen and in the 80s challenge the nature of the regime, its protection of puclic property.

So Stalin and USSR were at that point defending workers' control not simply with recommendations but in a concrete manner, with legislation. As that legislation proved less than enough these forces grew stronger and in the XX congress they won the majority in the party. Of course, at that point any element of workers control was to be eliminated.

[Lyev]

Why do you need to lie and use strawmans? Why is it easier to lie than maybe assume your views on that country and that person are a bit misguided?

Soviet Union was a great example of a bureaucratic regime where the state stopped putting forward meaningful 5 year plans since the 50s, where each enterprise would act on its own after the Kosygin reforms in the 60s, where black market was allowed to flourish and then legalised even. Yes, oh how right you are.

There exists no claim that Stalin weakened workers control in what you quoted. In fact, not even any evidence that could lead anyone to that assumption. What is presented is a suggestion that antagonisms continued to pursist in the USSR. Stalin wasn't undermining workers' control, the social forces that had differing interests in some matters were and these forces manifested their views politically with the birth of the revisionist thought in the party.

In society's base, in the economic relations workers were undermined by parts of the intelligentsia, the educated personel, the enterprises' administrations, the Kolkhozes in general as they mostly produced for the market, people that had concentrated wealth during NEP etc.
In hyperstructure, meaning in the political sphere, in the party, "Stalinist bureaucrats" were undermined by revisionist democrats who wanted to relax the state's (the workers' state) grip on these social forces, allowing them to strengthen and in the 80s challenge the nature of the regime, its protection of puclic property.

So Stalin and USSR were at that point defending workers' control not simply with recommendations but in a concrete manner, with legislation. As that legislation proved less than enough these forces grew stronger and in the XX congress they won the majority in the party. Of course, at that point any element of workers control was to be eliminated.

I was just quoting you FSL, don't come back at me with that. You actually said yourself, 'weakened and undermined', did you not?