On Stalin [Archive]

Lyev

21st November 2009, 12:17

When I look up Marxist study guides, some of them tend to have Stalin in them. Likewise, Mao talks about Lenin and Stalin developing political theory. What did Stalin do? It seems to me, although I am not necessarily objective, that Stalin was a political opportunist, and that he established a massive bureaucracy in Russia that, because of their prestige as Communist power in the world, influenced other revolutionary activity in a negative way. His idea of a planned economy was a commitee deciding a plan, and them forcing it on the people. Also, the CCCP, as head of the cominturn, would encourage Communists to support the bourgeoise factions in their country as part of the stages theory. I don't doubt that Russia was better after Stalin than before, but didn't his actions set back world socialism a long way? I don't know if we have any Stalinists here, but if we do I would like to hear from them specifically. My question is three part, 1) what is Stalin's contribution to Marxism, 2) is that contribution positive or negative, and 3) was the direction Stalin went the only route isolated russia could have gone?

I don't think you're ever going to get a truly objective view of Stalin. Everyone looks at him differently; there's the Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists and on the other hand the Trotskyists, Left Communists, Luxemburgists and even the Anarchists. Then, on top of that, there's all bourgeois sophistry you have to wade through about statistics on deaths, and on purges etc. before you can get down to the cold hard facts. Most of the people answering your questions are going to have some sort of dogma over their heads, and I'm not saying I'm any different, but I thought I'd just say, there's no such thing as an 'unbiased answer'.

1) what is Stalin's contribution to Marxism: I don't think much really. The absolute fundamental question you have to ask is; did the workers control and democratically run the means of production in the Soviet Union? the answer is no. Stalin was unequivocally part of a bureaucracy. One major theory that Stalin came up with was 'Socialism in One Country', the theory that "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". Before Stalin Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were always internationalists, the nationalist notion of developing 'Socialism in One Country' never even crossed their minds. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and fully-fledged communism so therefore needs some really decent levels of production to cater for everyones needs equally in society, so it follows that we need to pool resources internationally. Russia as a country does not have all the resources in the world contained within it. Here's a slogan actually thought up by Marx: 'the workers have no country', so I guess in answering your question 1 I've answered question 2 because Stalin can't be a sound continuation of Marx if he directly contradicts him. To add, I'm fairly sure many of the victims of Stalin's purges were ordinary peasants and workers, I found this quote while just browsing on the internet, from Stalin: 'Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years time? No one.'

3) was the direction Stalin went the only route isolated russia could have gone? I kind of agree with Scarletghoul here. Although I don't like many of the things Stalin did, it's very hard for me to, sat behind my keyboard to criticize the past in this way. Like Scarlet said we, in the present, obviously have the benefit of hindsight. There were different ways that Stalin could of approached things, but he did things how he did things. But you can't justify: killing of political dissidents (including many of the 'old' Bolsheviks who played highly active roles in the '17 revolution). You can't justify the purges, the cult of personality, the show trials, the gulags etc.

Oh one other note, when people say it was Stalin that fought of the Nazis, well no actually I don't think he did. It's not 'great men' that make history; in retrospect you could of put any leader in the place of Stalin and the Nazis would of been fought off (by the way the things Hitler had going on do bear some similarity to what Stalin had going on). Anyway my point is it's the masses, the majority of the people, that make history- it was the Russian people that fought off the Nazis, not Stalin.

Ismail

21st November 2009, 12:31

Stalin himself said that he was merely a proponent of Leninism. He hated the term "Stalinism" because he felt that it was inaccurate because he did not further any theories of this own. Much like how Hoxha focused on fighting revisionism, while not advancing much when it came to theory.

These two links are pretty much Stalin's most well-known works:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

Stalin defending Marxism in a debate with H.G. Wells:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm

His entire collected works (though this is not the entirety of all he ever wrote) is online: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/collected/index.htm

To add, I'm fairly sure many of the victims of Stalin's purges were ordinary peasants and workers, I found this quote while just browsing on the internet, from Stalin: 'Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years time? No one.'He was clearly comparing those purged to other "petty" rightists or ultra-leftists over the years. There's nothing about workers in that whatsoever. Can you name the leaders of the Social-Revolutionaries, who did try to assassinate Lenin? (Fanny Kaplan and all that) Can you name those people who participated in Kronstadt? It was the belief of Stalin that the purge trials would turn into a bit of a footnote in socialist and Soviet history. "In 1936-37 we put some traitors on trial." Plus the trials themselves were quite a popular subject at the time (various legal minds commented on them, various legal minds visited the USSR to witness them, etc.), so Stalin was also noting that.

Soviet

21st November 2009, 13:51

he established a massive bureaucracyHow it was massive?Figures and facts,please.Who can really prove that Stalin's bureacracy was more massive than in other countries?Nobody,of course,it's only Trot's idle talk.
Bureacracy(state machinery) is the integral part of every state,it'll vanish only with a state.Then how is Stalin to blame?

did the workers control and democratically run the means of production in the Soviet Union? the answer is no. Really? And how do you imagine this control?
There was a real worker's control in the USSR - a control of Communist party,wich really expressed interests of the working class,no matter what Trots use to tell about it.
The answer-yes.

One major theory that Stalin came up with was 'Socialism in One Country', Nonsense,there wasn't such theory "Socialism in One Country",the talk was about "socialism for a start in one country".Feel the differense.It's well known that the result of Stalin's policy was the appearanse of 12 new socialist countries. Where is "Socialism in One Country' , Trots?

But you can't justify: killing of political dissidents (including many of the 'old' Bolsheviks who played highly active roles in the '17 revolution). You can't justify the purges, the cult of personality, the show trials, the gulags etc.All is a pack of lies.
Who killed dissidents in 1920s when they were really dissidents?Nobody.Stalin took the victory over them in open discussons.
There were no dissedents in 1930s - Trots began an illegai underground struggle and were repressed as a '5-th column'.
Why we can't justify open trails?Do you prefer closed trails?
Why we can't justify purges?"Purging"="cleaning",do you prefer "mud"?
And why Trots can justify Trotsky's personal cult?

pranabjyoti

21st November 2009, 13:51

Actually, the degeneration of the proletariat in USSR and its transformation into a revisionist one is due to the fact that Stalin and USSR have to fight alone with the world power of imperialism. Most of the oppressed people and workers, specially in the third world countries of today, which were then just colonies of the imperialism, is in deep sleep. If they were awake at that time and can stand beside USSR with their full strength, world political picture and history would be different today.

bailey_187

21st November 2009, 18:22

double post

bailey_187

21st November 2009, 18:29

the nationalist notion of developing 'Socialism in One Country' never even crossed their minds. .

SIOC is not a nationalist idea neccesarily. If Stalin was to say "only Russia is great enough to build Socialism" then that would be nationalism. However, reality dicatated that the USSR would be the only nation ot build Socialism, not because Stalin beleived that only the USSR was capable, but because no other country had had a revolution.
And the idea of SIOC had crossed Lenin's mind. there are many quotes but CBA looking for them today.

Oh one other note, when people say it was Stalin that fought of the Nazis, well no actually I don't think he did. It's not 'great men' that make history; in retrospect you could of put any leader in the place of Stalin and the Nazis would of been fought off

I agree. But its funny, whenever something good happens in the USSR its the result of the masses or the nationalised economy or whatever. But when something but happens, its STALIN!!!!

(by the way the things Hitler had going on do bear some similarity to what Stalin had going on). .

such as.....................

Pirate turtle the 11th

21st November 2009, 20:27

Stalin: When he wasn't fucking children he was murdering the working class.

Lyev

21st November 2009, 20:28

Really? And how do you imagine this control?
There was a real worker's control in the USSR - a control of Communist party,wich really expressed interests of the working class,no matter what Trots use to tell about it.
The answer-yes.

You know, just because a 'Communist party' paints some things red, and scrawls hammer and sickles and pictures of Marx everywhere does not mean they're 'Communist'. Anyway someone that 'expressed the interests of the working class' is not the same as 'real workers control' is it? Anyway, the workers movement was compromised under Stalin, wages were cut, hours were increased, were they not? There's a quote from Engels that helps further my point that the Soviet Union was bureaucratic:"The worst thing than can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch where the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply... he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practiced, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with assertions that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost." In short, Stalin was compelled to fight for the interests of his class: the party and the bureaucracy. And please can we try and keep sectarianism out of this? My opposition to Stalinism is irrelevant next to my position as a Trotskyist.

Nonsense,there wasn't such theory "Socialism in One Country",the talk was about "socialism for a start in one country".Feel the differense.It's well known that the result of Stalin's policy was the appearanse of 12 new socialist countries. Where is "Socialism in One Country' , Trots?

I'm fairly sure there was 'Socialism in One Country', I'll give you a quote from Stalin: 'the proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country'. And don't give me that shit that the satellite states were socialist, they were most definitely not. The Red Army invaded those countries and forced a 'revolution' on them. At any rate, if you think socialism could of been established under that premise, then, IMO, you're wrong- there's no revolution that can be given to the masses.

All is a pack of lies.
Who killed dissidents in 1920s when they were really dissidents?Nobody.Stalin took the victory over them in open discussons.
There were no dissedents in 1930s - Trots began an illegai underground struggle and were repressed as a '5-th column'.
Why we can't justify open trails?Do you prefer closed trails?
Why we can't justify purges?"Purging"="cleaning",do you prefer "mud"?
And why Trots can justify Trotsky's personal cult?

I'll provide with a list that was posted on a previous Stalin thread:

EN Egorova (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
GF Fedorov (Central Committee) (Assassinated 1937)
AF Ilin-Zhenevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
LB Kamenev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)
MS Kedrov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
FP Khaustov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
NV Krylenko (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
M Latis (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
KA Mekhonoshin (Military Organisation) (Executed)
VP Miliutin (Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
VI Nevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
SK Ordzhonikidze (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1937)
MA Saveliev (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
AG Shliapnikov (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
IT Smilga (Central Committee) (Executed 1938)
IN Stukov (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
MP Tomsky (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1936)
PA Zalutsky (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
GE Zinoviev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)

And why are you saying this 'why Trots can justify Trotsky's personal cult?' What personality cult? There's no picture to be found of Trotsky like this, is there?
http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/r/ro/roses_for_stalin_by_vladimirskij.jpg

SIOC is not a nationalist idea neccesarily. If Stalin was to say "only Russia is great enough to build Socialism" then that would be nationalism. However, reality dicatated that the USSR would be the only nation ot build Socialism, not because Stalin beleived that only the USSR was capable, but because no other country had had a revolution.
And the idea of SIOC had crossed Lenin's mind. there are many quotes but CBA looking for them today.

Have you not heard of the 1919 Spartacist Uprising? The Germans had a revolution, and the Soviets had hoped to trade and collaborate with them. I fail to see how there's not nationalism in 'Socialism in One Country' as it only really caters for ones country's needs. It isolates a country from the international leftist community.

I agree. But its funny, whenever something good happens in the USSR its the result of the masses or the nationalised economy or whatever. But when something but happens, its STALIN!!!!

Excuse me? It's nothing to with that. When analysing history we simply look at the facts, subjectivity shouldn't enter it into it; I'm not necessarily trying to make said past leader/movement look bad, I'm just interpreting the facts.

such as.....................
Isn't it obvious? The NKVD actually targeted what they called 'national contingents'. In total they executed roughly 247,000 'ethnicities' were executed 110,000 Poles were executed. And there's plently of crimes committed under Stalin I could dig up, go do some research, they're fairly easy to find. There's no use ignoring objectivity for the sake of clinging to some highly subjective dogma.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st November 2009, 22:56

Expropriate:

1) what is Stalin's contribution to Marxism: I don't think much really. The absolute fundamental question you have to ask is; did the workers control and democratically run the means of production in the Soviet Union? the answer is no. Stalin was unequivocally part of a bureaucracy. One major theory that Stalin came up with was 'Socialism in One Country', the theory that "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". Before Stalin Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were always internationalists, the nationalist notion of developing 'Socialism in One Country' never even crossed their minds. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and fully-fledged communism so therefore needs some really decent levels of production to cater for everyones needs equally in society, so it follows that we need to pool resources internationally. Russia as a country does not have all the resources in the world contained within it. Here's a slogan actually thought up by Marx: 'the workers have no country', so I guess in answering your question 1 I've answered question 2 because Stalin can't be a sound continuation of Marx if he directly contradicts him. To add, I'm fairly sure many of the victims of Stalin's purges were ordinary peasants and workers, I found this quote while just browsing on the internet, from Stalin: 'Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years time? No one.'

Indeed, the first edition of the work in which SIC was first announced pushed the Leninist line that socialism cannot be established in one country.

And, as we can now see, it wasn't -- history refuted the idea that it could.

Same happend in China and E Europe.

You'd think Stalinists and Maoists would get the message...

Ismail

21st November 2009, 23:41

And why are you saying this 'why Trots can justify Trotsky's personal cult?' What personality cult? There's no picture to be found of Trotsky like this, is there?
http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/r/ro/roses_for_stalin_by_vladimirskij.jpg"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.'

Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum. He had the same lack of personal vanity as Peter the Great or Lenin....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 233-35.)

In his memoirs, Molotov notes that Stalin disliked the personality cult, but grew used to it.

See also: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

I fail to see how there's not nationalism in 'Socialism in One Country' as it only really caters for ones country's needs. It isolates a country from the international leftist community.I fail to see how. "Socialism in one country" does not mean "fuck the world, I want out."

"There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception."
(Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, 1917 in Collected Works, Vol. 24, Progress Publishers, 1964.)

And Stalin in 1938 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm):

The second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between our country and other countries, capitalist countries; the problem of the mutual relations between the working class of our country and the bourgeoisie of other countries. This concerns the sphere of external, international relations.

Can the victorious Socialism of one country, which is encircled by many strong capitalist countries, regard itself as being fully guaranteed against the danger of military invasion, and hence, against attempts to restore capitalism in our country?

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie? In other words :

Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

Such are the problems that are connected with the second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the negative.

Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

This is what Lenin says on this score :

"We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization." (Collected Works, Vol. 24. P. 122.)

And further :

"We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair's breadth from invasion." (Collected Works, Vol. 27. P. 117.)

This is said sharply and strongly but honestly and truthfully without embellishment as Lenin was able to speak.

On the basis of these premises Stalin stated in "Problems of Leninism" that :

"The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.

"Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism," (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.)

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.

Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?

Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.

The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost.

The whole of our people must be kept in a state of mobilisation and preparedness in the face of the danger of a military attack, so that no "accident" and no tricks on the part of our external enemies may take us by surprise . . .

From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko adheres to different and not quite Leninist opinions. He, it appears, asserts that "we now have the final victory of Socialism and full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism."

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is fundamentally wrong.

Comrade Urozhenko's assertion can be explained only by his failure to understand the surrounding reality and his ignorance of the elementary propositions of Leninism, or by empty boastfulness of a conceited young bureaucrat.

If it is true that "we have full guarantee against intervention and restoration of capitalism," then why do we need a strong Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, a strong Chemical and Air Defence Society, more and stronger ties with the international proletariat?

Would it not be better to spend the milliards that now go for the purpose of strengthening the Red Army on other needs and to reduce the Red Army to the utmost, or even to dissolve it altogether?

People like Comrade Urozhenko, even if subjectively they are loyal to our cause, are objectively dangerous to it because by their boastfulness they - willingly or unwillingly (it makes no difference!) - lull the vigilance of our people, demobilise the workers and peasants and help the enemies to take us by surprise in the event of international complications.

As for the fact that, as it appears, you, Comrade Ivanov, have been "removed from propaganda work and the question has been raised of your fitness to remain in the Y.C.L.," you have nothing to fear.

If the people in the Regional Committee of the Y.C.L. really want to imitate Chekov's Sergeant Prishibeyev, you can be quite sure that they will lose on this game.

Prishibeyevs are not liked in our country.

Now you can judge whether the passage from the book "Problems of Leninism" on the victory of Socialism in one country is out of date or not.

I myself would very much like it to be out of date.

I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.

(Signed) J. Stalin.
February 12, 1938.

Pravda
14 February 1938

bailey_187

22nd November 2009, 02:20

I'm fairly sure there was 'Socialism in One Country', I'll give you a quote from Stalin: 'the proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country'.

Quote the full thing

And don't give me that shit that the satellite states were socialist, they were most definitely not. The Red Army invaded those countries and forced a 'revolution' on them. At any rate, if you think socialism could of been established under that premise, then, IMO, you're wrong- there's no revolution that can be given to the masses.

Did the red army invade alabania? lets ask Ismail? no? lets ask Prairefire? no? well our resident hoxhaists i.e. people who know alot about albania disagree so................

Have you not heard of the 1919 Spartacist Uprising? The Germans had a revolution, and the Soviet had had hoped to trade and collaborate with them.

Yes i have heard of it. Have you heard how it ended? Whats your pioint?

I fail to see how there's not nationalism in 'Socialism in One Country' as it only really caters for ones country's needs. It isolates a country from the international leftist community.

Well the last sentance is bullshit. I thought Stalin's Comintern bought failure to the left - hardly isolation.
Well i fail to see how there is. I explained why there is not. Explain why there is

Excuse me? It's nothing to with that. When analysing history we simply look at the facts, subjectivity shouldn't enter it into it; I'm not necessarily trying to make said past leader/movement look bad, I'm just interpreting the facts.

No your not. You dont know the facts.

Isn't it obvious? The NKVD actually targeted what they called 'national contingents'. In total they executed roughly 247,000 'ethnicities' were executed 110,000 Poles were executed. And there's plently of crimes committed under Stalin I could dig up, go do some research, they're fairly easy to find. There's no use ignoring objectivity for the sake of clinging to some highly subjective dogma.

Hi ComradeOm. Seeing as u just copy and posted that from him. Anyway, i have not given sufficent study to Stalins treatment of the Ethnic minorities to make a comment. maybe you should follow suit

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd November 2009, 02:55

Can a mod either delete the above abusive post or issue a verbal warning?

btpound

22nd November 2009, 16:14

Has anyone here read revolution betrayed?

Lyev

22nd November 2009, 19:27

"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.'

Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum. He had the same lack of personal vanity as Peter the Great or Lenin....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 233-35.)

In his memoirs, Molotov notes that Stalin disliked the personality cult, but grew used to it.

See also: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Ok, fair enough, Stalin perhaps didn't like the 'mass adulation' and I'm sure he wasn't "vain" or "self-obsessed". However, totally irrelevant of Stalins feelings towards his personality cult he had one. And at times I'm sure it helped his reign. I don't how Stalin felt about it but under his rule history was rewritten, wasn't it? It was changed to the extent that eventually it was only Lenin and Stalin who were the leaders of the 1917 Revolution.

I fail to see how. "Socialism in one country" does not mean "fuck the world, I want out."

"There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception."
(Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, 1917 in Collected Works, Vol. 24, Progress Publishers, 1964.)

And Stalin in 1938 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm):

I'm confused though: is SIOC actually just nationalism? The way I see it, is that Russia wasn't not the most advanced country at the time- in fact, it was backward. It didn't have same economic and technological tools at hand than, say, Germany or England at the time. Bearing in mind the Marxist cycle Russia, as we know tried to go from feudalism to socialism. And, in the words of Trotsky, "Socialist society can be built only on the most advanced productive forces, ... on combining, generalizing and bringing to maximum development the highest elements of modern technology... Socialism, however, must not only take over from capitalism the most highly developed productive forces but must immediately carry them onward... and give them a state of development such as has been unknown under capitalism." Can you explain for me how SIOC doesn't equal isolation?

And more Trotsky:

The large-scale defeats of the European proletariat, and the first very modest economic successes of the Soviet Union, suggested to Stalin, in the autumn of 1924, the idea that the historic mission of the Soviet bureaucracy was to build socialism in a single country. Around this question there developed a discussion which to many superficial minds seemed academic or scholastic, but which in reality reflected the incipient degeneration of the Third International and prepared the way for the Fourth.

Petrov, the former communist, now a White émigré, whom we have already quoted , tells from his own memories how fiercely the younger generation of administrators opposed the doctrine of the dependence of the Soviet Union upon the international revolution. “How is it possible that we in our own country can not contrive to build a happy life?” If Marx has it otherwise, that means that “we are no Marxists, we are Russian Bolsheviks – that’s what!”...

The juridical and political standards set up by the revolution exercised a progressive action upon the backward economy, but upon the other hand they themselves felt the lowering influence of that backwardness. The longer the Soviet Union remains in a capitalist environment, the deeper runs the degeneration of the social fabric. A prolonged isolation would inevitably end not in national communism, but in a restoration of capitalism.

If a bourgeoisie cannot peacefully grow into a socialist democracy, it is likewise true that a socialist state cannot peacefully merge with a world capitalist system. On the historic order of the day stands not the peaceful socialist development of “one country”, but a long series of world disturbances: wars and revolutions. Disturbances are inevitable also in the domestic life of the Soviet Union. If the bureaucracy was compelled in its struggle for a planned economy to dekulakize the [I]kulak, the working class will be compelled in its struggle for socialism to debureaucratize the bureaucracy.

On the tomb of the latter will be inscribed the epitaph:
"Here lies the theory of socialism in one country.”
And also actually two quotes from Stalin, before he changed his mind on the issue of SIOC:

...can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible... For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.
And also,

Some think that socialism can be strengthened by way of a certain material equalization of people on the basis of a pauper life. That is not true. [...] In reality, socialism can conquer only on the basis of a high productivity of labor, higher than under capitalism.
Quote the full thing
I don't know the whole thing, what is it? What's your point?

Did the red army invade alabania? lets ask Ismail? no? lets ask Prairefire? no? well our resident hoxhaists i.e. people who know alot about albania disagree so................

I know full well that the red army didn't invade Albania thank you very much, but I'm fairly sure they weren't part of the Soviet Union to start with. And you haven't denied that the Red Army invaded all the satellite states...

Yes i have heard of it. Have you heard how it ended? Whats your pioint?

My point was simply that Russia could of traded with Germany if Luxemburg and Liebknecht had been successful.

Well the last sentance is bullshit. I thought Stalin's Comintern bought failure to the left - hardly isolation.
Well i fail to see how there is. I explained why there is not. Explain why there is

It's not exactly bullshit, perhaps just exaggerated a bit. I'll try and explain why I think, at the very least SIOC is nationalistic. The material conditions of Russia (ie. feudalism) weren't exactly ripe, so to speak, for the perfect revolution. But on the other hand the working-class didn't want to just wait for the Tsar to bring Russia into capitalism so that a 'proper' revolution could take place. One key interjection at this point is that feudalism isn't nearly as productive as capitalism and that the jump to socialism needs to borrow the very best of the productive forces from capitalism. In the words of Marx and Engels "development of productive forces... is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of socialism] because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced." So, with this in mind, it entails that the productive forces weren't at their optimum level for the transition to 'properly' take place. So, instead of this sort of thing happening (this is a letter from Kolkhoz in '30)
The members of the kolkhoz have for two months received no pay... Fifty percent of the revenue goes to the kolkhoz treasury, fifty percent for taxes and rent. What remains for the workers? No one knows. The president pays himself several flour certificates each month and refrains from all physical labor... we should promote internationalism so that we can pool resources internationally- rather than trying to find the solution at home (home in this case is Russia). The result of trying to find the solutions solely at home is the degeneration into bureaucracy and the proletariat become compromised.

No your not. You dont know the facts.
What facts have I missed?

Hi ComradeOm. Seeing as u just copy and posted that from him. Anyway, i have not given sufficent study to Stalins treatment of the Ethnic minorities to make a comment. maybe you should follow suit

Can we try and keep the discussion at least vaguely respectful? It doesn't have to degenerate into a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

bailey_187

22nd November 2009, 19:43

I know full well that the red army didn't invade Albania thank you very much, but I'm fairly sure they weren't part of the Soviet Union to start with. And you haven't denied that the Red Army invaded all the satellite states....
Well how else was the USSR to defeat the Nazis? Go around them? They were under Nazi occupation or had their own Fascist or Fascist-sympathising government anyway.
Besides, didnt Trotsky advocate invading other countries?

My point was simply that Russia could of traded with Germany if Luxemburg and Liebknecht had been successful.

Yeah but they wernt....

It's not exactly bullshit, perhaps just exaggerated a bit. I'll try and explain why I think, at the very least SIOC is nationalistic. The material conditions of Russia (ie. feudalism) weren't exactly ripe, so to speak, for the perfect revolution. But on the other hand the working-class didn't want to just wait for the Tsar to bring Russia into capitalism so that a 'proper' revolution could take place. One key interjection at this point is that feudalism isn't nearly as productive as capitalism and that the jump to socialism needs to borrow the very best of the productive forces from capitalism. In the words of Marx and Engels "development of productive forces... is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of socialism] because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced." So, with this in mind, it entails that the productive forces weren't at their optimum level for the transition to 'properly' take place.

So because it wasnt the ideal situation or the one Marx and Engels expected they should have given up? This doesnt explain why it was Nationalistic, just why the USSR had many problems. the Communists in Russia recognised that the productive forces were not advanced enough for Socialism straight away, hence the massive industrialisation of the 1930s. The USSR only claimed to have acheived Socialism in the late 1930s.

So, instead of this sort of thing happening (this is a letter from Kolkhoz in '30) we should promote internationalism so that we can pool resources internationally- rather than trying to find the solution at home (home in this case is Russia). The result of trying to find the solutions solely at home is the degeneration into bureaucracy and the proletariat become compromised. .

What do you mean by "promote internationalism"? What else could the USSR have done? THERE WAS NO MORE REVOLUTIONS. The USSR had no choice but to build Socialism alone.
yes buerecracy was a problem, Stalin recognised this.

-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-

22nd November 2009, 19:57

Stalinism is not a political sect, he just followed leninism didnt he?

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd November 2009, 20:34

^^^Well he supported it like a rope supported a hanging man...

-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-

22nd November 2009, 20:51

So he supported it very well then.
Great you agree with me;)

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd November 2009, 23:05

^^^You clearly missed the point of this comment of Lenin's (which I quoted).

Ismail

23rd November 2009, 03:29

I don't how Stalin felt about it but under his rule history was rewritten, wasn't it? It was changed to the extent that eventually it was only Lenin and Stalin who were the leaders of the 1917 Revolution.Yes, though I do recall (I do not have a source, unfortunately) that in the 30's or 40's Stalin was looking over a Russian Civil War book he had to review for publishing and was annoyed that it didn't mention Trotsky/lacked his picture. He believed that it was excessive.

I'm confused though: is SIOC actually just nationalism?No, it's just "We can build socialism."

Can you explain for me how SIOC doesn't equal isolation?Depends what you mean by "isolation." Albania was isolated (far more than the USSR under Stalin), but it still called for world revolution and funded various pro-Albanian CPs.

And more Trotsky:And more Lenin:
‘As a matter of fact, the political power of the Soviet over all large-scale means of production, the power in the state in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc, …is not this all that is necessary in order... to build a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building’. (See Lenin’s article on co-operation, Vol. 27; p.392).

"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously." (Lenin, Political Report of the CC to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B), March 7 1918, Collected Works, Vol 27).

And also actually two quotes from Stalin, before he changed his mind on the issue of SIOC:Stalin did not change his mind that socialism could be built in the USSR. "Final" is different from "we can build socialism."

‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time’. (V. I. Lenin: C. W. Russ. Ed. Vol. 19; p.325)

"Ten or 20 years of correct relations with the peasantry, and victory on a world scale is assured (even if the proletarian revolutions, which are growing, are delayed); otherwise, 20-40 years of the torments of white guard terrorism"
(Lenin. Vol. 26, p. 313).

"…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible". (Lenin. Vol.26, p. 470).

"a) proceeding from the law of uneven development under imperialism, Lenin, in his fundamental article, 'The United States of Europe Slogan,' drew the conclusion that the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries is possible;

b) by the victory of socialism in individual countries, Lenin means the seizure of power by the proletariat, the expropriation of the capitalists, and the organisation of socialist production; moreover, all these tasks are not an end in themselves, but a means of standing up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, and helping the proletarians of all countries in their struggle against capitalism;"
(J.V. Stalin. The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I., November 22-December 16, 1926.)

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd November 2009, 06:10

Looks like history refuted Stalin, too.

Soviet

23rd November 2009, 11:46

Anyway someone that 'expressed the interests of the working class' is not the same as 'real workers control' is it? Anyway, the workers movement was compromised under Stalin, wages were cut, hours were increased, were they not?

Only party's policy can show it's class affiliation.

1.Principal results of industrialisation were:
-the USSR got an economic independense;
-the worker class increased in the number:33% of population in 1939( in 1917 -14%)
-unemployment was eliminated.

2.Collectivization of agriculture exterminated starvation as regular phenomena in Russia,the starvation of 1932 was the last in our history.

3.Culture revolution and the right to education.The number of specialists with high education in 1939 was 12 times higher than in 1913,the majority of tham were from worker's and peasant's families.

4.The right to medicine increased the life interval in the USSR.

5.Regular purges in Communist party:
1921-130 000 members were striked off;
1929-8 % of members were striked off;
1933;
1935-1936
were persued under the control of worker's class and locked down thе ability of party's regeneration.

Now,who'll dare to say that this policy was in interests of "bureacracy"?
Isn't it clear that it was a policy of the worker's state?

Originally Posted by Expropriate
I'm fairly sure there was 'Socialism in One Country', I'll give you a quote from Stalin: 'the proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country'. And don't give me that shit that the satellite states were socialist, they were most definitely not. The Red Army invaded those countries and forced a 'revolution' on them. At any rate, if you think socialism could of been established under that premise, then, IMO, you're wrong- there's no revolution that can be given to the masses.I don't understand what do you want.You don't like socialism in one country,you don't like socialism in 13 countries too.I suspect that you simply don't like socialism at all.

Originally Posted by Expropriate
EN Egorova (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
GF Fedorov (Central Committee) (Assassinated 1937)
AF Ilin-Zhenevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
LB Kamenev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)
MS Kedrov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
FP Khaustov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
NV Krylenko (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
M Latis (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
KA Mekhonoshin (Military Organisation) (Executed)
VP Miliutin (Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
VI Nevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
SK Ordzhonikidze (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1937)
MA Saveliev (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
AG Shliapnikov (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
IT Smilga (Central Committee) (Executed 1938)
IN Stukov (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
MP Tomsky (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1936)
PA Zalutsky (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
GE Zinoviev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)And what of it?Do you want to say that you'd prefere to see another list of repressed persones:

Stalin,bolshevic since 1898,
Voroshilov,bolshevic since 1903,
Molotov,bolshevic since 1906,
Kalinin,bolshevic since 1904,
Kirov,bolshevic since 1904,
Kujbyshev,bolshevic since 1904
Budyonny,the legendary hero of the civil war
etc.,etc. and many other 'stalinists"?

Would you like too see them repressed by Trotsky,'bolshevic" since 1917(three monthes before revolution!)?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd November 2009, 16:49

As opposed to Stalin who killed more Bolsheviks than Hitler did, I suppose?

Lyev

23rd November 2009, 18:56

I'm in a bit of rush, so this reply might be a bit brief.

Well how else was the USSR to defeat the Nazis? Go around them? They were under Nazi occupation or had their own Fascist or Fascist-sympathising government anyway.
Besides, didnt Trotsky advocate invading other countries?
You make a good point, but they needn't of inaugurated those countries into the Soviet Union on the way out.

So because it wasnt the ideal situation or the one Marx and Engels expected they should have given up? This doesnt explain why it was Nationalistic, just why the USSR had many problems. the Communists in Russia recognised that the productive forces were not advanced enough for Socialism straight away, hence the massive industrialisation of the 1930s. The USSR only claimed to have acheived Socialism in the late 1930s.
I think you perhaps missed my point. My whole point was that it wasn't the ideal situation- hence why they had to work around it. I'm not saying forbidding said country from having a revolution because they're means of production aren't up to the task. On the contrary; Trotky's theory of Permanent Revolution seems to cater for this, if you're open minded enough ;). This quote seems to sum up what I'm trying to get across: "There were two fundamental propositions in the theory of the permanent revolution. First, that despite the historical backwardness of Russia, the revolution can transfer the power into the hands of the Russian proletariat before the proletariat of advanced countries is able to attain it. Secondly, that the way out of those contradictions which will befall the proletarian dictatorship in a backward country, surrounded by a world of capitalist enemies, will be found on the arena of world revolution. The first proposition is based upon a correct understanding of the law of uneven development. The second depends upon a correct understanding of the indissolubility of the economic and political ties between capitalist countries. Bukharin is correct in saying that even today I still hold to these two basic propositions of the theory of the permanent revolution. Today, more than ever before. For, in my opinion, they have been completely verified and proven: in theory, by the works of Marx and Lenin; in practice, by the experience of the October Revolution."

What do you mean by "promote internationalism"? What else could the USSR have done? THERE WAS NO MORE REVOLUTIONS. The USSR had no choice but to build Socialism alone.
yes buerecracy was a problem, Stalin recognised this.
I'm not quite sure what the USSR could of done; it's something that needs addressing. The best thing I can think of is abetting, as best they could, the proletariat in other countries. However this still doesn't justify the apparent contradiction in SIOC; in trying to build 'socialism in one country' they seem to have done the exact opposite, represented in this quote, that I previously posted: "The members of the kolkhoz have for two months received no pay... Fifty percent of the revenue goes to the kolkhoz treasury, fifty percent for taxes and rent. What remains for the workers? No one knows. The president pays himself several flour certificates each month and refrains from all physical labor..." If this is what you call 'socialism' it's not something I want to be part of because the workers are second best.

bailey_187

23rd November 2009, 19:23

You make a good point, but they needn't of inaugurated those countries into the Soviet Union on the way out.
.

well, the Baltic states were but they were IIRC part of the territory the USSR lost in the Riga treaty. I thouhgh you were on about the Peoples Democracy Eastern Europe states, which were not part of the USSR. Infact, Bulgaria tried to join the USSR in the 70s but was denied.

I think you perhaps missed my point. My whole point was that it wasn't the ideal situation- hence why they had to work around it. I'm not saying forbidding said country from having a revolution because they're means of production aren't up to the task. On the contrary; Trotky's theory of Permanent Revolution seems to cater for this, if you're open minded enough ;). This quote seems to sum up what I'm trying to get across: "There were two fundamental propositions in the theory of the permanent revolution. First, that despite the historical backwardness of Russia, the revolution can transfer the power into the hands of the Russian proletariat before the proletariat of advanced countries is able to attain it. Secondly, that the way out of those contradictions which will befall the proletarian dictatorship in a backward country, surrounded by a world of capitalist enemies, will be found on the arena of world revolution. The first proposition is based upon a correct understanding of the law of uneven development. The second depends upon a correct understanding of the indissolubility of the economic and political ties between capitalist countries. Bukharin is correct in saying that even today I still hold to these two basic propositions of the theory of the permanent revolution. Today, more than ever before. For, in my opinion, they have been completely verified and proven: in theory, by the works of Marx and Lenin; in practice, by the experience of the October Revolution." .

Yes yes, very nice but it didnt really offer an actual alternative. The Revolution did not spread.

However this still doesn't justify the apparent contradiction in SIOC; in trying to build 'socialism in one country' they seem to have done the exact opposite, represented in this quote, that I previously posted: "The members of the kolkhoz have for two months received no pay... Fifty percent of the revenue goes to the kolkhoz treasury, fifty percent for taxes and rent. What remains for the workers? No one knows. The president pays himself several flour certificates each month and refrains from all physical labor..." If this is what you call 'socialism' it's not something I want to be part of because the workers are second best.

I dont know were you quote this from but i assume its a report or letter from the 1930s? In which case it can be assumed that is an exception to the normal or else it would not be written about in such a way.. This one quote does not show Socialism did not exist - its an example of a corrupt and (probably incompetant) manager.

Here are some examples showing the power and good treatment of workers in USSR

"Walter Reuther, later the anti-Communist president of the United Auto Workers, who worked in a Soviet auto factory in the 1930s said, "Here are no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups. Here the workers are in control. Even the shop superintendent had no more right in these meetings than any other worker. I have witnessed many times already when the superintendent spoke too long. The workers in the hall decided he had already consumed enough time and the floor was given to a lathe hand who told of his problems and offered suggestions. Imagine this at Ford or Briggs. This is what the outside world calls the 'ruthless dictatorship in Russia'. I tell you ... in all countries we have thus far been in we have never found such genuine proletarian democracy"... (quoted from Phillip Bonosky, Brother Bill McKie: Building the Union at Ford [New York: International Publishers, 1953])."

According to Mary McAuley, there were special courts to hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access - managers only appeared as defendents (pp. 54-55). "Labour Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969

"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical
handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . .
. implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question
as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be
removed, he would be tried.'" David Granick - "The Red Executive": (New York, 1960, p. 230)

Lyev

24th November 2009, 19:15

This is a general post to all Stalinists; at Vichuga in western Russia some 16,000 mill workers of the Ivanovo Industrial Region held a series of strikes across the region. They briefly took control of the town until the movement was heavily suppressed by military action. If workers aren't happy with the condition in a so-called "worker's state" then it is evidently not a worker's state, this is objective, don't deny it. Here's an excert from an article on Libcom detailing the strike:

The strike was sparked by a cut in rations, implemented on the first of April, and other grievances such as wages, high rent, living and working conditions and lack of child-care; similar to the poor conditions in many areas towards the end of the first five year plan. During 1931, the secret police (OGPU) recorded about a dozen episodes of unrest in Vichuga's mills, and absenteeism and turnover escalated into 1932.

Six hundred workers at the Nogin mill, who had not received any flour from the local cooperative in February, began slowdowns and stoppages on the 25th March. There was no response from the authorities, and they marched to the town centre on 31st March and demanded their full rations, which were later cut officially by 31-47% for workers and 50% for dependants. A one-hour strike by the Nogin Mill's clerical staff led to the party, Komsomol and trade union officials deciding to break the news to small groups of workers in brigades or workshops, rather than the general assemblies where most news was communicated. Workers were infuriated by these restricted discussions, and 150 stormed out of an assembly at the Nogin Mill's club, "burst into the factory, and demanded the summoning of an all-factory conference on food supply." on 3rd April. This was followed by two further assemblies of workers at Shagov Mill No. 1 a day later. Managers partially conceded to demands for a general assembly on Wednesday 5th and allowed several departments to hold a joint meeting. This resulted in calls for a strike when ration levels were announced, and weavers later gathered outside the factory at the end of the day, calling for both a strike and a general assembly...

Kaganovich [Lazar], accompanied by other high ranking officials, met with non-striking workers to gain their views (many of whom were angry about the rations but less militant than their co-workers who continued protesting in the streets). There were continued attempts by some strikers to undermine the authority of the Moscow delegates, but around 1,000 workers gathered at the square near the city soviety to hear Kaganovich. They were then sent to the Nogin mill, where Kaganovich was still speaking to workers who had reported for duty, but were refused entry by armed guards, and eventually Kaganovich left the mill and led them to a nearby club, by which time there were around 3-4,000 workers in the crowd.

Kaganovich promised to address the concerns of the strikers, criticised their methods, and ordered them to disperse and go back to work. Several workers attempted to address the crowd after he spoke, but he refused any further discussion and left. That night, around 65-85% of workers reported to the night shift. Kaganovich and other officials mobilised party members, and held several tightly controlled assemblies in the mills and barracks, promising to deal with the supply agencies, and collecting petitions. Wednesday 13th April was another rest day, and ther were continued meetings held by Kaganovich with workers from the mills, and at the non-striking machine plant. By the end of Wednesday, several concessions had been agreed by the regional party committee. Rations were to be restored, and supplies increased. They also called for various concessions around alternative supplies of food - suburban farming, "Soviet bazaars", and allowing workers to tend kitchen gardens. Many reforms similar to these were implemented by Moscow shortly afterwards, and they represented real gains by the Vichuga workers and other strikers in the IPO region, which won reforms at a national level.

The strikes in Vichuga were almost unknown until recent archival research. Not only did it involve a large number of workers, around 16,000, but it was also but the largest of several strikes in the IPO region during April 1932. Strikers raised class demands related to their immediate material conditions, as well as invoking the revolution of 1917 and the soviets as a revolution to be defended from the local officials and secret police. However, although they managed to control not only the factories but the town itself for a few days, they did not challenge the local soviet, or the central Soviet power with any resolve, and this eventually led to the diffusion of the strike once representatives from Moscow had promised to deal with the local administration.

The strikers displayed a great deal of co-ordination, leading OGPU records to suggest that there was pre-planning by an underground organisation behind the strikes. However Rossman [he wrote Worker Resistance Under Stalin] suggests the strike committee was more realistically a loose group of workers centred around Iurkin and some other experienced workers. The mass assemblies, marches to other factories and attempts to take over communication lines in order spread the struggle further afield gives us a picture of an uprising that showed advanced tactics and took full advantage of events during its early stages, and which clearly felt continuity with the revolution of fourteen years earlier both in sentiment and method. However it was this respect for the soviets, if not the party, which appears to have led to acquiescence to the central Soviet authority, and to the dissipation of the strike which had previously escalated on an almost daily basis.
The full article can be found here at http://libcom.org/history/1932-vichuga-uprising

Your fable of a "worker's state" or "total worker's control" remains ever elusive.

bailey_187

24th November 2009, 20:31

Read John Scott's - Behind the Urals and you will see genuine enthusiasm among workers in even the most wretchid conditions of Magnitogorsk.

So you give us an example of discontent among workers in the first five year plan? No wonder, the conditions were shit in the first five year plan, however, the industrialisation allowed workers conditions to be improved.
Also, as the article says, the strike was about cuts in rations. Now, what else was happening in 1931/2 in the USSR? Some sort of famine IIRC?
Just because they are workers on strike it does not automatically mean that they are pursuing their best possible class interests. Many people here condemn the Lindsey oil refinery workers who went on strike with signs (not all) saying "British Jobs for British Workers".

Also, some workers being unhappy with the conditions in the early Workers state does not make it not a workers state. The bourgeoisie are unhappy with the condition of the bourgeois state of America, does this make America no longer a bourgeos state? Some of the bourgeoisie of Germany were unhappy with the Weimar Republic; was Weimar not a bourgeois state?

Soviet

25th November 2009, 04:41

Is this strike a rule or an exception?
You must give many other examples of worker's protests in the USSR to prove that it was a rule.Where are they?

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 06:38

Try this:

http://www.amazon.com/Popular-Opinion-Stalins-Russia-Propaganda/dp/0521566762

Soviet

25th November 2009, 08:17

I've tried it and 've found nothing.No facts,only incignificant words.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 09:16

How did you manage to read it online?

Trots,where is your revolution?

Stalinists, where's yours gone?

Soviet

25th November 2009, 13:19

Stalinists, where's yours gone?

Those,who have a past have a future.
Those,who weren't able to prove their rightness by practice during 85 years wouldn't do it never.

How did you manage to read it online?Well,give us quotes,please.

Judges,for Chrissake!And are you interesting in evidences of the witness?:lol:

Kayser_Soso

25th November 2009, 15:35

There were strikes and riots in response to De-Stalinization as well, what is the point?

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 16:24

Soviet:

Those,who have a past have a future.

On that basis, the Nazis, the ancient Romans and the Huns should be ready to make a comeback.

Those,who weren't able to prove their rightness by practice during 85 years wouldn't do it never.

Do you make much money as an amateur clairevoyant, or do you predict the future as part of a hobby?

Well,give us quotes,please.

So, you didn't read it then.

Judges,for Chrissake!And are you interesting in evidences of the witness?

I'm sorry, I did not understand this.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 16:27

KS:

There were strikes and riots in response to De-Stalinization as well, what is the point?

Were they aimed at restoring Stalinism?

The point is, as others have pointed out to you, that Stalinism was based on systematic oppression and exploitation of the working class of the former USSR -- but only after Stalin and his henchmen had helped destroy the Bolshevik party, of course.

bailey_187

25th November 2009, 21:23

KS:

Were they aimed at restoring Stalinism?

The point is, as others have pointed out to you, that Stalinism was based on systematic oppression and exploitation of the working class of the former USSR, after Stalin and his henchmen had helped destroy the Bolshevik party, of course.

This is just words. I can do the same

The point is, that Marxism-Leninism was based on the emanicpation of the working class of the former USSR, after Stalin and the Soviet working class had turned the USSR into an industiralised Socialist state, of course.

bailey_187

25th November 2009, 21:25

KS:

Were they aimed at restoring Stalinism?
.

Was the strikes mentioned earlier aimed at putting in place (seeing as it can not be restored as it was never in practice) Trotskyism? No, the workers were just pissed about cuts in food rations.

Lyev

25th November 2009, 21:26

This is just words. I can do the same

The point is, that Marxism-Leninism was based on the emanicpation of the working class of the former USSR, after Stalin and the Soviet working class had turned the USSR into an industiralised Socialist state, of course.

Huh? But surely what you've said is 'just words'? And what is 'just words'? How else do you expect us to communicate on an internet forum, using something other than 'just words'?

bailey_187

25th November 2009, 21:28

Huh? But surely what you've said is 'just words'? And what is 'just words'? How else do you expect us to communicate on an internet forum, using something other than 'just words'?

Rosa claims the Workers of the USSR were exploited and oppressed - the quotes i gave would show that actually workers excerised a great deal of power in the workplace.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 21:38

Bailey:

This is just words. I can do the same

You are right -- you can, and do. You're a star.

The point is, that Marxism-Leninism was based on the emanicpation of the working class of the former USSR, after Stalin and the Soviet working class had turned the USSR into an industiralised Socialist state, of course.

Except the party in both cases substituted itself for the class, and began to oppress and exploit it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 21:41

Bailey:

Was the strikes mentioned earlier aimed at putting in place (seeing as it can not be restored as it was never in practice) Trotskyism? No, the workers were just pissed about cuts in food rations.

Probably not, since every Trotskyist was either imprisoned or killed.

However, it's clear that you admit here that they did not strike in favour of the re-introduction of Stalinism, which is the only point i wished to make.

bailey_187

25th November 2009, 23:05

Bailey:

Probably not, since every Trotskyist was either imprisoned or killed.

However, it's clear that you admit here that they did not strike in favour of the re-introduction of Stalinism, which is the only point i wished to make.

No, i dont admit anything. I do not know! I dont know much about this except that there were riots in Georgia suggesting that they were in support of Stalin.

I am hoping for KS to explain actually as he knows alot about it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 23:08

Socialist:

Is there any such thing as substitutability?

The term is "substitutionism", and there plainly has been plenty of it.

Didn't Marx and Lenin address such infantile objections by demonstrating the necessity of a vanguard party.

This has nothing to do with a vanguard party as such, but with the substitution of that party for the working class.

How do Trotskyists claim to not have a substitution of class by party?

Well, we handle it in different ways, some better than others.

The answer of course would be that they aim for a "non-bureaucratic" state, when such a thing does not and cannot exist.

Where did you get that idea from? The point is: who holds the whip hand, the bureaucrats or the workers?

There is practically no way to avoid a bureaucracy even in a workers' state. Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists know this because they have been actually involved in several revolutions and know how such things work.

And what verdict did history deliver?

Oh, yes...they all failed.

The fact is such a thing as substitution is not possible when the revolutionary party is by definition an organic part of the class.

Unfortunately for you, history tells a different story.

What we really have is Trotskyists claiming to believe in a revolutionary vanguard party when it suits their interests and to believe in a petit-bourgeois anarchist "party-less" revolution when it suits them in other ways. Either way, this shows the shallow and infantile nature of Trotskyism

Translated this reads: "I (Socialist) know very little about Trotskyism, but am happy nonetheless to pontificate about it from a position of almost total ignorance."

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 23:10

Bailey:

No, i dont admit anything. I do not know! I dont know much about this except that there were riots in Georgia suggesting that they were in support of Stalin.

Ah "suggesting". That sounds convincing...

bailey_187

25th November 2009, 23:29

Bailey:

Ah "suggesting". That sounds convincing...

I am not trying to convince you, i do not know, i admitted this. Well done Rosa, you won that round!

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 23:50

Socialist:

Where exactly?

1) In the former USSR after Lenin died. 2) In Maoist China. 3) In E Europe. 4) In N Korea. 5) In Camdodia. 6) In Vietnam... Need I go on?

Artificially differentiating between so-called bureaucrats (who are none but recallable delegates from the working class) and the workers just contributes to the division of workers as a class and to anarchism.

As I said, it depends on who controls who.

when the party is an organic part of the class, I do not see how it can substitute itself for the class.

Very easy: When it ceases to organise for socialism from below, and substitutes for it socialism from above:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

The only problem being all such "handling" is done inside the heads of Trotskyist sophists, not in the real world. Why? Because they have never been involved in any revolution or the running of any workers' states.

This is a bit rich coming from someone who supports an ideology that has only ever delivered failure.

Your constant repeated personification of history is at once cute and disturbing. Capitalists say history showed that communism failed. The famous bourgeois writer, Fukuyama, claimed that history is at an end and socialism has been vanquished for ever and liberal capitalism has arrived to rule the roost till the end of time. Frankly I'm having a difficult time differentiating from the SWP line of "end of history" (which you, no doubt, follow) and the anti-communist lie of "end of history". That is probably because the intentions in both cases are similar. The SWP line of celebrating the demise of Marxist-Leninist regimes leads to a petit-bourgeois anarchist "party-less" mentality that cannot hope to have any positive effects for the working class at all.

Where have I said that communism has failed?

What i have asserted is that the idea that socialism can be built in one country has been refuted by history:

USSR -- no longer socialist.

China -- adopted market capitalism.

Poland -- the same.

E Germany -- the same.

Hungary -- the same.

Czechoslovakia -- the same.

Rumania -- the same.

Bulgaria -- the same.

Yugoslavia -- the same.

Albania -- the same.

Cambodia -- the same.

Vietnam -- the same.

Cuba -- going that way fast.

Do you begin to see a pattern here?

Frankly I'm having a difficult time differentiating from the SWP line of "end of history" (which you, no doubt, follow) and the anti-communist lie of "end of history". That is probably because the intentions in both cases are similar. The SWP line of celebrating the demise of Marxist-Leninist regimes leads to a petit-bourgeois anarchist "party-less" mentality that cannot hope to have any positive effects for the working class at all.

Where on earth did you get this "end of history" rubbish from?

And I am not in the SWP, so I do not know why you bring that up.

Looks like you are beginning to clutch at straws...

Pot meet kettle. I can say know enough of Trotskyism as much as you know about Marxism-Leninism. From whatever I have seen so far, I don't think there is much of importance to know about Trotskyism as such. Which Trotskyist should I trust, the one who supports the state-capitalist post-1956 USSR as a degenerated workers' state or the one who claims it was state-capitalist since Trotsky was expelled? Maybe I should go with the paedophile supporting Trots or the alien-loving Posadists (socialism on one planet is for suckers). The problem is that there are so many mutually contradictory Trotskyism's that it is impossible to understand who is talking about which Trotskyism most of the time.

Well, your 'superior knowledge' of Trotskyism strangely gets the basics wrong.

And sure there are many different sorts of Trotskyism but there are many different versions of Maoism (and Stalinism), too -- and there would have been even more, but, when you lot are in power, anyone who disagrees is sent to meet their ancestors.

Now, I am not trying to push any particular brand of Trotskyism at you, just pointing out that you seem to have a very insecure command of Trotsky's own ideas.

In itself, that's no big deal, but it does mean that you should at least stop pontificating about it.

Nevertheless looking at your constant anti-historical denunciations of genuine socialist revolutions and socialist societies just proves this point about your lack of knowledge of Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism.

Pick a fight with history, mate, not me. It's not me that has refuted the idea that socialism can be built in one country.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 23:54

Bailey:

I am not trying to convince you, i do not know, i admitted this. Well done Rosa, you won that round!

Thanks!:)

Kayser_Soso

26th November 2009, 00:59

How many attempts did man make at flight before actually achieving it? And after that airplanes still continued to crash frequently, and still crash today. Damn good thing nobody ever looked at those first few failures and gave up.

Bright Banana Beard

26th November 2009, 01:03

Kayser_Soso

26th November 2009, 01:07

Don't forget the light bulbs and the space rockets! They totally failed.

Oh yes, and where those things succeeded, well...THINK OF THE HUMAN COSTS!!! It wasn't worth it!!

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 01:52

Socialist:

In other words, whenever socialism was attempted, admittedly on a practical nation-wide scale, not as a non-historical "world revolution", it led to Stalinism. Congrats for regurgitating that bourgeois lie.

I see you have to make stuff up about what I said. I alleged nothing about the inevitability or otherwise of Stalinism.

I have read that essay before. However, as a materialist, I am not interested in such nonsensical concepts as socialism from above and below, both of which mean nothing for a materialist. If it is indeed from "above" or "below", where is it from? Which class does "above" or "below" represent? Draper's pamphlet only serves to mystify the reality of class struggle and socialist revolution. The fact is for the working class, there is no "above" or "below", as there is just the absolutely essential need to gain working class power over the state. Draper again opportunistically divides working class revolutions into above and below based on myths as rights and freedoms, which should never be spoken out of context from material reality. Unfortunately, Draper just follows typical out of context and anti-materialist absolute concepts of freedoms.

On the contrary, it is thoroughly materialist. The point is that petty-bourgeois and de-classé elements in the workers' movement do not see things the same way that workers see things (being determines consciousness, etc.) So, your fine, but abstract words above are all wasted effort.

At least our ideology succeeded for decades together. Your ideology has not succeeded for even one second, let alone decades. It is a falsification of history and the real positive experiences of the workers of Marxist-Leninist countries to claim it was just a failure. Of course, in such cases, people of your ilk choose to ignore the real benefits and experiences of people in favor of mystical concepts of "freedom".

And, in the end they all failed.

That's the bottom line. Get used to it.

So, you typically blame the failure of those revolutions on ideology? Are you not missing the material factors, like say imperialism, which may have contributed to their failures. In fact there are mountains of evidence that it was sabotages (of course caused by class loyalties and interests) both within and without the socialist states that led to the restoration of capitalism within those states.

Where do I blame it on ideology?

Still making stuff up, eh?

Like?

Like these:

http://www.broadleft.org/communis.htm

More here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-organisations-t27951/index.html

Here again, we have your preference for petit-bourgeois concepts of "diversity" and whatnot over ideological unity

This is not how Lenin saw things.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 01:54

KS:

How many attempts did man make at flight before actually achieving it? And after that airplanes still continued to crash frequently, and still crash today. Damn good thing nobody ever looked at those first few failures and gave up.

Red Cat tried that one out; check out my response to him/her:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t123138/index3.html

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 02:23

Socialist:

Astounding argument (or lack of it). Keep it up.

I gave you a class explanation; how much more materialist do you want?

Define failure.

Define "define".

As a materialist, I am not interested in absolute conceptions of "success" and "failure" that can only take place in a mythical setting. Your fantasy land of immediate overnight world wide socialism is not going to happen. You may claim that you're not advocating such a thing, but what else are we to assume when you keep slandering socialist revolutions of the past? The truth remains that socialism was a success for many decades and millions of workers could testify for this. It was the imperialist-capitalist anti-worker forces that brought down these nations. Of course, I can just imagine your response: "they were failures". So I don't think you're really interested in any sort of historic or scientific evidence and you seem content in repeating this line like a dumb parrot. Be my guest. If you keep repeating that line, I'll just assume Trotskyists are not interested in evidence.

Despite the above waffle, the bottom line is still: the former socialist states are no more.

Just to rub it in:

USSR -- no longer socialist.

China -- adopted market capitalism.

Poland -- the same.

E Germany -- the same.

Hungary -- the same.

Czechoslovakia -- the same.

Rumania -- the same.

Bulgaria -- the same.

Yugoslavia -- the same.

Albania -- the same.

Cambodia -- the same.

Vietnam -- the same.

Cuba -- going that way fast.

Do you begin to see a pattern here?

And, what's wrong with "absolutes"?

"Socialism in one country" aka "Stalinism". Did you or did you not blame this for the failure of past socialist experiments?

I did not blame it on anything; all I alleged was that history had refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

I could blame it on several things, but I haven't done so yet.

Still doesn't prove the existence of different ideologies within Maoism. Of course there is Hoxhaism, but they're anti-revisionists and I don't think there are multiple schools within that school.

It wasn't meant to.

Soviet

26th November 2009, 02:38

So Trots can't give us examples of worker's protests in the USSR to prove that it was a rule.That is a price of their statements.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 02:44

Socialist

Did you explain what is meant by "above" and "below" from a class viewpoint? Why is Maoism "from above" and Draperism-Trotskyism "from below"?

They are clearly metaphors; "below" means that the workers emancipate themselves (as Marx said they should); "above" means that some other class force tries to win emancipation for the working class, for whatever reason.

Maoism is "from above" for the latter reason.

There is, alas, no such thing as 'Draperism', so I can't comment on your fantasy, but I am sure there are professional people who will be only too happy to help you with this malady of yours.

Thanks for posting this list and repeating the same thing over and over again. I never knew about this before you posted them

Don't mention it, but you've clearly given no thought to the implication of these repeated defeats.

Only the real world doesn't exist in terms of absolutes.

1) How do you know?

2) This comment of yours looks pretty absolute...:lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 02:46

Soviet:

So Trots can't give us examples of worker's protests in the USSR to prove that it was a rule.That is a price of their statements.

Where have any of said this was a 'rule'?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 03:05

Socialist:

Frankly that is nonsense. There is no special class force that Maoists represent other than the working class.

Well, Mao and the red army certainly weren't workers -- they were mainly peasants and other de-classe elements.

Unfortunately there is no known cure for Trotskyism which has so many sects that I had no idea of what to call people who follow Draper. Pray do tell me what to call people like yourself who follow Draper and not Taafe or Grant.

Fortunately, there is a cure for Maoism. It's called Marxism.

I have. It is you who haven't given any thought to the implication of these partial victories.

'Partial victory' into total failure. Some recommendation...

I don't know where you're leading with this. Are you saying capitalism will one day absolutely be replaced by socialism/communism?

No, I am just questioning your claim that there are no absolutes -- which you advanced with an absolute of your own.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 03:24

Socialist:

Neither were Lenin, Marx or Engels.

I agree with you about Marx, Engels and Lenin, but that is why the threat of substitutionsim is ever present in Marxism and Bolshevism.

My question was not what class they represented, not what class they were born in

They can only represent their own class interests, unless, of course, you disagree with Marx that social being determines consciousness.

You still didn't answer my question about what I should have called people like you.

'Comrade' will do.

Yes, for the proletariat that is huge recommendation.

Well, they have been dropped right in it by the multiple failure of the idea that socialism can be created in one country, haven't they?

And, what about your evidence/proof that there are no absolutes?

You seemed quite confident about this until I called you on it.

Why so shy?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 03:48

Socialist:

Good.

I take it that this means you agree with this, too:

They can only represent their own class interests, unless, of course, you disagree with Marx that social being determines consciousness.

Which in turn means that non-workers can't represent the interests of the proletariat.

Only the latter can do that.

No. They have been dropped in it due to capitalism. Keep blaming socialism for the proletariat's sorry state and you'll be very popular only among Trotskyists.

Which also means, as I have pointed out to you before, that capitalism is more successful (vastly more successful) than the failed idea that socialism can be created in one country.

I'm not as proficient as you in philosophy, which is where you are leading with this, but that statement of mine was based on a materialist understanding of history which has shown that no system changes magically overnight into another one. Feudalism did not change into capitalism, neither will capitalism into socialism.

1) Then don't beat your chest and blurt out with stuff like this:

I am not interested in absolute conceptions of "success" and "failure" that can only take place in a mythical setting. Your fantasy land of immediate overnight world wide socialism is not going to happen.

2) I agree with you over this, however:

[the] materialist understanding of history which has shown that no system changes magically overnight into another one. Feudalism did not change into capitalism, neither will capitalism into socialism

But I'm not sure what this has got to do with "absolutes".

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 04:10

Socalist:

No doubt feudalism was vastly more successful than capitalism in the early stages of capitalism too.

Perhaps, but no one was foolish enough to argue that capitalism can only be created in one country.

Perhaps, it was just my way of putting it without intending to bring in philosophical arguments into it.

Very wise of you -- I give no quarter when it comes to philosophy.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 04:16

Socialist:

Yet it did happen and it still happening today

Who claimed, and who is still claiming, that capitalism can be created on one country?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 04:25

Socialist:

The French Revolutionaries of 1789 for one. If Trots were present in those days, you'd have no doubt given your sophist and nonsensical arguments against capitalism in one country. No doubt you'd have kept repeating your BS about how capitalism failed to be achieved in one country to those revolutionaries if you were present suring the early 19th century while history passed by you. As for capitalism in one country happening today, we can see there are pockets of capitalism and feudalism interspersed with each other in vast areas of the third world.

I'd like to see the direct quotations.

btpound

26th November 2009, 05:42

To try to bring this debate back to the ground floor, and inserting my two cents, I am really scratching my head wondering how you can support Stalin. I am not trying to bring your commitment to the revolution into question, nor am I trying to degenerate into vulgar name calling. You cannot dispute that the USSR became a top-down bureaucracy. By top down, I mean that it was not the people who ran the country, but Stalin and his ruling cliche. Stalin assassinated Trotsky, and jailed and murdered anarchists and fellow communists just because he disagreed with him. You can give me the, "casualties of war" or "greater good" argument, you can even call it bourgeois propaganda, but these are the facts. You can't honestly explain away the trail of blood. If I had the choice of living in America in 1940 or USSR, I would pick America. America wasn't executing political dissidents. Jailing them and oppressing them yes, but not murder. I would even be willing to accept that Russian workers had a certain amount of democratic control over their conditions, but it was on their party's terms. Maybe Stalin isn't as bad as the bourgeois media would have you believe, true, but how can you point to the USSR under Stalin and say "Now that's how it's done!"? I know deep down, that if I was there, I would be killed or in jail. I am not trying to shout you down, I would like an honest response, but to me, there is no greater traitor to the revolution that Mr. Stalin.

robbo203

26th November 2009, 09:30

. Your fantasy land of immediate overnight world wide socialism is not going to happen. You may claim that you're not advocating such a thing, but what else are we to assume when you keep slandering socialist revolutions of the past? The truth remains that socialism was a success for many decades and millions of workers could testify for this. It was the imperialist-capitalist anti-worker forces that brought down these nations. Of course, I can just imagine your response: "they were failures".

Several points.

1) No one has said there would literally be "immediate overnight worldwide revolution" but the nature of the communist revolution means that within a very short timespan the world will turn communist. It is inconceivable that you could have communist ideas flourishing in one part of the world and not elsewhere. Marx I believe said somewhere that communism would happen "all at once", or words to that effect, amongst the more developed nations

2) The state captalist dictatorships like the Soviet Union could be judged a "success" relative to other capitalist states if you selectively use certain indicators like the index of heavy goods production. And then only for a period in its history. Towards the end the SU was flagging badly as we all know. The significant growth of the early years of the SU was achieved by ruthless hyper-exploitation of the workforce (including the use of slave labour) and if you consider the conditions in which Russian worker lived - even in Moscow whch I twice visited in the early 90s - then to call this a success suggests to me a very low standard by which you guage "success".

3) The state capitalist dictatorships collapsed prmarily because state capitalism as a particular variant of capitalism is not particularly adept at developing capitalism beyond its early industralisation stage and because the Red Bourgeoisie, the fat cats who profited from the state capitalist system - the Party nomenklatura - actually wanted to move towards a more laissex faire type economy in an increasingly globalised world economy. This is the "revolution from above" thesis which draws on such evidence as the fact that a very high proportion of todays Russian and Eastern European plutocrats were originally well placed and high ranking so called "communists" in the years under state capitalism. So much for the Lennist theory of the Vanguard. The Vanguard got the power which they converted into wealth and ended up today amongst the richest capitalists on the face of the earth!

Kayser_Soso

26th November 2009, 09:57

KS:

Red Cat tried that one out; check out my response to him/her:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t123138/index3.html

Your reply was inadequate, because you compared it to a perpetual motion machine, which violates the laws of thermodynamics. In this way you are dishonestly trying to claim that socialism in one country somehow violates some law of physics, which it clearly doesn't. So again, my comparison is much better. What is also important to remember, is that the failure of others does not equal the validation of your theory. When we see your theory in practice, and more successful than the Marxist-Leninists', then we will consider it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 14:40

KS:

Your reply was inadequate, because you compared it to a perpetual motion machine, which violates the laws of thermodynamics. In this way you are dishonestly trying to claim that socialism in one country somehow violates some law of physics, which it clearly doesn't. So again, my comparison is much better. What is also important to remember, is that the failure of others does not equal the validation of your theory. When we see your theory in practice, and more successful than the Marxist-Leninists', then we will consider it.

No, if you read my reply to Red Cat, I was pointing out that the idea that socialism can be built in one couunty was not only refuted by the facts, but also by theory.

In physics we have different sorts of theories to those in political science, but the analogy is still valid for all that.

bailey_187

26th November 2009, 17:15

I am really scratching my head wondering how you can support Stalin..
With criticism. Not everything Stalin did was right. But the workers of the USSR acheived a lot under Stalin's leadership

You cannot dispute that the USSR became a top-down bureaucracy. By top down, I mean that it was not the people who ran the country, but Stalin and his ruling cliche. ..
Well the bureaucrats in the factories didnt have much power, the workers did. Sure though, there was a big bureacracy - this was something Stalin fought against.

‘…there should not be left in the country a single official, no matter how highly placed, concerning whom the ordinary man might say: he is above the law’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p.212)

Quote:
‘We must make a sharp turn towards combating the new chauvinist sentiments and pillory those bureaucrats in our institutions and those party comrades who forgetting what we gained in October, namely the confidence of the formerly oppressed people, a confidence that we must cherish’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p. 252)

Quote:
‘…a resolute struggle against bureaucracy in the direction of enlisting the broad masses of the working class in this struggle’. (J. V. Stalin: Works. 7; pp. 349-501)

Quote:
‘Bureaucracy, is one of the worst enemies of our progress’. (J. V. Stalin: Speech Delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, May 16, 1927,)

Much of the purges were about ridding the party of bureacrats and careerists.

Also, Stalin did attempt democratic reforms. There is more here in this article here: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Stalin assassinated Trotsky, and jailed and murdered anarchists and fellow communists just because he disagreed with him...

Trotsky was killed because he was trying to overthrow the Soviet government, same goes for Anarchists and some of the Communists killed.
There was real opposition to Stalin though, such as the Riutin platform, the murder of Kirov etc. You have to appreciate the desperate situation of the late 30s. Also, many in the Party disagreed with Stalin, such as Vyshinskii over NKVD methods and many of the Politburo (including it would appear Molotov) over the fate of Riutin (Stalin opted for execution, the rest of the Politburo opposed, Riutin survived for a few years until the situation intensified)

You can give me the, "casualties of war" or "greater good" argument, you can even call it bourgeois propaganda, but these are the facts.

That they happened are facts, but there is much debate over the reasons.

If I had the choice of living in America in 1940 or USSR, I would pick America. .

Most would too, America was richer.

America wasn't executing political dissidents. Jailing them and oppressing them yes, but not murder..
Well in the 1940s Capital punishment was outlawed in the USSR (although it was bought back later)

but how can you point to the USSR under Stalin and say "Now that's how it's done!"?
No one does. We are not in late-1920s USSR, we do not face the same conditions as the USSR did.

there is no greater traitor to the revolution that Mr. Stalin.

Why? He built the USSR into an industrialised Socialist country, proving the superiority of Economic planning and socialised property.

Bloody Kalashnikov

26th November 2009, 17:18

bailey_187

26th November 2009, 17:53

Lets look at some demographic figures for USSR.

The census of 1959 reported that the USSR population had risen to 209million of which 75 million had been born since 1940, implying 209-75=134 million of these living in 1959 had been in existence before 1940. Combining the early 1939 Soviet population of 168 million with 24 million new soviet citizens (due to the regaining of land in '39) implies a population of 192 million at the end of 1939 (1). Given the estimates of 20million Soviet deaths in WW2, there are a total of 192-20-134=38 million deaths of people who could have died unrelated to the Nazis. This number of deaths, divided of the 20 year interval of 1939 to 1959, 38/20= 1.9 million per year, or under 1% of the population annually. Such an annuall death rate is low compared to the 3% annuall death rate under the Tsar in 1913 (2), less than the 1.9% death rate in 1928 before industrialisation(3), nearly the same of 1.1% in the last year of Socialism, and less than the 1.6% death rate under Yeltsin in the 90s

(1) Chalk and Jonaasohn – The History and Sociology of Genocide
(2) Wheatcroft - Soviet Studies 42 (1990) pg: 355-367
(3) Murphy – The Triumph of Evil (the adding up is also taken from this but did not feel it neccesary to source maths)
So, we can conclude that: Mass terror and executions did not occur in the 40s or 50s in the USSR and that Stalin left the USSR with a lower death rate than before he started the five year plans

Kayser_Soso

26th November 2009, 20:24

KS:

No, if you read my reply to Red Cat, I was pointing out that the idea that socialism can be built in one couunty was not only refuted by the facts, but also by theory.

In physics we have different sorts of theories to those in political science, but the analogy is still valid for all that.

No, you have several cases of these attempts failing, but in fact to call them outright failures is inaccurate as well since they did accomplish a lot, gave us vital data, and have a lasting legacy, such as literate populations as well as new nations like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc. Your claim is further destroyed by the fact that all these "failures" did not occur independently of each other, as if in a vacuum. One or two powerful states, plus outside aggression, caused a domino effect on the lesser ones.

Your theory, whatever the fuck it is, has given us....nothing.

So again, the analogy still stands: There were thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of attempts at flight(among other things) in human history.

Kayser_Soso

26th November 2009, 20:26

Kayser_Soso

26th November 2009, 20:26

Stalin was a great leader and his measures stopped 40 million starving, he was the leader the USSR needed to defeat fascism.
Great Great leader who inspired the red army to victory, he was voted 3rd most popular russian of all time, even in capie russia, what a man.

Actually he was voted into first place twice, but those in charge of the poll kept tampering with it until they gave him third place.

bailey_187

26th November 2009, 21:06

Actually your war death factor is too low. 20 million is a rather old figure, it has now been revised to 25-27 million. The "global loss" statistic runs as high as 50 million. Of course some of those people weren't killed by the Nazis, but died as a result of the conditions the war created.

Ok thanks.

If anyone here is good at maths, would they mind redoing the sums in my post to factor this in?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 23:10

KS:

No, you have several cases of these attempts failing, but in fact to call them outright failures is inaccurate as well since they did accomplish a lot, gave us vital data, and have a lasting legacy, such as literate populations as well as new nations like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc. Your claim is further destroyed by the fact that all these "failures" did not occur independently of each other, as if in a vacuum. One or two powerful states, plus outside aggression, caused a domino effect on the lesser ones.

They were indeed successes -- in introducting state capitalism to otherwise underdeveloped parts of the world, but that is all. So, all that Stalin, Mao and their regimes proved was that not even state capitalism can survive, let alone see socialism in one country succeed.

Your theory, whatever the fuck it is, has given us....nothing.

Well, you can resort to abuse if you like, but that just reflects on you, not me.

So again, the analogy still stands: There were thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of attempts at flight(among other things) in human history

Indeed, the analogy does still stand -- as with perpetual motion: both theory and history have refuted the idea that socialism in one country is possible.

Kayser_Soso

27th November 2009, 00:36

KS:

They were indeed successes -- in introducting state capitalism to otherwise underdeveloped parts of the world, but that is all. So, all that Stalin, Mao and their regimes proved was that not even state capitalism can survive, let alone see socialism in one country succeed.

That is all? Your ignorance is showing. Many people in those nations which didn't even exist before the revolution would disagree.

Well, you can resort to abuse if you like, but that just reflects on you, not me.

What abuse? I'm sorry has your theory been proven to work anywhere yet?

Indeed, the analogy does still stand -- as with perpetual motion: both theory and history have refuted the idea that socialism in one country is possible.

No, you are wrong, plain and simple. You give about a dozen examples, less if you count the fact that two larger states plus outside pressure effected the remaining majority. As I said before, many experiments fail hundreds, if not thousands of times. In case you hadn't heard, all attempts to synthesize a working HIV vaccine have hitherto failed. By your logic we should stop.

Actually "logic" is being quite generous, since yours is quite round. Socialism in one country failed>thus it is akin to a law of physics>it's akin to a law of physics>because socialism in one country failed, etc.

Squirm and whine all you want but this is precisely what you are implying. And we're all waiting for YOUR theories to actually materialize.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th November 2009, 03:21

KS:

That is all? Your ignorance is showing

I see abuse is your main weapon.

Many people in those nations which didn't even exist before the revolution would disagree.

So?

I'm sorry has your theory been proven to work anywhere yet?

No, but then neither has yours.

No, you are wrong, plain and simple. You give about a dozen examples, less if you count the fact that two larger states plus outside pressure effected the remaining majority. As I said before, many experiments fail hundreds, if not thousands of times. In case you hadn't heard, all attempts to synthesize a working HIV vaccine have hitherto failed. By your logic we should stop.

No, my analogy was with perpetual motion machines. I thought you knew that.

Actually "logic" is being quite generous, since yours is quite round. Socialism in one country failed>thus it is akin to a law of physics>it's akin to a law of physics>because socialism in one country failed, etc.

No, my argument is more like a parody of this:

!) We are told that perpetual machines can't work because of the second law of thermodynamics.

2) We have tried to build twelve.

3) They all failed.

4) Er...what do physicists know...

Yours is somewhat like that.

Squirm and whine all you want but this is precisely what you are implying. And we're all waiting for YOUR theories to actually materialize.

Your capacity to understand an argument seems somewhat limited; which probably explains why you resort to abuse and throw tantrums so easily.

btpound

27th November 2009, 17:34

Kayser_Soso

27th November 2009, 18:02

KS:

I see abuse is your main weapon.

Make ignorant statement, get called on it. It's that simple.

No, but then neither has yours.

Ours has produced something, yours hasn't.

No, my analogy was with perpetual motion machines. I thought you knew that.

Which violate the laws of physics. There is no "law" which contradicts the idea of socialism in one country.

No, my argument is more like a parody of this:

!) We are told that perpetual machines can't work because of the second law of thermodynamics.

2) We have tried to build twelve.

3) They all failed.

4) Er...what do physicists know...

Yours is somewhat like that.

Is there are 2nd law of constructing socialism? No. If you fail 12 times does that mean it constitutes some kind of scientific law? So 12 is the magic number after which one must give up any endeavor? They can't possibly learn from their mistakes those previous twelve times and try something radically different?

Your capacity to understand an argument seems somewhat limited; which probably explains why you resort to abuse and throw tantrums so easily.

I'm going to have to NO U you there because I understand your argument perfectly, and it is logically unsound and makes an incorrect assumption and analogy. You can whine about that all you want but until you can bring up empirical evidence of some "law of socialist construction" to prove your claim, the argument stands.

bailey_187

27th November 2009, 19:05

Okay. Since I would like to take a more democratic approach to this, rather that degenerating into vulgar slander, let me see if I have this straight. So the Stalinist position is, that the contemporary view of Stalin has been distorted by years of anti-soviet propaganda from across the globe. And that Stalin was in fact a great leader, who tried to institute democratic reforms and only killed very few and only when he had to (to fight counter-revolution and revisionism). He made mistakes, but overall helping to defeat fascism in Europe and leading Russia to economic prosperity is a greater achievement than anything he did was an atrocity. .

Erm, something like that. Although i wouldnt say "very few" were killed, IMO 700,000 executions is a lot but this should be understood in the context of the time. Also, people were not only killed when they had to be, but when it was though they had to be (which sometimes turned out to be wrong). Stalin himself admitted that mistakes were made in the purges.

Am I right? So if the revolution were to happen today, would Stalinists advocate a soviet model, and if so, what does that mean?

No, the Soviet Model is more suited to an underdeveloped country. I dont know too much about Economic planning and maths but maybe the ideas of Kantorovich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kantorovich would be helpful in planning a socialist economy today?
Its not about holding up the USSR in the 1930s or 1950s as the perfect model of Society and Socialism that we should aspire to, but recognising that these were genuine and for the most parts succesful attempts at workers building a Socialist society. If they were perfect, they would probably still be here.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th November 2009, 21:09

KS:

Make ignorant statement, get called on it. It's that simple.

Still abusive, I see.

Which violate the laws of physics. There is no "law" which contradicts the idea of socialism in one country.

Where did I say there was?

Is there are 2nd law of constructing socialism? No. If you fail 12 times does that mean it constitutes some kind of scientific law? So 12 is the magic number after which one must give up any endeavor? They can't possibly learn from their mistakes those previous twelve times and try something radically different?

Oh dear. Looks like I was right: you can't follow a simple argument.

I'm going to have to NO U you there because I understand your argument perfectly, and it is logically unsound and makes an incorrect assumption and analogy. You can whine about that all you want but until you can bring up empirical evidence of some "law of socialist construction" to prove your claim, the argument stands.

Where have I 'whined'?

Kayser_Soso

28th November 2009, 00:35

KS:

Still abusive, I see.

Still earning it I see.

Where did I say there was?

Your argument implies that there is.

Oh dear. Looks like I was right: you can't follow a simple argument.

Actually either you don't understand your own argument or can't see why it is fallacious.

Where have I 'whined'?

See previous post.

Lyev

28th November 2009, 00:37

In my eyes anyone who advocates the Stalinist, Soviet model as something feasible is not a true socialist. What specifically is it that draws you people towards the USSR under Stalin and beyond? Would any of you liked to have been a worker under Stalin? Even in the infancy of the USSR, Lenin acknowledged the "bureaucratic deformation" as he termed it; "Our present state is a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformation ... Our state is such that the completely organised proletariat must protect itself against it and we must utilise these workers’ organisations for protecting the workers from their own state, in order that the workers may protect our state ...” Bearing in mind this is fresh from revolution and obviously before Stalin was in power and WWII and the Five-Year-Plans etc. Anyway, try and find workers control or influence in the following quotes.

Trud, the daily trade union newspaper in July 1933 said: "The proper determination of wages and the regulation of labour demand that the industrial heads and the technical directors be charged with immediate responsibility in this matter. This is also dictated by the necessity of establishing a single authority and ensuring economy in the management of enterprises ... They [the workers] must not defend themselves against their government. That is absolutely wrong. That is Left opportunistic perversion, the annihilation of individual authority and interference in the administrative departments. It is imperative that it be abolished." The workers must not defend themselves? Sorry, but that is most definitely not in any way, shape or form socialism, or at the very least conducive to socialism. How can you defend a government that says it "is absolutely wrong" for people to challenge their government? Oh, but does the government know what's best for the people?

Not only are workers not allowed to 'defend themselves', but going we find the distortion runs deeper. “The amount of wages and salaries is at present fixed by the decisions of the government (or on the basis of its directives)... In the determination of the amount of wages and salaries the agreement of the parties plays a subordinate role. It should not be contrary to law, and is allowed only within limits strictly provided for by law, for example, where the precise amount is fixed in instances in which the approved list of wages defines the rates as ‘from’ – ‘to’; or fixing the payment for part-time employment of a person having another job, and the like.” You may argue this is just the transitional period (ie. capitalism> socialism> communism) and we haven't yet reached communism, but here is Lenin: "Until the 'higher' phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers." This leads onto my next point; would "a state of armed workers" make strikes illegal?

Not only were wages fixed and controlled by the government but strikes soon became illegal in the later 20s. This is an excerpt from an article in the "Collection of Laws" published in 1927. “Counter-revolutionary sabotage, i.e., knowingly omitting to discharge a given duty, or discharging it with deliberate carelessness, with the specific object of weakening the authority of the government or the government machine, entails deprivation of liberty for a period of not less than one year and confiscation of property in whole or in part, provided that where there are aggravating circumstances of a particularly serious nature, the penalty shall be increased to the supreme measure of social defence – death by shooting, with confiscation of property.” This doesn't provide any help for strikers, it simply declares them counter-revolutionary and is done with the matter. As if repression of strikes is somehow justifiable when perpetrated by the irrefutable state. Is such an act for the greater good? Well, how can it be? Surely the 'greater good' means the masses and the workers. It's just done with the weak justification that they're "counter-revolutionary". The only counter-revolutionaries are the people stopping strikes.

Another quote I found insightful was this one about some the conditions of workers, focusing on women. This is an eye-witness account from Charlotte Haldane about the building of railways: "In Archangel it was necessary to lay down a light railway track for about five miles along the docks ... I watched this being done, entirely by women. The track, complete with points, was laid in forty-eight hours. They went at it day and night, by daylight and electric light. It was snowing and freezing nearly all the time, but this made no difference to their labours. All the cargo checkers were women, too. They worked in shifts, twenty-four hours on, twenty-four hours off. During their working period they had occasional brief rests of an hour or two, when they retired to a wooden hut on the quay, ate their cabbage soup and black bread, drank their imitation tea, had an uneasy doze in their clothes, and returned to work."

This http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ helped me a lot with some information and clarification. It's "State Capitalism in Russia" by Tony Cliff (thanks Bob) if anyone's interested.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 00:49

KS:

Still earning it I see.

Still doling it out.

Your argument implies that there is.

Not so; my argument centred on the two claims: that the idea that socialism can be created in one country violated theory and experience. I illustrated this with an analogy drawn against the impossibility of perpetual motion machines. You are the one who introduced the word 'law', whereas I was basing my argument on the theory that derives from the work of Sadie Carnot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_L%C3%A9onard_Sadi_Carnot).

Similarly, I am basing my argument on the theory developed by the Bolshevik Party (before Stalin 'revised' it in the mid-1920s when it became expedient to do so) that the revolution must spread internationally or die. I then appealed to the fact that this prediction has been confirmed (many times over) by the course of events.

I'm sorry of that was far too complicated for you to grasp.

In a similar way, using Marx's theory, we know that capitalism will always go through crises, no matter how many times bourgeois economists tell us that the latest boom proves Marx wrong. We point to the crises that have gripped the system now for at least two centuries (and probably longer, depending on where we draw the line), and argue from theory that no matter what the capitalists try to do, crises will return. The same applies to the idea that socialism can be built in one country; both theory and experience show that no matter how many times it is tried, it will always end in failure.

Actually either you don't understand your own argument or can't see why it is fallacious.

If you need me to walk you through this again, you only have to ask nicely.:)

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 01:22

Socialist:

Where did Stalin oppose this? "Socialism in one country" does NOT mean "socialism in ONLY one country and in no other country".

And yet he said this:

"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism -- the organisation of socialist production -- remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient -- the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution." Foundations of Leninism, First Edition

Socialism can't be created in one country; even Stalin once believed this.

This was removed in the next edition.

And sure, he made internationalist noises, but he did his best to kill-off other revolutions from below since they threatend his top-down approach.

Kayser_Soso

28th November 2009, 01:27

KS:
Not so; my argument centred on the two claims: that the idea that socialism can be created in one country violated theory and experience.

As others have pointed out, socialism in one country does not mean in one country and nowhere else. It also does not mean that one does the same thing over and over without changing tactics, expecting a different result.

It's easy to say that the revolution must be spread internationally or else it will die- actually carrying that out is another matter entirely. You devote far to much focus to a narrow view of theory.

I illustrated this with an analogy drawn against the impossibility of perpetual motion machines.

And it is a false analogy because perpetual motion machines are subject to the laws of physics, which were established on the basis of other scientific evidence. In other words, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not proven based on the failure to build a successful perpetual motion machine. In other, simpler words:

Perpetual motion machines don't work because they violate a law of physics. That law of physics is not proven based on the failure to build perpetual motion machines.

By contrast, what you are essentially saying, whether you admit to this or not, is "Socialism in one country"(however you personally define that), has failed(a rather oversimplified interpretation but fact) several times, ergo it is discredited entirely.

So as I said before, you are either implying the existence of some empirical law on the subject, or you are insisting that if something fails so many times, it must therefore be impossible.

Similarly, I am basing my argument on the theory developed by the Bolshevik Party (before Stalin 'revised' it in the mid-1920s when it became expedient to do so) that the revolution must spread internationally or die. I then appealed to the fact that this prediction has been confirmed (many times over) by the course of events.

I'm sorry of that was far too complicated for you to grasp.

Well I think the part that is hard to grasp is the part that which is false. Stalin "revised" very little of Marxist theory. See Stalin: A New History, the chapter by Erik Van Rees.

You claim it was "expedient" to do so. Very well then, let's hear your alternative theory of revolution, and see if that was feasible at the time.

If you need me to walk you through this again, you only have to ask nicely.:)

Again, your analogies are false, your history is inaccurate, and even your theory is off because Lenin acknowledged that while the FINAL victory of socialism could only occur when it has spread throughout the globe, it was possible for a country to construct socialism.

I might also point out that the laws governing capitalist crisis are based on empirical observations of how the system works. You have failed to provide this explanation in regards to socialism. Just saying that it "fails" or the "revolution dies" doesn't cut it.

Kayser_Soso

28th November 2009, 01:30

Socialist:

And sure, he made internationalist noises, but he did his best to kill-off other revolutions from below since they threatend his top-down approach.

Ever hear of something called hindsight? Look into it. Obviously he made mistakes, and his analysis here was correct. So did it ever occur to you that the problem was more a matter of practice and tactics than theory?

bailey_187

28th November 2009, 01:31

Ok, Expo, i may attempt to answer your post in fuller detail tommorow (i dont see why i should bother though, you havent replied to my posts properlly, just moved onto something else) but its too late and CBA to read it all and go through it all.

But the basic gist of what i read was that it was the government that sets wages? Well, how else are wages set? The workers in each individual factory can not be expected to set their own wages if the economy is to be coordinated and planned over the whole USSR. If the economy is to be planned, it requires a central body to coordinate this.

I suppose Trotsky's militarisation of Unions was the opposite of this though?

Soviet

28th November 2009, 03:06

Soviet:

Where have any of said this was a 'rule'?

Then what does Trots want to prove by exeption?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 04:04

KS:

As others have pointed out, socialism in one country does not mean in one country and nowhere else. It also does not mean that one does the same thing over and over without changing tactics, expecting a different result.

In effect it did mean this, and that is why it failed. Indeed, your emphatic defence of the this idea suggests that you too regard it as a national question, not an international one.

It's easy to say that the revolution must be spread internationally or else it will die- actually carrying that out is another matter entirely. You devote far to much focus to a narrow view of theory.

1) Its easy to say the opposite too, but so what?

2) It's only what Lenin said -- so, pick a fight with him not me.

And it is a false analogy because perpetual motion machines are subject to the laws of physics, which were established on the basis of other scientific evidence. In other words, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not proven based on the failure to build a successful perpetual motion machine. In other, simpler words:

Perpetual motion machines don't work because they violate a law of physics. That law of physics is not proven based on the failure to build perpetual motion machines.

What do you imagine these laws are? Do you suppose there is there something in the material/physical world that forces things to do as it bids?

This is why I did not use this word.

What happens is this: we try to make sense of the world by means of our theories, which is why my analogy is still apt.

By contrast, what you are essentially saying, whether you admit to this or not, is "Socialism in one country" (however you personally define that), has failed (a rather oversimplified interpretation but fact) several times, ergo it is discredited entirely.

So as I said before, you are either implying the existence of some empirical law on the subject, or you are insisting that if something fails so many times, it must therefore be impossible.

Once more, I am saying we have a theory (and it is one that the Bolshevik Party accepted before the mid 1920s) that tells us socialism in one country can't work -- and history has only confirmed this.

Or do you suppose that you Stalinists were just unlucky? Many times...

Well I think the part that is hard to grasp is the part that which is false. Stalin "revised" very little of Marxist theory. See Stalin: A New History, the chapter by Erik Van Rees.

He revised the Leninist passage I quoted, and that is all we need concern ourselves in this thread.

You claim it was "expedient" to do so. Very well then, let's hear your alternative theory of revolution, and see if that was feasible at the time.

I am happy to agree with Trotsky on this -- so read his books.

Again, your analogies are false, your history is inaccurate, and even your theory is off because Lenin acknowledged that while the FINAL victory of socialism could only occur when it has spread throughout the globe, it was possible for a country to construct socialism.

He actually said much more than this. Do you want to see the quotations?

I might also point out that the laws governing capitalist crisis are based on empirical observations of how the system works. You have failed to provide this explanation in regards to socialism. Just saying that it "fails" or the "revolution dies" doesn't cut it.

And empirical observation tells us that the idea that socialism can be built on one country has been refuted.

Which confirms the theory developed by the Bolshevik Party until Stalin revised it in the mid-1920s.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 04:07

KS:

Ever hear of something called hindsight? Look into it. Obviously he made mistakes, and his analysis here was correct. So did it ever occur to you that the problem was more a matter of practice and tactics than theory?

According to Lenin, we test theory in pracitce. If you ignore theory, your practice will fail - as we now know it did with you Stalinists.

May I suggest you 'look into' Lenin?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 04:10

Socialist:

On the contrary, he supplied arms to the anti-fascists of Spain, he defeated Hitler and went all the way to Berlin in the process of doing so. If he was really a nationalist who wasn't interested in fighting fascism, why didn't he just kick out the fascists out of his country and then get back to eating babies or whatever?

Thanks for the reminder about Spain!

Mainly because it represents yet another Stalinist failure.

And we know what happened in E Europe too -- yet more failures.

All predictable from Bolshevik theory.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 04:11

Soviet:

Then what does Trots want to prove by exeption?

Eh?:confused:

syndicat

28th November 2009, 04:15

as Gerald Howson shows in "Arms for Spain," using the soviet archives, Stalin regarded arms for Spain as a business proposition. He looted the Spanish republic of its gold reserves, and provided them less and worse weapons than the purchase agreements specified. It wasn't "aid" it was sale of arms at a bad price (for the Spaniards). Stalinist intervention destroyed the indigenous working class militia for a set of military tactics that were highly destructive for the revolutionary side, as Antony Beevor demonstrates in "The Battle for Spain."

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 05:41

Socialist:

Sure, but at least we tried. This was in response to your accusation that "socialism in one country" means "socialism in ONLY one country".

1) As Syndicat points out, you Stalinists made things worse.

2) You Stalinists sure are unlucky -- everything you touch turns to dust. Or is it more than bad luck?

Sure, there were some things wrong with Stalin's theory, and we can extend that to the theories of Marx and Lenin. Nobody claims all those theories are perfect. This is borne out by the fact that capitalism still exists. Its only Trotskyists and anti-communists that hold double standards only when it comes to Stalin.

Some things?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 05:48

In fact, here is part of Trotsky's compilation of quotations from Lenin that show that he (Lenin) agreed with his (Trotsky's) analysis of SIOC:

Then follow those words of mine which Stalin presented at the Seventh Plenum of the ECCI as the most vicious expression of “Trotskyism,” i.e., as “lack of faith” in the inner forces of the revolution and the hope for aid from without. “And if this [the development of the revolution in other countries – L.T.] were not to occur, it would be hopeless to think (this is borne out both by historical experience and by theoretical considerations) that a revolutionary Russia, for instance, could hold out in face of conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could remain isolated in a capitalist world.” [6]

On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.

On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace:

“This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7]

A week later he said:

“World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8]

A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said:

“Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” [9]

But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated:

“We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.” [10]

A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates:

“Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11]

On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of concessions, said:

“We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully – the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.” [12]

But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in the inner force” of the October Revolution?

At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia:

“An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”

Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the sessions of the Congress:

"It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.” [13]

How infinitely removed are these words, so superb in their simplicity and permeated with the spirit of internationalism, from the present smug fabrications of the epigones!...

Our party program is based entirely upon the international conditions underlying the October Revolution and the socialist construction. To prove this, one need only transcribe the entire theoretical part of our program. Here we will confine ourselves merely to pointing out that when, during the Eighth Congress of our party, the late Podbelsky inferred that some formulations of the program had reference only to the revolution in Russia, Lenin replied as follows in his concluding speech on the question of the party program (March 19, 1919):

“Podbelsky has raised objections to a paragraph which speaks of the pending social revolution ... His argument is obviously unfounded because our program deals with the social revolution on a world scale.” [14]

It will not be out of place here to point out that at about the same time Lenin suggested that our party should change its name from the Communist Party of Russia to the Communist Party, so as to emphasize still further that it is a party of international revolution. I was the only one voting for Lenin’s motion in the Central Committee. However, he did not bring the matter before the Congress in view of the foundation of the Third International. This position is proof of the fact that there was not even an inkling of socialism in one country at that time. That alone is the reason why the party program does not condemn this “theory” but merely excludes it.

This question will at once appear in a different light if we recall that on April 29, 1918, Lenin said in his report to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviet government:

“It is hardly to be expected that our next generation, which will be more highly developed, will effect a complete transition to socialism.” [19]

On December 3, 1919, at the Congress of Communes and Artels, Lenin spoke even more bluntly, saying:

“We know that we cannot establish a socialist order at the present time. It will be well if our children and perhaps our grandchildren will be able to establish it.” [20]

...A few months later, November 20, 1915, Lenin wrote specially on Russia, saying:

“The task of the proletariat follows obviously from this actual state of affairs. This task is a bold, heroic, revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (the slogans of the January conference of 1912 – the ’Three Whales’s), a struggle which would attract all democratic masses, that is, first and foremost the peasantry. At the same time, a relentless struggle must be waged against chauvinism, a struggle for the socialist revolution in Europe in alliance with its proletariat. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors impelling the petty bourgeoisie, including the peasantry, towards the Left. Therein lies the objective basis of the absolute possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution in Russia. That the objective conditions for a socialist revolution have fully matured in Western Europe, was recognized before the war by all influential socialists of all advanced countries.” [21]

Thus, in 1915, Lenin clearly spoke of a democratic revolution in Russia and of a socialist revolution in Western Europe. In passing, as if speaking of something which is self-evident, he mentions that in Western Europe, distinct from Russia, in contrast to Russia, the conditions for a socialist revolution have “fully matured.” But the authors of the new theory, the authors of the draft program, simply ignore this quotation – one of many – which squarely and directly refers to Russia, just as they ignore hundreds of other passages, as they ignore all of Lenin’s works.

What was Lenin’s position on this question immediately before the October period? On leaving Switzerland after the February 1917 revolution, Lenin addressed a letter to the Swiss workers in which he declared:

“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.” [22]...

We purposely did not deal here with innumerable articles and speeches from 1905 to 1923 in which Lenin asserts and repeats most categorically that without a victorious world revolution we are doomed to failure, that it is impossible to defeat the bourgeoisie economically in one country, particularly a backward country, that the task of building a socialist society is in its very essence an international task – from which Lenin drew conclusions which may be “pessimistic” to the promulgators of the new national reactionary utopia but which are sufficiently optimistic from the viewpoint of revolutionary internationalism. We concentrate our argument here only on the passages which the authors of the draft have themselves chosen in order to create the “necessary and sufficient” prerequisites for their utopia. And we see that their whole structure crumbles the moment it is touched.

However, we consider it in place to present at least one of Lenin’s direct statements on the controversial question which does not need any comment and will not permit any false interpretation.

“We have emphasized in many of our works; in all our speeches, and in our entire press that the situation in Russia is not the same as in the advanced capitalist countries, that we have in Russia a minority of industrial workers and an overwhelming majority of small agrarians. The social revolution in such a country can be finally successful only on two conditions: first, on the condition that it is given timely support by the social revolution in one or more advanced countries ... second, that there be an agreement between the proletariat which establishes the dictatorship or holds state power in its hands and the majority of the peasant population ...

“We know that only an agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia so long as the revolution in other countries has not arrived.” [26]

We hope that this passage is sufficiently instructive. First, Lenin himself emphasizes in it that the ideas advanced by him have been developed “in many of our works, in all our speeches, and in our entire press”; secondly, this perspective was envisaged by Lenin not in 1915, two years prior to the October Revolution, but in 1921, the fourth year after the October Revolution.

What Stalin’s views on this question were in 1905 or 1915 we have absolutely no means of knowing as there are no documents whatever on the subject. But in 1924, Stalin outlined Lenin’s views on the building of socialism, as follows:

“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism – the organization of socialist production – still remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of one country are sufficient – the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary ...

“Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.” [28]

One must concede that the “characteristic features of the Leninist theory” are outlined here quite correctly. In the later editions of Stalin’s book this passage was altered to read in just the opposite way and the “characteristic features of the Leninist theory” were proclaimed within a year as ... Trotskyism. The Seventh Plenum of the ECCI passed its decision, not on the basis of the 1924 edition but of the 1926 edition....

At the Eleventh Congress, that is, at the last Congress at which Lenin had the opportunity to speak to the party, he issued a timely warning that the party would have to undergo another test: "... a test to which we shall be put by the Russian and international market to which we are subordinated, with which we are connected and from which we cannot escape."...

“So long as our Soviet Republic [says Lenin] remains an isolated borderland surrounded by the entire capitalist world, so long will it be an absolutely ridiculous fantasy and utopianism to think of our complete economic independence and of the disappearance of any of our dangers.” [36]....

In the article written in 1915 dealing with the slogan of the United States of Europe, which has already been quoted, we wrote:

“To approach the prospects of a social revolution within national boundaries is to fall victim to the same national narrowness which constitutes the substance of social-patriotism. Vaillant to his dying day considered France the promised land of social revolution; and it is precisely from this standpoint that he stood for national defense to the end. Lensch and Co. (some hypocritically and others sincerely) consider that Germany’s defeat means first of all the destruction of the basis of social revolution ... In general it should not be forgotten that in social-patriotism there is, along-side of the most vulgar reformism, a national revolutionary Messianism which deems that its own national state, whether because of its industrial level or because of its ‘democratic’ form and revolutionary conquests, is called upon to lead humanity towards socialism or towards ‘democracy.’ If the victorious revolution mere really conceivable within the boundaries of a single more developed nation, this Messianism together with the program of national defense would have some relative historical justification. But as a matter of fact this is inconceivable. To fight for the preservation of a national basis of revolution by such methods as undermine the international ties of the proletariat, actually means to undermine the revolution itself, which can begin on a national basis but which cannot be completed on that basis under the present economic, military, and political interdependence of the European states, which was never before revealed so forcefully as during the present war. This interdependence which will directly and immediately condition the concerted action on the part of the European proletariat in the revolution is expressed by the slogan of the United States of Europe.” [44]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm

From The Third International After Lenin.

The commentary in between the quotations is Trotsky's.

The numbers in square brackets are references, in all but one instance, to Lenin's works. Details can be found at the above link.

Stranger Than Paradise

28th November 2009, 06:39

Its clear that in spite of allegations that socialism in one country is equal to socialism in ONLY one country, Marxism-Leninism is thoroughly internationalist.

But, you Trots haven't done ANYTHING in spite of having a bunch of internationals that seem to grow smaller and more insignificant everyday. Let us just keep *****ing about "Stalinists" and maybe capitalism will fall on its own.:lol:

Yes and what has Stalin contributed to our movement and Communism? Just a shitload of propaganda denouncing Communism as a totalitarian dictatorship.

Stranger Than Paradise

28th November 2009, 07:39

Except, its you anarchists, liberals and anti-communists who denounce us that way.:laugh:

Stalinism yes. But bourgeois propaganda makes no distinction between Stalinism and true Communism and it has tarnished the word and the movement.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 08:35

Socialist:

Its clear that in spite of allegations that socialism in one country is equal to socialism in ONLY one country, Marxism-Leninism is thoroughly internationalist.

Just like the Stalinists in the 1920s, you ignore what Lenin is saying.

But, you Trots haven't done ANYTHING in spite of having a bunch of internationals that seem to grow smaller and more insignificant everyday. Let us just keep *****ing about "Stalinists" and maybe capitalism will fall on its own.

And yet, as we now know, for all your chest beating, you MLMers are abject failures (and many times over). So, we can do without lectures from you.

Kayser_Soso

28th November 2009, 09:53

Just like the Stalinists in the 1920s, you ignore what Lenin is saying.

Actually it would seem you are doing precisely that.

And yet, as we now know, for all your chest beating, you MLMers are abject failures (and many times over). So, we can do without lectures from you.

Again, there is failure that produces something useful, and then there is failure that never gets off the drawing board and is useless. You would be in the latter category.

Lyev

28th November 2009, 09:56

I agree. Have fun fighting imaginary people who advocate such things. As far as I know, no serious Marxist-Leninist advocates that.

So why on earth are you people defending this man?

Ok, Expo, i may attempt to answer your post in fuller detail tommorow (i dont see why i should bother though, you havent replied to my posts properlly, just moved onto something else) but its too late and CBA to read it all and go through it all.

But the basic gist of what i read was that it was the government that sets wages? Well, how else are wages set? The workers in each individual factory can not be expected to set their own wages if the economy is to be coordinated and planned over the whole USSR. If the economy is to be planned, it requires a central body to coordinate this.

I suppose Trotsky's militarisation of Unions was the opposite of this though?

I'll put it simply for you in about 5 main points, ok?

- Even in the days of Lenin he acknowledged the "bureaucratic deformation".

- A 1933 of Trud newspaper stated the following: "They [the workers] must not defend themselves against their government. That is absolutely wrong."

- “The amount of wages and salaries is at present fixed by the decisions of the government (or on the basis of its directives). So, yes, the government determines wages, but it's a government of "bureaucratic deformation" at the very least.

- In the late 20s strikes were made illegal. Here is excerpt from the 1927 "Collection of Laws": “Counter-revolutionary sabotage, i.e., knowingly omitting to discharge a given duty".

- The conditions of the working class were at the very least sub-par. "In Archangel it was necessary to lay down a light railway track for about five miles along the docks ... I watched this being done, entirely by women. The track, complete with points, was laid in forty-eight hours. They went at it day and night, by daylight and electric light. It was snowing and freezing nearly all the time, but this made no difference to their labours. All the cargo checkers were women, too. They worked in shifts, twenty-four hours on, twenty-four hours off. During their working period they had occasional brief rests of an hour or two, when they retired to a wooden hut on the quay, ate their cabbage soup and black bread, drank their imitation tea, had an uneasy doze in their clothes, and returned to work."

Oh and yes, irrelevant of whether it's a Trotskyist principle, the militarisation of the unions would have been preferable. As Lenin says, (and I said this in my last post) "Until the 'higher' phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers."

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 10:05

Socialist:

I'm sorry you have been reduced to calling us names. Its obvious by now that you desist from any evidence offered in front of you.

Cheek. You have been name-calling from the start!

I'll not contribute to this flamefest any longer

Good, and please apologise before you go.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 10:09

KS:

Actually it would seem you are doing precisely that.

Not at all -- here is an excellent exampe of his words you lot ignore:

“To approach the prospects of a social revolution within national boundaries is to fall victim to the same national narrowness which constitutes the substance of social-patriotism. Vaillant to his dying day considered France the promised land of social revolution; and it is precisely from this standpoint that he stood for national defense to the end. Lensch and Co. (some hypocritically and others sincerely) consider that Germany’s defeat means first of all the destruction of the basis of social revolution ... In general it should not be forgotten that in social-patriotism there is, along-side of the most vulgar reformism, a national revolutionary Messianism which deems that its own national state, whether because of its industrial level or because of its ‘democratic’ form and revolutionary conquests, is called upon to lead humanity towards socialism or towards ‘democracy.’ If the victorious revolution mere really conceivable within the boundaries of a single more developed nation, this Messianism together with the program of national defense would have some relative historical justification. But as a matter of fact this is inconceivable. To fight for the preservation of a national basis of revolution by such methods as undermine the international ties of the proletariat, actually means to undermine the revolution itself, which can begin on a national basis but which cannot be completed on that basis under the present economic, military, and political interdependence of the European states, which was never before revealed so forcefully as during the present war. This interdependence which will directly and immediately condition the concerted action on the part of the European proletariat in the revolution is expressed by the slogan of the United States of Europe.”

This is an excellent analysis of the origin of the national chauvinism that Stalin and his henchmen displayed after Lenin died.

"Great patriotic war" and all that...

Again, there is failure that produces something useful.

Still a failure, though -- which just confirms that Lenin was right -- it is impossible to create socialism in one country.

Moreover, I can just imagine a Nazi arguing this way: Hitler may have failed but at least the trains ran on time...:rolleyes:

and then there is failure that never gets off the drawing board and is useless. You would be in the latter category

Can't be a failure then, can it?

Kayser_Soso

28th November 2009, 10:37

KS:

Not at all -- here is an excellent exampe of his words you lot ignore:

And here,examples of those you ignore:

“uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately.”

“But is the existence of a socialist republic in a capitalist environment at all conceivable?” Lenin asked again. “From the political and military aspects it seemed inconceivable. That it is possible, both politically and militarily, has now been proved. It is a fact.”

This is an excellent analysis of the origin of the national chauvinism that Stalin and his henchmen displayed after Lenin died.

"Great patriotic war" and all that...

These are tactical matters related to propaganda. It is not inevitable that such things develop as a result of constructing socialism in one country. In fact there were many other ways the USSR could have approached these issues; as it happens they chose the wrong one, but one which might have seemed to be the best decision from their perspective at the time.

Still a failure, though -- which just confirms that Lenin was right -- it is impossible to create socialism in one country.

Ah but Lenin did not actually say that, so you are wrong. And again, failures that produce things are worth more than those who produce nothing. It is a good thing that most of mankind does not share your over-simplified, absolutist way of thinking. Had that been the case we may never have crawled out of the primordial ooze.

Moreover, I can just imagine a Nazi arguing this way: Hitler may have failed but at least the trains ran on time...:rolleyes:

Godwin's Law invoked. Automatic fail.

Incidentally, Hitler's basic ideology was to go to war with anybody and everybody until he had supremacy on the European continent. It isn't hard to figure out why that plan was flawed. Oh wait a second...what was that country that stopped him? You know, the one that destroyed 70-80% of the German military?

Can't be a failure then, can it?

Child-like thinking. Why don't you show us some of your "successes".

bailey_187

28th November 2009, 10:56

I'll put it simply for you in about 5 main points, ok?

erm ok, thanks, but it wasnt that, it was because it was 1 in the morning or whatever

- Even in the days of Lenin he acknowledged the "bureaucratic deformation".

1) Recognising Bureaucratic deformation is not the same as saying "the USSR is state-capitalist"
Stalin also recognised the problem of bureacracy (i could of sworn i already posted this)
‘…there should not be left in the country a single official, no matter how highly placed, concerning whom the ordinary man might say: he is above the law’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p.212)

Quote:
‘We must make a sharp turn towards combating the new chauvinist sentiments and pillory those bureaucrats in our institutions and those party comrades who forgetting what we gained in October, namely the confidence of the formerly oppressed people, a confidence that we must cherish’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p. 252)

Quote:
‘…a resolute struggle against bureaucracy in the direction of enlisting the broad masses of the working class in this struggle’. (J. V. Stalin: Works. 7; pp. 349-501)

Quote:
‘Bureaucracy, is one of the worst enemies of our progress’. (J. V. Stalin: Speech Delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, May 16, 1927,)

The surest remedy for bureaucracy is raising the cultural level of the workers and peasants. One can curse and denounce bureaucracy in the state apparatus, one can stigmatise and pillory bureaucracy in our practical work, but unless the masses of the workers reach a certain level of culture, which will create the possibility, the desire, the ability to control the state apparatus from below, by the masses of the workers themselves, bureaucracy will continue to exist in spite of everything. Therefore, the cultural development of the working class and of the masses of the working peasantry, not only the development of literacy, although literacy is the basis of all culture, but primarily the cultivation of the ability to take part in the administration of the country, is the chief lever for improving the state and every other apparatus. This is the sense and significance of Lenin's slogan about the cultural revolution. (THE FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.), December 2-19, 1927.)
So every recognised the problem of bureaucracy - whats your point
How should the bureaucrats been got rid of? Maybe through the use of some kind of purge?

- A 1933 of Trud newspaper stated the following: "They [the workers] must not defend themselves against their government. That is absolutely wrong."
Why is the newspaper saying this? From what are the workers defending themselves against?

- “The amount of wages and salaries is at present fixed by the decisions of the government (or on the basis of its directives). So, yes, the government determines wages, but it's a government of "bureaucratic deformation" at the very least.

But its not a "bureacratic capitalist class" is it? You are putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 here.

- In the late 20s strikes were made illegal. Here is excerpt from the 1927 "Collection of Laws": “Counter-revolutionary sabotage, i.e., knowingly omitting to discharge a given duty".

Strikes are not always outcomes of workers pursuing their interests.
I have already shown you that if workers had greivences they could take their manager to court.

- The conditions of the working class were at the very least sub-par. "In Archangel it was necessary to lay down a light railway track for about five miles along the docks ... I watched this being done, entirely by women. The track, complete with points, was laid in forty-eight hours. They went at it day and night, by daylight and electric light. It was snowing and freezing nearly all the time, but this made no difference to their labours. All the cargo checkers were women, too. They worked in shifts, twenty-four hours on, twenty-four hours off. During their working period they had occasional brief rests of an hour or two, when they retired to a wooden hut on the quay, ate their cabbage soup and black bread, drank their imitation tea, had an uneasy doze in their clothes, and returned to work."

Just an example of the heroic sacrifice many workers made. I suppose in "real socialism" the tracks would lay themselves? Or would we even need train tracks?
For more examples of stuff like this read John Scott - Behind the Urals. Only in this you will see the enthusiasm the workers at magnitogorsk had

Oh and yes, irrelevant of whether it's a Trotskyist principle, the militarisation of the unions would have been preferable. As Lenin says, (and I said this in my last post) "Until the 'higher' phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers."

Ok, what i meant to say was militarisation of the work place (which was not popular among workers) and subordination of unions to the state (which Lenin argued against).

But i guess that is the "state of armed workers" right? Not the Stalinist factories where there were "no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups...the workers are in control." (quoted from Phillip Bonosky, Brother Bill McKie: Building the Union at Ford [New York: International Publishers, 1953])

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 17:19

KS:

“uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately.”

“But is the existence of a socialist republic in a capitalist environment at all conceivable?” Lenin asked again. “From the political and military aspects it seemed inconceivable. That it is possible, both politically and militarily, has now been proved. It is a fact.”

The second merely acknowledges the fact that a socialist republic can exist; no one doubts that. The first merely says that a socialist victory is possible, not that socialism can be created in one country.

Nice try, only it wasn't.

These are tactical matters related to propaganda. It is not inevitable that such things develop as a result of constructing socialism in one country. In fact there were many other ways the USSR could have approached these issues; as it happens they chose the wrong one, but one which might have seemed to be the best decision from their perspective at the time.

Except, Lenin does not say these are "tactical matters" and nowhere mentions "propaganda".

Ah but Lenin did not actually say that, so you are wrong. And again, failures that produce things are worth more than those who produce nothing. It is a good thing that most of mankind does not share your over-simplified, absolutist way of thinking. Had that been the case we may never have crawled out of the primordial ooze.

They are still failures, and that is the bottom line.

Godwin's Law invoked. Automatic fail.

Nevertheless still true.

absolutist way of thinking.

Ooops. This looks like an absolutist statement...

Anyway, what's wrong with "absolutist" thinking?

Incidentally, Hitler's basic ideology was to go to war with anybody and everybody until he had supremacy on the European continent. It isn't hard to figure out why that plan was flawed. Oh wait a second...what was that country that stopped him? You know, the one that destroyed 70-80% of the German military?

Hitler's ideology included alliances with the state capitalist regime in the USSR, which then promptly attacked Finland and Poland.

And which regime laid out the welcome mat for the Nazis by the crazy ultra-left turn ten years earlier?

Oh wait..., the state capitalist regime in Moscow.

Why don't you show us some of your "successes".

Much more interesting exposing your continual failures.

Child-like thinking

Nothing like yours at all...

Kayser_Soso

28th November 2009, 18:32

The second merely acknowledges the fact that a socialist republic can exist; no one doubts that. The first merely says that a socialist victory is possible, not that socialism can be created in one country.

Nice try, only it wasn't.

I think you are confused about what socialism in one country means.

Except, Lenin does not say these are "tactical matters" and nowhere mentions "propaganda".

If Lenin said something it is automatically law. Right.

They are still failures, and that is the bottom line.

Right but you know what failed worse? Your theories.

Nevertheless still true.

Oversimplistic, child-like thinking.

Anyway, what's wrong with "absolutist" thinking?

Things like building a whole new society are a tad more complicated than say, trying some trick to get your car started in the dead of winter. There are almost innumerable variables involved in such a thing. To simply say: "it failed" is over-simplification.

Hitler's ideology included alliances with the state capitalist regime in the USSR, which then promptly attacked Finland and Poland.

Oops, looks like someone needs a history lesson. Hitler resented the alliance he made and was always conflicted about it. In fact they tried to violate their part of the agreement on the partition of Poland; the Red Army, which invaded after the Polish government had fled and the Germans no longer recognized Poland's existence as a state, were tasked with the mission of preventing German forces from entering Western Belarus or Galychyna, non-Polish territories seized by Poland in 1922. The Nazis also did not uphold their end of the bargain to provide the USSR with military technology.

And which regime laid out the welcome mat for the Nazis by the crazy ultra-left turn ten years earlier?

Oh wait..., the state capitalist regime in Moscow.

Oh wait, that scenario occurred in Trotskyist fantasy land.

Much more interesting exposing your continual failures.

You can make pithy comments till the cows come home, but the fact is your theory is a failure which has produced nothing, and your claim is based on fallacious logic- your analogy doesn't hold water. Now I suggest your next post give us a run-down of how your theory of revolution would succeed, and be ready to answer questions on it. Otherwise it's ignore GULag for you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 22:14

KS:

I think you are confused about what socialism in one country means.

Proof?

If Lenin said something it is automatically law.

No, but since he and Trotsky agreed with one another, and disagreed with Stalin and you MLM-ers, it will do for starters.

Right but you know what failed worse? Your theories.

So, a theory failing is worse than more than a dozen countries failing, in your view, eh?

But, our theory predicted your theory about the possibility of creating socialism in one country would fail, and that is all that is required for this thread.

Oversimplistic, child-like thinking.

As I said earlier: it's nothing like your thinking at all.

Things like building a whole new society are a tad more complicated than say, trying some trick to get your car started in the dead of winter. There are almost innumerable variables involved in such a thing. To simply say: "it failed" is over-simplification.

What has that got to do with your proof that 'absolutist thinking' is in some way defective?

Oops, looks like someone needs a history lesson. Hitler resented the alliance he made and was always conflicted about it. In fact they tried to violate their part of the agreement on the partition of Poland; the Red Army, which invaded after the Polish government had fled and the Germans no longer recognized Poland's existence as a state, were tasked with the mission of preventing German forces from entering Western Belarus or Galychyna, non-Polish territories seized by Poland in 1922. The Nazis also did not uphold their end of the bargain to provide the USSR with military technology.

You should work for George W Bush; you are good at making stuff up to protect a criminal invasion. The US imperialists also believe in pre-emptive 'defence'.

Oh wait, that scenario occurred in Trotskyist fantasy land.

I see, the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 is all fantasy, is it?

One minute us Trots were accused of being 'Nazi wreckers', the next you lot make a pact with the Nazis!

You can make pithy comments till the cows come home, but the fact is your theory is a failure which has produced nothing, and your claim is based on fallacious logic- your analogy doesn't hold water. Now I suggest your next post give us a run-down of how your theory of revolution would succeed, and be ready to answer questions on it. Otherwise it's ignore GULag for you.

Ignore me, see if I care.

Lyev

29th November 2009, 01:03

I'm not interested in defending personalities, only in defending historical truth. When there is overwhelming evidence, I don't see why one should continue to believe the same crap that has been fed to us everywhere.

What historical truth is it then? I'd like to know.

FSL

29th November 2009, 01:49

Yes and what has Stalin contributed to our movement and Communism? Just a shitload of propaganda denouncing Communism as a totalitarian dictatorship.

Was on of the people that succesfully participated in fighting leftist and rightist deviations in the revolution, thus helping the country build socialism and achieve significant gains in standards of living, making the defeat of nazism possible and presenting to workers all across the globe a workers' state they could admire, resulting in many revolutions in a number of countries. Among other things.

And the notion that capitalists were waiting Stalin to start denouncing communism is laughable and wrong but also a testimony to "stalinism" being used to describe the workers revolution that makes all the wealthy hypocrites tremble to this day.

Soviet

29th November 2009, 05:57

"Socialism in one country is bad,bla bla bla ..." Idiocy...
And what or who interferd to establish socialism in other countries,in GB, for example?Stalin didn't allow you to do it?
If you don't like socialism in one country then be fair and spit upon your proletariat who prefered to have crumbs from a muster's table,not revolution,spit upon your leftists-opportunists,but don't touch Stalin and the USSR - they 've done their part of work but you 've not.
Judge yourself.

Plagueround

29th November 2009, 06:57

And what or who interferd to establish socialism in other countries,in GB, for example?Stalin didn't allow you to do it?
If you don't like socialism in one country then be fair and spit upon your proletariat who prefered to have crumbs from a muster's table,not revolution,

I don't care what side one is on, this right here is messed up. It's not as if there were no sizable labor movements in other countries, the Russian revolution was just one of the ones that managed to overthrow their state instead of being crushed by it. You can debate why that was or discuss the failings of those movements, but please don't act as if everyone else was (or is) just sitting around scared.

Os Cangaceiros

29th November 2009, 07:09

Actually the labor movements in many countries fought quite hard for what they have today. Just speaking about the history of US labor for a second, it was INCREDIBLY violent...you read books like Strike! and you realize that in some cases it was like literal war in the streets.

So don't imply that "your proletariat" were just a bunch of lazy slackers.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 07:46

Soviet:

"Socialism in one country is bad,bla bla bla ..." Idiocy...
And what or who interferd to establish socialism in other countries,in GB, for example?Stalin didn't allow you to do it?
If you don't like socialism in one country then be fair and spit upon your proletariat who prefered to have crumbs from a muster's table,not revolution,spit upon your leftists-opportunists,but don't touch Stalin and the USSR - they 've done their part of work but you 've not.
Judge yourself.

As Trotsky noted about this reactionary idea (SIOC):

“To approach the prospects of a social revolution within national boundaries is to fall victim to the same national narrowness which constitutes the substance of social-patriotism. Vaillant to his dying day considered France the promised land of social revolution; and it is precisely from this standpoint that he stood for national defense to the end. Lensch and Co. (some hypocritically and others sincerely) consider that Germany’s defeat means first of all the destruction of the basis of social revolution ... In general it should not be forgotten that in social-patriotism there is, along-side of the most vulgar reformism, a national revolutionary Messianism which deems that its own national state, whether because of its industrial level or because of its ‘democratic’ form and revolutionary conquests, is called upon to lead humanity towards socialism or towards ‘democracy.’ If the victorious revolution mere really conceivable within the boundaries of a single more developed nation, this Messianism together with the program of national defense would have some relative historical justification. But as a matter of fact this is inconceivable. To fight for the preservation of a national basis of revolution by such methods as undermine the international ties of the proletariat, actually means to undermine the revolution itself, which can begin on a national basis but which cannot be completed on that basis under the present economic, military, and political interdependence of the European states, which was never before revealed so forcefully as during the present war. This interdependence which will directly and immediately condition the concerted action on the part of the European proletariat in the revolution is expressed by the slogan of the United States of Europe.”

So, no wonder history has repeatedly refuted the idea.

Soviet

29th November 2009, 14:10

Four Soviet generation reaped the fruits of this "reactionary" idea,fascism and colonialism were crushed due to this idea,Western bourgeoisie frightened by this idea made concessions to Western proletariat.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 14:43

Soviet:

Four Soviet generation reaped the fruits of this "reactionary" idea,fascism and colonialism were crushed due to this idea,Western bourgeoisie frightened by this idea made concessions to Western proletariat.

1) Whatever workers in the 'west' gained they won through their own struggles.

2) As has been noted by several comrades here, western communist parties frequently sold workers out -- for example in France in 1968.

And, in view of what happened in 1939, I think you should change your icon to the figure on the left shaking hands with the one on the right.

Or, failing that, aim the pistol at the heads of the German working class.

Lyev

29th November 2009, 17:24

Refer to one of the many books listed by other members here.
Well if we conclude the debate like that then I can refer you to a few books as well; these books giving a direct antithesis to what you guys put forward. Here's some books: State Capitalism in Russia, by Tony Cliff, Workers Resistance Under Stalin, by Jeffrey J. Rossman and of course The Revolution Betrayed. Those are a few off the top of my head.

erm ok, thanks, but it wasnt that, it was because it was 1 in the morning or whatever

1) Recognising Bureaucratic deformation is not the same as saying "the USSR is state-capitalist"
Stalin also recognised the problem of bureacracy (i could of sworn i already posted this)
‘…there should not be left in the country a single official, no matter how highly placed, concerning whom the ordinary man might say: he is above the law’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p.212)

Quote:
‘We must make a sharp turn towards combating the new chauvinist sentiments and pillory those bureaucrats in our institutions and those party comrades who forgetting what we gained in October, namely the confidence of the formerly oppressed people, a confidence that we must cherish’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p. 252)

Quote:
‘…a resolute struggle against bureaucracy in the direction of enlisting the broad masses of the working class in this struggle’. (J. V. Stalin: Works. 7; pp. 349-501)

Quote:
‘Bureaucracy, is one of the worst enemies of our progress’. (J. V. Stalin: Speech Delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, May 16, 1927,)

The surest remedy for bureaucracy is raising the cultural level of the workers and peasants. One can curse and denounce bureaucracy in the state apparatus, one can stigmatise and pillory bureaucracy in our practical work, but unless the masses of the workers reach a certain level of culture, which will create the possibility, the desire, the ability to control the state apparatus from below, by the masses of the workers themselves, bureaucracy will continue to exist in spite of everything. Therefore, the cultural development of the working class and of the masses of the working peasantry, not only the development of literacy, although literacy is the basis of all culture, but primarily the cultivation of the ability to take part in the administration of the country, is the chief lever for improving the state and every other apparatus. This is the sense and significance of Lenin's slogan about the cultural revolution. (THE FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.), December 2-19, 1927.)
So every recognised the problem of bureaucracy - whats your point
How should the bureaucrats been got rid of? Maybe through the use of some kind of purge?
Give me as many quotes of Stalin talking about bureaucracy as "the enemy of progress". It's all very well to denounce something or give a quote saying something is bad or not, but it does nothing to cure or find a solution for said problem. Is there evidence that Stalin actually tackled bureaucracy rather than just talked about?

Why is the newspaper saying this? From what are the workers defending themselves against?
Here's the original quote: "The proper determination of wages and the regulation of labour demand that the industrial heads and the technical directors be charged with immediate responsibility in this matter. This is also dictated by the necessity of establishing a single authority and ensuring economy in the management of enterprises ... They [the workers] must not defend themselves against their government. That is absolutely wrong. That is Left opportunistic perversion, the annihilation of individual authority and interference in the administrative departments. It is imperative that it be abolished." I got it from Tony Cliff here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch01-s1.htm#s1 And I can only assume the "workers must not defend themselves" is because the bureaucratic distortion runs so deep. Obviously the state think they know better than the workers, or because it's for the "greater good and the socialist fatherland" or something like that.

But its not a "bureacratic capitalist class" is it? You are putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 here.
I never said a bureaucratic capitalist class, that's something you've just made up. But I would agree that, yes, Stalin was part of a minority bureaucracy. This chapter of "State Capitalism in Russia" is quite interesting, if you wanna have a skim: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch02.htm#s1

Strikes are not always outcomes of workers pursuing their interests.
I have already shown you that if workers had greivences they could take their manager to court.
Why do workers strike then? Because they're "counter-revolutionary" perhaps, is that what you think? But doesn't it say something to you that if the working-class are not happy with their conditions under Stalin then something's wrong? And I don't think a true workers state is going to appease or bribe away the workers troubles by simply "taking their managers to court.

Just an example of the heroic sacrifice many workers made. I suppose in "real socialism" the tracks would lay themselves? Or would we even need train tracks?
For more examples of stuff like this read John Scott - Behind the Urals. Only in this you will see the enthusiasm the workers at magnitogorsk had
Ah yes, very good, "the tracks would lay themselves", I see what you did there. I think it's quite subjective though. Is it "heroic sacrifice" or is it long hours and dreadful conditions? For what purpose was the sacrifice made? Where was the better future that Uncle Joe promised to hand down to the working-class?

Ok, what i meant to say was militarisation of the work place (which was not popular among workers) and subordination of unions to the state (which Lenin argued against).

But i guess that is the "state of armed workers" right? Not the Stalinist factories where there were "no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups...the workers are in control." (quoted from Phillip Bonosky, Brother Bill McKie: Building the Union at Ford [New York: International Publishers, 1953])

Here's a quote from Tony Cliff again: September 1929, the Party Central Committee resolved that the workers’ committees “may not intervene directly in the running of the plant or endeavour in any way to replace plant administration; they shall by all means help to secure one-man management, increase production, plant development, and, thereby, improvement of the material conditions of the working class”. The manager was placed in full and sole charge of the plant. All his economic orders were now to be “unconditionally binding on his subordinate administrative staff and on all workers”. L.M. Kaganovich, the well-known trouble-shooter in the economic field, stated: “The foreman is the authoritative leader of the shop, the factory director is the authoritative leader of the factory, and each has all the rights, duties, and responsibilities that accompany these positions.” His brother, M.M. Kaganovich, a senior official of the Commissariat of Heavy Industry, stated: “It is necessary to proceed from the basic assumption that the director is the supreme chief in the factory. All the employees in the factory must be completely subordinated to him.” Sure, things were a little nicer for the workers but this ^ is not socialism. Specifically the part in bold.

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 17:32

What about this...

http://www.slp.org/pdf/slphist/stal_intl_an41.pdf

bailey_187

29th November 2009, 20:41

Well if we conclude the debate like that then I can refer you to a few books as well; these books giving a direct antithesis to what you guys put forward. Here's some books: State Capitalism in Russia, by Tony Cliff, Workers Resistance Under Stalin, by Jeffrey J. Rossman and of course The Revolution Betrayed. Those are a few off the top of my head. .

Cool. I could point you to a bunch of books by Party members from my side to back me up too.

Give me as many quotes of Stalin talking about bureaucracy as "the enemy of progress". It's all very well to denounce something or give a quote saying something is bad or not, but it does nothing to cure or find a solution for said problem. Is there evidence that Stalin actually tackled bureaucracy rather than just talked about? .
1) You merely gave a quote from Lenin with no examples of him fighting bureacracy, silly me thinking i could do the same.
2) Yes. Numerous purges of the party being the first to come to mind. Also, if you read the last quote of Joseph Stalin that i gave, he says raising the cultural and educational level of the workers is the surest way to defeat the bureacracy. Stalin did. I already provided evidence of the raising of the cultural level and education of workers in the USSR in this thread i think (or it may have been the other thread on Stalin), so for the sake of saving space i will not post it again (unless you insist)

Here's the original quote: "The proper determination of wages and the regulation of labour demand that the industrial heads and the technical directors be charged with immediate responsibility in this matter. This is also dictated by the necessity of establishing a single authority and ensuring economy in the management of enterprises ... They [the workers] must not defend themselves against their government. That is absolutely wrong. That is Left opportunistic perversion, the annihilation of individual authority and interference in the administrative departments. It is imperative that it be abolished." I got it from Tony Cliff here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch01-s1.htm#s1 And I can only assume the "workers must not defend themselves" is because the bureaucratic distortion runs so deep. Obviously the state think they know better than the workers, or because it's for the "greater good and the socialist fatherland" or something like that. .
Maybe i sound stupid saying this, but i really dont get this quote. It says about wages then skips part of it with "..." (im not accusing Cliff of doctoring it btw) and then says the workers must not defend themselves. Until i understand what this newspaper article is about, i cant comment.

I never said a bureaucratic capitalist class, that's something you've just made up. But I would agree that, yes, Stalin was part of a minority bureaucracy. This chapter of "State Capitalism in Russia" is quite interesting, if you wanna have a skim: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch02.htm#s1
.

You didnt say that but your a Cliffite so i assumed. And my assumption was right.

Why do workers strike then? Because they're "counter-revolutionary" perhaps, is that what you think? But doesn't it say something to you that if the working-class are not happy with their conditions under Stalin then something's wrong? And I don't think a true workers state is going to appease or bribe away the workers troubles by simply "taking their managers to court.
.

Workers strike for many reasons. In the one case you posted, it was due to cuts in rations (in 1932, what happened that year?).
You seem to have a strange view of Socialism. So what all problems are just going to go away? Everyone will be happy and thats it? The bourgeoisie in America are unhappy with the state, is America no longer a Bourgeois state? The bourgeoisie of Weimar Germany were unhappy with the bourgeois state, does that make the Weimar Republic not a bourgeois state?
i will agree though, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, conditions were not good. There lacked goods, technonloy, food. So, how to overcome to problem? "World Revolution!?" Well, that would be nice but while they wait what else could they have done to improve their conditions? Build industry, collectivise farms to mechanise agrculture?
How is having courts for workers to take factory directors too "just bribing"? It is a fundamental shift in which class has power in the state. In bourgeois state, the courts are for the rich (i.e. you need an expensive lawyer to win), so you can not take your manager to coury and likley win, but the bourgeoisie can very easily take you to court and win. In the USSR, new courts were created in which only the worker could take the manager to court, putting the power of the state in the hands of the workers. How you can merely pass such a thing of as "bribing" is shocking.

Ah yes, very good, "the tracks would lay themselves", I see what you did there. I think it's quite subjective though. Is it "heroic sacrifice" or is it long hours and dreadful conditions? For what purpose was the sacrifice made? Where was the better future that Uncle Joe promised to hand down to the working-class? .

Where was the better future? Seriously? You dont think the Soviet Workers benefited from industrialisation? Even if you ignore not being executed or forced to be slaves in Germany's lebenstrum, industrialisation provided a better future. I'm not even going to respond to such a stupid statement (i called the statement stupid, not you) any further.

Sure, things were a little nicer for the workers but this ^ is not socialism. Specifically the part in bold.

1) A LITTLE??!?!?!?!
2) The USSR was not Socialist at that time, it was not Socialist until about 1936. At that time it was in Socialist construction.

Lyev

29th November 2009, 21:39

Cool. I could point you to a bunch of books by Party members from my side to back me up too.

1) You merely gave a quote from Lenin with no examples of him fighting bureacracy, silly me thinking i could do the same.
2) Yes. Numerous purges of the party being the first to come to mind. Also, if you read the last quote of Joseph Stalin that i gave, he says raising the cultural and educational level of the workers is the surest way to defeat the bureacracy. Stalin did. I already provided evidence of the raising of the cultural level and education of workers in the USSR in this thread i think (or it may have been the other thread on Stalin), so for the sake of saving space i will not post it again (unless you insist)

Maybe i sound stupid saying this, but i really dont get this quote. It says about wages then skips part of it with "..." (im not accusing Cliff of doctoring it btw) and then says the workers must not defend themselves. Until i understand what this newspaper article is about, i cant comment.

You didnt say that but your a Cliffite so i assumed. And my assumption was right.

Workers strike for many reasons. In the one case you posted, it was due to cuts in rations (in 1932, what happened that year?).
You seem to have a strange view of Socialism. So what all problems are just going to go away? Everyone will be happy and thats it? The bourgeoisie in America are unhappy with the state, is America no longer a Bourgeois state? The bourgeoisie of Weimar Germany were unhappy with the bourgeois state, does that make the Weimar Republic not a bourgeois state?
i will agree though, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, conditions were not good. There lacked goods, technonloy, food. So, how to overcome to problem? "World Revolution!?" Well, that would be nice but while they wait what else could they have done to improve their conditions? Build industry, collectivise farms to mechanise agrculture?
How is having courts for workers to take factory directors too "just bribing"? It is a fundamental shift in which class has power in the state. In bourgeois state, the courts are for the rich (i.e. you need an expensive lawyer to win), so you can not take your manager to coury and likley win, but the bourgeoisie can very easily take you to court and win. In the USSR, new courts were created in which only the worker could take the manager to court, putting the power of the state in the hands of the workers. How you can merely pass such a thing of as "bribing" is shocking.

Where was the better future? Seriously? You dont think the Soviet Workers benefited from industrialisation? Even if you ignore not being executed or forced to be slaves in Germany's lebenstrum, industrialisation provided a better future. I'm not even going to respond to such a stupid statement (i called the statement stupid, not you) any further.

1) A LITTLE??!?!?!?!
2) The USSR was not Socialist at that time, it was not Socialist until about 1936. At that time it was in Socialist construction.

Well ^ is with the presupposition that all these benefits are being given, per se, down to the masses. But anyway, this debate is silly, people from both sides have equally given quotes, cited books, theorist and authors etc. but neither of us are gonna change our minds. I think for every thesis me or you give there's equally 10 antitheses to combat it; I don't like Stalin very much and you seem to quite like him. Can we still be friends? ;)