Is it not time to move on from Stalin anyway.... [Archive]

ComradeMan

28th November 2009, 22:27

It is important to still discuss Stalinism today, because amongst bourgeois academic circles there is still a concerted campaign to link Stalinism and the Russian Revolution, as if the former was the only possible outcome of the latter, as if the injustices and cruelties of Stalinism can be explained as an inevitable result of Marxism, and it is the duty of revolutionary Marxists to defend the legacy of October, as an inspiring example of working people taking their lives into their own hands, which means explaining why the revolution degenerated when it did, the lessons that we extract from the Russian experience, and why Stalinism in all its varieties (including its current manifestations, such as the Chinese state, and Stalinist parties) is irreconcilable with the Marxist dictum that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

That's a very astute answer. Thanks. I suppose this post was not directed so much at those like yourself, but rather others who seem to be on some kind of pro-Stalin crusade!!! I'm sure you know what I mean.

I do think we all do need a dose of fresh ideas though! :)

Red_Xan

28th November 2009, 22:39

In my opinion, even though Stalin did lead the USSR through the '30's and WW2, he seemed to only serve the purpose, with the purges and his method of dictatorial rule, of making all communists and socialists look like spies and criminals.

hugsandmarxism

28th November 2009, 22:41

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th November 2009, 22:42

Hugsandstuff:

As if the bourgeoisie would think any different had history happened a different way.

It's the negative impression on workers world-wide that's at issue.

BobKKKindle$

28th November 2009, 22:56

As if the bourgeoisie would think any different had history happened a different way. :rolleyes:

The problem is that Stalinism has been a major factor in perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie. If Stalinists were simply concerned with debating issues of historical fact (for example, how many people died as a result of the purges in the USSR, whether Soviet troops committed the Katyn massacre, or whether the famine deaths during the Great Leap Forward can be attributed to the Chinese government) whilst sharing a political commitment to socialist revolution and self-emancipation, then there would not be such a strong imperative to confront Stalinism whenever it rears its head, except in the interests of factual accuracy. The reality, however, is that Stalinist parties have consistently sided with the bourgeoisie whenever the working class has posed a threat to capitalism, and the historical revisionism of Stalinists is not devoid of political aims, but is designed to support the notion that socialism is the same as state ownership of the means of production, and that capitalism can be abolished without the active involvement of the working class - hence the Stalinist belief that the PRC was socialist, and that the USSR remained socialist even when the Soviets and trade unions had been transformed into instruments of the state. Their (or perhaps I should say your) role in sustaining capitalism has frequently assumed the form of siding with the trade-union bureaucracy and pressuring workers to accept only partial reforms when, given a revolutionary leadership, capitalism itself could have been overthrown, as in the case of May 1968 in France, not to mention the KKE's failure to support the riots in Greece, but it has also assumed more violent forms as well, such as the massacre of the Trotskyists in Vietnam, and the butchering of workers in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

bailey_187

28th November 2009, 23:34

"It is the duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class even though it may he distorted by the pressure of hostile forces. Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones." - Leon Trotsky Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events

BobKKKindle$

28th November 2009, 23:43

The Author

28th November 2009, 23:47

All this debate about Stalin, for crying out loud, he's been dead over 50 years and the world he knew is long gone. Whether we think he is the ultimate proletarian revolutionary hero or an ignorant, megalomaniac, murdering son of a...... is it not time to move on?

We have moved on, but there is a tendency among many around here to just bring up the history of "Stalinism" and Stalin and debate it to death because they have nothing better to discuss but instead like dwelling on the past, and offering nothing for the present, refusing to march ahead and actually help those in need. Yes, just as you said, this is in the past, and we should be concentrating on 2009. Not 1937. Not 1956. Not 1968. Not 1989, 1917, 1871, 1848, etc., but the here and now. With so much going on now in terms of this current global depression, class struggles, turmoil and trouble, we should be concentrating on all of this. The past only gives us historical experience. But we cannot expect it to draw analogies or parallels for similar situations since, again as you said, the world is totally different now. We could be focusing our theories and thinking on the present, but too many of us want to merely ignore the present and merely look to the past and analyze every aspect of it and derive some kind of "theory" as to what happened.

BobKKKindle$

28th November 2009, 23:58

We have moved on

Unfortunately not. Stalinism still exists as a political phenomenon, because Stalinism is not just concerned with those who defend Stalin as a historical figure, it is a more general term for political forces which seek to dominate the working class and claim to be socialist whilst having a central role in the defense of the capitalist system, including the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie, by restraining working-class struggles, and legitimizing nationalist ideas. In this sense, the term Stalinism is applicable to the USSR under Khrushchev despite his denunciation of Stalin, as well as subsequent leaders who also represented the interests of a bureaucratic ruling class and had a central role in crushing working-class revolts around the world, and it is also applicable to certain political organizations and states today, such as the KKE and the Chinese state, both of which have, in the past year, reinforced capitalism in their own particular ways, as I noted in my previous post. These actors stand in opposition to the central principles of classical Marxism, namely that the working class must be the agent of its own emancipation, and socialism can only exist on an international scale, and that is why it is important that Marxists identify them as manifestations of Stalinism, and confront them.

The Author

28th November 2009, 23:59

Sorry, what argument are you trying to make?

He's probably referring to how the "Stalinists" constantly have to explain each historical event and debate and provide historical material and wherever possible offer defense of particular events and explain the material conditions behind them as the substantial basis behind the quote.

It's interesting you talk about "Stalinism" perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie. Trotskyism is a dead trend which only existed by pinning the blame on "Stalinism" as the scapegoat. Without "Stalinism," Trotskyism has no leg to stand on. It becomes superfluous. It was always a fringe movement anyway of Menshevist, liberal tendencies and all the intellectual garbage and petit-bourgeois trash that got kicked out of the "Stalinist" groups. Sure, the "Stalinists" are denounced as "bourgeois," but when a criticism such as this one comes from the Trotskyists, the complaint is nullified. Now that the "Stalinist" states are gone, Trotskyism must find a new means to survive. It either dwells on the past, pins "Stalinism" on political states or organizations where there is none, or starts claiming working class movements, revolutions, uprisings or countries as their own.

Dwell in the past as much as you like. I have moved on.

BobKKKindle$

29th November 2009, 00:11

Trotskyism is a dead trend which only existed by pinning the blame on "Stalinism" as the scapegoat.The Trotskyist critique of Stalinism is hardly the entirety of Trotskyism, rather it is just a particular manifestation of a much more fundamental principle which lies at the heart of classical Marxism, as well as the historical practice of the Bolsheviks, namely that socialism can only come about as a result of the struggles of working people, which means that it is not something that can be bureaucratically imposed by an elite or bunch of guerrillas who claim to act on behalf of the working class, and that socialism is inseparable from the most extensive forms of democracy, rooted in workers having direct control over the means of production, and being able to defend their interests. It is this principle of self-emancipation which guides Trotskyists today, and which distinguishes Trotskyism and other forms of what Hal Draper described as "socialism from below" such as Anarchism, from Stalinism. The theoretical contributions of Trotskyism also extend to the theory of permanent revolution, which, by recognizing that the politics of a country can only be understood in the context of the imperialist world-system, that challenges to global capitalism are most likely to come from the periphery of the capitalist system, and that democratic struggles have the potential to develop into anti-capitalist struggles, to name but a few of the theory's most important theoretical conclusions, represents the most effective analysis of imperialism today, and serves as a practical guide for how revolutionaries should conduct themselves in countries like Iran and China. The approach of Stalinists to these countries is rooted in a distorted understanding of imperialism which has nothing to do with Lenin's analysis and fails to address the class nature of the regimes which Stalinists seek to defend, which is why we often find Stalinists opposing democratic movements in Iran, and calling on the Chinese state to crush working-class uprisings like the Tiananmen protests of 1989, to give but two examples of the contemporary role of Stalinism in sustaining capitalism.

starts claiming working class movements, revolutions, uprisings or countries as their own.Trotskyists don't claim any struggles or revolutions as their own, because we don't believe that struggles or revolutions can be carried out by any force other than the working class. The most important role of revolutionaries is to gather the historic experience of the working class and derive conclusions from that experience, which, amongst other things, is why it's important to continue looking at the histories of state-capitalist regimes today, and to keep debating the nature of those regimes.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 00:45

Bailey:

"It is the duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class even though it may he distorted by the pressure of hostile forces. Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones." - Leon Trotsky Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events

It was Trotsky's incorrect analysis of the nature of the former USSR (as a degenerated workers' state, which should thus be defended), based on his adherence to dialectics (a theory that allows anyone to defend and/or 'justify' anything they like, and then its opposite in the next breath), that prompted him to make this unforgiveable claim.

Incidentally, the Stalinists used the same theory to 'justify' the many overnight about-turns in the 1930s (from the ultra-left 'social fascist' stage, to the 'popular front', then to rationalising a pact with Hitler, then to justifiying the defence of 'Holy Russia' against the Nazi invaders, and so on).

hugsandmarxism

29th November 2009, 00:47

Bailey:

It was Trotsky's incorrect analysis of the nature of the former USSR (as a degenerated workers' state, which should be defended), based on his adherence to dialectics (a theory that allows anyone to defend and/or 'justify' anything they like, and then its oppsoite in the next breath), that prompted him to make this unforgiveable claim.

Yay! Turn this thread into another snoozer on anti-dialectics! That way, we can alternate the dead horses we beat each week! :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 00:54

HugsandSnores:

Turn this thread into another snoozer on anti-dialectics!

1) I'm glad you think dialectics is boring. So do I.

2) This theory is integral to answering Bailey's (implied) question.

Charles Xavier

29th November 2009, 01:01

blank

hugsandmarxism

29th November 2009, 01:02

Hugsandstuff:

HugsandSnores:

LOL its funny because you purposely changed the second part of my name!

1) I'm glad you think dialectics is boring. So do I.

anti-dialectics.

2) This theory is integral to answering Bailey's (implied) question.

Then by all means, please elaborate. How have dialectics failed us so? Enlighten us with your fresh perspective on the issue. I'd rather sit through your rant on anti-dialectics than to deal with another lame Stalin thread.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 01:12

HugsandGlasses:

LOL its funny because you purposely changed the second part of my name!

Another Stalinist lie...

anti-dialectics.

So am I! :thumbup1:

Then by all means, please elaborate. How have dialectics failed us so? Enlighten us with your fresh perspective on the issue. I'd rather sit through your rant on anti-dialectics than to deal with another lame Stalin thread.

Done it -- literally scores of times.

Don't believe me? Check this out then:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

Or this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nti-dialectics-made-t103349/index.html

BobKKKindle$

29th November 2009, 01:56

The attack on Stalin and Stalinism is usually an attack not on either but on fundamentals of Marxism itself.Please explain how criticizing Stalinism undermines the fundamentals of Marxism, as it seems to me that the exact reverse is true - criticizing Stalinism as a caricature of socialism affirms one of Marxism's central principles, namely that the working class must be the agent of its own emancipation. This was the observation that distinguished Marx from others who saw themselves as socialists but did not identify the centrality of self-emancipation - for example, Blanqui, who believed that socialism could emerge from a coup, and the utopians, such as Fourier, who believed that the bourgeoisie could be won over to their side if only they demonstrated the ethical superiority of socialism by constructing communes (frequently organized in a hierarchical and elitist fashion) and describing the world they wanted to see in elaborate and absurd detail. I find it hard to believe that someone whose vision of socialism was based on the experience of the Paris Commune, where elected delegates were subject to immediate recall throughout their terms of office, and where delegates were paid no more than the wage of an average skilled workers, would accept Stalinist Russia as a legitimate embodiment of their principles and aspirations, if anything Marx would have viewed the Russian experience as evidence that the essence of capitalism is not private property being recognized in judicial terms or commodities being traded through markets, but workers being divorced from control of the means of production and the products of their labour, and forced to sell their labour power in order to support the accumulation of capital and the privileges of a powerful minority, which is exactly what existed after 1928 in Russia, and in other countries such as the PRC that have posed as socialist.

Jimmie Higgins

29th November 2009, 01:57

To me it seems as much sense as the French debating Robespierre over 200 years later.Well the irony here is that Napoleon and Robespierre were the source of fierce political debates until the Russian Revolution came along.

In fact the only reason figures from the French Revolution are no longer widely debated as they were (a hundred years after the fact) in the 1890s is because most people accept the ruling class line on the meaning of the French Revolution. Essentially (at least in the US) the French Revolution is taught in schools as a warning against popular uprisings and how a strong status-quo and state are needed to keep the rabble from going crazy and chopping people's heads off for no apparent reason.

Even the way mainstream history teaches the Russian Revolution (if they do at all... it was mentioned in my High School classes as sort of a footnote on the World War I lesson) they teach it as sort of a replay of the French Revolution: Robespierre and Lenin were cold revolutionaries with no soul who had some kind of blood-lust (even though even the terror was tame compared to some of the actions of monarchists and the ancien regime or the treatment of slaves in French colonies like Haiti - which the revolutionaries were against). Mainstream history also treats Napoleon and Stalin similarly: they were power-hungry but at least they brought some order to society after the "anarchy" and "mob-rule" of revolution.

I wish I had been a radical when I was in High School and College just so I could have debated my instructors on their "common sense" interpretations of the French and Russian Revolutions.

In short: I don't think these debates will end until we are in a new revolutionary period and new circumstances and events definitively answer some questions while creating a whole new set of things to debate. Personally I think that the book is closed on Stalinism (and "deformed worker-state" theory Trotskyism) with the wealth of examples of how "socialism in one country" failed in (and even actively worked against) bringing about worker's power. Then again, after the social-democrats supported their home-counties during WWI, the book should have also been closed on reformist strategies for bringing about socialism through electoral means but there are still plenty of social-democrats out there too.

ArrowLance

29th November 2009, 02:10

I think it is important that we resurrect the personality cult of Stalin so we can all be held in his warm embrace and follow him into glorious communist revolution.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 02:51

Or into a Gulag...

Charles Xavier

29th November 2009, 02:58

blank

FSL

29th November 2009, 03:14

and the historical revisionism of Stalinists is not devoid of political aims, but is designed to support the notion that socialism is the same as state ownership of the means of production, and that capitalism can be abolished without the active involvement of the working class

You sir are ignorant. Or a liar, pick and choose.

Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that it is enough to arrange a "rational organization of the productive forces," and the transition from socialism to communism will take place with-out any particular difficulty. He considers that this is quite sufficient for the transition to communism

Such is the opinion of Comrade Yaroshenko.
What can be said of this opinion?

Consequently, social production consists of two sides, which, although they are inseparably connected, reflect two different categories of relations: the relations of men to nature (productive forces), and the relations of men to one another in the process of production (production relations).

It is not true, lastly, that communism means the rational organization of the productive forces, that the rational organization of the productive forces is the beginning and end of the communist system, that it is only necessary to organize the productive forces rationally, and the transition to communism will take place without particular difficulty. There is in our literature another definition, another formula of communism - Lenin's formula: "Communism is Soviet rule plus the electrification of the whole country."
if a choice must be made between the two formulas, then it is not Lenin's formula, which is the only correct one, that should be discarded, but Comrade Yaroshenko's pseudo formula, which is so obviously chimerical and un-Marxist

Comrade Yaroshenko is mistaken when he asserts that there is no contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces of society under socialism. Of course, our present relations of production are in a period when they fully conform to the growth of the productive forces and help to advance them at seven-league strides. But it would be wrong to rest easy at that and to think that there are no contradictions between our productive forces and the relations of production. There certainly are, and will be, contradictions, seeing that the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces. Given a correct policy on the part of the directing bodies, these contradictions cannot grow into antagonisms, and there is no chance of matters coming to a conflict between the relations of production and the productive forces of society. It would be a different matter if we were to conduct a wrong policy, such as that which Comrade Yaroshenko recommends. In that case conflict would be inevitable, and our relations of production might become a serious brake on the further development of the productive forces

What have we here? Someone claims that as long as the means of productions belong to the state, socialism does exist and the move towards communism only demands that we increase production by optimally organizing the economy. That someone just so happens to be a revisionist and the man answering is Stalin. And what is his answer?

His answer is that you cannot discard the importance of the relations of production, the relations that develop between men in the production process. That these relations do in fact lag compared to the productive forces -it is after all easier to nationalize a factory than make sure everyone employed in it is capable of running it or that said running is always under close scrutiny from all the workers. What is the role of the state then? The role of the state is to locate these contradictions and fight them so they don't evolve to antagonisms,for example the state shouldn't weaken workers control and reward managers with bonuses for profitable companies, as that could lead to an antagonism threatening collective ownership itself. Instead, what should happen in these cases -granted the state is doing its job, as Stalin defines it- workers themselves should become more able to manage their enterprises erasing that contradiction where the working class owns the means of production but is not 100% in charge of the economy. If these don't happen conflict will erupt and the further development of socialist ownership of the means of production will be in a grave danger. This is what Stalinists think.

So one honest question. Are you painfully unaware of what you are talking about or simply just in love with capitalism, determined to defend it with any lie?

but workers being divorced from control of the means of production

With what law? Which was the law put forward in 1928 that divorced workers from controlling the means of production?

Jimmie Higgins

29th November 2009, 04:43

You sir are ignorant. Or a liar, pick and choose.:rolleyes: Stalin... great dictator? Or greatest dictator?

So one honest question. Are you painfully unaware of what you are talking about or simply just in love with capitalism, determined to defend it with any lie?I'm painfully unaware of what the hell the point of your little parable was. So your point is that since Stalin said that state-ownership alone does not equal socialism, Stalinism was actually socialism? If that's the case, it's about as convincing as George Bush talking about the greatness of democracy. If this is how you judge the effectiveness of a political strategy, then social-democracy must be a way to reach socialism since I've heard some great speeches by social-democrats about Marx and how there can't really be democracy while there is economic inequality.

Stalin or Mao or Allende may have said some great things, but let's not look at history as the escapades and speeches of a few "great men" and look at it from a materialist perspective of how these states worked and in whose interests and weather or not workers actually had power.

New Tet

29th November 2009, 05:33

The attack on Stalin and Stalinism is usually an attack not on either but on fundamentals of Marxism itself. There are some very valid criticism of Stalin but the correct criticisms of him are overlooked and the guns are turned to Marxism and Leninism. The ones who lead the biggest crusades against Stalin in the Socialist movement are those who want to Abandon fundamentals of Marxism in the name of Anti-Stalinism

Stalinism is Leninism taken to its logical conclusion.

Jimmie Higgins

29th November 2009, 06:39

Stalinism is Leninism taken to its logical conclusion.How so?

New Tet

29th November 2009, 07:37

How so?

I'll let Trotsky answer that question:

“Lenin’s methods lead to this: the party organization (caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee.”

Our Political Tasks (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/index.htm).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LabxxEgMTjo&feature=related

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 07:50

New Tet:

“Lenin’s methods lead to this: the party organization (caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee.”

This is unless the material weight of the working class provides a counter-weight.

On that, see here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm

But, once the working class had been destroyed by WW1 and the civil war in the former USSR, this is indeed what happened under Stalin.

So, with a healthy and active revolutionary working class, Leninism does not lead to Stalinism

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 07:57

Charles' Saviour:

Thanks for not contributing anything.

Even my 'nothing' is more than your something...:rolleyes:

Check these out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-t122929/index2.html

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

and the rest of the pages in both.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 08:05

FSL:

His answer is that you cannot discard the importance of the relations of production, the relations that develop between men in the production process. That these relations do in fact lag compared to the productive forces -it is after all easier to nationalize a factory than make sure everyone employed in it is capable of running it or that said running is always under close scrutiny from all the workers. What is the role of the state then? The role of the state is to locate these contradictions and fight them so they don't evolve to antagonisms,for example the state shouldn't weaken workers control and reward managers with bonuses for profitable companies, as that could lead to an antagonism threatening collective ownership itself. Instead, what should happen in these cases -granted the state is doing its job, as Stalin defines it- workers themselves should become more able to manage their enterprises erasing that contradiction where the working class owns the means of production but is not 100% in charge of the economy. If these don't happen conflict will erupt and the further development of socialist ownership of the means of production will be in a grave danger. This is what Stalinists think.

And yet Stalin said the following about this 'solution':

“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.”

So, no wonder history has repeatedly refuted this idea.

Dozens more quotations to the same effect, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1610331&postcount=115

Incidentally, how is the link between the relations and forces of production a 'contradiction', to begin with?

Moreover, according the Lenin and Engels (and many other dialecticians -- quotations can be produced on request), the 'dialectical opposites' in a 'dialectical contradiction' always turn into one another.

So, how can the forces of production turn into the relations of production, and the relations of production turn into the forces of production?:confused:

New Tet

29th November 2009, 08:34

New Tet:

This is unless the material weight of the working class provides a counter-weight.

On that, see here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm

But, once the working class had been destroyed by WW1 and the civil war in the former USSR, this is indeed what happened under Stalin.

So, with a healthy and active revolutionary working class, Leninism does not lead to Stalinism

Okay, except Trotsky's warning came out not in 1914-30 (when the events you describe happened), but in 1904, when the Russian working class, albeit small, was not devastated by a world war and counter-revolution.

Was Trotsky wrong in 1904 and right in 1923, when he supported the self-same methods in the absence of a "healthy and active" working class?

robbo203

29th November 2009, 08:43

The Trotskyist critique of Stalinism is hardly the entirety of Trotskyism, rather it is just a particular manifestation of a much more fundamental principle which lies at the heart of classical Marxism, as well as the historical practice of the Bolsheviks, namely that socialism can only come about as a result of the struggles of working people, which means that it is not something that can be bureaucratically imposed by an elite or bunch of guerrillas who claim to act on behalf of the working class, and that socialism is inseparable from the most extensive forms of democracy, rooted in workers having direct control over the means of production, and being able to defend their interests..

Interesting. So I take it then that "Trostskyists" completely renounce the leninist theory of the Vanguard Party as well as oppose the top down dictatorial machinations of the Bolshevik state under Lenin which paved the way for stalinism

Spawn of Stalin

29th November 2009, 08:57

Let's move on from Marx while we're at it, after all, he's been dead for well over a century. I find it pretty stupid that an anarchist would even care about people admiring Stalin. It has absolutely nothing to do with the anarchist. With regards to the large amount of debate around Stalin and Marxism-Leninism, it's simply not our problem, if you people want to whine and moan about Stalin, go ahead and do it, but don't come up here asking us to move on so that you or anyone else doesn't have to whine and moan, because it's none of your business. When was the last time a Marxist-Leninist started an "On Stalin" type topic? I haven't been here too long but I have yet to see it happen, it is the anti-Stalin people who initiate all the debate. I think you will find that in the real world, outside of the internet, we Marxist-Leninists spend more time discussing what can be done in the future rather than what happened in the past. Make no mistake, it is the anarchists and the ultra-lefts who need to shut up about Stalin.

FSL

29th November 2009, 09:49

I'm painfully unaware of what the hell the point of your little parable was. So your point is that since Stalin said that state-ownership alone does not equal socialism, Stalinism was actually socialism? If that's the case, it's about as convincing as George Bush talking about the greatness of democracy. If this is how you judge the effectiveness of a political strategy, then social-democracy must be a way to reach socialism since I've heard some great speeches by social-democrats about Marx and how there can't really be democracy while there is economic inequality.

Stalin or Mao or Allende may have said some great things, but let's not look at history as the escapades and speeches of a few "great men" and look at it from a materialist perspective of how these states worked and in whose interests and weather or not workers actually had power.

Someone argued that debating Stalinism isn't just about history but it's important because Stalinism is "designed to support the notion that socialism is the same as state ownership of the means of production, and that capitalism can be abolished without the active involvement of the working class". My point was very obvious, proving that this is not what Stalinism supports.

And now you're saying that Stalin might have said some great things but it is actions that matter. Great!
Ok then, tell me from a materialist perspective how did these societies work and whether it was in the interests of the workers. Be careful though, if you just go on and say "workers had no say in the economy" or something to that effect I'll want you to present the laws that made it so (in the same way I could present the kosygin reform and a bunch of other reforms/laws to back up my claim that it was only then the workers' position in the economy was undermined). Otherwise, it's just an empty accusation and I can't argue effectively against that. :)

Rosa, the key word you willfully ignored is "final".

KlÃ©ber

29th November 2009, 10:42

in the same way I could present the kosygin reform and a bunch of other reforms/laws to back up my claim that it was only then the workers' position in the economy was underminedBut the economic and political spheres were combined. Therefore the lack of political freedom meant that the working class was not yet consciously ruling the economy in its own interest, the Party was merely ruling in its place. This was accepted as an unfortunate necessity during Lenin's administration, but while Stalin ran the country the distinction between a party dictatorship and a proletarian dictatorship was theoretically abolished. This revision, which abandoned any hope of expanding democratic representation beyond the forms forced upon the Soviet republic by war, was the basis for what happened after Stalin's death, when everything that remained of Marxism and Leninism was similarly revised.

The fact that Stalin was succeeded by a cabal of spineless careerists should not come as a surprise; the purges conducted by the bureaucratic regime decimated the most principled and experienced elements of the Bolshevik Party. All the major participants in the events of 1917 who had not totally proven their loyalty to the Stalin clique were massacred in the late 1930's. With them went all the Soviet officers opposed to a pact with Hitler, and a horrendous number of foreign Communists, many of them refugees hoping the USSR offered safety from political persecution, including many of the brightest theorists of the Comintern, simply because they opposed the blundering and overbearing policies of that body. Those killings had a very negative effect on the revolutionary consciousness of the international proletariat, and cleared the way for restorationists to take power in the USSR.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 10:44

New Tet:

Okay, except Trotsky's warning came out not in 1914-30 (when the events you describe happened), but in 1904, when the Russian working class, albeit small, was not devastated by a world war and counter-revolution.

Was Trotsky wrong in 1904 and right in 1923, when he supported the self-same methods in the absence of a "healthy and active" working class?

Well, there was no working class to speak of in Russian in 1904, but, even if there had been, very few were Bolsheviks, so their counter-weight could have no influence on the Bolshevik party, then.

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 11:34

Well, what about the other point?

Is it not anti-revolutionary to dogmatise?

Lyev

29th November 2009, 11:45

What have we here? Someone claims that as long as the means of productions belong to the state, socialism does exist and the move towards communism only demands that we increase production by optimally organizing the economy. That someone just so happens to be a revisionist and the man answering is Stalin. And what is his answer?

State ownership of the means of production and socialism have never been corollary at all. I think a clear distinction needs to made between the state and society as a whole. It's only when society truly takes hold of, and democratically runs the means of production that socialism starts to thrive. No one can own the means of production on behalf of the workers. Anyway here's a quote from Engels debunking the whole state ownership=socialism thing: "... since Bismarck adopted state ownership a certain spurious socialism has made its appearance here and there even degenerating into a kind of flunkeyism which declares that all taking over by the state, even of the Bismarckian kind, is itself socialist. If, however, the taking over of the tobacco trade by the State was socialist, Napoleon and Metternich would rank among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, constructed its own main railway lines, if Bismarck... took over the main railway lines in Prussia, simply in order to be better able to organise and use them for war, to train the railway officials as the government’s voting cattle, and especially to secure a new source of revenue independent of immediate votes - such actions were in no sense socialist measures. Otherwise the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal Porcelain Manufacturer, and even the regimental tailors in the army, would be socialist institutions."

Oh and also, I agree with what people have said; we need to study Stalin to see what he did wrong did to induce a Thermidor effect and then see what needs to be remedied for possibles future experiences. That's always the reason to study history.

29th November 2009, 12:04

Interesting. So I take it then that "Trostskyists" completely renounce the leninist theory of the Vanguard Party ...
No. We reject the Stalinist conception of the vanguard party as a top-down political machine, sterile of political debate. Instead we support the vanguard party as it was originally intended, that is as a party of activists, conscious of their political tasks and debating them in an open and frank manner as to educate themselves as well as the wider working class movement to achieve political clarity.

... as well as oppose the top down dictatorial machinations of the Bolshevik state under Lenin which paved the way for stalinism
That you equate the vanguard party with these mechanisms tells me you simply don't know what you're talking about.

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 13:02

I find it pretty stupid that an anarchist would even care about people admiring Stalin. It has absolutely nothing to do with the anarchist.

So you find it pretty stupid that people listen to all views, whether they agree or not, and/or seek knowledge about the world they are in. Isn't that just the mentality of the "little red book", now?

With regards to the large amount of debate around Stalin and Marxism-Leninism, it's simply not our problem, if you people want to whine and moan about Stalin, go ahead and do it, but don't come up here asking us to move on so that you or anyone else doesn't have to whine and moan, because it's none of your business.

Oh but it is part of my business, as no man is an island unto himself. Interesting how you equate Marxism and Leninism along with Stalinism as synonyms. By the way I didn't ask you to move on at all, I said we ought to. It seems to be that Stalinists create divisions in the opposition to capitalism and are thus anti-revolutionary...:D

When was the last time a Marxist-Leninist started an "On Stalin" type topic? I haven't been here too long but I have yet to see it happen, it is the anti-Stalin people who initiate all the debate---

It was him that started it Miss, not me, it was him.... (Elementary school example).... have a look on the threads...

Grow up!!!:D

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 13:08

In fact, in Learning, most of the 'Stalin' threads have been started by comrades new to the left, who genuinely want to know about Stalin -- so it's up to us to put them straight.

ZeroNowhere

29th November 2009, 13:46

Spawn of Stalin

29th November 2009, 14:02

So you find it pretty stupid that people listen to all views, whether they agree or not, and/or seek knowledge about the world they are in. Isn't that just the mentality of the "little red book", now?
No, I am all for listening to all views, and not just listening to them, but closely examining and analysing them practically as well.

Oh but it is part of my business, as no man is an island unto himself. Interesting how you equate Marxism and Leninism along with Stalinism as synonyms.
Well no, not exactly at least, I reject the idea that Stalinism even exists, however, when anarchist uses the term, they generally just mean Marxism-Leninism. In that sense, I regard the two as synonymous, but as I said, I don't believe in Stalinism any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny, I believe in Marxism-Leninism.

By the way I didn't ask you to move on at all, I said we ought to. It seems to be that Stalinists create divisions in the opposition to capitalism and are thus anti-revolutionary...:D
"It seems to be" huh? Care to back this up with any material evidence? What exactly do we do to create divisions? We agree with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, is that all? We "Stalinists" just get on with things on our own, and we are happy to do so, if people criticise us and our ways of thinking, we are going to defend out positions, this isn't called creating divisions, this is called human nature. This topic itself is the perfect demonstration of who it is who is creating divisions.

It was him that started it Miss, not me, it was him.... (Elementary school example).... have a look on the threads...

Grow up!!!:D
I would mostly agree with you, that blaming the other guy is an extremely juvenile way of getting your point across, but let's look at the fundamentals of my point before coming to conclusions. You can prove me wrong if you like, tell me to have a look at the threads, I have, and I haven't seen anything to prove your point. One could perhaps equate creating divisions with starting wars, would you accuse the Iraqi resistance of starting a war? No, you wouldn't, they merely fight back, just like us, we fight back, and if we didn't fight back by defending our positions, and the proponents of those positions, you would just say that we can't answer to any of your criticisms because we're wrong about everything, so we can't win petty arguments on internet message boards, but we don't care, we have far bigger fish to fry, you can dominate the internet and that's fine, but look to the real world, look to Nepal, do you think the Stalinists in Nepal are creating divisions? I don't, I think they're creating massive unity, because for the first time in history, the Nepalese poor have something to hold on to. So yeah, long live Glorious Comrade Stalin, I'll grow up when you eat your words.

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 14:33

Yes, that's lovely and anti-dogmatic of you, it doesn't have much to do with what you were replying to.

That does not follow. If they were part of the opposition to capitalism, and support socialism as an alternative, then they would be revolutionary, whether or not they want to be part of some united mass akin in many ways to either a dying star or lit dynamite.

If you have naught of worth to write, then shut up.

1. Eh? I think we are losing thread of the thread here!!!

2. When you dogmatise something you write it in stone so to speak and therefore you fossilise it as it were- in thus doing you slow down natural evolution and change and thus become anti-r-evolutionary.

3. It seems that some people around here are very good at telling others to shut up all over the place. What's the point of having a forum for people to ask questions if, when they do ask a question, they are patronised or told to shut up?

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 14:53

No, I am all for listening to all views, and not just listening to them, but closely examining and analysing them practically as well.

Picking at words semantically usually shows that there is no real argumentation. Listening is not a passive but an active activity- it is the difference between hearing and listening. You know exactly what is meant by listening in this context.

Well no, not exactly at least, I reject the idea that Stalinism even exists, however, when anarchist uses the term, they generally just mean Marxism-Leninism. In that sense, I regard the two as synonymous, but as I said, I don't believe in Stalinism any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny, I believe in Marxism-Leninism.

You are make an assumption on what other believe and have used the word generally- this sounds like you are making a generalisation. I certainly do not equate Stalinism with Marxism-Leninism although the links are irrefutable this does not mean they are synonyms no more than an apple and a leaf are the same just because they grow on the same tree.

"It seems to be" huh? Care to back this up with any material evidence? What exactly do we do to create divisions? We agree with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, is that all?

I would qualify that in that you agree on a Stalinist viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism.

We "Stalinists" just get on with things on our own, and we are happy to do so, if people criticise us and our ways of thinking, we are going to defend out positions, this isn't called creating divisions, this is called human nature. This topic itself is the perfect demonstration of who it is who is creating divisions.

You automatically go on the defensive here. My original question was isn't it time to move on? This was not an attack per se, if you, as is your right, think otherwise then I would be interested to listen to your point of view- others have presented some varying yet astute points of view without the subtle and patronising attacks ad hominem. I notice you say we "Stalinists", but before you said there were only "Marxist-Leninists". I know you are using inverted commas but it does suggest that at some level you do make a distinction between the two which seems to contradict what you said before.

I would mostly agree with you, that blaming the other guy is an extremely juvenile way of getting your point across, but let's look at the fundamentals of my point before coming to conclusions. You can prove me wrong if you like, tell me to have a look at the threads, I have, and I haven't seen anything to prove your point.

What point? The whole point of this thread was an invitation to make points? A question which runs "Is it not time..." is an invitation to discuss the issue- like the classical essay questions we had at university or school. It does not mean that I either agree or disagree with the question in itself.

One could perhaps equate creating divisions with starting wars, would you accuse the Iraqi resistance of starting a war? No, you wouldn't, they merely fight back, just like us, we fight back, and if we didn't fight back by defending our positions, and the proponents of those positions, you would just say that we can't answer to any of your criticisms because we're wrong about everything...

Would I? How do you know?

so we can't win petty arguments on internet message boards, but we don't care, we have far bigger fish to fry, you can dominate the internet and that's fine, but look to the real world, look to Nepal, do you think the Stalinists in Nepal are creating divisions? I don't, I think they're creating massive unity, because for the first time in history, the Nepalese poor have something to hold on to. So yeah, long live Glorious Comrade Stalin, I'll grow up when you eat your words.

Right, because there's real unity in Nepal with the Maoist Communist Party of Nepal being toppled and then being barred from any coalition by the Unified Marxist-Leninists. They'll fight and squabble with each other to ruin and then the capitalists will move in.... Anti-revolutionary in my opinion.:D

With no real disrespect meant to Nepal, the Nepalese revolution is somewhat of a storm in a tea cup as they say. As glad as I am that the poor of Nepal have a better deal--- and it is still far too soon to tell, if that's the only thing Stalinism has to boast about these days...well... but hang on, there we go again.... one minute it is Maoism, one minute it is Marxist-Leninism and another it is Stalinism. The jury is still out on the view of Stalinism from the Maoist side.

FSL

29th November 2009, 15:09

State ownership of the means of production and socialism have never been corollary at all. I think a clear distinction needs to made between the state and society as a whole. It's only when society truly takes hold of, and democratically runs the means of production that socialism starts to thrive.

Yeeeees...? I'd substitute working class in place of society though.

So in that debate between Stalin and a revisionist you agree with what Stalin says, right?

But the economic and political spheres were combined. Therefore the lack of political freedom meant that the working class was not yet consciously ruling the economy in its own interest, the Party was merely ruling in its place. This was accepted as an unfortunate necessity during Lenin's administration, but while Stalin ran the country the distinction between a party dictatorship and a proletarian dictatorship was theoretically abolished. This revision, which abandoned any hope of expanding democratic representation beyond the forms forced upon the Soviet republic by war, was the basis for what happened after Stalin's death, when everything that remained of Marxism and Leninism was similarly revised.

Explain the bold part please, especially the "theoretically abolished"? Where does this happen? And what makes you feel that there was no political freedom or that any hopes of expanding democratic representation were abandoned?

The fact that Stalin was succeeded by a cabal of spineless careerists should not come as a surprise; the purges conducted by the bureaucratic regime decimated the most principled and experienced elements of the Bolshevik Party. All the major participants in the events of 1917 who had not totally proven their loyalty to the Stalin clique were massacred in the late 1930's. With them went all the Soviet officers opposed to a pact with Hitler, and a horrendous number of foreign Communists, many of them refugees hoping the USSR offered safety from political persecution, including many of the brightest theorists of the Comintern, simply because they opposed the blundering and overbearing policies of that body. Those killings had a very negative effect on the revolutionary consciousness of the international proletariat, and cleared the way for restorationists to take power in the USSR.

How were the revisionists spineless careerists? If only, then they might just be happy to take home their paycheck, brag on their important position in the state machinery and be done with it. Instead they went and initiated a number of very important reforms that undoubtedly brought forth many changes. What in that shows us that they were "spineless"?

And referring to those purged as the most " principled and experienced" doesn't mean that much. Poems have been written about Stalin (by non-Soviet poets as well). They aren't a decent political arguement in his favour either.
Explain what was it in their positions and actions that justifies this remark. For example, I 'm in agreement with the policy of collectivization, of industrialization, of giving priority to the production of means of production, with the thought that commodity production or socialized ownership (belonging to a group among the people and not the entire people) pose a threat to socialism etc. These positions were also held in high regard and pursued by the "Stalin clique". Where do you disagree and how do you judge those purged to be more "principled" than said clique?

Spawn of Stalin

29th November 2009, 15:28

It seems that some people around here are very good at telling others to shut up all over the place. What's the point of having a forum for people to ask questions if, when they do ask a question, they are patronised or told to shut up?
What's the point of having a forum for people to respond to questions if, when they do respond to a question they are patronised or told to grow up?

Picking at words semantically usually shows that there is no real argumentation. Listening is not a passive but an active activity- it is the difference between hearing and listening. You know exactly what is meant by listening in this context.
It's funny, in the first sentence you say that arguing semantics is pointless, then in the second sentence you start to argue semantics. Unbelievable.

You are make an assumption on what other believe and have used the word generally- this sounds like you are making a generalisation. I certainly do not equate Stalinism with Marxism-Leninism although the links are irrefutable this does not mean they are synonyms no more than an apple and a leaf are the same just because they grow on the same tree.
Very well, then what is Stalinism? And don't give me any of that crap about purges, famines, and ruling with an iron fist, I'm completely over arguing with liberals.

I would qualify that in that you agree on a Stalinist viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism.
Marxist-Leninists follow the line of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao/Hoxha, I would say that this line is about as Stalinist as you can get. So I'll ask again, how does this create divisions?

You automatically go on the defensive here. My original question was isn't it time to move on? This was not an attack per se, if you, as is your right, think otherwise then I would be interested to listen to your point of view- others have presented some varying yet astute points of view without the subtle and patronising attacks ad hominem. I notice you say we "Stalinists", but before you said there were only "Marxist-Leninists". I know you are using inverted commas but it does suggest that at some level you do make a distinction between the two which seems to contradict what you said before.
Really? That's interesting, just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Keep blabbering on, maybe you'll confuse everyone to the point where they are forced to

What point? The whole point of this thread was an invitation to make points? A question which runs "Is it not time..." is an invitation to discuss the issue- like the classical essay questions we had at university or school. It does not mean that I either agree or disagree with the question in itself.
Evidently you do agree with the question, you saw fit to tell me to grow up, purely based on the fact that I rejected the premise of the topic. Not only that, but you said that Stalinism creates divisions, if you really think that they you would be stupid not to agree with the question.

Would I? How do you know?
I'm really just guessing, so far you've done a pretty good job of acting like a pedantic child. I mean, this topic was a disaster from the minute you posted it, but I will humour you. It is not time to move on from Stalinism, because there are still people who firmly believe in Stalinism. Those who wish to move on have done so. Easy huh?

Right, because there's real unity in Nepal with the Maoist Communist Party of Nepal being toppled and then being barred from any coalition by the Unified Marxist-Leninists. They'll fight and squabble with each other to ruin and then the capitalists will move in.... Anti-revolutionary in my opinion.:D
I think you really need to read up on the situation in Nepal my friend.

With no real disrespect meant to Nepal, the Nepalese revolution is somewhat of a storm in a tea cup as they say. As glad as I am that the poor of Nepal have a better deal--- and it is still far too soon to tell, if that's the only thing Stalinism has to boast about these days...well... but hang on, there we go again.... one minute it is Maoism, one minute it is Marxist-Leninism and another it is Stalinism.
Yes, Maoism is a form of Marxism-Leninism, and yes, if there is such a thing as Stalinism, the CPN(M) can probably be described as such. But, I digress, is it not all that Stalinism has to boast about, however, even if it was, it would still have far more to boast about than any other left-wing tendency out there.

New Tet

29th November 2009, 15:41

New Tet:
Well, there was no working class to speak of in Russian in 1904, but, even if there had been, very few were Bolsheviks, so their counter-weight could have no influence on the Bolshevik party, then.

So, for whom was "Lenin's methods" intended then, a non-existent Russian working class? And, if in 1904 the WC did not exist "to speak of" in Russia and by 1924 it was devastated, why did Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshies persist in applying them in the absence of their natural "counter-balance"?

Also, if the theoretical caveat you offer is correct, why then would Lenin and the majority of his followers, including Trotsky be so hostile to the Worker's Opposition when they raised their call for state power to be concentrated in the Soviets and away from the Party?

BTW, my previous experience in this argument with Leninists has been different. They have argued that the organizational structure of the Soviet state as conceived by Lenin emerged precisely as a response to the perceived dearth in working class influence in the course of revolution, not contingent on their large numbers and capacity to counter-balance the abuse of power on the part of Lenin's professional cadre.

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 15:52

Initially, I was responding to your rather patronising and aggressive response- to which others also responded.

It's funny, in the first sentence you say that arguing semantics is pointless, then in the second sentence you start to argue semantics. .

No because the second sentence isn't really a semantic argument at all. You made a statement and I was picking up on the statement you made, I wasn't splittling hairs about the meaning of one word. I repeat, it's not a semantic argument.

Very well, then what is Stalinism? And don't give me any of that crap about purges, famines, and ruling with an iron fist, I'm completely over arguing with liberals.

I was actually hoping you would provide the answers instead of attacking people for asking. Responding to a question with a question isn't very helpful. You also seem to have answered already with your idea of what my answer would be....

Marxist-Leninists follow the line of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao/Hoxha, I would say that this line is about as Stalinist as you can get. So I'll ask again, how does this create divisions?

Disagree here- other wise they would be Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao/Hoxha-ists, or would that just be too frightfully long? :D By the way, do you think that for yourself or did you read it on Wikipedia?

You know full well that there are many divisions and contradictions etc, to sum them up in one monolithic and over-arching "line" seems a bit hopeful here.

Really? That's interesting, just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Keep blabbering on, maybe you'll confuse everyone to the point where they are forced to

See my point below--- it's all right for you to use confused and contradictory terminology and when people question it means that they do not know what they are talking about.

Evidently you do agree with the question, you saw fit to tell me to grow up.

Evidently I do or evidently I do not, are you answering the question or is at a response ad hominem? No, I told you to grow up because you were aggressive and patronising in your tone. Seems to be a lot of "projection" going on here...

I'm really just guessing, so far you've done a pretty good job of acting like a pedantic child. I mean, this topic was a disaster from the minute you posted it, but I will humour you. It is not time to move on from Stalinism, because there are still people who firmly believe in Stalinism. Those who wish to move on have done so. Easy huh?

So, it's being pedantic when someone allegedly picks at your words, but when you feel free to write off others' words as being gibberish it's fine? Despite the fact, that is, that your point of reference are unclear and your terminology seems to vary all over the place- if not contradict itself.

Who said it was a disaster? There you go prohecting your own opiniomn again. There were some quite interesting points made by others without resorting to abusive tones. If a topic were a disaster then it would not provoke thought-enquiry and debate.

I think you really need to read up on the situation in Nepal my friend.

No, I don't need to read up at all. In fact, what I said was based on the facts of the last...err.... year and a half or so.

..... is it not all that Stalinism has to boast about, however, even if it was, it would still have far more to boast about than any other left-wing tendency out there.

Don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain?

New Tet

29th November 2009, 16:10

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 16:12

Listen, it's pointless to turn this argument into an argument about the argument. Pointless, circular and sterile.

Let's talk instead about how Leninism is partly to blame for the Russian revolution producing an authoritarian, undemocratic state, a system in which the working class was enslaved to a bureaucratic political state under the guise of socialism.

This is a question that ought to interest all persons who want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a better system, don't you think?

You're quite right... let's get back on topic- my apologies! :cool:

ZeroNowhere

29th November 2009, 16:34

2. When you dogmatise something you write it in stone so to speak and therefore you fossilise it as it were- in thus doing you slow down natural evolution and change and thus become anti-r-evolutionary.Firstly, how is it dogmatic to disagree with others, think that their methods can't lead to revolution, lead away from it, etc? If you're accusing all the Stalinists here of 'setting their beliefs in stone' rather than thinking about them and finding them superior, you would need to justify that, for example, proving that you can read minds.

Secondly, that statement reminds one of that riddle about being locked in a closed room with only a mirror and table. You look in the mirror and see what you saw, then you use the saw to cut the table in two halves, two halves make a hole, and you jump through the hole to escape the room. Does a Stalinist attacking Trots on Revleft really have an especially large affect on social evolution? Does somebody who holds communist beliefs and refuses to help with the Obama campaign slow down natural evolution? If I refuse to work with people who want to end capitalism by wiping out the human race, am I being dogmatic and anti-revolutionary, and even better, holding back 'natural evolution'? And what is this 'natural evolution' anyway? The only natural evolution I know of is the one where neanderthals evolve into homo sapiens.

Incidentally, a revolutionary is somebody who advocates revolution. One may very well think that some methods of revolution can't work, at least in certain places (eg. asking nicely in Zimbabwe), while still being a revolutionary. One could refuse to work with a group based on achieving socialism by getting some guy to become dictator (note that I am not characterizing Stalinists as doing this, as that would be inaccurate in most cases, just giving an example), and using his power over people to get them to become socialist, or one which purports to bring about socialism by killing Jews, while remaining a revolutionary.

3. It seems that some people around here are very good at telling others to shut up all over the place. What's the point of having a forum for people to ask questions if, when they do ask a question, they are patronised or told to shut up?You weren't asking a question in the post to which I responded.

By the way, do you think that for yourself or did you read it on Wikipedia?Why would you accuse a Stalinist of having to look Stalinism up on Wikipedia? Perhaps you should avoid accusing others of being patronizing in the future, no?

You're quite right... let's get back on topic- my apologies! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_cool.gifI'm fairly sure that what NewTet was proposing was not the topic of this thread.

Lyev

29th November 2009, 16:36

Yeeeees...? I'd substitute working class in place of society though.

So in that debate between Stalin and a revisionist you agree with what Stalin says, right?

Ah yes, sorry old chap, didn't quite read your post properly. Well 'what Stalin says' is kind of irrelevant most the time. It's all very well to point out the things Stalin said, but what's important is the things that Stalin actually physically did. In the words of Engels, “An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.”

Oh and on another note, these debates get really out of hand. Like Comrademan says, it's anti-revolutionary to cling so tightly to these dogmatic sects. We may as well just take it turns head-butting our keyboards.

ComradeMan

29th November 2009, 16:40

Ah yes, sorry old chap, didn't quite read your post properly. Well 'what Stalin says' is kind of irrelevant most the time. It's all very well to point out the things Stalin said, but what's important is the things that Stalin actually physically did. In the words of Engels, “An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.”

Oh and on another note, these debates get really out of hand. Like Comrademan says, it's anti-revolutionary to cling so tightly to these dogmatic sects. We may as well just take it turns head-butting our keyboards.

Or as they say in Italian... "Sono i fatti che parlano e non le parole".

I think you've hit it on the head, that's exactly what I meant.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 16:43

New Tet:

So, for whom was "Lenin's methods" intended then, a non-existent Russian working class? And, if in 1904 the WC did not exist "to speak of" in Russia and by 1924 it was devastated, why did Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshies persist in applying them in the absence of their natural "counter-balance"?

No, re-read what I posted, only this time with your glasses on.

Also, if the theoretical caveat you offer is correct, why then would Lenin and the majority of his followers, including Trotsky be so hostile to the Worker's Opposition when they raised their call for state power to be concentrated in the Soviets and away from the Party?

The class content of the soviets had deteriorated by then

BTW, my previous experience in this argument with Leninists has been different. They have argued that the organizational structure of the Soviet state as conceived by Lenin emerged precisely as a response to the perceived dearth in working class influence in the course of revolution, not contingent on their large numbers and capacity to counter-balance the abuse of power on the part of Lenin's professional cadre.

Where did I say the size of the working class was a sufficient ciondition?

ZeroNowhere

29th November 2009, 16:47

Lyev

29th November 2009, 17:00

Where did he say that? I can't find it on marxists.org, and a Google search turns it up for not only Engels, but also Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Ah, well maybe it's been mis-attributed to him. It's still a cool quote though, and true, too. Although action carried out without any meaningful theory behind is just a waste of time, I think.

New Tet

29th November 2009, 17:17

New Tet:

No, re-read what I posted, only this time with your glasses on.

The class content of the soviets had deteriorated by then

Where did I say the size of the working class was a sufficient ciondition?

You're correct in saying that you didn't actually write that the size of of the WC was a sufficient condition, comrade. I took it to be implied in the phrase "healthy & active". However, I did what you told me and put my glasses back on and still failed to see where my response was irrelevant or off-point. Please clarify.

RED DAVE

29th November 2009, 17:50

Let me add a big, fat log to this fire.

I don't know how many comrades here have been involved in trade union activity, but I have, in the US, going back decades. And I have had political experience working with stalinists, maoists, orthodox trotskyists, independent socialists, social democrats, liberals, etc., inside the trade union movement.

And I have observed, time and again, that every political tendency's analysis of the USSR, China, etc., is mirrored in their practical, day-to-day union activity.

As obvious examples, in the US, liberals and social democrats (of the peculiar American variety, e.g. Al Shanker) are the class-collaborationist leadership of American unions.

And in practice, stalinists and orthodox trots, seek to replaced the existing union trade union leadership / bureaucracy with themselves. The stalinists were more guilty of this than the orthotrots. In practice, the stalinists, once in power, in my experience, were unable to systematically distinguish themselves from the existing leadership / bureaucracy. The trots, in my experience, in opposition campaigns, had a distinct tendency to softplay their criticism of the leadership / bureaucracy, even to the point of refusing to use the term "bureaucracy," to characterize them, which mirrors their position on the bureaucracy in the USSR. Maoists are practically nonexistent in US trade unions.

Which of course, leads me to independent socialism (IS, leading to Solidarity and ISO), whose practice, with reservations, I regard as correct and which mirrors their theory of the USSR.

RED DAVE

robbo203

29th November 2009, 19:08

No. We reject the Stalinist conception of the vanguard party as a top-down political machine, sterile of political debate. Instead we support the vanguard party as it was originally intended, that is as a party of activists, conscious of their political tasks and debating them in an open and frank manner as to educate themselves as well as the wider working class movement to achieve political clarity.

That you equate the vanguard party with these mechanisms tells me you simply don't know what you're talking about.

There are two interpretatons of the "vanguard party" which Ive pointed out several times before

The first is the sense in which you seem to be using the term above which in itself is acceptable. It simply acknowleges that some workers are more advanced at the present jncture in their political thinking than others, more communist-minded if you like. In this sense we can accept that some workers consititute the "vanguard" of the working class but the revolution can never be achieved by this vanguard alone. It has to be achieved by the working class as a whole and when the working class as a whole is communist minded there really is not much point in talking about a vanguard anymore. The vanguard disappears when nearly everyone is communist minded.

The second sense of the term is quite different. It looks to the Vanguard to achieve the revolution and to administer post-revolutionary society. This is the leninist concept of the vanguard. Lenin was quite explicit on this. He said quite clearly that if socialism required the workers to be socialist minded, we would be waiting for 500 years to achieve socialism. Lenin explicitly rejected the idea that the Party should be held back for lack of working class socialist or commnist conciousness but should forge ahead with the revolution in direct contradiction to the marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself, not some vanguard elite.

Now if you say you reject this second version of the Vanguard Party then clearly you oppose a basic tenet of Leninism and that is to be commended. Leninism paved the way for Stalinism. Stalin built on the dictatorial institutions and practices set up by the new Bolshevik capitalist state - the banning and incarceration of political opponents (even some Bolsehviks too), the institution of "one man management" , the obsene militarisation of labour programme and so on. All of this Trotsky went along with and I venture to suggest that if Stalin had not succeeded in ousting Trotsky, and it had been the other way round, there would be little to choose between the horrendous Stalinist regime that was and the Trotskyist regime that might have been

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th November 2009, 19:15

New Tet:

You're correct in saying that you didn't actually write that the size of of the WC was a sufficient condition, comrade. I took it to be implied in the phrase "healthy & active". However, I did what you told me and put my glasses back on and still failed to see where my response was irrelevant or off-point. Please clarify.

I can't figure out why you think "healthy & active" implies that the I said that size of the working class is a sufficient condition; it doesn't even mention size!

So, for whom was "Lenin's methods" intended then, a non-existent Russian working class? And, if in 1904 the WC did not exist "to speak of" in Russia and by 1924 it was devastated, why did Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshies persist in applying them in the absence of their natural "counter-balance"?

Lenin's method is intended for any working class anywhere; it is just that if there is a weak or destroyed working class, there is an inherent tendency in Leninism for substitutionism, as Trotsky noted -- and the ideology of such substitutionist elements is dialectical materialism.

Apart from the last comment, you will find more on this at the link I posted a page or so ago.

Spawn of Stalin

29th November 2009, 19:26

Disagree here- other wise they would be Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao/Hoxha-ists, or would that just be too frightfully long? :D
No, Stalin contributed little to socialism in terms of theory and ideas, so there is no Stalinism, we use Marxism-Leninism to emphasise the continuity of those who enacted Marxist ideas, a Stalinist is a Marxist-Leninist, we are not just Leninists because we believe that Stalin upheld socialism in the Soviet Union to the best of his ability, many Leninists do not, Trotskyists for example. You seem to disagree with me, I have asked you why and didn't get a response, I was actually hoping for one so please, what is the difference between the two?

By the way, do you think that for yourself or did you read it on Wikipedia?
And you accuse me of being patronising? Nice. I think there is quite a lot of productive debate going on in this topic, and I'm happy contributing to it, but I am an active socialist, not one who gets all his information from Wikipedia, so please tell me if you seriously think I'm a complete idiot because frankly I refuse to debate with someone like that.

You know full well that there are many divisions and contradictions etc, to sum them up in one monolithic and over-arching "line" seems a bit hopeful here.
Yes, I agree. We could go at this until the revolution comes pal, but I'm dying to hear your answer, so I'll ask again, for the umpteenth time, how does Stalinism create divisions?

See my point below--- it's all right for you to use confused and contradictory terminology and when people question it means that they do not know what they are talking about.
What terminology is this? Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism? As I already said, I reject the existence of former and subscribe to the latter, but the two do not contradict each other, after all, most people here use Stalinism as a pejorative in place of Marxism-Leninism.

Evidently I do or evidently I do not, are you answering the question or is at a response ad hominem? No, I told you to grow up because you were aggressive and patronising in your tone. Seems to be a lot of "projection" going on here...
No I wasn't, of course I wasn't, nothing in my original post was intended to be aggressive or patronising, and I'm very sorry if you thought otherwise.

Don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain?
Certainly, when you said "if that's the only thing Stalinism has to boast about these days...well", I took that as a statement which was meant to imply that perhaps what you call Stalinists haven't achieved much at all, well let's be honest with ourselves, who has? Anarchists haven't, Trotskyists haven't, lefties haven't, syndicalists haven't, and democratic socialists definitely haven't. Comparatively, we Stalinists have achieved quite a lot, how about every socialist state to have ever existed?