Resurrection of the USSR? [Archive]

View Full Version : Resurrection of the USSR?

Nolan

21st February 2010, 07:55

robbo203

21st February 2010, 08:46

Could the capitalist crisis usher in a counter-coup by the left in Russia and the former Warsaw pact?

I could see the "hardliners" getting in control of Russia. Soviet times are not generally viewed negatively at all in Russia, and Stalin seems quite popular, even among the youth.

Discuss.

I cant see soviet-style state capitalism ever being revived again. The world is quite a different place now but if it did happen then one thing is for sure- it would be an utter disaster for the communist cause.

Once again, you will see millions of workers, with the best of intentions no doubt, diverting their energies and sympathies into supporting something that will turn out to be completely disillusioning. Once again you will have to deal with a brutally exploitative, authoritarian regime presided over by a privileged ruling class that will drag the good name of communism through the mud.

So thanks but no thanks. Instead of this conservative notalgia for the state capitalist past, isnt it time we seriously started to contemplate a genuine communist alternative?

Tablo

21st February 2010, 10:12

Russia is going in a largely statist direction, but I do not see the former Soviet states joining up with them again unless they make some major economic leaps.

21st February 2010, 11:57

Dimentio

21st February 2010, 12:03

KlÃ©ber

21st February 2010, 12:37

I have often wondered about this.

It happened in France after the First Restoration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration), that the "state of the people" was briefly resurrected; Napoleon returned from exile and convinced some soldiers apprehending his boat not to shoot him, shouting "Any man who would shoot his general, do it now." And they pulled out their hidden tricolor cockades that they had been ordered to discard but secretly kept, and refastened them to their caps. And so began the 100 days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days) until the Second Restoration. Maybe that will happen again and the red flags in people's closets will get dusted off and hoisted back up.

It would happen for the same reason in Russia now (the army misses the old days under the Bonapartist regime, those elements who caved in to the First Restoration wish they never had done so).

At any rate, Russia is allied with China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) now. So the Sino-Soviet alliance is sort of back for another go.

Robespierre2.0

21st February 2010, 14:06

Once again, you will see millions of workers, with the best of intentions no doubt, diverting their energies and sympathies into supporting something that will turn out to be completely disillusioning. Once again you will have to deal with a brutally exploitative, authoritarian regime presided over by a privileged ruling class that will drag the good name of communism through the mud.

Communism NEVER had a good name, you twit. Why do you keep using that argument?

Every revolutionary movement is going to require some form of bureaucracy and hierarchy in order to gain the upper hand in the class struggle. We have a choice- We can either support this vanguard, and crush the capitalist vermin once and for all, or take this agnostic (capitalist) point of view, where power intrinsically corrupts. Being a communist means putting the interests of the working class (i.e. the survival of the socialist state, until capitalism has been eliminated and there is no need for it) above all else; we are just as critical of 'careerism' as anyone else, and view it as a remnant of the bourgeois mentality to be countered.

Lenin said, "It is true liberty is precious, so precious it has to be carefully rationed"
Of course there are going to be inequalities of power under socialism. Of course we are going to give certain privileges to party members, because, assuming the party has it's shit together, party membership is a litmus test of whether we can trust an individual to work with us or the reactionaries. Class struggle intensifies under socialism, and these methods are necessary.

Ironic, the fact that you, with your idealist view of 'genuine communism', would be just as critical of a return to socialism in Russia as any capitalist ideologue. Platonic 'ideas' of objects and concepts don't exist outside of the human mind, so perfection is an impossibility. Materialists understand this.

Dimentio

21st February 2010, 14:08

robbo203

21st February 2010, 20:30

Communism NEVER had a good name, you twit. Why do you keep using that argument?
.

Great way to start a discussion - with an immature insult. :rolleyes:

My point is simply that when most people hear the word "communism", the associations that spring to mind are those of highly repressive bureaucratic regimes in which civil liberties and democratic rights are severely curtailed. Quite rightly, they just dont want to know. If that is "communism", it stinks. When we communists explain to folk that thats not at all what we mean by communism and that, in fact, what they are rejecting is state capitalism, they might come round to reconsidering their position but mostly the association is so strong that they tend not to bother. They are convinced that communism must lead to something akin to what happened in the state capitalist Soviet Union. This is what I mean by the word communism having been dragged through the mud. Though its all hypothetical now now, I wager that if the Soviet Union had not not employed such a term, and maybe just called itself the Union of Soviet State capitalist Republics (USSCR), :D the standing of communism as a concept would be considerably higher than it is now

Every revolutionary movement is going to require some form of bureaucracy and hierarchy in order to gain the upper hand in the class struggle. We have a choice- We can either support this vanguard, and crush the capitalist vermin once and for all, or take this agnostic (capitalist) point of view, where power intrinsically corrupts. .

If you do what you you suggest then there can be only one outcome -perpetuation of capitalism. Have you not not learnt anything from history? Vanguardism is a certain recipe for the emergence of a new ruling class. It happoend in the Soviet Ubnion and it happened everywhere else where the Leninist vanguardist model was used. As a communist I reject vanguardism utterly and completely, The emancipation of the working class had to be the act of the working class itself not some elite presuming to act on behalf of the class. Once you presume to act on behalf of the working class and seize power allegedly in the interests of that class you will inevitably metamorphose in a new ruling exploiting class. That is absoutely guaranteed.

Being a communist means putting the interests of the working class (i.e. the survival of the socialist state, until capitalism has been eliminated and there is no need for it) above all else; we are just as critical of 'careerism' as anyone else, and view it as a remnant of the bourgeois mentality to be countered.
.

The socialist state is a contradiction in terms. Since you envisage the retention of class society in your so called socialist state that necessarily means the continuation of exploitation. So tell me who is going to be the exploiting class in your so called socialist state?

Lenin said, "It is true liberty is precious, so precious it has to be carefully rationed"
Of course there are going to be inequalities of power under socialism. Of course we are going to give certain privileges to party members, because, assuming the party has it's shit together, party membership is a litmus test of whether we can trust an individual to work with us or the reactionaries. Class struggle intensifies under socialism, and these methods are necessary. .

Class struggle intensifies under socialism you say? Really? Do you even stop think for one moment what you are saying. What you are suggesting here is that your so called socialist state sanctions the existence of an exploiting class . To be more accurate, in classical state capitalism the exploiiting class is the party-state elite - the nomenklatura - who effectively own the means of production in de facto terms by virtue of their strangehold on the state apparatus.

Ironic, the fact that you, with your idealist view of 'genuine communism', would be just as critical of a return to socialism in Russia as any capitalist ideologue. Platonic 'ideas' of objects and concepts don't exist outside of the human mind, so perfection is an impossibility. Materialists understand this.

Do you even now what you are talking about here. What, pray, is an "idealist view" of genuine communism? Seems to me that your understanding of communism consist of a cobbled together collection of lefty slogans with a smattering of garbled pop philosophy to boot that you dont really understand it yourself. What the fuck has platonic perfectionism got to do with advancing a clear and comprehensible defintion of communism as non market stateless commonwealth? ( Who said communismn would be perfect anyway?) Every communist throughout history has had this understanding of communism. Are you saying they are all idealists? Your are a poor lost soul, drowning in your own confusion

which doctor

21st February 2010, 20:41

I don't even think there's a 'Left' existing in Russia to even consider something like this happening.

Nolan

21st February 2010, 21:01

That you see socialist revolution as a mere coup made by "hardliners" says much of your bankrupt political positions.

Why the personal attack? I didn't say it might be a real workers revolution. Just a restoration of the USSR as it was pre-collapse, probably with nationalist reasons.

Fuck you for putting words in my mouth.

Crux

21st February 2010, 21:06

Why would they need to?

mykittyhasaboner

21st February 2010, 21:25

Once again you will have to deal with a brutally exploitative, authoritarian regime presided over by a privileged ruling class that will drag the good name of communism through the mud.

Exploitative? I'll just let that slide. I'm not interested in that debate, especially with your dogmatic arguments.

Authoritarian regime? What's the issue with workers creating an "authoritarian regime" to defend their revolution? That is the very essence of socialism--the rule of the producing classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian act a class can undertake, to loosely paraphrase Engels. Unless you think the rule of the producing classes (socialism) can be brought about without a revolution, then you can get away with this idea that worker's rule does not require a state; but we all know that position is bunk.

Good name of communism? What the fuck are you talking about?

Sure, maybe communism had a good name in previous socialist societies such as the USSR, but as Cmrd. Mantis said--there is no good name of communism to drag through any mud. Perhaps if you had a materialist conception of society/history, and recognized that the ideological and cultural hegemony practiced by the elements of bourgeois rule has consistently damned the very idea of communism and egalitarianism in general, you would have realized this. But no, you persist in some idealistic and fatalistic perception that only until we have "mass communist understanding" or something along those lines, that only then socialism can come about. The argument that socialism will only be achieved when everyone wishes to build socialism has been dealt with and tossed aside time and time again.

All of the workers in society will not simultaneously and unanimously get together and fight for revolution--we living in the capitalist world have to deal with uneven levels of economic, political, and ideological development. The consciousness of workers differs radically from location to location, and even from individual to individual. Furthermore, if the ideology of the ruling class is the most prevalent ideology among the rest off society, to loosely paraphrase Marx (or was it Engels?) then it is absolutely necessary for those exploited workers who are class conscious and recognize the historic task of socialist revolution to organize amongst themselves and to attempt to win over more and more sections of the producing and exploited classes--this is what call a vanguard. Without the leadership of class conscious and organized workers, we can never even hope to have a socialist revolution in our respective countries; unless you believe that revolution is spontaneous act and does not require comprehensive and adaptive organization and leadership, then you can get away with this argument. But we all know that argument is bunk as well.

So thanks but no thanks. Instead of this conservative notalgia for the state capitalist past, isnt it time we seriously started to contemplate a genuine communist alternative?You can tout on about "genuine communism" all you want but it doesn't make your position any more "genuine" than those who support actual socialist revolutions.

That "state-capitalist" nostalgia which is common among those living in the former socialist countries is actually a good thing IMO; because it highlights the living conditions of the former socialist states in sharp contrast to the horrid conditions of current capitalist exploitation. Are you to tell me that this market capitalism, ruled by a handful of billionaires in Moscow, corrupt police and politicians, as well as heaps of foreign imperialist investment--is somehow better than the "state capitalist past"? We should thoroughly recognize the fact that working people were much better off living in the USSR than in the Russian Federation and the other former republics.

A "resurrection"of the USSR is incredibly unlikely, and probably just wishful thinking. When the specter of socialist revolution rears it's head across Russia and the former socialist republics yet again, a new socialist society will come about. Not some re-incarnation of the Soviet Union.

Agnapostate

21st February 2010, 21:42

I've wondered the same. I have no love for the authoritarian state or the command economy. But the fact remains that the USSR, contrary to popular Western misconception, did not "collapse" of its own momentum, but was dissolved against popular will. If it weren't for its authoritarian nature to begin with, however, the ruling class would not have possessed the capacity to destroy the union of their own accord.

NecroCommie

21st February 2010, 22:17

The communist parties of the east are either very small, or reactionary to the core. For example, russian communist party (the big one) is not only homophobic and nationalist, but also it's entire political agenda consists of resurrecting the soviet union... ... ... AS IT WAS IN THE 80's!??!??!?

So, whereas it might be initially good propagandawise, it would soon turn into a disaster for the left. No, the hope of the left lies in the rebellious peoples of latin america and far-east.

Nolan

21st February 2010, 23:07

Red Commissar

21st February 2010, 23:26

Putin has transformed Russia to the point that communists won't be even able to do much any more. The "communist" party in Russia is more focused on nationalism and trying to sugarcoat its past, it looks backwards rather than forward.

Beyond that, as doctor mentioned there isn't a coherent "left" movement that has mass support in Russia. Even social democratic parties have trouble organizing because Putin's group has a lot of mass support behind it.

And don't even get me started with those closeted fascists in the "national bolshevik" group.

And the former Warsaw pact countries, it's even more unlikely. In Baltic States and Poland communists are very unpopular due to how they were treated during that time. The case holds to a lesser degree for the other countries.

robbo203

21st February 2010, 23:54

Exploitative? I'll just let that slide. I'm not interested in that debate, especially with your dogmatic arguments..

Fine. If you are not interested in discussing the extraction of surplus value from the workers under state capitalism then dont let me detain you.

Authoritarian regime? What's the issue with workers creating an "authoritarian regime" to defend their revolution? That is the very essence of socialism--the rule of the producing classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian act a class can undertake, to loosely paraphrase Engels. Unless you think the rule of the producing classes (socialism) can be brought about without a revolution, then you can get away with this idea that worker's rule does not require a state; but we all know that position is bunk.
..

Except of course that the productive classes didnt rule. It was the vanguard that did. Even your mate, Mr Lenin, was quite explicit about this:
But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

Oh and socialism is a classless society in traditional marxian usage so how the hell do you figure it entails the rule of the "producing classes" (BTW interesting that you think there are more than one "productive classes". Well at least thats something elsee you have in common with bourgeois sociologists)

Good name of communism? What the fuck are you talking about?
..

What the fuck do you think it means. Do I have to spell it out?

Sure, maybe communism had a good name in previous socialist societies such as the USSR, but as Cmrd. Mantis said--there is no good name of communism to drag through any mud. Perhaps if you had a materialist conception of society/history, and recognized that the ideological and cultural hegemony practiced by the elements of bourgeois rule has consistently damned the very idea of communism and egalitarianism in general, you would have realized this. But no, you persist in some idealistic and fatalistic perception that only until we have "mass communist understanding" or something along those lines, that only then socialism can come about. The argument that socialism will only be achieved when everyone wishes to build socialism has been dealt with and tossed aside time and time again. ..

Yep. Tossed aside, swept under the carpet and forgotton by Leninists like you. But the fact remains unless and until a substantial majority want and understand it , it aint gonna happen, matey, and you will be lumbered with capitalism. This is the unpalatable truth you just dont want to accept yet it is the very cornerstone of Marxism:
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.
Frederick Engels 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850

All of the workers in society will not simultaneously and unanimously get together and fight for revolution--we living in the capitalist world have to deal with uneven levels of economic, political, and ideological development. The consciousness of workers differs radically from location to location, and even from individual to individual. ..

Of course. At the moment, that is...

But do you seriously expect as a genuine communist movement grows the unevenness and imbalances will not decline? Jeezus, you leninists, I sometimes think, still live in 19th century or possibly even earlier before there was such a thing as TV , radio , newspapers let alone the internet. Developments in telecommunications, and so on which are pushing us more and more into a global village situation. This is to say nothing of the forces of economic globalisation. And of course a genuine communist movement itself will have a vested interest in proactively eliminating imbalances in the spread of communist ideas. For fucks sake I know genuine 100% kosher marxian communists in places like the Gambia or Zambia whose grasp of marxism would most of the leninists on this site to shame. Some are too quick to assume in their arrogant eurocentric fashion that people living in places like Africa or Asia must somehow be backward

Furthermore, if the ideology of the ruling class is the most prevalent ideology among the rest off society, to loosely paraphrase Marx (or was it Engels?) then it is absolutely necessary for those exploited workers who are class conscious and recognize the historic task of socialist revolution to organize amongst themselves and to attempt to win over more and more sections of the producing and exploited classes--this is what call a vanguard. Without the leadership of class conscious and organized workers, we can never even hope to have a socialist revolution in our respective countries; ..

Bollocks. First off you dont understand what is meant by a vanguard. A vanguard is not simply a minority of workers who happen to be class conscious attempting to win over more and more workers who are not yet class consciousness. Vanguardism means much more than this. It means the seizure of power by the vanguard before the working class has become socialist minded and administering society purportedly in the name of the working class. Inevitably this will lead to the vanguard itself metamorphising into a new ruling class. Vanguardism far from being an aid to socialist revolution is a serious impediment to it

You can tout on about "genuine communism" all you want but it doesn't make your position any more "genuine" than those who support actual socialist revolutions.
..
What actual socialist revolution? There hasnt been one yet. Youre living in a leninist dreamworld in which any uprising or unrest counts as a "socialist revolution" if the vanguard says it is

That "state-capitalist" nostalgia which is common among those living in the former socialist countries is actually a good thing IMO; because it highlights the living conditions of the former socialist states in sharp contrast to the horrid conditions of current capitalist exploitation. Are you to tell me that this market capitalism, ruled by a handful of billionaires in Moscow, corrupt police and politicians, as well as heaps of foreign imperialist investment--is somehow better than the "state capitalist past"? We should thoroughly recognize the fact that working people were much better off living in the USSR than in the Russian Federation and the other former republics. ..

Hahaha . It always amuses me these apologetics for a sordid state capitalist past. Who do you think was instrumental in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, eh? It was the very vanguard in which you place your sheeplike trust. Have you heard of the "revolution from above" thesis adanced by people like Kagarlitsky or Kotz and Weir? It was the members of the Soviet ruling class - the red bourgeosie - and particularly the powerful regional elites who switched their allegiance from Gorbachev to Yeltsin and from Soviet to republican institutions bringing about the collapse of the former. Some of these pseudo-communists in your esteemed vanguard mutated into the very billionaires you rail against. In fact even today 43% of the super rich oligarchs were previously highranking members of CPSU in the Soviet Union. So what do you have to say about that, huh?

A "resurrection"of the USSR is incredibly unlikely, and probably just wishful thinking. When the specter of socialist revolution rears it's head across Russia and the former socialist republics yet again, a new socialist society will come about. Not some re-incarnation of the Soviet Union.

If a socialist revolution comes in Russia it will be part of wider global socialist revolution which will consign all variants of capitalism to the dustbin of history including that obnoxious anti-working class variant called state capitalism which had the audacity to claim some affinity to the cause of genuine communism

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 00:14

Fine. If you are not interested in discussing the extraction of surplus value from the workers under state capitalism then dont let me detain you.

:rolleyes: Capitalism1!!!!!!

Except of course that the productive classes didnt rule. It was the vanguard that did. Even your mate, Mr Lenin, was quite explicit about this:
But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

http://pw0nd.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/context-500x400.jpg

Oh and socialism is a classless society in traditional marxian usage so how the hell do you figure it entails the rule of the "producing classes" (BTW interesting that you think there are more than one "productive classes". Well at least thats something elsee you have in common with bourgeois sociologists)Semantic word games, anyone? You know, maybe we'll change it to "dictatorship of the former proletariat" just for robbo's sake.

Yep. Tossed aside, swept under the carpet and forgotton by Leninists like you. But the fact remains unless and until a substantial majority want and understand it , it aint gonna happen, matey, and you will be lumbered with capitalism. This is the unpalatable truth you just dont want to accept yet it is the very cornerstone of Marxism:
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.
Frederick Engels 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850EDIT: nevermind, you'll just deny you think Marx was right about everything.

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 00:33

Ooh, lookie what me dig up:

Imagine that a scientific survey revealed that most Germans under 3o today viewed Hitler with ambivalence and that a majority thought he had done more good than bad. Imagine that about 2o percent said they would vote for him if he ran for president tomorrow. Now try to envision the horrified international response that would follow.
Of course, most contemporary Germans revile Hitler. But ask young Russians about Stalin, and you get answers very similar to those above. Since 2003, we have conducted three surveys in Russia, and according to these polls, there is no stigma associated with Stalin in the country today. In fact, many Russians hold ambivalent or even positive views of him. For example, one quarter or more of Russian adults say they would definitely or probably vote for Stalin were he alive and running for president, and less than 40 percent say they definitely would not. A majority of young Russians, moreover, do not view Stalin--a man responsible for millions of deaths and enormous suffering--with the revulsion he deserves. Although Stalinism per se is not rampant in Russia today, misperceptions about the Stalin era are. Few of the respondents to our surveys could be classified as hard-core Stalinists, but fewer still are hard-core anti-Stalinists. Most Russians, in other words, flunk the Stalin test.
And yet, whereas similar findings about Hider in Germany would no doubt provoke international alarm, American and European political leaders have failed to respond to this trend in Russia--and it is doubtful that they will anytime soon. Western policymakers prefer to ignore unpleasant news about the weakness of democracy in Russia, and this preference is unlikely to change before the next meeting of the G-8, the group of the world's leading industrialized nations, which is to be held in St. Petersburg in July. With U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, American leaders are especially overwhelmed at the moment and have little attention to spare. They will be greatly tempted simply to declare Russia's democratic development finished and to avoid the difficult work of figuring out how to respond effectively to the dangerous legacies of Soviet rule that still trouble their new, uneasy ally.
Statements by U.S. policymakers and some academics on Russia tend to reflect a benign view of the country, lauding its economic growth since 1999, citing its several rounds of elections, and lowering the baseline of comparison so that Russia appears to be a "normal" country. Western cheerleaders of Russian President Vladimir Putin are likely to dismiss positive Russian attitudes toward Stalin as a minor growing pain or a speed bump on the country's road to democracy--just as they downplay the carnage in Chechnya; the festering, potentially explosive conflict throughout the North Caucasus; the Kremlin's blatant suppression of independent television outlets and nongovernmental organizations that dare to challenge its official line; the sorry state of Russia's disintegrating military; the predatory and ineffective police; and the massive corruption at all levels of Russian government.
Such willful blindness is dangerous. But so is the opposite perspective of some pessimistic Russia-watchers, who take Russians' ambivalence toward Stalin as evidence of an authoritarian gene embedded somewhere in the Russian character. In fact, the Russian public's attitude toward Stalin is neither innocuous (and thus not worth changing) nor inherent (and thus immutable). Our surveys suggest that Russian attitudes toward Stalin owe not to any instinctive authoritarianism, but to the fact that no concerted, effective de-Stalinization campaign has ever been conducted in the country. On the contrary, myths and illusions about Russia's great dictator have been allowed to survive, and even thrive, often with tacit (if not explicit) encouragement from the government. Although some Russian educators, intellectuals, and human rights activists have devoted considerable energy to demythologizing Stalin, their efforts have not produced a decisive shift in public opinion. Indeed, one can walk into a bookstore on Moscow's main street today and find postcards with Stalin's likeness. Stalin playing cards are sold at duty-free stores in Russia's airports.
All of this matters because national historical memory--or amnesia--can have concrete political consequences. How states and societies engage their pasts affects how they develop. Nostalgia for Stalin in Russia is not simply a relic that will die out with the older generation. And as long as young Russians remain ignorant about or have positive feelings toward a murderous dictator who institutionalized terror throughout their country they are unlikely to mobilize behind calls for greater justice, human rights, or transparency--factors critical to Russia's transformation into a modern democratic society.
Our assessment of Russian attitudes toward Stalin is based on three surveys: two polls of 4,700 Russians 16 and older taken in January 2003 and July 2004 and a survey of 2,000 Russians 16 to 29 years old conducted in June 2005. The surveys relied on modern scientific sampling techniques and were carried out by the Levada Analytic Center.
Pooling the data from our 2003 and 2004 surveys, we found that when asked, "If Stalin were running for president today, would you vote for him?" 13 percent of the respondents under 3o said they definitely or probably would. An additional 21 percent indicated they would probably not vote for him (as if the decision depended on who else was running), and another 2o percent declined to answer the question. That leaves only 46 percent who said they would definitely not vote for Stalin.
Russians over 3o are more likely than youths to support Stalin: 3o percent of them said they would definitely or probably vote for him, and only 36 percent said they would definitely not. College-educated Russians in all age categories, but especially those under 3o, are less likely to consider voting for him. Gender has no effect, nor does residence in Moscow.
The single most remarkable finding of these two surveys is that less than half of Russia's young people would categorically reject voting for Stalin today. Even if younger Russians are less likely to support him than are older ones, the majority of Russia's youth appear to harbor ambivalent or positive feelings toward one of the worst dictators in world history.
The survey conducted last year suggests a similar but more nuanced picture. We presented respondents with six statements about Stalin--three positive and three negative--and asked them to say whether they agreed or disagreed with each. The findings were neither straightforward nor uniform. About half (51 percent) of the respondents agreed that Stalin was a wise leader, whereas 39 percent disagreed. Over half (56 percent) said they thought he did more good than bad; only 33 percent disagreed. And 42 percent of those surveyed agreed that people today exaggerate Stalin's role in the repressions, whereas about the same number (37 percent) disagreed. Opinions were about equally divided over whether Stalin was a cruel tyrant (43 percent agreed and 47 percent disagreed)--a strange finding given that 70 percent of the respondents agreed that Stalin imprisoned, tortured, and killed millions of innocent people (only 16 percent disagreed with this claim). Only 28 percent felt that Stalin did not deserve credit for the Soviet victory in World War II.
These numbers do not suggest that half of young Russians today are Stalinists. Instead, most young people seem to hold ambivalent, uncertain, or inconsistent views about the man, which lead them to adopt pro-Stalin positions on some questions and anti-Stalin positions on others. Only a small proportion of young Russians seem to have strong sentiments either way. When we plotted people's attitudes along a scale, the findings were similar. Young peoples' views, rather than being polarized; clustered at the middle. Only 12 percent of our respondents can be considered consistent pro-Stalinists, and only 14 percent might be considered consistent anti-Stalinists. Again, gender and residence in Moscow did not seem to make much difference.
The rule, therefore, seems to be thorough ambivalence about Stalin among Russia's youth. Although some people might take comfort in the finding that hard-core Stalinism is not widespread, such ambivalence is itself disturbing. It suggests that Russia badly needs a systematic de-Stalinization campaign--a need that is growing increasingly urgent. Our survey data suggest that young people's attitudes toward Stalin are, if anything, becoming more positive: in 2005, nearly 19 percent of respondents said they would definitely or probably vote for him, up from 13 percent in 2003 and 2004.
Some readers might question whether our surveys really tapped into young Russians' attitudes toward Stalin. We did too--so we designed and observed four focus groups, conducted by the Levada Analytic Center and held with university students in Moscow and a provincial capital, Yaroslavl, in December 2004. In each group, several participants openly expressed positive or ambivalent views about Stalin. Their language illustrates some of the common thinking.
One young man in Moscow explained why he would vote for the dictator this way: "Only because we won the war under Stalin. The rate of growth in the country was pretty inspirational." This man seemed to have no sense that Russia won the war despite, not because of, some of Stalin's actions (such as his decimation of the officer corps through repeated purges, his secret deal with Hitler, and his manifest lack of preparedness). Nor did the student seem to be aware of Stalin's persecution of vast numbers of courageous Soviet troops after the war's end.
A young woman from Yaroslavl voiced similar sentiments. "Stalin had positive and negative traits," she told us. "I think that he was able to mobilize the people in World War II, but his self-aggrandizement was a negative side. It's possible that I would vote for him if his power were limited. I think that he was a fairly strong individual." Another added, in a similar vein, "It's possible that he wouldn't be able to do anything bad now. And his rule would, possibly, only better the situation." This optimism was shared by another young man who argued that were he alive today, Stalin "would be different and would act differently. I wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't vote for anyone. But I wouldn't be against him and wouldn't protest against him." In the same group, a young man concluded that he would decide whether or not to support Stalin, if Stalin were alive and running for president, on the basis of his "PR campaign."
What is most striking about these statements is the ignorance they betray. This lack of knowledge, however, should not be surprising. After an initial flurry of historical reevaluations conducted during Gorbachev's perestroika period, Russian textbooks have become increasingly less critical of--and less informative about--Stalin. In 2003, Russian authorities, with the approval of Putin himself, removed Igor Dolutsky's National History, 2oth Century--a text widely hailed for its thorough and meticulous discussion of Stalin's repressions and his role in World War II--from public schools. In April 2005, Putin, in his state of the union address, declared that "the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century"--a statement with which 78 percent of the respondents to our 2005 survey agreed. And in May 2005, on the 6oth anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Putin strongly rejected the Bush administration's request that he denounce the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Given the above, it is no wonder that young Russians today are confused about Stalin's excesses and that they closely associate him with the victory over fascism. As one young man in Yaroslavl insisted, "Stalin is not as bad as he is portrayed [by some]. When he came to power, he did some really good things, and then because of fear of losing power he started the repressions." Another told us, "Yes, there were repressions and famine [under Stalin], but it was with him that we won World War II." He then lamented that in contrast, "in ten years we have been unable to do anything about Chechnya." This speaker was skeptical of Russians who criticize Stalin's record. "We know enough from the school curriculum and from stories," he said. "Whoever wants to know more chooses an appropriate profession. But without having lived through that time yourself, it's impossible to actually know about it." The reason the Russian media spend so little time on Stalin, he said, is that "we have a new cult of personality and probably they don't want to contrast [Putin with Stalin]." At the same time, he worried that those who talk about the dark side of Soviet history may "want to weaken Russia."
Participants in one of the Moscow focus groups--one filled with self-described "democrats"--were especially skeptical of the value of historical knowledge. One woman stated, "I think that there's no point turning back. If you look back all the time then we won't see the present or imagine the future." A young man concurred, saying, "Stalinist times--that's a tired topic to keep beating to death. History must be studied, but to continually walk around and repeat 'repressions,' 'repressions'--why?" He believed any interest in the topic was "purely the result of propaganda. Look, under Stalin people lived freely and well, just like right now under Putin."
When asked in the survey where they get their information about the Stalin period, most young Russians first identified television, then school and books, and then their parents, grandparents, and government officials. In the Moscow "democrats" focus group, one university student pointed to school and his grandfather. The moderator asked him, "What did your parents, grandparents tell you about this time?" His answer: "Nothing bad about Stalin, for sure, because of the fear that remained. Although Stalin was no longer, they still said that Comrade Stalin was a great leader, and so on." The moderator asked if this was out of fear or real belief. Someone in the group volunteered, "Habit." Another replied, "Some out of fear. Some out of conviction. Some out of a feeling of deep admiration." And another in the group immediately responded, "No one in my family told me anything." Later, when asked what the acronym "GULAG" stands for, this man admitted that he did not know. "The word itself I am familiar with," he said, "but not what it stands for."
Can Russian youth be persuaded that it is important or even hip to know about their past? Can they be persuaded that Stalin is not a neutral or positive figure in their country's history? The answer is yes--but only through a widespread effort, backed by international donors. Left to their own devices, young Russians, like young people everywhere, are unlikely to challenge their views. They need help from the outside.
Having said that creating a mass-education campaign on Stalin would not be easy. Numerous obstacles exist--including Putin's government, which seems committed to obscuring the truth. Fortunately, at least some respondents to our surveys did seem to want to learn more about their past. Nearly 39 percent of those polled in the 2005 youth survey said they were interested in the period of Stalin's rule and wanted to know more about it. Another 24 percent said they were interested but believed they already knew enough. Responses to a related question suggested a majority believed, that they "need to know more about Stalin's period so that [they] don't repeat mistakes of the past."
There are plenty of ways Russian educators could make the past--even a negative one--come alive for young people. One way would be to tell compelling stories about the many mysterious disappearances during the Stalin period or about ordinary people of the time doing extraordinary things. Such efforts could tap into the negative sentiments about the Stalin period that young Russians do share. For example, about 26 percent of the respondents in our youth survey reported that they had at least one relative who was "repressed" during the Soviet period, and a majority of young Russians (53 percent) were found to either somewhat strongly or strongly support the construction of monuments to these victims. That number dwarfs the number of respondents (nearly) one-quarter) who supported constructing monuments to Stalin- himself or naming streets in his honor.
Most of all, young Russians need heroes to inspire them. One additional finding from the 2005 survey is worth noting; young Russians' attitudes toward Andrei, Sakharov, the dissident who was lionized in the West for his struggle for human rights in the Soviet Union. Young Russians today are not just flunking the Stalin test; they also fail on Sakharov. Only 28 percent said that they Would definitely or probably vote for the man if he were running for. parliament today. The same proportion heard of him said that they had never heard of him. One-fifth, meanwhile, reported that they would probably or definitely not vote for him, and a quarter had heard of him but could not say if they would vote for him. These answers are worrisome to say the least. One of the university students in Moscow focus group, when asked if he was familiar with the name: Sakharov, thought hard and then responded, "Sakharov. I can't seem to place it." If his position is in any way typical, his country is in serious trouble indeed.

Now think how easily this could be turned into class-consciousness.

sarmchain

22nd February 2010, 00:50

Ooh, lookie what me dig up:

Now think how easily this could be turned into class-consciousness.
they view stalin as a figure of russian nationalism , plus capitalism isn't doing to good in russia , add the fact that most the generation that accually lived under stalin is dieing out and most (if not all) russian texts from that time were propaganda , and you have a movement that will more likely resemble National Bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism)rather then Marxism-leninism

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 00:54

they view stalin as a figure of russian nationalism , plus capitalism isn't doing to good in russia , add the fact that most the generation that accually lived under stalin is dieing out and most (if not all) russian texts from that time were propaganda , and you have a movement that will more likely resemble National Bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism)rather then Marxism-leninism

I only think the Nazbol's will get anywhere if the mls don't educate and organize. We're more associated with Stalin than any Nazis, obviously.

But, this opens a unique opportunity.

robbo203

22nd February 2010, 01:07

EDIT: nevermind, you'll just deny you think Marx was right about everything.

Not this crap again! Ive said on numerous occasions there are number of things that marx said with which i fundamentally disagree.

Your intellectual bankrutcy is all too evident if you can stoop to lies like this = you and the leninists on this list who have made the same stupid remark

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 01:12

Not this crap again! Ive said on numerous occasions there are number of things that marx said with which i fundamentally disagree.

Your intellectual bankrutcy is all too evident if you can stoop to lies like this = you and the leninists on this list who have made the same stupid remark

Right, but he was somehow right when he said there's somehow going to be a class-conscious working class but didn't mention an organization to lead, educate or organize it. As if the working class was some sort of hivemind. Your "anti-leninist" opportunism is entertaining.

robbo203

22nd February 2010, 08:43

Right, but he was somehow right when he said there's somehow going to be a class-conscious working class but didn't mention an organization to lead, educate or organize it. As if the working class was some sort of hivemind. Your "anti-leninist" opportunism is entertaining.

I didnt say that he said there should be no organisation, did I? This is besides the point. You are raising a totally false dichotomy. This is is typicial of dishonest leninists whenever they find themselves caught out with their trousers down - they resort to phoney caricatures of their opponents There is no dichotomy between spontaneity (your daft reference to the "hivemenind") and organisation. The two go hand in hand

The point is, as has been stated umpteen times, you cannot effect a socialist revolution without first having a "self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority. Indeed, that was the gist of what Engels was saying in his introduction to Class Struggles in France. i.e. that the time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Do you understand that? He is saying that the organisation cannot go ahead of the masses in other words. It has to go lockstep with the masses.

That is the marxist position. The leninist position is quite different. Lenin made no bones about it. In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 he contended:
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)

You talk about "opportunism". Well, friend, Leninism to it very core , is sheer opportunism from start to finish. Grabbing power in advance of the working class become class conscious communists is what is meant by vanguardism which is precisely what Marx and Engels warned against. It a certain recipe for the vanguard itself becoming a new exploiting ruling class - exactly what happened in the state capitalist dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

Anyone want to resurrect that? No bloody thanks!

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 17:50

I didnt say that he said there should be no organisation, did I? This is besides the point. You are raising a totally false dichotomy. This is is typicial of dishonest leninists whenever they find themselves caught out with their trousers down - they resort to phoney caricatures of their opponents There is no dichotomy between spontaneity (your daft reference to the "hivemenind") and organisation. The two go hand in hand

The point is, as has been stated umpteen times, you cannot effect a socialist revolution without first having a "self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority. Indeed, that was the gist of what Engels was saying in his introduction to Class Struggles in France. i.e. that the time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Do you understand that? He is saying that the organisation cannot go ahead of the masses in other words. It has to go lockstep with the masses.

That is the marxist position. The leninist position is quite different. Lenin made no bones about it. In a speech to the Congress of Peasants’ Soviets on 27 November, 1917 he contended:
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years...The Socialist political party - this is the vanguard of the working class; it must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the mass average, but it must lead the masses, using the Soviets as organs of revolutionary initiative…" (Quoted in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World , Modern Library edition, 1960, p.15)

You talk about "opportunism". Well, friend, Leninism to it very core , is sheer opportunism from start to finish. Grabbing power in advance of the working class become class conscious communists is what is meant by vanguardism which is precisely what Marx and Engels warned against. It a certain recipe for the vanguard itself becoming a new exploiting ruling class - exactly what happened in the state capitalist dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

Anyone want to resurrect that? No bloody thanks!

Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that you see Lenin's practicality as opportunism, since it doesn't count as a socialist revolution in your book if not everyone on the whole fucking planet wants socialism. But keep going, there's a good reason why your ultra-left bullshit is confined to the wealthy consuming countries while the "leninists" are the only ones willing to get their hands dirty in Nepal, India, the Philipines, and elsewhere.

Robbo, you're so full of shit it's hilarious. You act like those catholics who don't interpret Genesis literally but are extremely homophobic and against women's rights but whine and cry when someone calls them fundies.

But go on, keeping quoting Marx, and keep quoting Lenin out of context to make him look like some elitist bastard. It's entertaining. I'll leave it up to someone else to address your other ultra-left platitudes.

robbo203

22nd February 2010, 18:42

Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that you see Lenin's practicality as opportunism, since it doesn't count as a socialist revolution in your book if not everyone on the whole fucking planet wants socialism. But keep going, there's a good reason why your ultra-left bullshit is confined to the wealthy consuming countries while the "leninists" are the only ones willing to get their hands dirty in Nepal, India, the Philipines, and elsewhere. .

Caught with your trousers down yet again, I see? When the truth is too uncomfortable your lie your way out of it. What is it about bloody leninists and their proneness to bullshiting about their criticis, eh? They can't handle the criticism so they turn on the critic

I did not say "everyone on the fucking planet" has to want socialism for there to be socialism. I said you have to have a majority of workers wanting and understanding socialism. A majority does not mean "everyone". Even you presumably are able to undersatand that.

This is the marxist position - that a majorty of workers must want and understand socialism before you can have a genuine socialist revolution to achieve a genuine socialsit society. Nobody said its going to be easy. You, as a leninist, obviously reject that but the fact remains that without a majority you aint gonna have socialism. QED

As for this nonsense about genuine socialism being confined to the "wealthy consuming countries", there are genuine socialists all over the world. Ive personally corresponded with several dozen in Africa where I originally hailed from. You dont now what you are talking about at all, sunshine.. ..

Robbo, you're so full of shit it's hilarious. You act like those catholics who don't interpret Genesis literally but are extremely homophobic and against women's rights but whine and cry when someone calls them fundies.

But go on, keeping quoting Marx, and keep quoting Lenin out of context to make him look like some elitist bastard. It's entertaining. I'll leave it up to someone else to address your other ultra-left platitudes.

Look, if you are going to insult me with character smears at least put some more effort into it! I mean, jeez, how pathetic ! This is all pretty lacklustre and drearily predictable stuff. Surely you can come up with something more colourful than this. I want to be entertained! Ive entertained you with quotes from Mr Lenin that confirm my view of him and of his slavish followers as elitist vanguardists. The least you could do is reciprocate properly! So, come on, get your finger and do the job properly! I mean, what is a good Leninist to do if he or she is not capable of concocting the most vitriolic mendacious diatribe possible against the enemies of the Glorious Vanguard. Frankly, you are letting the side down!

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 19:44

Caught with your trousers down yet again, I see? When the truth is too uncomfortable your lie your way out of it. What is it about bloody leninists and their proneness to bullshiting about their criticis, eh? They can't handle the criticism so they turn on the critic

Well if they're down, then kiss my ass.

I did not say "everyone on the fucking planet" has to want socialism for there to be socialism. I said you have to have a majority of workers wanting and understanding socialism. A majority does not mean "everyone". Even you presumably are able to undersatand that.

This is the marxist position - that a majorty of workers must want and understand socialism before you can have a genuine socialist revolution to achieve a genuine socialsit society. Nobody said its going to be easy. You, as a leninist, obviously reject that but the fact remains that without a majority you aint gonna have socialism. QEDAnd what part of this is inconsistent with Lenin's vanguard theory? That's the main function of the vanguard you dimwit. As an instrument of the working class, we are to lead, educate, and organize the working class. We are to build socialism this way.

As for this nonsense about genuine socialism being confined to the "wealthy consuming countries", there are genuine socialists all over the world. Ive personally corresponded with several dozen in Africa where I originally hailed from. You dont now what you are talking about at all, sunshine.. ..Lol, some token revolutionaries in Africa don't count as a revolution. But you wouldn't understand that, as an armchair revolutionary yourself.

Look, if you are going to insult me with character smears at least put some more effort into it! I mean, jeez, how pathetic ! This is all pretty lacklustre and drearily predictable stuff. Surely you can come up with something more colourful than this. I want to be entertained! Ive entertained you with quotes from Mr Lenin that confirm my view of him and of his slavish followers as elitist vanguardists. The least you could do is reciprocate properly! So, come on, get your finger and do the job properly! I mean, what is a good Leninist to do if he or she is not capable of concocting the most vitriolic mendacious diatribe possible against the enemies of the Glorious Vanguard. Frankly, you are letting the side down!I sure as fuck am.

I was going to quote you out of context, but I decided not to sink to your level.

Nolan

22nd February 2010, 19:58

Ok, this is off topic now, so shut up and stop derailing my thread.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

22nd February 2010, 20:31

Communism NEVER had a good name, you twit. Why do you keep using that argument?

Every revolutionary movement is going to require some form of bureaucracy and hierarchy in order to gain the upper hand in the class struggle. We have a choice- We can either support this vanguard, and crush the capitalist vermin once and for all, or take this agnostic (capitalist) point of view, where power intrinsically corrupts. Being a communist means putting the interests of the working class (i.e. the survival of the socialist state, until capitalism has been eliminated and there is no need for it) above all else; we are just as critical of 'careerism' as anyone else, and view it as a remnant of the bourgeois mentality to be countered.

Lenin said, "It is true liberty is precious, so precious it has to be carefully rationed"
Of course there are going to be inequalities of power under socialism. Of course we are going to give certain privileges to party members, because, assuming the party has it's shit together, party membership is a litmus test of whether we can trust an individual to work with us or the reactionaries. Class struggle intensifies under socialism, and these methods are necessary.

Ironic, the fact that you, with your idealist view of 'genuine communism', would be just as critical of a return to socialism in Russia as any capitalist ideologue. Platonic 'ideas' of objects and concepts don't exist outside of the human mind, so perfection is an impossibility. Materialists understand this.

This is a somewhat ridiculous post.

What you are basically accepting, and to some point enthusing for, is inequality of power, privileges based on party position and so on.

If this is the position from which you start out from, you have little hope of succeeding.

How can you deride someone as an 'agnostic Capitalist', when you are the one who is accepting inequality and privilege, which would likely turn into a plutocratic, bureaucratic centrally-ruled "workers'" state?

Robbo is right. As much as it has been painful to witness the revolutionary left collapse as an accepted world force, we should not will for a return to a state of affairs whereby 'Communism' had become simply a symbolic name for State-Capitalism, under Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko et al. As for 1953 and earlier, whilst it is clear that great economic strides were made, and should be utterly commended, one can also conclude that this was at a great human cost. I would argue that the majority of people, including Russians, would not like to see a return to a replica of these times. Of course there is nostalgia for Stalin's times, he was a strong leader who achieved, economically, many things. However, it is quite obvious that so much damage was caused by this economic progress, that one should not will for a return to such times, but instead that one should learn from what was done well at this time, and what could be improved upon.

It seems to me that, in general, humans - often at a slow pace, and in a fractured, frustrating manner - learn from their mistakes. To repeat history is often to liquidate progress. As such, what has failed in history, is not likely to succeed in the present or in the future. We should learn from the events of the past and improve upon them, rather than pine for them out of a sense of nostalgia or other emotional weakness.

RadioRaheem84

22nd February 2010, 22:34

robbo203

22nd February 2010, 23:29

Well if they're down, then kiss my ass.

And what part of this is inconsistent with Lenin's vanguard theory? That's the main function of the vanguard you dimwit. As an instrument of the working class, we are to lead, educate, and organize the working class. We are to build socialism this way. .

Dearie me , we are having a little tantrum, arent we?

The inconsistency was pointed out to your several posts back - that is, if you even bothered to read it instead of being stuck so far up your own backside. So Ill spell it out again.

The leninist approach is to seize power in advance of the working class becoming class conscious on the pretext , as Mr Lenin himself said, that under capitalism the workers are too degraded to acquire class consciousness. So it has to be handed down to them under the wise tutelage of the glorious vanguard but only once this vanguard has seized power.

In fact all that happens then is the vanguard is left in charge of running capitalism, by default, since you cannot have socialism without the majority of workers wanting and understanding it. What happens next is all too predictable. The vanguard rapldly becomes an exploiting ruling class, the national capitalist class. In so doing it becomes yet another impediment to the establishment of socialism. The exigencies of running capitalism - which can only be run in the interests of capital -compel it to act against the interests of the very workers it presumes to represent. Its an all too familiar story

And that, my little friend, is why Leninist vanguardism is incompatible with marxism and the cause of revolutionary socialism

Redmau5

23rd February 2010, 01:00

Your "anti-leninist" opportunism is entertaining.

As is the fact that you're seriously discussing the "resurrection" of the USSR, whatever the hell that means. Since you willingly describe yourself as a "Stalinist" and "Authoritarian Socialist", I think it's safe to assume you're just some dick with a Soviet fetish rather than a genuine Marxist-Leninist.

Nolan

23rd February 2010, 01:16

As is the fact that you're seriously discussing the "resurrection" of the USSR, whatever the hell that means. Since you willingly describe yourself as a "Stalinist" and "Authoritarian Socialist", I think it's safe to assume you're just some dick with a Soviet fetish rather than a genuine Marxist-Leninist.

lol, another idiot.

As if considering the possibility of the reestablishment of the USSR or something similar isn't a fruitful discussion. Read through the thread, several members have wondered the same thing. That's what a forum is for, you know, discussion and debate.

That's my tendency because it's funny and it raises eyebrows.

Nolan

23rd February 2010, 01:25

The debate on here between the Leninists and the anti-Leninists has really opened my eyes! On the one hand it seems like Robbo is a bit idealistic and very dogmatic. He has some very good points but they lead to a standard of perfection that would be nearly impossible to achieve. I remember debating him about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela and how extremely dogmatic he was on host of issues that simply weren't true about the progress being made there.

The Leninists on the other hand have shown that realistically Communism requires a lot of force from a group that is highly conscious to lead the working class toward Communism. While this realistic outlook is essential to putting theory into practice it makes me wonder just how realistic it is to establish Communism without, as they say, breaking a few eggs (or a few arms).

The two outlooks shared by Robbo and the Leninists make wonder and nervous about implementing socialism, especially in today's society which is entrenched in liberalism because of the authoritarian nature of past Communist regimes.

Is this the reality that right libertarians tell me about when it comes to implementing communism, that it cannot be done without relinquishing individual liberty (I know they really mean the liberty of the bourgeoisie but they also sell their idea to mean the worker's liberty too).

Robbo is extremely dogmatic. It seems as if he just copy-and-pastes these stupid things off of some anarchist website. He repeats himself until you give up and ignore him or come to accept his rigid semantic framework out of Pavlovian conditioning. People like robbo are doomed to never get anything done ever, because the second something goes wrong they'll just resort to their constant no-true-scotsman fallacies under the guise of "real socialism." His ideology is the spitting-image of utopian idealism - a constant game of moving the goalposts. Revolutionaries of history can do no right and he alone has the keys to a successful revolution, though all we can hope to get is some speech about "the majority wanting it."

GatesofLenin

23rd February 2010, 03:35

Not going to happen comrades! The USA is feeding Russia $$$$ to prevent this from happening. The main stream media likes to show how the US is showing its fists at Russia, China, Cuba, etc... but we all know that the CIA is behind the current "Capitalist" pushes around the world. Castro and Che messed up the CIA experiment in Cuba during Batista's regime and the CIA won't let that happen again.

Nolan

23rd February 2010, 04:02

There has to be a workers revolution in the former USSR to bring back socialism. "Hardliners" of revisionist/nationalist parties cannot bring it back.

Yes, this is what I think. It would only be a mockery of its former self (it was anyway). Perhaps even a fascist state with a red flag.

Tatarin

23rd February 2010, 05:26

No, I don't see it happening in the near future. And why would Russia "go back" to something? The same state can continue to exist and simply nationalize everything should it come to that point of boilings. I think the ruling classes learned something from the revolution of 1917.

In any case, Russia do seem to have a want for change, well, the people there does, perhaps parallel to the Tea Party-admirers in the US, though not for "less, or no state" but of the same kind it indeed had back in the 70s or 80s.

I don't know, I'd more put my finger on Europe (which incidentally was the place Marx 'predicted' a true revolution would occur). Europe has the technology, it has the history (from monarchy to capitalism to "happy capitalism" i.e. social democracy), and now all social nets, wages and pensions are going out the window, which is making the people, not the leaders (some who claim to represent socialism), very unhappy and could lead to a fundamental change. If the EU isn't made "social" (as the French president Mitterand expressed it) then there could even be outright seccession and revolution. A sort of post-war upheaval.

Nolan

23rd February 2010, 05:41

robbo203

23rd February 2010, 09:37

Robbo is extremely dogmatic. It seems as if he just copy-and-pastes these stupid things off of some anarchist website. He repeats himself until you give up and ignore him or come to accept his rigid semantic framework out of Pavlovian conditioning. People like robbo are doomed to never get anything done ever, because the second something goes wrong they'll just resort to their constant no-true-scotsman fallacies under the guise of "real socialism." His ideology is the spitting-image of utopian idealism - a constant game of moving the goalposts. Revolutionaries of history can do no right and he alone has the keys to a successful revolution, though all we can hope to get is some speech about "the majority wanting it."

Here we go again. More of the same old mindnumbingly dreary mudslinging. Dont deal with the arguments. Just hope they will buried under the avalanche of suitably pointed and colourful insults. I merely "copy and paste" my dogmatic assertions from some anarchist website , eh? Fuck off!

At the end of the day, it really doesnt matter who said what. The argument stands on its own feet: you cannot have socialism without majority support and understanding. Why? Because a population still imbued with capitalist values and a capitalist outlook would simply bring about the system's collapse were it ever to be attempted. "Free associated labour " to quote Marx (if I'm permitted to quote Marx), and direct appropriation of the products of labour (free access to goods and services) presuppose a degree of moral responsibility and commitment to the welfare of each other, not the competitive egoism of capitalism. If goods and services are free people have to understand that they dont have to take more than they need. If labour is voluntary, people have to understand that they have an obligation to each other to contribute. All this stands to reason.

In fact the real "utopian idealists" are people like yourself who think there is some magical shortcut to socialism via the vanguard. The vanguard is supposed to seize power and then begin the process of "educating the masses". This as Ive tirelessly tried to pointout is where the theory goes completely pear-shaped. Because what happens is that inevitably and by default what the vanguard is doing in the absence of mass socialist consciousness, is administering or operating a system called capitalism. That system can only be run in one way - to proritise the interests of capital over and often against those of wage labour. Inevitably the vanguard is compelled by circumstances to become upholders of the system. Inevitably since wage labour presupposes capital, the expropriation of private capitalists via nationalisation by the regime simply means the regime reconstituting itself as the national capitalist class since you cannot have a working class without a capitalist class.

Someone has to be the capitalist class under a system of wage-labour and capital and it is the vanguard, the nomenklatura, the apparatchilks , the party state-elite whatever you want to call them - who will necessarily mutate into the new capitalist class. That being so, and since no ruling class in history has ever voluntarily relinquished its privileged position in society, it follows that vanguardism will inevitably lead to a situation in which it impedes rather than promotes socialism and that is why I oppose it utterly. In the name of "socialism" it will come to constitute itself as a most formidable obstacle to socialism

Right - now there is the unalloyed argument against vanguardism. Here's the challegne to all you leninists out there - show me where I have gone wrong. Im not interested in your silly insults. It is intellectual laziness and dishonesty in the etxreme to react to a clear headed and principled argument by simply dismissing it as "dogmatic" . So can we please cut out that crap once and for all. Im ONLY interested in the argument you have to offer

All revolutions thus far have indeed led to simply one or other form of capitalism. This is a fact - an unpalatable fact no doubt , but a fact. The socialist revolution is something qualitiatively different. It has to be a majority one. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a utopian dreamer not a serious revolutiuonary.

It is not me who holds the "keys to a sucessful revolution" , nor indeed some leninist vanguard. It is the working class as a whole that alone can make a successful revolution. The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself!

Dimentio

23rd February 2010, 10:30

Yazman

23rd February 2010, 13:04

Well if they're down, then kiss my ass.

That's the main function of the vanguard you dimwit.

lol, another idiot.

Captain Cuba. I appreciate your contributions to the forum and there is some good discussion going on in this thread, but please keep it civil. I understand that things can get heated sometimes - but please keep it civil, or else there will be repercussions. This means no flaming, and no name-calling.

This is a verbal warning.

robbo203

23rd February 2010, 14:11

I really think that at least 25%-50% of the economy must be under the control of the workers before any transition could be made from a capitalist into a socialist system. The worker organisations must actively strive to control the means of production, or at least as much of them as possible.

Dimentio

I take it you are saying in effect that workers control of the economy per se does not in itself transcend capitalism. If so I would completely agree. I presume you have in mind worker cooperatives. While there are certainly advantages in going down this road - we have had a lengthy discussion on this on the worldincommon forum - and I certainly would not want to dissuade anyone from setting up a worker coop, I do think there are severe structural constraints that the limit the prospects of such a scenario. 25-50% is hugely optimistic. It is also worth bearing in mind that the socio-economic environment of capitalism in which co-ops are inserted will tend to push them in the direction of becoming more and more like any other capitalist business competing in the market. Mondragon is a classic example of this.

Tatarin

24th February 2010, 05:38

I started this thread because a friend brought it up. He read somewhere on wikipedia that the "communist party" candidates normally do well in elections, and the communist presidential candidate has come in second place almost every time.

Well, it is true that the Communist Party is the second party of choice, however, they are much more social democrats than actual communists. Their plan is to "go back", or at least reinstate the previous social nets that people had in the USSR. However, if they really do want a new USSR then they must begin with what it all began with, a revolution. And as it is known, those happens when people want real change, not reforms.

I see the potential for Marxist organizations to capitalize on this and educate people on what socialism is really about. Let's hope the nationalists and nazbols don't steal this opportunity.

I guess one of the negative things of the Soviet Union was it's reliance on "itself" rather than propagating the idea of a temporary state that is in use while the Vanguard changes society into communism. The same kind of nationalism, combined with new and excited material of racism, phobia and all kinds of weird ideas, is still "in the air" today.

However, their nationalism doesn't seem to be based on the nation, but rather the vision of a future empire, to go back to the same kind of status they had before the disintegration of the USSR. Examples of such movements are, like you pointed out, the Nazbols and their "reformed organizations" the Eurasian Movement.

Sure, the Russian bourgeoisie are safe for now, but they're not out of the woods yet. People still remember the USSR. And as we all know, the political landscape could change drastically in the next 10 years, especially if the capitalist crisis deepens. 2017 could very well be the next 1917. You never know what the future holds.

Yes, but as all bourgeoisie, they are far from inactive. The American one has had some success in blinding people from the "active class politics". Many people have the idea that the ruling classes are there and simply doesn't do anything, like some kind of a bad circle. This is of course not the case.

In any case, I believe Russia is way behind China and India, and it has had some quite sour arguments with the previous Soviet states, who are now rallying up behind NATO and such. China has begun some activities in Africa, and India could set its sight on the Middle East. Russia still has to deal with public dissatisfaction and corruption.