Maoist/anti-revisionist theories of Soviet degeneration

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm not sure if this is the correct section to post this.

What do Maoists, Hoxhaists, and other anti-revisionists see as the starting point of "revisionism" in the USSR and other socialist countries? My understanding is that Maoists see the Soviet Union as beginning the revisionist path under Khruschechev. That has struck me as an idealist view-how could an opportunistic foreign policy and strange speeches change a country from socialism to capitalism? Perhaps that is a caricature of anti-revisionism and I admit I do not understand the anti-revisionist viewpoint.

Red Cat has mentioned that the struggle began in the 1930s and is reflected in what are generally known as the Stalinist purges. I would be interested in an elaboration of this. How did the relation between the working class and the means of production change in this period? Who were the main protagonists?

I'm a Trot and as such I would see the degeneration occurring in the 1920s with the takeover of a parasitic bureaucratic class as Trotsky explained in "Revolution Betrayed".

I am interested in what other tendencies would say.

[red cat]

One rectification: struggle continues under socialism until the bourgeoisie is eliminated in all forms. Periods within socialism witness relative intensification of class struggle. If I had said something like the struggle "began" in the 1930s, I hereby withdraw that statement of mine.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, the bourgeoisie may ceased to exist in Russia and other Soviet republics, but there were PETTY-BOURGEOISIE. Which was hiding the seeds of future bourgeoisie. During the collectivization programme, it had been cleared that HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO ERADICATE PRIVATE PROPERTY. The most fierce resistance came from the small property owners i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie section of the population. And later, when to fight with Nazi invasion, many more compromises had been done with the petty-bourgeoisie class and after the WWII, when huge section of previous fighting and well trained party members were dead and their positions had been taken by comparatively new, inexperienced and possibly who have petty-bourgeoisie mentality in them, such party members. Which made the platform for the revisionist Khrushchev and later era.
Actually, in my personal opinion, the USSR had to fight alone the imperialist attack for a long time and suffered a lot. The world's oppressed people at that time hadn't been able to stand by the USSR in a effective way. If they can, the world history would be different today.

[Sir Comradical]

Well, the bourgeoisie may ceased to exist in Russia and other Soviet republics, but there were PETTY-BOURGEOISIE. Which was hiding the seeds of future bourgeoisie. During the collectivization programme, it had been cleared that HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO ERADICATE PRIVATE PROPERTY. The most fierce resistance came from the small property owners i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie section of the population. And later, when to fight with Nazi invasion, many more compromises had been done with the petty-bourgeoisie class and after the WWII, when huge section of previous fighting and well trained party members were dead and their positions had been taken by comparatively new, inexperienced and possibly who have petty-bourgeoisie mentality in them, such party members. Which made the platform for the revisionist Khrushchev and later era.
Actually, in my personal opinion, the USSR had to fight alone the imperialist attack for a long time and suffered a lot. The world's oppressed people at that time hadn't been able to stand by the USSR in a effective way. If they can, the world history would be different today.

Yes but would you know about the economic changes that took place when Kruschev took power? Anti-revisionists often point to a difference in economic policy when they evaluate socialism in the USSR, apparently production under Stalin was of a different nature to production post-Stalin.

Here's a video of Taimur Rehman from the CPGB-ML explaining it. He mentions something about the Lieberman Reforms which changed the nature of production because it mandated firms to run at a profit thereby ending Stalin's policies of cross-subsidization...or something like that.

0HfWRKP4d-4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HfWRKP4d-4)

maryWVdxNQY

Xb_OJdOCgi4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_OJdOCgi4)

(I don't align myself to any specific Marxist tendency, I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint of Anti-revisionists.)

[pranabjyoti]

Yes but would you know about the economic changes that took place when Kruschev took power? Anti-revisionists often point to a difference in economic policy when they evaluate socialism in the USSR, apparently production under Stalin was of a different nature to production post-Stalin.

Here's a video of Taimur Rehman from the CPGB-ML explaining it. He mentions something about the Lieberman Reforms which changed the nature of production because it mandated firms to run at a profit thereby ending Stalin's policies of cross-subsidization...or something like that.

0HfWRKP4d-4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HfWRKP4d-4)

maryWVdxNQY

Xb_OJdOCgi4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_OJdOCgi4)

(I don't align myself to any specific Marxist tendency, I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint of Anti-revisionists.)
Actually I just want to point out the reasons behind those changes. Changes can not come down like a bolt from the sky, there should be a preparation for that. I am just trying to find the the preparing phases of that change.

[danyboy27]

One rectification: struggle continues under socialism until the bourgeoisie is eliminated in all forms. Periods within socialism witness relative intensification of class struggle. If I had said something like the struggle "began" in the 1930s, I hereby withdraw that statement of mine.

how would you eliminate them?

[bailey_187]

how would you eliminate them?

the material basis for their existance e.g. ending the use of money, demands that can not be fulfilled by socialist production that gives rise to black marketeers

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm not sure if this is the correct section to post this.

I'd say it is.


What do Maoists, Hoxhaists, and other anti-revisionists see as the starting point of "revisionism" in the USSR and other socialist countries? My understanding is that Maoists see the Soviet Union as beginning the revisionist path under Khruschechev. That has struck me as an idealist view-how could an opportunistic foreign policy and strange speeches change a country from socialism to capitalism? Perhaps that is a caricature of anti-revisionism and I admit I do not understand the anti-revisionist viewpoint.Well the official Chinese position on the Soviet Union is that by the late 60's is that capitalism had been restored in the Soviet Union, I'm sure you can find plenty of material on this.

Hoxhaists I believe will generally say the same thing, and there is a critique written by Bill Bland (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html) that pretty much sums up their viewpoint.

I'm not sure what other 'anti-revisionists' fall under, it's generally those that agree with the Chinese or Albanian lines.

I myself not being an 'anti-revisionist' do recognize many of the factors they point to in order to illustrate their position, did in fact play a vital role in the eventual restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union-- it just didn't happen outright anytime before the late 80's-90,91. SU was not 'social-imperialist' but in many cases politically hegemonic (though Soviet hegemony dates back to the Third International and even the revolution itself, way before the 'revisionists' in their heyday). So I would disagree on that.




I'm a Trot and as such I would see the degeneration occurring in the 1920s with the takeover of a parasitic bureaucratic class as Trotsky explained in "Revolution Betrayed".Meh.