What is Stalinism? How to fight it?

[promethean]

What is Stalinism? Why is it bad? How do we fight it?

[Queercommie Girl]

Very very briefly: (lack of time on my part)

Stalinism = lack of direct worker's democracy

Solution = struggling for direct democracy

[Reznov]

It is what almost every American thinks of when they hear Communism.

[Nolan]

Stare into the picture, young one, and all will be known to you.




http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/436590283_cb8275680f.jpg



Seriously, this belongs in the Trotskyist group or something.

[Nanukaki]

I think Stalinism is good because people who like Stalinism are almost all Stalinists so they aren't Trotskyists.

[Nolan]

I think Stalinism is good because people who like Stalinism are almost all Stalinists so they aren't Trotskyists.

Lolwut

[Obs]

I think Stalinism is good because people who like Stalinism are almost all Stalinists so they aren't Trotskyists.
10/10 would lol again

[Dire Helix]

What is Stalinism? How do we fight it?

Exorcise it with portraits of Trotsky.

[Palingenisis]

Very very briefly: (lack of time on my part)

Stalinism = lack of direct worker's democracy

Solution = struggling for direct democracy


You realise that the PSL are the worst type of tankies????

Communism is the negation of democracy....

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism4.htm#communism_dem

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism8.htm#mythdemo

And thats from Left Coms and not Stalinists....

[Obs]

You realise that the PSL are the worst type of tankies???
Wait wait wait wait wait... You're callling tankies bad?

[Nolan]

Yes that's why all the Admins are stalinists.

[Palingenisis]

Wait wait wait wait wait... You're callling tankies bad?

Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and those who support the line taken by the Ablanian Labour Party arent Tankies.

[fa2991]

What is Stalinism? ... How do we fight it?

Is that an intentional pun on the similarly named Trotsky book?

[Sir Comradical]

Stalinism, for the most part, is a word that gets thrown around by a lot of people to describe anything they think is really really really bad. So if there's a horrible thunderstorm, then it's a Stalinist thunderstorm.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Stalinism, for the most part, is a word that gets thrown around by a lot of people to describe anything they think is really really really bad. So if there's a horrible thunderstorm, then it's a Stalinist thunderstorm.

Personally, I think Gulags are bad. That's why I refer to them as being "Stalinist".

[Palingenisis]

Personally, I think Gulags are bad. That's why I refer to them as being "Stalinist".

Uh....Do you mind explaining WHY?

[Sir Comradical]

Personally, I think Gulags are bad. That's why I refer to them as being "Stalinist".

A Gulag is just a prison were inmates have to work. So it's basically a prison. So do you think prisons are bad?

[Sir Comradical]

Then the Soviet Union was just 'bad'?

Fantastic analysis.

[Obs]

A Gulag is just a prison were inmates have to work. So it's basically a prison. So do you think prisons are bad?
yeah man in REAL socialism everyone is free to do what they like because life is gonna be so great no one will want to exploit anyone or have property

[Apoi_Viitor]

A Gulag is just a prison were inmates have to work. So it's basically a prison. So do you think prisons are bad?

Yeh, kind of.

[pranabjyoti]

If you ask me, then I want to describe "Stalinism" in this way. To a bourgeoisie-imperialist b****rd and a petty-bourgeoisie half-b***ard, "Stalinism" is lack of freedom of speech, secret police, lack of workers right etc in short the BAn things that they PRACTICE with open secrecy and DEMOCRACY is freedom of speech, fair right for workers, an open society etc, in short the GOOD things that they PREACH but believe only in those occasions, when they are in utter economic crisis or they are facing an peoples uprising, in short when their own STALINIST actions begin to show effects.
If you ask me, one of the BEST STALINIST of 20th century is the Bush family, both senior and junior and USA is a STALINIST state till today.

[Nolan]

Then the Soviet Union was just 'bad'?

It was evil, obviously.

Just thought I'd tell you what you wanted to hear.

[Sir Comradical]

Yeh, kind of.

So what's your alternative?

[AK]

A Gulag is just a prison were inmates have to work. So it's basically a prison. So do you think prisons are bad?
Yes actually.

[Obs]

So, Stalinism just means "bad" things?
"Stalinism" doesn't MEAN anything. It's just a word that people use to signify things they don't agree with, independent of its relation to Josef Stalin.

[AK]

So what's your alternative?
To prisons? Rehabilitation as a primary course of action.

[Sir Comradical]

To prisons? Rehabilitation as a primary course of action.

Which would necessitate forcefully keeping someone in a facility. In other words, a prison! The way I see it, people who have been convicted of corruption for example, should be put to work. This has two benefits, (1) the person is repaying their debt to society and (2) it's a strong deterrent.

[Magón]

Then the Soviet Union was just 'bad'?

Ask any Leftist who's anti-State and you'll get your answer.

[pranabjyoti]

Which would necessitate forcefully keeping someone in a facility. In other words, a prison! The way I see it, people who have been convicted of corruption for example, should be put to work. This has two benefits, (1) the person is repaying their debt to society and (2) it's a strong deterrent.
Moreover, in the "dictatorship of proletariat" stage, there would be people who want the past back and try it with imperialist help. We should mark them and stop them from damaging the interests of working class. KINDLY REMEMBER THAT ON THE VERY MOMENT OF REVOLUTION, ALL POPULATION DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY TURN INTO REVOLUTIONARIES. Reactionaries would still remain and WE SHOULD DETAIN AND PUNISH THEM.

[Nolan]

Not all leftists are Marxists.

[Nolan]

Moreover, in the "dictatorship of proletariat" stage, there would be people who want the past back and try it with imperialist help. We should mark them and stop them from damaging the interests of working class. KINDLY REMEMBER THAT ON THE VERY MOMENT OF REVOLUTION, ALL POPULATION DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY TURN INTO REVOLUTIONARIES. Reactionaries would still remain and WE SHOULD DETAIN AND PUNISH THEM.

Alright, but easy with the caps lock, bro.

[AK]

What does "anti-state" mean? Marxists view the state as a tool of class rule.
The problem is, the very means by which we abolish capitalism entails the abolition of all social classes.

[Sir Comradical]

Moreover, in the "dictatorship of proletariat" stage, there would be people who want the past back and try it with imperialist help. We should mark them and stop them from damaging the interests of working class. KINDLY REMEMBER THAT ON THE VERY MOMENT OF REVOLUTION, ALL POPULATION DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY TURN INTO REVOLUTIONARIES. Reactionaries would still remain and WE SHOULD DETAIN AND PUNISH THEM.

I'd have to agree. I'm pretty sure if India ever experienced a revolutionary situation, the RSS, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena would become like the White Armies in Russia and try and strangle the revolutionary baby in its crib. So yes, repression is necessary.

[AK]

Which would necessitate forcefully keeping someone in a facility. In other words, a prison! The way I see it, people who have been convicted of corruption for example, should be put to work. This has two benefits, (1) the person is repaying their debt to society and (2) it's a strong deterrent.
A strong deterrent? Many of the folks who wind up in prison are still forced by the same social conditions to commit the same crimes time and time again.

[pranabjyoti]

I'd have to agree. I'm pretty sure if India ever experienced a revolutionary situation, the RSS, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena would become like the White Armies in Russia and try and strangle the revolutionary baby in its crib. So yes, repression is necessary.
We should pay back to imperialist and reactionaries with their own coin.

[Sir Comradical]

A strong deterrent? Many of the folks who wind up in prison are still forced by the same social conditions to commit the same crimes time and time again.

Under capitalism, many criminals commit the kind of crimes that are a reflection of the dog-eat-dog system they live under. These are crimes that are committed because they have very few options in life, or because they're poor. Even if we present the best case of socialism where poverty has been eliminated, some humans will still seek personal gain at the expense of others and the only language some people understand is the language of force and punishment.

[Magón]

We cannot have a classless society overnight. We need a dictatorship of the proletariat in between capitalism and a classless society. The workers need to form their own state.

Anarchists and other Leftists who are anti-State don't believe that, because State brings power and class split. (Such as we have nowadays.) It's like replacing one bad dude with another bad dude, in the end you get the same result. Anarchists, and anyone else who's opposed to State and "dictatorship of the proletariat" have the mindset that it's the workers who can do it themselves. There's no need for a "more class conscious" elite Vanguard to lead the Proletariate. It's the Proletariate who do it themselves, under their own power and will. Take '36 Spain for example, that was the Proletariate acting against the State and those who would oppress them, to make their own place. There was no "dictatorship of the proletariate" only the Proletariate. No Vanguard told the workers, that they needed to think like this or that, they did it themselves through the Trade Unions which they controlled too.

[pranabjyoti]

A strong deterrent? Many of the folks who wind up in prison are still forced by the same social conditions to commit the same crimes time and time again.
That's in capitalist society, where minimum means of living isn't secured. I am sure that such number of people, who have to commit crime just for a living will drastically reduce in "dictatorship of proletariat". Kindly try to make difference between people who commit crime for just a living and who commit crime totally for their personal interest.

[pranabjyoti]

But how will we differentiate between a reactionary and a left-wing critic of the dictatorship of the proletariat? I think we need to allow left wing criticism during the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which left wing? Petty-bourgeoisie (anarchist, trotskyist etc) or proletariat viewpoint. It's been historically proved that those left critics at the end become worst kind of imperialist agents.

[Nolan]

A strong deterrent? Many of the folks who wind up in prison are still forced by the same social conditions to commit the same crimes time and time again.

This is under capitalism. The socialist penal system would mainly be dealing with a different type of criminal altogether.

[AK]

We cannot have a classless society overnight. We need a dictatorship of the proletariat in between capitalism and a classless society. The workers need to form their own state.
Remind me as to how it is you intend to create a classless society "later on" in the DoTP. Also, I'd like to know just how it is you will have classes under socialism (when you have a mode of production that has replaced capitalism and abolished its social classes as well as the fact that genuine socialism will not create new class distinctions).

[Obs]

So the basic difference Stalinism and anti-Stalinism is the degree of punishment of reactionaries?
'Stalinism' is what some leftists use to denote the style of style of government present in the Soviet Union under Stalin. What they compare it to varies. Some also use it to mean any authoritarian socialist government. Like I said, it doesn't mean anything.

[AK]

This is under capitalism. The socialist penal system would mainly be dealing with a different type of criminal altogether.
Such as?

It should also be noted that reactionaries' bigoted ambitions would have a very hard chance of materialising post-revolution.

[AK]

Which left wing? Petty-bourgeoisie (anarchist, trotskyist etc) or proletariat viewpoint. It's been historically proved that those left critics at the end become worst kind of imperialist agents.
Explain to me exactly how anarchism and Trotskyism are aligned with the class interests of the petit-bourgeoisie. I'd really like to know if you actually have a point or if you're just spewing out dogma and making baseless claims.

[Magón]

I did not talk of any vanguard of any kind. That is a complete strawman which you have brought to this discussion.

Do you agree or not about the need for a transitional phase between capitalism and a classless society?

This is the basic question that anarchists need to answer.

If you're going to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariate, you're going to have a Vanguard. Russia, Vietnam, etc. are all examples of Vanguards and the Dictatorship of the Proletariate.

As for a transitional phase between capitalism and classless society, look at '36 Spain like I suggested. There, if you read into it, was an almost over night revolution of having classes one minute and the next, none at all. There is no need for this "middle man" Dictatorship of the Proletariate, only the Proletariate themselves taking charge. No middle man, no Vanguard, just the workers taking what's rightfully theirs and working it to better everyone, rather than just a select few.

[Obs]

Explain to me exactly how anarchism and Trotskyism are aligned with the class interests of the petit-bourgeoisie. I'd really like to know if you actually have a point or if you're just spewing out dogma and making baseless claims.
Pranabjyoti is a very... enthusiastic Marxist-Leninist.

[Nolan]

'Stalinism' is what some leftists use to denote the style of style of government present in the Soviet Union under Stalin. What they compare it to varies. Some also use it to mean any authoritarian socialist government. Like I said, it doesn't mean anything.

Stalinism can mean anything from the USSR during the Stalin years to modern China. It's an obfuscatory term that Trots first employed to have a simple, easy to understand view of the world. Authoritarian? It must be Stalinist. Forget about what it has to do with Stalin.

[Magón]

That is false. This so-called "classless" society never existed. If so, where did the capitalists and fascists come from to defeat it in the form of the Francoists?

In reality, Spain '36 was also a dictatorship of the proletariat, though it was highly deformed and isolated due to Stalinist betrayal and it was similar to the other dictatorships of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China.

Have you never heard of Anarchist Catalonia, the strong hold of Anarchist Revolutionaries? (If you ever actually decide to look into '36 Spain, the Anarchists never actually took control of the workers. They, the workers, took control themselves of the factories, etc. that they worked at and the Anarchists sticking to their ideals stood strongly against taking control. Seriously, read up on the matter more than just what Wikipedia offers.) As for the Fascists, Capitalists, etc. they were all of the old Spain. When the Left began to take hold, they fled where they could and when Franco acted up they sided with him. It's not rocket science when it comes to this and where the Fascists, Capitalists, etc. all went and came.

And the reason it failed, was yes because of Stalinist betrayal, but that has nothing to do with the workers not having taken their own into their own hands, rather than have some Vanguard or elite group do it for them in '36 Spain.

Vanguards only achieve, like I said, to place one bad dude with another bad dude. When you have the workers themselves take control of where they work, there is no Vanguard. There is no middle man/Dictatorship of the Proletariate. It's the workers themselves doing what Anarchism and Communism try to achieve. (Of course, no true form of Communism has ever been done in Human history, but Anarchist Catalonia came pretty damn close. Closer than anywhere else in history... except for maybe the Paris Commune. Might like to take a look into the Paris Commune as well while you're at it.)

[AK]

If you're going to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariate, you're going to have a Vanguard. Russia, Vietnam, etc. are all examples of Vanguards and the Dictatorship of the Proletariate.

As for a transitional phase between capitalism and classless society, look at '36 Spain like I suggested. There, if you read into it, was an almost over night revolution of having classes one minute and the next, none at all. There is no need for this "middle man" Dictatorship of the Proletariate, only the Proletariate themselves taking charge. No middle man, no Vanguard, just the workers taking what's rightfully theirs and working it to better everyone, rather than just a select few.
This would be correct and a good example for the most part, but you fail to realise that:


The CNT was a vanguard and
The CNT actually participated in the government, so you could say the upper layers of the CNT became part of a strange new ruling class

[Magón]

This would be correct and a good example for the most part, but you fail to realise that:


The CNT was a vanguard and
The CNT actually participated in the government, so you could say the upper layers of the CNT became part of a strange new ruling class


How was the CNT a Vanguard when it was the workers who came to the Unions, took them and told them. If anything, the workers were the Vanguards in Spain, and the Trade Unions were the followers who just tried organizing the "vanguard". And the Anarchists refused to take part in the Government side of things, since that would be going against their Anarchist ways.

[Nolan]

Such as?

It should also be noted that reactionaries' bigoted ambitions would have a very hard chance of materialising post-revolution.

There will always be serial rapists, murderers, and others who prey on their equals for their own pleasure. There will always be the corrupt who take advantage of the trust of others when elected. Last but far from least, there will be those who seek to set themselves above their peers and extract wealth from their labor.

It is true that eventually this last problem will not be able to materialize, but first, working class rule must be consolidated. There is only one social tool, or weapon, that can do this.

[Obs]

Stalinism can mean anything from the USSR during the Stalin years to modern China. It's an obfuscatory term that Trots first employed to have a simple, easy to understand view of the world. Authoritarian? It must be Stalinist. Forget about what it has to do with Stalin.
Nazi Germany? Stalinist!

[AK]

There will always be serial rapists, murderers, and others who prey on their equals for their own pleasure.
...who must be rehabilitated in the appropriate medical institutions rather than be locked up.


There will always be the corrupt who take advantage of the trust of others when elected.
I don't buy into that whole "representative" democracy bullshit. Democracy involves decision-making power being given to everyone - representative democracy is a complete negation of that.


Last but far from least, there will be those who seek to set themselves above their peers and extract wealth from their labor.
I can't think how exactly someone would go about doing this without hierarchy in the workplace or any property rights.


It is true that eventually this last problem will not be able to materialize, but first, working class rule must be consolidated. There is only one social tool, or weapon, that can do this.
Oh let me guess, a state?

[Nolan]

I can't think how exactly someone would go about doing this without hierarchy in the workplace or any property rights.

Oh the working class fascists, theocrats, and plain old cappies you've just given power will take care of that. (unless you're STATIST AUTHORITARIANS! :scared:) Turns out there's nothing to stop them from toppling the soviets and establishing private property in the chaos after the revolution. All of this is assuming there isn't already an extremely long and bloody civil war. This is also assuming we don't also have reactionary foreign powers breathing down our necks.


Oh let me guess, a state?

Yes, a state.


I'll respond to the fetishism of the Spanish anarchists in the morning. Right now I need my Stalinist beauty sleep.

[pranabjyoti]

Explain to me exactly how anarchism and Trotskyism are aligned with the class interests of the petit-bourgeoisie. I'd really like to know if you actually have a point or if you're just spewing out dogma and making baseless claims.
Basically anarchy is totally a petty-bourgeoisie ideology. Why? First, it opposed the state, because IN NO CONDITION THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE CAN BE THE RULING CLASS. Why? Because of inherent nature of petty-bourgeoisie itself. It isn't a stable class and lacks the very basic characteristics of a class. Both bourgeoisie and proletariat are solidly united in class interest but a petty-bourgeoisie is alone and all petty-bourgeoisie are basically enemies of each other. A classic character of a petty-bourgeoisie it that, it always tried to raise itself to the status of bourgeoisie but fallen to the status of proletariat. Treachery is the basic characteristic of its nature.
And for this reason described above, it can not solidify into a class and take the control of state. That's why instead of the ruling class, the state become the enemy. This is the very essence of anarchy.
To an anarchist, all state and all class are equal. In fact, this mentality ultimately ends at reactionary petty-bourgeoisie individualism. IF ALL ARE EQUAL, THEN IT'S BETTER TO THINK OF FOR ONESELF.

[AK]

Basically anarchy is totally a petty-bourgeoisie ideology. Why? First, it opposed the state, because IN NO CONDITION THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE CAN BE THE RULING CLASS. Why? Because of inherent nature of petty-bourgeoisie itself. It isn't a stable class and lacks the very basic characteristics of a class. Both bourgeoisie and proletariat are solidly united in class interest but a petty-bourgeoisie is alone and all petty-bourgeoisie are basically enemies of each other. A classic character of a petty-bourgeoisie it that, it always tried to raise itself to the status of bourgeoisie but fallen to the status of proletariat. Treachery is the basic characteristic of its nature.
And for this reason described above, it can not solidify into a class and take the control of state. That's why instead of the ruling class, the state become the enemy. This is the very essence of anarchy.
To an anarchist, all state and all class are equal. In fact, this mentality ultimately ends at reactionary petty-bourgeoisie individualism. IF ALL ARE EQUAL, THEN IT'S BETTER TO THINK OF FOR ONESELF.
You're comparing two very different things: an ideology and a social class. Not only that, but you are failing at it. Hypothetically, the petit-bourgeoisie could have become the ruling class if its mode of production was the dominant one, no? Sadly, you fail to see this simple point yet you claim to be a Marxist. And you talk of the petit-bourgeoisie as a class, but you also claim it "cannot solidify into a class".

In fact, more than anything else, you gave me an unclear and obscure analogy. What you forgot to do is explain to me how abolishing private property rights and social hierarchy ties in perfectly with the class interests of the petit-bourgeoisie, whose very existence depends upon private property and social hierarchy.

Also, take off that caps lock. You're not making your point any clearer or any more valid.

[Amphictyonis]

Russia shouldn't be looked at as some prime example of communism, especially Stalinist Russia. At no time was Russia communist- it was doomed from the start due to the fact communism cannot develop in an isolated nation and especially one which hadnt developed through advanced capitalism first.

Russia, even with all it's problems, did have the potential to become an advanced communist nation but not unless the west went socialist as well. Ignoring the hierarchical environment the Russian revolution was premature.

[#FF0000]

Russia shouldn't be looked at as some prime example of communism, especially Stalinist Russia. At no time was Russia communist- it was doomed from the start due to the fact communism cannot develop in an isolated nation and especially one which hadnt developed through advanced capitalism first.

Russia, even with all it's problems, did have the potential to become an advanced communist nation but not unless the west went socialist as well. Ignoring the hierarchical environment the Russian revolution was premature.

Well if that's the case, and revolutions can only happen in advanced capitalist countries, then why have they, thus far, only happened in less developed capitalist countries?

[Amphictyonis]

Well if that's the case, and revolutions can only happen in advanced capitalist countries, then why have they, thus far, only happened in less developed capitalist countries?

It's not that revolutions can't happen it's just they won't end up in advanced communism. You cant have communism in one country. The revolution needs to be global- not necessarily simultaneous but at least in a domino effect if advanced communism is ever to manifest.

Advanced communism could manifest in a nation that hasn't been through the capitalist phase if other industrialized nations were communist. This is going to end up in a long discussion :)

I come from the Marxist viewpoint before he was, well, changed into something he was not by Lenin, Stalin and others.

[#FF0000]

Yeah I'm not disagreeing on whether or not socialism in one country is possible. I'm just saying, every socialist revolution that succeeded in establishing a new government has taken place in "backwards" countries.

[Amphictyonis]

Yeah I'm not disagreeing on whether or not socialism in one country is possible. I'm just saying, every socialist revolution that succeeded in establishing a new government has taken place in "backwards" countries.

Perhaps that's the problem. :)

[#FF0000]

Perhaps that's the problem. :)

I don't know. I kind of doubt that's the problem. Anyway, I think the whole "revolution can only happen in this exact situation" is extremely mechanistic. I don't think it's out of the question that socialism can be built in these developing countries. It's certainly far more difficult, but, I don't think, out of the question.

[Prairie Fire]

Very few are responding to the original post, and now there is a side conversation about infantile leftism, and wonderful stateless societies that were so de-centralized that they were easily crushed by reactionary forces (in this case, Francos fascists), who have no objections to centralism.

Anyways, back to the matter at hand.

"Stalinism" ,as many have pointed out, is a term rarely used by those that are politically within the camp of J.V. Stalin.

With the exception of a few statements by Kagonovich, and this or that party in various countries, over-all those who include the theoretical and practical historical applications of J.V. Stalin in their political make up refer to themselves more generally as "Marxist-Leninists" and also often "Anti-revisionists" ( in response to liquidationist trends upon the scene of the workers movement).

So, the term "Stalinist" is almost invariably a pejorative ( unless placed in the hands of a more infantile organization/individual, that refers to themselves by such a handle).

In terms of theory, "Stalinism" is basically the defense and perpetuation of Marxism-Leninism, and it's adaptation to contemporary circumstances.

Josef Vissarionovich Stalin's specific additions were generally practical application, but also work on national minorities, linguistics,economics, etc.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

Historically speaking, "Stalinism" not only upholds the legacy of it's predecessors, but encompasses the Soviet Union ( and the international communist movement) before and during the period when Stalin was general secretary of the CPSU, but also includes the history of socialist development in Albania from 1945- the late 1980's, and to a limited extent it is often associated with the PRC during the Mao era, as well as fraternal parties in all countries.

Contemporary "Stalinism" generally encompasses various tendencies:

A. Hoxhaists (objective and subjective). This trend is linked to the theory and practice of the Albanian party of Labour and their fraternal parties around the world, which basically picked up where Stalin left off, and continued the on-going analysis.

B. Maoists. Generally considered to share most traits of anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism and the achievements of the USSR 1925-1954, but unfortunately later additions (often by Mao himself) often negated/contradicted many of Maoisms nominal predecessors. Due to the ecclectic nature of Maoism, there is also a persistent tendency within Maoism towards complete negation of the contributions and historical legacy of J.V. Stalin, which in many contemporary Maoist organizations has resulted in the complete liquidation of Stalin alltogether, so it does vary from organization to organization.

B. Brezhnevites, AKA "Tankies". This trend typifies the "I'm okay, you're okay" pan-socialists, most of which are united by their identification with being in favour of socialism implented by external military intervention (hence the name "Tankies"). For this reason, several have a fondness for the persona attributed to Stalin, which they erroneously associate as the epitome of tank brigade socialism. Again, because of the ecclectic nature and inconsistency of this trend, they often find themselves completely negating any additions that they may have incorporated from J.V.Stalin. Also, due to lack of consistency, many within this trend reject Stalin altogether.



Above are some of those that seriously trace their theoretical lineage to Stalin, among others (myself included).

For the most part though, from both left-opportunists and venemous rightists alike, "Stalinism" is a quick word to demonize anything that you disagree with. For example, most contemporary Trotskyists characterize the Soviet Union from death of Stalin up until it was dismantled (and their fraternal parties during the same period) as "Stalinist", despite the complete lack of similarity in political lines, economic organization and policies, foriegn policy,domestic policy, Marixst-Leninist theory and application, etc, etc.

As for "how to fight it", persynally you are starting the discussion at a premature point, and framing the answers within the perimeters of your own preconceptions.

To facilitate discussion more fully, a better question would be "Should it be fought?" and "If so, why? If not, why not?"

I understand that you are using the dominant narrative that you are accustomed to as your starting point, but in Marxist analysis, that is never a good idea. You need to gather the historical facts on the CPSU circa 1924-1954, and all of their fraternal parties around the world mantaining similar lines all the way until the present day, and then come to what conclusions you will.

As a fervently anti-Stalin teenager, the conclusion that I came to after much digging and immersing myself in study, was that the "Stalinists" were not something to be fought, but those that I should throw my hat into the ring with. I did just that, and have been coming from this perspective ever since.

If you are still unclear, or have questions, send me a message.

[Amphictyonis]

I don't know. I kind of doubt that's the problem. Anyway, I think the whole "revolution can only happen in this exact situation" is extremely mechanistic. I don't think it's out of the question that socialism can be built in these developing countries. It's certainly far more difficult, but, I don't think, out of the question.

Socialism is different from advanced communism. There hasn't been any advanced industrial communist nations partly because, as you said, the socialist revolutions have happened in backwards countries.

Engels and Marx always said capitalism was a necessary step in the "chain" towards socialism/communism (historical materialism).

[What Would Durruti Do?]

yay another thread for the brownshirts to laugh at

RevLeft never disappoints with the lulz

[#FF0000]

Yeah I'm sort of tired of spamming in Learning threads. Infractions all around!

[black magick hustla]

more or less, the legacy of third period comintern which includes but does not limit itself to, social patriotism, parliamentarism, popular front (i.e. alliance with left factions of the boss class), socialism in one country, communist parties as arms of realpolitik for so called socialist states, massive liquidation of oppositional factions within parties, voluntarism (the idea that socialism can be achieved through a coup of hard militants), the idea that the working class is not a revolutionary agent, etcetera

[∞]

Theres no way to fight, these anti-academic kids will always fetish him.

[#FF0000]

Theres no way to fight, these anti-academic kids will always fetish him.

This is such a worthless post.

[∞]

I'm sorry dear leader...

[Queercommie Girl]

You realise that the PSL are the worst type of tankies????


I critically support the PSL, I don't give them full support. But I wouldn't go as far as calling them a "tankie" party.

Not everyone who disagrees with the Maoist line that the post-Stalin USSR is totally social-imperialist and capitalist is necessarily a "tankie".



Communism is the negation of democracy....

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism4.htm#communism_dem

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism8.htm#mythdemo

And thats from Left Coms and not Stalinists....

There is more than one type of "democracy". Bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy are fundamentally different.

Trotskyists aren't even the only ones who talk about worker's democracy. There was an article written by a Left Maoist in China titled "Without complete democracy, socialism is surely to be betrayed". Workers need a democratic means to supervise and control their party leaders to prevent corruption and waste in the system.

[mosfeld]

I critically support the PSL, I don't give them full support. But I wouldn't go as far as calling them a "tankie" party.
They do support the Soviet Union after the revisionist takeover and it's imperialist policies in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Angola, etc. I don't see why It's not a fitting label.

[Queercommie Girl]

They do support the Soviet Union after the revisionist takeover and it's imperialist policies in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Angola, etc. I don't see why It's not a fitting label.

I don't think USSR policies in Afghanistan were imperialist. No more than PRC policies in Xinjiang and Tibet. From a feminist perspective, Soviet Afghanistan were much more genderally equal than Islamic Afghanistan, and that's a progress.

I don't automatically support every "national liberation" movement, that's taking Third Worldism too far IMO. I'd actually support the socialist invasion of a country provided that it is genuinely on the side of the workers and the peasantry and against the national (and often religious) bourgeois. I oppose rather than support "national liberation" movements that are initiated by bourgeois and landlords, like the pro-independence activists in Xinjiang and Tibet today. National rights are not unconditional.

What I consider as imperialist would be the crushing of the worker's movement in Eastern Europe during the same period.

[Reznov]

Then the Soviet Union was just 'bad'?

No, it was just Stalinist.

[AK]

I'd actually support the socialist invasion of a country provided that it is genuinely on the side of the workers and the peasantry and against the national (and often religious) bourgeois.
Hang on, how does this fit in which the idea of workers' self-government and democratic management of the economy? Letting in foreign armies (which will in turn let in more) will just give us another Russia.

[mosfeld]

I don't think USSR policies in Afghanistan were imperialist. No more than PRC policies in Xinjiang and Tibet. Comrades shouldn't be so gullible to think that the USSR's foreign policy in the Brezhnev era was in any sense motivated by the defense of socialism. Realize that the USSR around this time was neither a progressive country nor a socialist one, but an imperialist country with imperialist motives, under the mask of "socialism". Socialists wouldn't consider the USA's war in Afghanistan to be a war against terrorism when it's so clearly imperialist, the same as we should not believe that a social-imperialist country would invade another country with socialist motives.

As for Tibet, it was not an invasion, but a revolution. If you're interested, you can read the Kasama article "The Maoist Revolution in Tibet (http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/)". Im not as well read on Xinjiang.


From a feminist perspective, Soviet Afghanistan were much more genderally equal than Islamic Afghanistan, and that's a progress. Social-imperialism cannot by its very nature be progressive.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hang on, how does this fit in which the idea of workers' self-government and democratic management of the economy? Letting in foreign armies (which will in turn let in more) will just give us another Russia.

Worker's self-government doesn't mean you can't receive help from armed foreign workers. Self-emancipation doesn't imply you refuse other people's help. What's with this cowboy mentality of "doing everything yourself"? What if you really need help?

Say you are trying to establish worker's self-government in Australia, but the ruling capitalists constantly crush you down. Now as an elected worker's leader I send 300,000 armed Chinese worker volunteers into Australia and militarily crush your capitalist government. After this I help you with establishing your democratic worker's government, then I return to China. I do not oppress you in any way because we have a class-based fraternal bond. Technically this is an "invasion" but would you rather toil under your own Australian capitalist rulers and refuse armed assistance from your proletarian Chinese brothers and sisters?

[Queercommie Girl]

Comrades shouldn't be so gullible to think that the USSR's foreign policy in the Brezhnev era was in any sense motivated by the defense of socialism. Realize that the USSR around this time was neither a progressive country nor a socialist one, but an imperialist country with imperialist motives, under the mask of "socialism". Socialists wouldn't consider the USA's war in Afghanistan to be a war against terrorism when it's so clearly imperialist, the same as we should not believe that a social-imperialist country would invade another country with socialist motives.


I think labelling revisionist USSR as completely capitalist and social-imperialist is a mistake. To be sure, it was highly deformed, but it was still a transitional state from socialism to capitalism. A counter-revolution cannot occur overnight.



As for Tibet, it was not an invasion, but a revolution. If you're interested, you can read the Kasama article "The Maoist Revolution in Tibet (http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/)". Im not as well read on Xinjiang.
Perhaps, but even it was an "invasion", it was still largely a proletarian invasion and hence progressive. Who ever said anything about socialists shouldn't invade any other countries? National rights aren't unconditional. What if it's a proletarian army that forcefully overthrows the bourgeois and landlords in another country? How can that be not progressive?



Social-imperialism cannot by its very nature be progressive.But that's being dogmatic. In terms of objective consequences, the USSR and the USA in Afghanistan obviously aren't the same. The revisionist USSR may be highly deformed, but it was still superior to the imperialist USA by a mile. Soviet Afghanistan initiated many relatively progressive economic and social policies, American Afghanistan is now a completely degenerated tribal theocratic mess. There is simply no comparison.

How can you dogmatically deny the progressive gains acquired by Afghan women during the Soviet period for example? Are you suggesting that we should sacrifice the rights of our class sisters in the name of some abstract banner of "national rights" as promoted by the religious national bourgeois?

[bricolage]

What does "anti-state" mean? Marxists view the state as a tool of class rule.
The vulgar equation of the state as 'class rule' or 'physical force' owes more to the Weberian conception and Leninist theoretical mutilation than it does to anything 'Marxist'. Marx certainly didn't have such a reductionist and ultimately useless definition of the state.

[chegitz guevara]

I'd rather be fighting capitalism.

[chegitz guevara]

The vulgar equation of the state as 'class rule' or 'physical force' owes more to the Weberian conception and Leninist theoretical mutilation than it does to anything 'Marxist'. Marx certainly didn't have such a reductionist and ultimately useless definition of the state.

"The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committe for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." -- Karl Marx, 1847, The Communist Manifesto.

[revolution inaction]

I'd rather be fighting capitalism.

in north korea you can do both at once :D

[bricolage]

"The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committe for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." -- Karl Marx, 1847, The Communist Manifesto.
Yes he says that class rule is administered through the state, this does not mean the state is solely synonymous with class rule, or rather that working class rule is solely synonymous with a 'workers state'. For example if you read his comments on the Paris Commune he positions it as a direct revolution *against* the state structure itself, the subordination of state power, not the recreation of the 'modern state', only a different class sitting in the executive.

[redasheville]

Yes he says that class rule is administered through the state, this does not mean the state is solely synonymous with class rule, or rather that working class rule is solely synonymous with a 'workers state'. For example if you read his comments on the Paris Commune he positions it as a direct revolution *against* the state structure itself, the subordination of state power, not the recreation of the 'modern state', only a different class sitting in the executive.

That is also what Lenin says in The State and Revolution, i.e. that the state created by the workers is a "semi-state" (in other words, not a "recreation of the 'modern state'). You should (re)read it.

[Lyev]

Communism is the negation of democracy...What definition are you using here? I have heard Moshe Machover, founder of Matzpen, talks of two kinds of democracy. Firstly as a type of state; a liberal would say "the USSR didn't uphold human rights, whilst western democracies did". This is sort of "democracy", where decision-making is limited, and is effected negatively by corruption, bribing etc. - you vote for someone to (mis)represent you every 4 or 5 years - this is what communists are opposed to. On the other hand, democracy defined as decision-making, having a say in how society is run, loosely is communism. As Machover says, communism, in a round about way, is simply extending democracy from the political sphere into the economic sphere.

[redasheville]

When Marx/Engels/Lenin talk of the negation of democracy via communism, their understanding of "democracy" is a form of governance. Communism is the negation of democracy because collective functioning of a classless society becomes so second nature to people, that formally constituted democratic institutions will no longer need to exist.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think the debate around the term "state" here is degenerating into a petty semantical one.

So if we substitute the term "state" by the term "commune" in every single document we use, what concrete difference does that make?

Better yet, why not use an non-English word altogether to avoid vulgar association with existing concepts, like "soviet" or the Chinese term "gong-she"?

[Queercommie Girl]

When Marx/Engels/Lenin talk of the negation of democracy via communism, their understanding of "democracy" is a form of governance. Communism is the negation of democracy because collective functioning of a classless society becomes so second nature to people, that formally constituted democratic institutions will no longer need to exist.

I think there will always need to be some kind of formalism in the way the worker's democracy operates. Socialism after all is not a biological/genetic trait in humans, it is a socially acquired trait. No matter how advanced we become, socialist democracy will never literally become a "natural instinct".

The key in the matter of "communism rejecting democracy" is that democracy is fundamentally class-based due to the fact that political superstructures like democracy are fundamentally underpinned by economic base. Therefore not only are proletarian democracy and bourgeois democracy not the same, they are in a sense directly opposite of each other. Bourgeois freedom implies the freedom to run a business to exploit workers, proletarian freedom implies the freedom to free from such a kind of exploitation. Therefore the more bourgeois-democratic a state becomes, in the economic sense the less proletarian-democratic the state is, and vice versa. In a state where workers are completely free, capitalists would have absolutely no freedom because they can't even exist.

Just as the proletarian class is opposed to the bourgeois class, so proletarian democracy is fundamentally opposed to bourgeois democracy. It is senseless to talk about an abstract concept like "democracy" without considering which economic class it is based on. Democracy is not universalistic.

[bricolage]

I think the debate around the term "state" here is degenerating into a petty semantical one.
To an extent I agree in that I don't think there has ever been a coherent anarchist conception of the state, nor do I think Marx was ever fully clear on it, nor do I think most 'Marxists' really pay that much attention to what Marx said (For the record this is a good article on Marx and the state; http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html). In this way what certain council communists or certain left communists mean by 'state', 'semi-state', 'council-state' or whatever is probably quite similar to what a lot of anarchists mean by 'stateless', this being a big generalisation of course. A good point of reference is the Paris Commune as 'the political form at last discovered' but also worth noting that while Engels specifically calls it the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' he also comments it 'ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term'. Likewise Marx describes it as 'a Revolution against the State itself... a Revolution to break down this horrid machinery of Class domination itself'. In some ways this is remarkably similar to Bakunin's view of the Commune as a 'clearly formulated negation of the state'. That being said later interpretations of this by various Leninist strands, as well as various entities supported as supposed 'workers state', completely betray this analysis. Furthermore the conflation of 'socialism' or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and a 'workers state' is another move away from here.

Additionally the assertion that a state is solely physical rule, or even as I've seen it written here the state is defined by repression, any form of repression thus being a state, is purely ridiculous. Any acceptable conception of the state has to move beyond this vulgar reductionism (I also don't think what Marx said on the state is really gospel even without the later butchering of his work) and take account of both the social relations of the structure(s) as well as its institutional requirements. I'd like to say I have a complete definition of what this is but I don't, I think the work of Holloway and Piccioto on the social relations of the state is a good starting point though; http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpholloway.htm

I think there is also the problem in that if we say what the state comprises of now we are still yet to reach a point at which we can say the extent to which this has to be altered that something could be said to not be a state. We talk about hierarchy but what do we mean by non-hierarchical? We talk about centralisation but what do we mean be decentralised? When do the councils become a state? etc etc. Questions and questions but no answers.

Despite all this though I think we can tell more about the political direction of someone or some group by what historical and present entities (if any) the regard as acceptable models of political governance than if they use the word state or not. In my opinion most people on this forum cross over to the other side not by harking on about states but by their support for reactionary, exploitative capitalist states masquerading as 'socialist'.


Better yet, why not use an non-English word altogether to avoid vulgar association with existing concepts, like "soviet" or the Chinese term "gong-she"?I'm sure soviet has more vulgar associations than commune.

[Delenda Carthago]

Stalinism is a thing of the 20th century.And you fight it by living in the 21st...

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm sure soviet has more vulgar associations than commune.

Maybe we should invent a new term for the socialist/communist state/non-state. :cool:

[Queercommie Girl]

Despite all this though I think we can tell more about the political direction of someone or some group by what historical and present entities (if any) the regard as acceptable models of political governance than if they use the word state or not. In my opinion most people on this forum cross over to the other side not by harking on about states but by their support for reactionary, exploitative capitalist states masquerading as 'socialist'.


The thing to note is that there exists transitional states in many cases - those that are neither genuinely socialist nor genuinely capitalist, but inhabiting the "grey area" in between, what Trotskyists call the deformed or degenerated worker's states.

The real world is complex, and most things (including even things like "male" and "female") are simply not black-and-white.

[bricolage]

Maybe we should invent a new term for the socialist/communist state/non-state. :cool:
To be honest there are bigger things holding back communism than the language used by communists.


The thing to note is that there exists transitional states in many cases - those that are neither genuinely socialist nor genuinely capitalist, but inhabiting the "grey area" in between, what Trotskyists call the deformed or degenerated worker's states.
I have to disagree here, such examples of 'transitional states' are invariably capitalist entities masquerading under socialist rhetoric. More to the point I don't think this grey area even exists, where it is claimed it does it is usual to make excuses for supporting capitalist states.

Unlike 'man' and 'woman', capitalism is not a social construct but a material reality of social relations.

[Zanthorus]

I have to disagree here, such examples of 'transitional states' are invariably capitalist entities masquerading under socialist rhetoric.

If we're talking about the fSU and it's sattelites, then they were certainly not 'capitalist entities', civil society had been entirely swallowed up by political society.

[Palingenisis]

If we're talking about the fSU and it's sattelites, then they were certainly not 'capitalist entities', civil society had been entirely swallowed up by political society.

Im not sure you can generalize about them....They didnt all have the same economic structures.

[Antifa94]

BAHAHAH what an inflammatory thread topic

[bricolage]

If we're talking about the fSU and it's sattelites, then they were certainly not 'capitalist entities', civil society had been entirely swallowed up by political society.
Why does that mean they weren't capitalist? What you describe isn't unique to the Soviet Union.

[4 Leaf Clover]

What is Stalinism? Why is it bad? How do we fight it?
stalinism is term invented by trotsky and developed by kruschev. its bad cause it gives socialism bad name. you can't fight it cause it doesn't exist

[Zanthorus]

Why does that mean they weren't capitalist?

For capitalism to exist, you need a market, you need exchange between autonomous production units. The economy of the fSU chugged along according to a common plan, therefore it wasn't capitalist. I posted some slightly more detailed thoughts on why the fSU wasn't capitalist or 'state-capitalist' here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1848501&postcount=22).

[RedTrackWorker]

I'm going to take Nin's second post first:

the Anarchists refused to take part in the Government side of things, since that would be going against their Anarchist ways.
They refused to take power at the initial stage of the revolt, but they joined at least the bourgeois government in Catalonia months later, which is how the POUM justified joining it. That government disbanded various institutions of workers' power in the region. So AK is right that their upper lays began to play a ruling class role toward the movement by doing this.


And the reason it failed, was yes because of Stalinist betrayal, but that has nothing to do with the workers not having taken their own into their own hands, rather than have some Vanguard or elite group do it for them in '36 Spain.

But the question then is: Why could they be betrayed by the Stalinists? If the workers don't need the vanguard or a workers' state, then what, they just weren't good enough to stand up against the Spanish CP which at the beginning of the revolution essentially nothing? By focusing only on the spontaneous actions of the workers you blame them for their defeats. Winning the Spanish revolution required things like agitating for Morocco's freedom, factories to the workers, land to the tiller, etc. I'm sure plenty of workers thought these things and agreed with them, but how were they going to make them happen? Why didn't they happen? I think it's because the existing political parties (including the CNT leadership as a kind of party) tied themselves to the capitalist order, and so they turned away a Moroccan revolutionaries request for their support to agitate against Franco in Morocco.
And how would these policies have been opposed? By organizing people who agreed with fighting those political policies for the policy of social revolution. What is this other than a revolutionary party, a vanguard, a selection of the workers who understand the need for revolution and the need to fight centrists and reformists for leadership of the workers' movement?
Without this kind of work, how do you propose to prevent further such betrayals?

[Nolan]

Next topic: How do we find the witches and satanists in our ranks?

[AK]

Worker's self-government doesn't mean you can't receive help from armed foreign workers. Self-emancipation doesn't imply you refuse other people's help. What's with this cowboy mentality of "doing everything yourself"? What if you really need help?

Say you are trying to establish worker's self-government in Australia, but the ruling capitalists constantly crush you down. Now as an elected worker's leader I send 300,000 armed Chinese worker volunteers into Australia and militarily crush your capitalist government. After this I help you with establishing your democratic worker's government, then I return to China. I do not oppress you in any way because we have a class-based fraternal bond. Technically this is an "invasion" but would you rather toil under your own Australian capitalist rulers and refuse armed assistance from your proletarian Chinese brothers and sisters?
We'll just see if that turns out to be another Russia, then.

[AK]

in north korea you can do both at once :D
I wouldn't be so quick to label North Korea as "Stalinist".

[Reznov]

next topic: How do we find the witches and satanists in our ranks?

hang the stalinists! We have proof they are evil and have been corrupting the left!

[Amphictyonis]

The only way you would have to "fight Stalinism" is if you were in a non industrial war torn society in the process of becoming socialist. Stalinist conditions couldnt take hold in an advanced capitalist nation. Fascism could....if western nations are to go socialist it will be a different path than the one Stalin tried to forge.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I wouldn't be so quick to label North Korea as "Stalinist".

This is true. Even the conditions of Stalinist Russia aren't as bad as North Korea.

[Jazzhands]

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism

Was that so hard?

[Palingenisis]

This is true. Even the conditions of Stalinist Russia aren't as bad as North Korea.

And where did you learn this oh wise one? Fox? CNN?

Remember about when Amnesty International were caught lying by the World Health Organization about conditions in DPRK?

[Apoi_Viitor]

And where did you learn this oh wise one? Fox? CNN?

Remember about when Amnesty International were caught lying by the World Health Organization about conditions in DPRK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1oUd89QvGo&feature=related

finally, I never get tired of posting this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA

[Who?]

What is Stalinism? Why is it bad? How do we fight it?

Stalinism is a term used to describe the beliefs of certain Marxists whom the user of the term does not agree with. (Usually those who advocate policies similar to those of Stalin era USSR, thus the origin of the term)

It isn't bad because it doesn't really mean anything.

We can't fight Stalinism because it doesn't really exist.

[Palingenisis]

l1oUd89QvGo

finally, I never get tired of posting this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA

Nice one....Considering that you come from the nation that partioned their homeland and butchered and raped so many of their people....I so trust the western media to give a fair picture of the DPRK...NOT!

[Apoi_Viitor]

Nice one....Considering that you come from the nation that partioned their homeland and butchered and raped so many of their people....I so trust the western media to give a fair picture of the DPRK...NOT!

Ah yes, I am directly responsible for the Korean War. But really, the US has implemented policies which have directly killed millions of people, there's no denying that. But North Korea has also done the same (sure Kim's killed less people than the US, but he's pretty efficient at it - considering North Korea is a lot smaller and less developed). What's the latest statistic now - South Koreans are 5 times richer than their North Korean equivalents. It's not Kim's fault though, he needs to be spending so much on maintaining his vastly over sized military - as more and more North Koreans are realizing that even capitalism, is better than what they have now.

[Palingenisis]

Ah yes, I am directly responsible for the Korean War. But really, the US has implemented policies which have directly killed millions of people, there's no denying that. But North Korea has also done the same (sure Kim's killed less people than the US, but he's pretty efficient at it - considering North Korea is a lot smaller and less developed). What's the latest statistic now - South Koreans are 5 times richer than their North Korean equivalents. It's not Kim's fault though, he needs to be spending so much on maintaining his vastly over sized military - as more and more North Koreans are realizing that even capitalism, is better than what they have now.

You do realise that the AmeriKian war against the Korean people never officially ended?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/04/113_22029.html

34 per cent of those going into the ARMY in southern Korea consider the United $naKKKes the main enemy...Imagine what that percentage is among the general population anarKKKidist?

[Palingenisis]

Thank you....The video on the DPRK gave me some real insight into the sick nature of the Imperialist imagination.

[Apoi_Viitor]

You do realise that the AmeriKKKian war against the Korean people never officially ended?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/04/113_22029.html

34 per cent of those going into the ARMY in southern Korea consider the United $naKKKes the main enemy...Imagine what that percentage is among the general population anarKKKidist?

I don't get the KKK reference. I'm not racist, in fact I like the North Korean working class, and I would prefer to see them not brutally tortured and raped.

And yes, I know that statistic. But, I mean, generally, the majority of the world hates the US, and for good reason. I think virtually all of Revleft would agree with the statement that "The US' foreign policy is primarily imperialistic and anti-working class".

However, focusing on the (quite numerous) anti-humanitarian policies of the US, doesn't make North Korean's cruel and depraved domestic policies dissapear. You can't just respond with "The United States killed thousands of Koreans", every time I criticize North Korea. Similarly, your dismissal of testimonies by North Korean citizens, as merely "imperialist propaganda" is just as sick, as when Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals mocked the testimonies of the early victims of Khemer Rhouge.

[Magón]

I'm going to take Nin's second post first:

They refused to take power at the initial stage of the revolt, but they joined at least the bourgeois government in Catalonia months later, which is how the POUM justified joining it. That government disbanded various institutions of workers' power in the region. So AK is right that their upper lays began to play a ruling class role toward the movement by doing this.

The POUM had joined from the very beginning, with Andres Nin being apart of the Generalitat as Councilor of Justice in the Catalonian Government. The leaders of the CNT never officially joined the Republican Government, but more less what we call working with in bettering people in Catalonia, etc. This was done by the CNT-FAI saying, rather than declaring things should be done this specific way. If that's being apart of the government, rather than just giving advice and other ideas to how things should go, then fine, say what you will. But the CNT-FAI realized that it was better to work along side, rather than working separately from the Republican Government. Both were Left, so why shouldn't they work to oust Franco, etc. from taking power?

By your idea, anything would be a Vanguard really. But in this case, it's not a Vanguard. Couldn't be.


But the question then is: Why could they be betrayed by the Stalinists? If the workers don't need the vanguard or a workers' state, then what, they just weren't good enough to stand up against the Spanish CP which at the beginning of the revolution essentially nothing? By focusing only on the spontaneous actions of the workers you blame them for their defeats.

Because the Anarchists didn't learn from past mistakes when dealing with Stalinists. You fail to realize or state, the PSUC at the time of the Revolution (and before) was backed by the USSR. With the USSR/Stalin's lack of involving other Leftist groups in Revolution, he threatened through the PSUC, the Republican Government in telling them that no more planes, guns, etc. would be sent to Spain if they didn't get a handle on the Anarchists, POUM, etc. who weren't apart or specifically friendly for the most part with the PSUC, and were the head of the Spanish Revolution, unlike the PSUC, which like you said was essentially nothing.

I don't see where I blame the workers themselves, for being defeated, it's a sad point in history that they were, but with the Republican Government stronger than the workers were, with Soviet backing, there was really nothing they could do. The May Day fightings were an example of what would happen if the two sides fought each other, which in and of itself was bad because Franco gained much ground after that and the divide grew bigger. I don't blame the workers at all, I blame those in charge and who were simply blackmailed by outside forces, who really knew nothing of the more inner workings of Spain's political atmosphere.


Winning the Spanish revolution required things like agitating for Morocco's freedom, factories to the workers, land to the tiller, etc. I'm sure plenty of workers thought these things and agreed with them, but how were they going to make them happen? Why didn't they happen? I think it's because the existing political parties (including the CNT leadership as a kind of party) tied themselves to the capitalist order, and so they turned away a Moroccan revolutionaries request for their support to agitate against Franco in Morocco.
And how would these policies have been opposed? By organizing people who agreed with fighting those political policies for the policy of social revolution. What is this other than a revolutionary party, a vanguard, a selection of the workers who understand the need for revolution and the need to fight centrists and reformists for leadership of the workers' movement?
Without this kind of work, how do you propose to prevent further such betrayals?

Sure, the Moroccan workers could have helped, but they didn't. They didn't have the strive and will that the Spaniards/Catalonians did at the time. If they had, they could have done it themselves like the workers in Spain did by going to the Trade Unions. I don't blame the Moroccans for not doing anything, they just didn't have the strive like the Spaniards/Catalonians did. If they had, they could have done it themselves. Sure the Trade Unions, etc. could have done something to help, but Franco was at the time moving towards them with his forces, and with such a force that the Leftists did, and with such a determined and strongly backed force (Nazi Germany/Fascist Italy backing Franco remember with planes, bombs, troops, etc.) They had to focus their current task with trying to stem Franco and his forces from taking back Spain. I'm sure that if Franco had been properly stopped/halted, and the USSR hadn't acted as it did in such a childish way, the Trade Unions and such could have gone to Morocco and gotten their aid. But it just wasn't possible with such a force coming at their door step. I don't blame the workers, only the leaders.

As for preventing such betrayals from happening again, I say that we learn from historic mistakes, and rather than work so closely to those who've betrayed, we work autonomously from them. Working towards the same goals of course, but going about that goal in whichever manner best fits the workers. Such as in Greece nowadays. The best Leftist group to lead a revolution in Greece, is the Anarchists, not the KKE or anyone else who's there, but doesn't have such a strong backing and support of the people. In places like Nepal, India, etc. the best seems to be the Marxist than say Anarchists, Left Communists, etc. Working together for the same goal, but working where our ideologies are most appealing to the workers without any other group/ideology butting their heads in, trying to take over the situation. That would/is counter productive/reactionary when it comes right down to it.

[RedTrackWorker]

In my reply to Nin, my main concern was to point out the need for a revolutionary party whose theory can lead a revolution to success, and said as a corollary that to say this is not needed means that the masses are responsible for their own defeats rather than the centrist and reformist politics of the leaders of the mass organizations and workers' parties.
Nin says:

I don't see where I blame the workers themselves, for being defeated
And then later says:

Sure, the Moroccan workers could have helped, but they didn't. They didn't have the strive and will that the Spaniards/Catalonians did at the time. If they had, they could have done it themselves like the workers in Spain did by going to the Trade Unions. I don't blame the Moroccans for not doing anything, they just didn't have the strive like the Spaniards/Catalonians did. If they had, they could have done it themselves
Blaming while saying he's not blaming. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what I meant by blame. Nin says he doesn't "blame" the Moroccans but does say that the reason they didn't fight was due to their own internal strength--which is what I call blaming. I say they didn't fight because there was a civil war in Spain and the leaders of both sides were for Spain oppressing Morocco!

Then there's just confusion with this:

The POUM had joined from the very beginning, with Andres Nin being apart of the Generalitat as Councilor of Justice in the Catalonian Government. The leaders of the CNT never officially joined the Republican Government

So Nin joined from the "very beginning" (actually September I believe) which is... when the CNT joined! Quoting from an anarchist website (i can't post links yet I think, just google the quote):

Meanwhile, on the 3rd of September, issue 41 of the CNT-FAI information bulletin had published a violently anti-statist article, but in mid September the national plenum of the regional organisations proclaimed the necessity of participation in "a national body equipped to assume functions of leadership" this body being a "national council of defence" composed of 5 delegates of the CNT, 5 from the UGT and 4 "republicans", under the presidency of Largo Caballero. Certainly, the replacement of the ancient institutions by regional councils of defence, in a way that was called federalist was declared, but everything, including the representation of the organisations in the councils, was decided by the leaders of these organisations, and did not rise out of popular assemblies and their delegates. It was a real party power which was put in place. Public power was going to be wielded by Largo Caballero and his ministers who were modestly called "councillers".

So I guess the CNT leaders did join "from the very beginning" too? And that is after all how the POUM justified joining. Victor Alba (POUM CCer) said that to not join would've been seen as an implicit criticism of the CNT (and I guess they wouldn't want to hurt their feelings over something as trifling as crossing the class line to disband workers' councils?)

And revleft-Nin calls this just giving advice, when what it meant was his namesake going around to armed workers' councils and convincing them to disarm and cede power to "proper" (read: bourgeois) municipal councils.

From Victor Alba's book:

On September 8, Nin declared that in Catalunya the dictatorship of the proletariat already virtually existed. On September 27, "La Battala" [POUM newspaper] demanded that power devolve to the workers' committees. On October 9, the Generalitat dissolved the committees.
..... Nin and the three CNT members were almost always in a minority and thus had to give tacit approval, with their presence, to measures of which they disapproved.

and


The people's committees had the same relationship to the town halls that the Committee for Militias had to the Generalitat [and so were also moved to be disbanded]. ....
.... The CNT...accepted the change because it gave them a strength in the towns that they had never had otuside the city of Barcelona.
Nin accepted responsibility for settling the situation in Lleida and went there with a government commission to convince the Lledia POUM to accept the decree. They received the delegation with weapons in hand, but when they found Nin among the group, they accepted party discipline and agreed to the division of power. This was, unquestionably, a low point for the party.
On November 16, with all resistance now vanquished--and there had not been much--the Generalitat decreed the suppression of three thousand official posts in committees, people's tribunals, commissions, etc. The majority of them held by workers. The structure of working-class power was, thus, eliminated.


And revleft-Nin says the oh-so-nice CNT leaders just gave advice, no responsibility for the defeat of the revolution.


You fail to realize or state, the PSUC at the time of the Revolution (and before) was backed by the USSR. With the USSR/Stalin's lack of involving other Leftist groups in Revolution, he threatened through the PSUC, the Republican Government in telling them that no more planes, guns, etc. would be sent to Spain if they didn't get a handle on the Anarchists, POUM, etc. who weren't apart or specifically friendly for the most part with the PSUC, and were the head of the Spanish Revolution, unlike the PSUC, which like you said was essentially nothing.

Yes, Stalin made those threats. You say the anarchist leaders just hadn't learned from the past. I say they capitulated--they sold out. There will always be someone making threats. The Bolsheviks did not conquer Russia with tanks from another country, and the Spanish workers stood on a higher level than the Russian workers did. Further, if the Spanish workers had seized power in their own name and delcared to the world: "We have made the revolution in Spain as was done in Russia. Stalin has threatened us that if we do so, he will withhold support. We call upon the workers of the world to see him exposed for the fake-socialist he is, and call especially upon the Russian workers to revive their struggle and cast off this counterrevolutionary government that is crushing the gains of October and eliminating elements of the Bolshevik Party tied to revolutionary traditions."
Your answer is "strive harder" and "live and learn." My answer is the fight for workers' socialist revolution through the fight to build the world party of socialist revolution.

[Crux]

What is Stalinism? Why is it bad? How do we fight it?
No reply to the original question? Good trolling stalintrolls.
Stalinism,similar to reformism, is an ideology that was bred inside the bureaucracy, but the difference is it had it's origin in the soviet bureaucracy in the soviet union after the revolution, rather than in the trade unions and parliamentary groups of the worker's parties in western europe. Stalinism in it's pure form is a capitulation to international capitalism (the two-state theory, elements of russian nationalism, the strangling and liquidation of the third international). That's why the stalin-fetischists here get confused, their romantization of the regime of stalin which, while the planned economy obviously made economic gains, strangled all worker's democracy and liqudated large parts of the roiginal bolsheviks and warped the original bolshevik ideology into what we call "stalinism". The stalinist parties then took different trajectories, some transformed into openly socialdemocratic organizations (like CPUSA and the eurocomunists) others took an coup like turn (the examples are countless, but here is where most of misconceptions about what vanguard party means comes from). Stalinism as an ideology is extremely harmfull, just as reformism. But just like there are many honest left-reformists, who could be won to a revolutionary programme, the same can certainly be said of the stalinists (although mostly they prefer to go by different names).

[Obs]

No reply to the original question? Good trolling stalintrolls.
Stalinism,similar to reformism, is an ideology that was bred inside the bureaucracy, but the difference is it had it's origin in the soviet bureaucracy in the soviet union after the revolution, rather than in the trade unions and parliamentary groups of the worker's parties in western europe. Stalinism in it's pure form is a capitulation to international capitalism (the two-state theory, elements of russian nationalism, the strangling and liquidation of the third international). That's why the stalin-fetischists here get confused, their romantization of the regime of stalin which, while the planned economy obviously made economic gains, strangled all worker's democracy and liqudated large parts of the roiginal bolsheviks and warped the original bolshevik ideology into what we call "stalinism". The stalinist parties then took different trajectories, some transformed into openly socialdemocratic organizations (like CPUSA and the eurocomunists) others took an coup like turn (the examples are countless, but here is where most of misconceptions about what vanguard party means comes from). Stalinism as an ideology is extremely harmfull, just as reformism. But just like there are many honest left-reformists, who could be won to a revolutionary programme, the same can certainly be said of the stalinists (although mostly they prefer to go by different names).

A lot of people did answer the original question. They didn't agree with you, true, but they did answer the question.

[Rusty Shackleford]

How was the CNT a Vanguard when it was the workers who came to the Unions, took them and told them. If anything, the workers were the Vanguards in Spain, and the Trade Unions were the followers who just tried organizing the "vanguard". And the Anarchists refused to take part in the Government side of things, since that would be going against their Anarchist ways.
A vanguard is pretty much any organized and class conscious group seeking the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. usually, to be a vanguard, they also have to be at the forefront of a revolutionary movement.

one person cannot be a vanguard, and a shit ton of philanthropic liberals cant be a vanguard.

[Crux]

A lot of people did answer the original question. They didn't agree with you, true, but they did answer the question.Their answer was "Stalinism? There is no such thing!" It's about as convincing as a liberal telling me there are no class-differences, and by talking about class I create them.

[Obs]

Their answer was "Stalinism? There is no such thing!" It's about as convincing as a liberal telling me there are no class-differences, and by talking about class I create them.
Except you can demonstrably prove that there are class differences, and the concept of "Stalinism" is tenuous at best, and an idealist fantasy at worst.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Majakovskij, didnt you shit all over the thread about the ILWU in coordination with a few communist(PSL, ISO, RCP) and arab/palestinian organizations stopping an isreali ship from being unloaded, for one day, in the US motherfucking A?

[Crux]

Majakovskij, didnt you shit all over the thread about the ILWU in coordination with a few communist(PSL, ISO, RCP) and arab/palestinian organizations stopping an isreali ship from being unloaded, for one day, in the US motherfucking A?
No, I tried to bring some sanity to that debate. And your point being...? This has what relation to this thread's subject?

Obsmagon: Well, the you should try to convince a liberal (in the european sense) of the existence of class-differences.
So would you similarly say that reformism can't be proven either?

[RadioRaheem84]

Broadcastingsilence:However, focusing on the (quite numerous) anti-humanitarian policies of the US, doesn't make North Korean's cruel and depraved domestic policies dissapear. You can't just respond with "The United States killed thousands of Koreans", every time I criticize North Korea. Similarly, your dismissal of testimonies by North Korean citizens, as merely "imperialist propaganda" is just as sick, as when Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals mocked the testimonies of the early victims of Khemer Rhouge.


Besides agreeing with Zionist propaganda, insisting that you're a liberal because you believe in empty idealistic platitudes and now accusing Chomsky of mocking early victims of the Khmer Rouge, I think of you as a decent anarchist, but in all honesty, the video you posted was really over the top. NK has it's share of problems but there is no need to insist that they would have it better under capitalism.

Why is that people who loathe the ML States insist that even the introduction of capitalism would be better as if they would just magically turn into a G8 nation with a good social welfare program? This has always proven false, as the developed world can afford the luxuries of social benefits because of reserve investments in the third world. This whole liberal notion that Hitchens and the hawkish liberal left started about it would be preferable for NK or other places to look like Beverly Hills because it's demanded out of our liberal principles is absurd. It ignores economic realities. It cannot look like that and it won't. The situation would be dire for the working class there.

[Crux]

Why is that people who loathe the ML States insist that even the introduction of capitalism would be better as if they would just magically turn into a G8 nation with a good social welfare program?
Why is it that anytime NK is discussed people acting as apologists start to ask ridiculously loaded questions?

[Obs]

No, I tried to bring some sanity to that debate. And your point being...? This has what relation to this thread's subject?

Obsmagon: Well, the you should try to convince a liberal (in the european sense) of the existence of class-differences.
So would you similarly say that reformism can't be proven either?
I don't in any way get this Stalin-reformist link.

[EvilRedGuy]

If you're going to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariate, you're going to have a Vanguard. Russia, Vietnam, etc. are all examples of Vanguards and the Dictatorship of the Proletariate.

As for a transitional phase between capitalism and classless society, look at '36 Spain like I suggested. There, if you read into it, was an almost over night revolution of having classes one minute and the next, none at all. There is no need for this "middle man" Dictatorship of the Proletariate, only the Proletariate themselves taking charge. No middle man, no Vanguard, just the workers taking what's rightfully theirs and working it to better everyone, rather than just a select few.

Agreed, and thats the way it should be like. Or maybe exercise some Stalinism against the Marxist-Leninists, only. :cool:

[Obs]

Agreed, and thats the way it should be like. Or maybe exercise some Stalinism against the Marxist-Leninists, only. :cool:
Yes! Sectarian violence! Let's do that again!

[Palingenisis]

I don't in any way get this Stalin-reformist link.

Just think of the so called "Third Period" and aspects of what is called Maoism in China and France during 60s...Which could be considered Ultra-left....Also so-called Stalinists have carried revolutions (China, Albania, Vietnam) through to completion which something a Trot party has never done.

[Crux]

I don't in any way get this Stalin-reformist link.Where did reformism come from? How did it develop?
It was advocated originally by people who claimed to be revolutionary. It was formed in the parliamentary groups and in the trade union bureacracy, their political line took a decisively different shade, but didn't come to full fruition until WW1. The genuine revolutionaries then were few (and I imagine members the second international would have responded in similar ways as you answer about stalinism when their reformism was attacked). The reformism of those ages were certainly different from present day social democracy, but you wouldn't deny the link that exists between them, how the reformism of those days eventually became the ex-worker's parties of today? That is to say nothing of the monumental betrayal in their backing of the war efforts in WW1.

Now consider the parallels here between the development of the bureaucracy in the soviet union and it's effective ideological outgrowth. You cannot deny that the regime under Stalin restricted, I would say abandoned competely, party democracy, executed and exiled thousands of members of the communist party (something previously unheard of in the revolutionary movement), the dissolution of the ComIntern (and how the soviet state used the komintern sections even before that), the Molotov-ribbentropf pact and Stalin's ignorance of the fascist threat, the popular front (i e collaboration with the bourgeoisie) policies that came after that and this is to say nothing of the subsequent failures of soviet policy, which flowed from the bureaucracy and the policies of Stalin.

[Crux]

Just think of the so called "Third Period" and aspects of what is called Maoism in China and France during 60s...Which could be considered Ultra-left....Also so-called Stalinists have carried revolutions (China, Albania, Vietnam) through to completion which something a Trot party has never done.
Indeed they could.

And how did that work out for you?

[Palingenisis]

Indeed they could.

And how did that work out for you?

There are both postitive and negative lessons to be drawn from the Third Period.

And there is much to learn to Gauche Proletarianne in France during 60s and 70s even though I consider them to have been ultra-left.

The Communist movement lives and learns both from its sucesses and mistakes.

Trotskyism is just oh so perfect though....:rolleyes:

[Crux]

There are both postitive and negative lessons to be drawn from the Third Period.

And there is much to learn to Gauche Proletarianne in France during 60s and 70s even though I consider them to have been ultra-left.

The Communist movement lives and learns both from its sucesses and mistakes.

Trotskyism is just oh so perfect though....:rolleyes:
As much as marxism is, yes.

Obviously not.

Most probably.

What about the popular frontism and alliance with the capitalist states in the west then? Here you have a perfect example of the twin-mistakes stalinists keep on making.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why is it that anytime NK is discussed people acting as apologists start to ask ridiculously loaded questions?


I asked this because broadcastingsilence asserted that in NK people were finding it better to have a capitalist system than the one they have now.

[Magón]

Blaming while saying he's not blaming. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what I meant by blame. Nin says he doesn't "blame" the Moroccans but does say that the reason they didn't fight was due to their own internal strength--which is what I call blaming. I say they didn't fight because there was a civil war in Spain and the leaders of both sides were for Spain oppressing Morocco!

Twist my words around, that's a nice touch I haven't seen before. :rolleyes: You have a very twisted idea of what "blame" is. I never once said the Moroccan's were to blame for not rising up, I said they just didn't have the will or strive that the Spaniards in Catalonia, etc. did. I don't see how that's blaming when I'm stating historical fact. There are a lot of variables on how this or that matter could have gone down in Spain and Morocco, but there's only one way it did in history, and that's what I said. I never blamed the Moroccan's, I just stated what they were, which wasn't ready. I never blamed anyone except the leaders. (Yes, including the CNT-FAI, I'm not some by the book, holier than thou Anarchist who thinks everything the POUM or CNT did or said was right, that'd be ridiculous.)



And revleft-Nin says the oh-so-nice CNT leaders just gave advice, no responsibility for the defeat of the revolution.

Once again, nice try of twisting my words. You know, when you twist someone's words you look like a fool. Especially on the internet. Next time, read my whole post, and you'll see that I say I don't blame the workers, only the leaders. And if the CNT wasn't a leading force/group, then they're not to blame, but it's obvious they were, so I blame them too for the defeat, but never the workers themselves.



Yes, Stalin made those threats. You say the anarchist leaders just hadn't learned from the past. I say they capitulated--they sold out. There will always be someone making threats. The Bolsheviks did not conquer Russia with tanks from another country, and the Spanish workers stood on a higher level than the Russian workers did. Further, if the Spanish workers had seized power in their own name and delcared to the world: "We have made the revolution in Spain as was done in Russia. Stalin has threatened us that if we do so, he will withhold support. We call upon the workers of the world to see him exposed for the fake-socialist he is, and call especially upon the Russian workers to revive their struggle and cast off this counterrevolutionary government that is crushing the gains of October and eliminating elements of the Bolshevik Party tied to revolutionary traditions."
Your answer is "strive harder" and "live and learn." My answer is the fight for workers' socialist revolution through the fight to build the world party of socialist revolution.

Please, if you're going to quote me, at least quote me properly by not twisting my words the whole time. It's really childish and ridiculous with how much you're doing this, and in just one post.

Anyway, to answer this, you can't tell me the Anarchists learned from the past. It's obvious they didn't learn, because like years before in Russia, the USSR purged Anarchists, and others who weren't necessarily in total agreement with the leaders of the USSR. I mean, Trotsky is an example too of what Stalin did to those he thought a threat, and now Trotsky's dead, with a bullet hole in him. Stalin just decided to go this route and blackmail the Republic Government, but why would someone being blackmailed, who needs what the blackmailer is sending, speak out? As Anarchists, it wouldn't be a surprise if they even succumbed to the blackmailing threats.

When your fighting a war, and you're desperate for tools to win that war, and the supplier starts threatening this or that, do you really think you're going to be saying no to what they're saying? Especially when one of your major cities is starting to be encroached upon by the enemy, and soon sieged.

My answer/idea, is strive for a free society, but rather than not learn from histories mistakes, learn from them and make the fight for freedom even better than before. If we go on your answer, there's no doubt that another betrayal and defeat will occur. You must learn from history, do things differently than how it was before, while still striving for the same goal.


A vanguard is pretty much any organized and class conscious group seeking the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. usually, to be a vanguard, they also have to be at the forefront of a revolutionary movement.

one person cannot be a vanguard, and a shit ton of philanthropic liberals cant be a vanguard.

Yeah I know, but in this case, it was the whole working class rising up, rather than a select few of people leading the way like in Russia, Vietnam, etc.


[email protected] RedTrackWorker:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

[RedTrackWorker]

You have a very twisted idea of what "blame" is. I never once said the Moroccan's were to blame for not rising up, I said they just didn't have the will or strive that the Spaniards in Catalonia, etc. did.[snip] I never blamed the Moroccan's, I just stated what they were, which wasn't ready.

Blame can mean to "attribute responsibility to." When Nin says that the Moroccans didn't rise up because they didn't have the "will," rather than that they had no reason to fight against Franco for the Republican victory so then the Republicans could oppress them, I call that "blaming"--attributing responsibility to the Moroccans, rather than where it belongs: the sell-out working class leaders who gave up the fight for self-determination for Morocco.


I never blamed anyone except the leaders.
and says several times variations of:

Once again, nice try of twisting my words. You know, when you twist someone's words you look like a fool. Especially on the internet. Next time, read my whole post, and you'll see that I say I don't blame the workers, only the leaders. And if the CNT wasn't a leading force/group, then they're not to blame, but it's obvious they were, so I blame them too for the defeat, but never the workers themselves.

Whereas this is what Nin said that I am apparently "twisting":

The leaders of the CNT never officially joined the Republican Government, but more less what we call working with in bettering people in Catalonia, etc. This was done by the CNT-FAI saying, rather than declaring things should be done this specific way.

So I pointed out a reference that the CNT
1) Did in fact joined the government and take responsibility for its decisions, and
2) It did not just work "bettering people" and "saying" rather than "declaring", and
3) I'm the one "twisting" things here?

Nin is right that you look like a fool when you twist words on the internet. I think it's also an uncomradely and unhelpful thing to jump to conclusion about twisting words. With our dispute on the "blame" question, I noted that there may just be a misunderstanding of how I'm using "blame" and tried to clarify and have done so again, rather than claim Nin is just twisting my words. He on the other hand quickly says I'm twisting his words, while ignoring the extremely politically important factual correction I made to his claim that the CNT did not join the government. So I stand by my record on this thread.

[Dimentio]

What is Stalinism? Why is it bad? How do we fight it?

Stalinism = Marxist-leninism of non-trotskyist variety.

compare Shia vs Sunni

[Magón]

Blame can mean to "attribute responsibility to." When Nin says that the Moroccans didn't rise up because they didn't have the "will," rather than that they had no reason to fight against Franco for the Republican victory so then the Republicans could oppress them, I call that "blaming"--attributing responsibility to the Moroccans, rather than where it belongs: the sell-out working class leaders who gave up the fight for self-determination for Morocco.

See, now you're just making accusations towards the Republican Government. None of us know,if the Republican Government would have oppressed Morocco like we've seen in history before, and after with Franco repressing the Moroccans quite a bit. (And quite a bit is an understatement.)



So I pointed out a reference that the CNT
1) Did in fact joined the government and take responsibility for its decisions, and
2) It did not just work "bettering people" and "saying" rather than "declaring", and
3) I'm the one "twisting" things here?

Nin is right that you look like a fool when you twist words on the internet. I think it's also an uncomradely and unhelpful thing to jump to conclusion about twisting words. With our dispute on the "blame" question, I noted that there may just be a misunderstanding of how I'm using "blame" and tried to clarify and have done so again, rather than claim Nin is just twisting my words. He on the other hand quickly says I'm twisting his words, while ignoring the extremely politically important factual correction I made to his claim that the CNT did not join the government. So I stand by my record on this thread.

Man, before I choose to speak with you anymore on the subject, watch the video I posted in the same post you're miss quoting. Those are first hand accounts of Spain/Anarchists in '36. Watch it, then speak up.

[bricolage]

For capitalism to exist, you need a market, you need exchange between autonomous production units.
Well I don't know, the fact that the state and not the workers held a monopoly over the means of production and that workers still performed surplus labour, from which the state reaped the rewards, seems to make it near enough to capitalism to call it capitalism.

[Amphictyonis]

I think "Stalinism" is pretty simple to sum up. Socialism with a painful lack of democracy/worker control. How to fight it? Place worker democracy at the forefront. Simple.

[Queercommie Girl]

To be honest there are bigger things holding back communism than the language used by communists.


I was joking.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think "Stalinism" is pretty simple to sum up. Socialism with a painful lack of democracy/worker control. How to fight it? Place worker democracy at the forefront. Simple.

You just repeated what I said in post no. 2 in this thread.

[Amphictyonis]

You just repeated what I said in post no. 2 in this thread.
I obviously either read it and plagiarized you or didn't see it. Either way I guess I agree with you ;)

[bricolage]

I was joking.
Yes I assumed you were.
That being said there are certain people who believe the failure of communism is directly tied to the negative baggage associated with words like communism or anarchism. It's a ridiculous position but sorry for associating you with it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes I assumed you were.
That being said there are certain people who believe the failure of communism is directly tied to the negative baggage associated with words like communism or anarchism. It's a ridiculous position but sorry for associating you with it.

Yes, you get that sort of rubbish among idealists, more specifically in this case linguistic determinists and post-modernists who believe "language determines thought". They think one can make a concrete change to socio-economic relations simply by changing the actual terms we use.

[Amphictyonis]

Yes, you get that sort of rubbish among idealists, more specifically in this case linguistic determinists and post-modernists who believe "language determines thought". They think one can make a concrete change to socio-economic relations simply by changing the actual terms we use.

Idealists not materialists. Silly.

[AK]

I think "Stalinism" is pretty simple to sum up. Socialism with a painful lack of democracy/worker control. How to fight it? Place worker democracy at the forefront. Simple.
Socialism cannot exist with a lack of workers' democracy. The concept of "socialism without workers' control" is an oxymoron. Every communist agrees that socialism means workers' control. The Soviet Union was not socialist, nor was it capitalist (at least not up until Khrushchev) or state-capitalist (capitalism of any form requires a market and autonomous production units, as Zanthorus has time and time again reminded the members of this board). Rather, the whole "Communist (big 'C') bloc" operated under a mode of production completely different to what we had seen before.

[Queercommie Girl]

Socialism cannot exist with a lack of workers' democracy. The concept of "socialism without workers' control" is an oxymoron. Every communist agrees that socialism means workers' control. The Soviet Union was not socialist, nor was it capitalist (at least not up until Khrushchev) or state-capitalist (capitalism of any form requires a market and autonomous production units, as Zanthorus has time and time again reminded the members of this board). Rather, the whole "Communist (big 'C') bloc" operated under a mode of production completely different to what we had seen before.

I basically agree with the first part of your post (not the 2nd part which says the USSR was neither socialist nor capitalist), namely the centrality of worker's democracy in genuine socialism.

However, I think 1) genuine worker's democracy did exist during the Leninist era (more or less - it was not perfect); 2) Mao introduced partial worker's democracy during the Cultural Revolution that was later reversed by Deng; 3) worker's democracy is not a "magic word", it doesn't exist in an absolutist and abstract sense, it is important to examine the exact details of the democratic structure rather than just assume it is "second nature". Genuine democracy always implies some kind of structural formalism, even in a "state-less" setting.

[Tomhet]

Well heres a question for you guys speaking of Stalinism..I understand ML's are usually positive towards Stalin but dislike the term 'stalinist'..
Is this because Stalin didn't really contribute much to ML ideology? what about Hoxha? what advances did he make towards ML? why is 'Stalinism' considered a negative term?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well heres a question for you guys speaking of Stalinism..I understand ML's are usually positive towards Stalin but dislike the term 'stalinist'..
Is this because Stalin didn't really contribute much to ML ideology? what about Hoxha? what advances did he make towards ML? why is 'Stalinism' considered a negative term?

Although I disagree with the ultra-leftist demonisation of Stalin and I don't completely reject Stalin, the essential problem of "Stalinism" is its failure to recognise that worker's democracy is central to any kind of genuine socialism. Sure, you could have a distorted form of a centrally planned and publicly owned economy without worker's democracy, but it can never last long, as history has shown.

There are some very pragmatic concerns here, which cut across sectarian lines: without worker's democracy, without supervisory powers on the part of the working class in general, there simply cannot exist any kind of long-term workable method of preventing corruption and waste, and the restoration of bureaucratic capitalism. Only a fool would trust their party leaders to forever remain vanguardist and disciplined and morally perfect without a democratic supervisory mechanism. No-one is a saint and everyone, absolutely everyone, has the potential to degenerate.

Without democracy, there is simply no mechanism to prevent degeneration in the long-run, period.

[McCroskey]

In my humble opinion, nowadays among the revolutionary left, stalinist = not trotskyst, and trotskyst = not stalinist, and that´s about it. It´s just another of the historical divisions in the left, that prevents it from achieving anything. Basically, "stalinists" and "trotskysts" (as well as other marxist denominations) share the same method (radical change in the ownership of production led by the working class taking over the capitalist state), and the same aim (a society where means of production are used socially for the common good of all citizens), but they just can´t agree of what to do in between. They also share an indiference to the analysis of historical and social conditions in diferent historical moments and geographical locations in order to decide democratically, once the revolution has taken place, what political form would this new state have.

It seems that the revolution cannot come until these differences on what to do next have been solved, so they fight each other and accuse each other of being burguoise, capitalist, imperialist, fascist, etc, trying to prove why their vision of socialism, or rather of the political form that socialism would take, is better that the other one´s. The general working class, looking for representation or organisation, sometimes looks into the socialist area, and, after seeing that its papers, statements, internet forums, etc, largely consist on different groups arguing about what two blokes did or said a century ago in western russia, turn around to look for something more in touch with the present, like social democracy, liberalism or even far right, as they seem more interested in achieving power and arguing once it´s been achieved than in arguing about history, theory and method among themselves.

Some say that the word "communism" or "socialism", in the minds of the general public, is associated with Stalin, USSR, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Little wonder. After a few minutes talking about any subject, we invariably end up talking about those things. The general public won´t get over those historic issues precisely because we don´t allow them to. Enter any revolutionary forum in the internet, 70% will be arguing about historic divisions and tendencies. How the hell are they going to stop associating "communism" with all its past mistakes? It seems to be everything we talk about.

[Kiev Communard]

"Stalinism" is merely the result of insufficient level of development of production forces in Russia and worldwide in the first half of the 20th century, which led to the ultimate failure of the revolutions at these times or (in case of Russia) its degeneration.

[Thirsty Crow]

"Stalinism" is merely the result of insufficient level of development of production forces in Russia and worldwide in the first half of the 20th century, which led to the ultimate failure of the revolutions at these times or (in case of Russia) its degeneration.

But if we take some of Stalin's theoretical "achievements" into consideration, for instance the idiotic non-antagonistic classes line, do we end up with a sort of a revision of Marxist theory, which in effect means that "Stalinism" should be grasped also as a specific form of Marxist doctrine?

[ContrarianLemming]

This thread is quite embarressing, you don't come off as being wiser or more clear minded when you say you're a libertarian communist and say that you don't "demonize" stalin and you understand why he did this and that, you just sound like an apologist.

[Thirsty Crow]

This thread is quite embarressing, you don't come off as being wiser or more clear minded when you say you're a libertarian communist and say that you don't "demonize" stalin and you understand why he did this and that, you just sound like an apologist.

So, to understand something is automatically to provide justification?
You're deluded if you think that fierce denouncement alone may be effective in the struggle against the contemporary derivatives of the historical praxis and theory of Stalinism.

[ContrarianLemming]

So, to understand something is automatically to provide justification?
You're deluded if you think that fierce denouncement alone may be effective in the struggle against the contemporary derivatives of the historical praxis and theory of Stalinism.

Actually I'm one of those idiots who says who the fuck cares, whats the relevance

[Thirsty Crow]

Actually I'm one of those idiots who says who the fuck cares, whats the relevance

It is relevant goddamit.
Just ask yourself what would "ordinary people/workers" think of first when someone mentioned communism (or anarchism for that matter). Yeah, the horrors of the USSR and Stalin (since the bourgeois state apparatus, or more specifically, the "educational" institutions are trying and have been trying to produce a mentality which does not accept anything else besides this phenomena as the ONLY POSSIBLE manifestation of Marxist theory).

[Panda Tse Tung]

It is relevant goddamit.
Just ask yourself what would "ordinary people/workers" think of first when someone mentioned communism (or anarchism for that matter). Yeah, the horrors of the USSR and Stalin (since the bourgeois state apparatus, or more specifically, the "educational" institutions are trying and have been trying to produce a mentality which does not accept anything else besides this phenomena as the ONLY POSSIBLE manifestation of Marxist theory).
Whether 'this phenomena' was the only real manifestation of Marxism in practise, and whether or not your analyses surrounding 'this phenomena' are correct are completely irrelevant. Seeing as the bourgeouisie will use any possible means to discredit any and all alternatives to capitalism. Regardless of the existence of this 'phenomena' we would still be blasted away by anti-communist propaganda.

[Jazzhands]

Stalinism = Marxist-leninism of non-trotskyist variety.

compare Shia vs Sunni

thank you for ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION. Can't say that's a complete definition, but at least you tried.

[Amphictyonis]

Socialism cannot exist with a lack of workers' democracy. The concept of "socialism without workers' control" is an oxymoron. Every communist agrees that socialism means workers' control. The Soviet Union was not socialist, nor was it capitalist (at least not up until Khrushchev) or state-capitalist (capitalism of any form requires a market and autonomous production units, as Zanthorus has time and time again reminded the members of this board). Rather, the whole "Communist (big 'C') bloc" operated under a mode of production completely different to what we had seen before.

I totally agree although I might argue the state capitalist line. Russia was a strange scenario because they had yet to go through the capitalist phase as Marx envisioned necessary for socialism to form. They industrialized fast, I'll give them that but advanced communism or even true socialism cannot advance in an isolated nation. The revolution needs to be global. We all know this.

[RedTrackWorker]

See, now you're just making accusations towards the Republican Government. None of us know,if the Republican Government would have oppressed Morocco like we've seen in history before, and after with Franco repressing the Moroccans quite a bit. (And quite a bit is an understatement.)

Man, before I choose to speak with you anymore on the subject, watch the video I posted in the same post you're miss quoting. Those are first hand accounts of Spain/Anarchists in '36. Watch it, then speak up.

First, I watched the video before I posted, so if you want to prove me wrong, then do it.
Second, I am not just making accusations toward the Republican government! Yes, we do not know exactly what would've happened if the Republican government had won (which I think was impossible--Franco could only have been defeated if the workers had overthrow that government on their way to defeating him I think), but we do know that the Republican government refused to call for Morocco's freedom because they were accommodating imperialism--particularly the French in this case (George Orwell knew this and wrote about it in his book). We know that a prominent Moroccan activist in exile asked the Republican government to help him returned to lead the struggle against Franco there and to fight for Morocco's liberation and the Republicans refused.
Third, you still have ignored the question of the CNT entering the government and taking responsibility--which you said did not happen and instead referred me to a video which states they refused to at the very beginning as if a youtube interview is a refutation of historical fact. Yes, they did not at the beginning--but they did in September.

[Dimentio]

thank you for ACTUALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION. Can't say that's a complete definition, but at least you tried.

Basically, no "stalinists" call themselves stalinists. They call themselves marxist-leninists, maoists, hoxhaists, titoists or castroists. Trotskyists call them all stalinists because they A) are the result of a schism within the Soviet leadership, and B) they have some criticisms against stalinism which they generalise over all following "socialist" states.

Some notes:

1. Trotskyists are criticising cults of personality, but define their ideology with yet another "surnameism".

2. For socialism to function, it must happen in the entire world at the same time. Ignoring the fact that the USSR was a veritable mini-planet.

3. Trotsky was authoritarian when he was in the Central Committee. Then he became all "workers democracy" when exiled. *cough* Kronstadt *cough*

4. In 662, there was a battle between the adherents of Ali, the rightful heir of Muhammed (PBUH) and Muawiya, the contender. Muawiya defeated Ali, and Ali's adherents became the shi'ites, while Muawiya's followers became the Sunnis. The trotskyist split has an eerie similarity.

[Dimentio]

First, I watched the video before I posted, so if you want to prove me wrong, then do it.
Second, I am not just making accusations toward the Republican government! Yes, we do not know exactly what would've happened if the Republican government had won (which I think was impossible--Franco could only have been defeated if the workers had overthrow that government on their way to defeating him I think), but we do know that the Republican government refused to call for Morocco's freedom because they were accommodating imperialism--particularly the French in this case (George Orwell knew this and wrote about it in his book). We know that a prominent Moroccan activist in exile asked the Republican government to help him returned to lead the struggle against Franco there and to fight for Morocco's liberation and the Republicans refused.
Third, you still have ignored the question of the CNT entering the government and taking responsibility--which you said did not happen and instead referred me to a video which states they refused to at the very beginning as if a youtube interview is a refutation of historical fact. Yes, they did not at the beginning--but they did in September.

Franco was extremely brutal and consistent.

If the workers had rebelled during any point of his reign, he would have killed most of them or their families. That was actually exactly what happened under the civil war. The reason why it lasted for three years was not only the brave Republican resistance, but because Franco was more busy with purging the areas he controlled from militant workers, anarchists, teachers and their families.

If you want to overthrow such a dictator, you need a military infrastructure sufficient enough to break his elite guard in battle.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, the Trots aren't saints, but at least in principle their call for the centrality of worker's democracy is correct. I'm influenced by both Trotskyism and Maoism, and to a lesser extent anarchism. But essentially I am a proletarian-democrat because I believe in the centrality of worker's democracy, but within a Marxist and generally Leninist context of course.

[Queercommie Girl]

2. For socialism to function, it must happen in the entire world at the same time. Ignoring the fact that the USSR was a veritable mini-planet.


Yes, but it was a terribly poor and backward "mini-planet", surrounded by hostile "mini-planets" in "mini-interplanetary space".

[Dimentio]

Yes, but it was a terribly poor and backward "mini-planet", surrounded by hostile "mini-planets" in "mini-interplanetary space".

Yes, I'm in agreement there. But the argument is weak. What if the revolution had happened in the USA instead. Would the same argument have weight?

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I'm in agreement there. But the argument is weak. What if the revolution had happened in the USA instead. Would the same argument have weight?

Well personally I'd say no. If it was the US it certainly won't be the same, especially in the early 20th century.

I don't know whether or not this is the "orthodox Trotskyist" line, but I'm not an orthodox Trot anyway.

[Kano]

Very very briefly: (lack of time on my part)

Stalinism = lack of direct worker's democracy

Solution = struggling for direct democracy

Workers never have and never will want their lives to be taken up by 'direct democracy'. After the revolution they will settle back into their own lives, visiting the cinema, spending time with family, chasing women. The left is delusional if it thinks that vasts amounts of workers will want to be attending factory meetings and the like. That was one of the biggest problems in the USSR attempt, fact!

[Kano]

It is what almost every American thinks of when they hear Communism.

And thats why most 'socialists' in America oppose 'stalinism'. Because they are afraid the right-wing created slander against the USSR will affect their own attempts at getting amongst the people.

[Queercommie Girl]

Workers never have and never will want their lives to be taken up by 'direct democracy'. After the revolution they will settle back into their own lives, visiting the cinema, spending time with family, chasing women. The left is delusional if it thinks that vasts amounts of workers will want to be attending factory meetings and the like. That was one of the biggest problems in the USSR attempt, fact!

LOL. I could also say a feudal version of it: the vast majority of serfs have no interest in "liberty, equality, fraternity", or any kind of crap those Frenchmen are going on about in their salons, or having the right to elect their leaders, they just want to settle down into a nice little farm cottage on their lord's land, pay respect to their lord and lady, have reverence to our king, go to church every week, marry a good Christian wife and...

[AK]

Workers never have and never will want their lives to be taken up by 'direct democracy'. After the revolution they will settle back into their own lives, visiting the cinema, spending time with family, chasing women. The left is delusional if it thinks that vasts amounts of workers will want to be attending factory meetings and the like. That was one of the biggest problems in the USSR attempt, fact!
You, sir, are a dickhead and an idiot.

Direct democracy in workers' self-government and self-management of the economy is necessary for socialism (which nearly everyone defines as 'workers' control').

And what about the straight women and they gay men? Would they be chasing women as well? :laugh:

One of the biggest problems with the USSR was not that people simply didn't attend factory meetings (in fact, too much of the civil war involved the Bolshevik repression of people who wanted to democratically manage the economy), it was that the organs of self-management were subjugated to the new Bolshevik government until they were rendered useless.

[bie]

Workers never have and never will want their lives to be taken up by 'direct democracy'. After the revolution they will settle back into their own lives, visiting the cinema, spending time with family, chasing women. The left is delusional if it thinks that vasts amounts of workers will want to be attending factory meetings and the like. That was one of the biggest problems in the USSR attempt, fact!
Yes, this was really the case. The majority of workers e.g. in Peoples Republics were not interested in politics and administration. They were encouraged to do so, the most active were rewarded or so, but it couldn't solve the overall problem.

[AK]

Yes, this was really the case. The majority of workers e.g. in Peoples Republics were not interested in politics and administration. They were encouraged to do so, the most active were rewarded or so, but it couldn't solve the overall problem.
You don't think that's because there were no actual revolutions outside Russia in the Eastern Bloc, do you? The regimes generally came to power in coup d'etats or were installed by the Soviet government. It should be unsurprising that there was not such a stress on workers' autonomy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, this was really the case. The majority of workers e.g. in Peoples Republics were not interested in politics and administration. They were encouraged to do so, the most active were rewarded or so, but it couldn't solve the overall problem.

How were they encouraged and how were they rewarded? Maybe with a Party card that enabled them to get a job in a higher managerial position? Maybe they were rewarded by scaling the vast ranks of the Party?
Face it: Peoples Republics made politics a career. Just as bourgeois states do.


LOL. I could also say a feudal version of it: the vast majority of serfs have no interest in "liberty, equality, fraternity", or any kind of crap those Frenchmen are going on about in their salons, or having the right to elect their leaders, they just want to settle down into a nice little farm cottage on their lord's land, pay respect to their lord and lady, have reverence to our king, go to church every week, marry a good Christian wife and...

And didn't you know that human nature is completely fixed? Didn't you know that naturally workers are lazy, and only interested in working the smallest amount of time possible in order that they may visit the cinema and chase the members of the opposite/same sex?
D'oh :rolleyes:

[AK]

Bie, I'm actually very concerned of your vision of a socialist society if that's the kind of post you agree with and thank.

[Sir Comradical]

Bie, I'm actually very concerned of your vision of a socialist society if that's the kind of post you agree with and thank.

Point is, we shouldn't assume that every single worker will want to participate in the democratic process. Is it so outrageous to claim that some workers wouldn't care much for council-meetings? That they'd prefer to spend their time doing something else? Some people are leaders, others are followers. I don't think it's possible for every single decision to be democratically voted on either.

[bie]

You don't think that's because there were no actual revolutions outside Russia in the Eastern Bloc, do you? The regimes generally came to power in coup d'etats or were installed by the Soviet government. It should be unsurprising that there was not such a stress on workers' autonomy.
That was never the case. People's democracies were established by the popular social revolution after II world war, where millions of people worked together to establish new republic. Revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe after WWII were not of the least significance than any other socialist revolution. In those years there was a huge popular movement, support and participation in the building of the socialist republic, mainly among workers and peasants, who finally got their voice in politics.

It is bourgeois distortion of the history that minimizes or forgets the role of the millions of workers and peasants in establishing people's power in Eastern and Central Europe.


Bie, I'm actually very concerned of your vision of a socialist society if that's the kind of post you agree with and thank.
No, Kano was dead right in his observation on direct democracy. I rather think that some of you have idealized vision of the politics. Politics is not only about revolution and romantic events. In real it is mainly about the excessive paperwork, huge bureaucratic work in the administration on different levels etc. Nothing really exciting. Thats why for the most of the people, especially in the late stages of existence of the socialist societies politics was not really attractive. Who wants to dig in the paperwork after hours?

Lets imagine the direct democracy in action: how excessive bureaucracy it will bring.

How were they encouraged and how were they rewarded? Maybe with a Party card that enabled them to get a job in a higher managerial position? Maybe they were rewarded by scaling the vast ranks of the Party?
Face it: Peoples Republics made politics a career. Just as bourgeois states do
Yes. The most active workers got positions in trade unions, various social organizations, political party, many committees, clubs or agencies. Their social work was very appreciated and honored.

It is also true that politics was actually a career - but it is natural that in any system power attracts ambitious individuals. Power also means certain responsibilities but also privileges - regardless of the socio-economic formation. In any system you will deal with the problem of opportunism. The only solution to that is the political orientation to minimize its negative impact.

[AK]

Point is, we shouldn't assume that every single worker will want to participate in the democratic process. Is it so outrageous to claim that some workers wouldn't care much for council-meetings? That they'd prefer to spend their time doing something else?
Of course, many would prefer it. But socialism does require unbridled democracy to be, well, socialism (of course, not every single individual will want to vote at times). Secondly, their lives are not going to be "taken up" by votes on laws and such. History has shown that whenever the working class has taken matters into its own hands, the workers are quick to participate in all matters facing them, by whatever means necessary.


Some people are leaders, others are followers.
Sounds an awful lot like the human nature "argument".


I don't think it's possible for every single decision to be democratically voted on either.
Why not?

[RED DAVE]

That was never the case. People's democracies were established by the popular social revolution after II world war, where millions of people worked together to establish new republic. Revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe after WWII were not of the least significance than any other socialist revolution. In those years there was a huge popular movement, support and participation in the building of the socialist republic, mainly among workers and peasants, who finally got their voice in politics.

It is bourgeois distortion of the history that minimizes or forgets the role of the millions of workers and peasants in establishing people's power in Eastern and Central Europe.


No, Kano was dead right in his observation on direct democracy. I rather think that some of you have idealized vision of the politics. Politics is not only about revolution and romantic events. In real it is mainly about the excessive paperwork, huge bureaucratic work in the administration on different levels etc. Nothing really exciting. Thats why for the most of the people, especially in the late stages of existence of the socialist societies politics was not really attractive. Who wants to dig in the paperwork after hours?

Lets imagine the direct democracy in action: how excessive bureaucracy it will bring.

Yes. The most active workers got positions in trade unions, various social organizations, political party, many committees, clubs or agencies. Their social work was very appreciated and honored.

It is also true that politics was actually a career - but it is natural that in any system power attracts ambitious individuals. Power also means certain responsibilities but also privileges - regardless of the socio-economic formation. In any system you will deal with the problem of opportunism. The only solution to that is the political orientation to minimize its negative impact.This is pure stalinism.

RED DAVE

[AK]

That was never the case. People's democracies were established by the popular social revolution after II world war, where millions of people worked together to establish new republic. Revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe after WWII were not of the least significance than any other socialist revolution. In those years there was a huge popular movement, support and participation in the building of the socialist republic, mainly among workers and peasants, who finally got their voice in politics.

It is bourgeois distortion of the history that minimizes or forgets the role of the millions of workers and peasants in establishing people's power in Eastern and Central Europe.
Remind me where exactly I could find examples of the working class expropriating the bourgeoisie and directly becoming masters of production post-WW2? You'd think we'd be hearing the old workers' tales about all the socialist revolutions in Eastern Europe and everyone was filled with enthusiasm to take control of their factories and collectively manage their workplace - but we don't. Because the "socialist revolutions" never happened.

Simply having your version of a "voice" in politics isn't enough. Oh no. Your idea of workers having a voice amounts to having politicians promise they'll do something for the workers, all the while keeping wage slavery alive and well. Simply electing politicians as representatives creates social inequality in power relations.


No, Kano was dead right in his observation on direct democracy. I rather think that some of you have idealized vision of the politics. Politics is not only about revolution and romantic events. In real it is mainly about the excessive paperwork, huge bureaucratic work in the administration on different levels etc. Nothing really exciting. Thats why for the most of the people, especially in the late stages of existence of the socialist societies politics was not really attractive. Who wants to dig in the paperwork after hours?
The "huge bureaucratic work" (and by that, you mean administrative work, because 'bureaucratic' implies a bureaucracy of hierarchical social relations (i.e. who does the work) - whereas 'administrative' actually defines what kind of work we are dealing with) would not be as much of a workload because the work needed to be done is being spread among all the individual communes. Secondly, if you have a bureaucracy, you don't have socialism. I wouldn't rush to call those bureaucratic messes "socialist" societies. Politics is not meant to be exciting, and it tells us a lot about the level of workers' power in a society when politics has been made into a career.


Lets imagine the direct democracy in action: how excessive bureaucracy it will bring.
Bureaucracy involves hierarchical social relations, which implies that an individual must have more power over matters than other individuals. Direct democracy is a complete negation of that. I don't think you quite know what direct democracy is.

[Sir Comradical]

Of course, many would prefer it. But socialism does require unbridled democracy to be, well, socialism (of course, not every single individual will want to vote at times). Secondly, their lives are not going to be "taken up" by votes on laws and such. History has shown that whenever the working class has taken matters into its own hands, the workers are quick to participate in all matters facing them, by whatever means necessary.

History has shown that when workers take power (after beating back the vicious reaction) they tend to elect leaders and naturally, the leaders lead the people. The inevitable result is a managerial bureaucracy set up in a hierarchical fashion which is responsible for coordinating an extremely complicated industrial society. For that reason, I don't think it's possible to decentralise all decisions down to the individual shop floor.


Sounds an awful lot like the human nature "argument".

No, you're making the human nature argument by implying that workers will behave in a uniform idealised manner. See, we leftists find it repulsive when right-wingers use the 'human-nature is greedy' argument to justify capitalism, and our knee-jerk reaction to this has unfortunately been to claim the very opposite - that human-nature is inherently cooperative and loving. All I'm saying is that people are just very very different and that human behaviour occupies an incredibly vast spectrum. So yes, some humans will want to lead, others will want to follow.


Why not?

If every single decision needs to be voted on, it will take forever to get things done. For example, workers will need to commit to big plans for the technological advancement of their society and it shouldn't be possible for some firm within the plan to start making their own decisions independently of the plan that was agreed to before. Discipline, obedience and authority are necessary to get things done.

[AK]

History has shown that when workers take power (and manage to seize state power after beating back the vicious reaction) they tend to elect leaders and naturally, the leaders lead. The inevitable result is a managerial bureaucracy set up in a hierarchical fashion which is responsible for coordinating an extremely complicated industrial society. I don't think its possible to decentralise all decisions down to the individual shop floor.
Yes, the Chinese working class elected Mao to be the ruler of China and the Koreans elected the Kim monarchy to rule over them. I suppose next you'll be saying that Stalin's purges were matters of working-class resistance.


No, you're making the human nature argument by implying that workers will behave in an idealised manner. I find that we leftists find it repulsive when the right-wingers use the 'human-nature is greedy' argument to justify capitalism and our knee-jerk reaction to this has unfortunately been to claim the very opposite - that human-nature is inherently cooperative and loving. All I'm saying is that people are just very very different and that human behaviour occupies an incredibly vast spectrum. So yes, some humans will want to lead, others will want to follow.
It is in the class interests of the proletariat to manage production in a collective fashion which abolishes wage slavery. Besides, revolutionary situations change people - and peoples' attitudes now are hardly reflective on their attitudes when they find out they must continue the class struggle and emancipate themselves. Maybe some people will lead others in temporary situations, but the workers know when they're getting yet another ruler - and generally speaking, they make it their duty to protect the free society they set out to establish.


If every single decision needs to be voted on, it will take forever to get things done.
Socialism is not about pure efficiency - it is about workers' control. If I wanted pure efficiency immediately, I would ask for fascism - no need for things like the "free market" (which is already an oxymoron, anyway). Most factories in the anarchist areas of Spain were managed democratically - and I didn't hear of massively long delays in simple production processes, especially not simply because of democratic management. In the Paris Commune, the St. Louis Commune, the German Revolution and the early stages of the Russian Revolution, production was democratically managed by the workers - and not once did a factory fail purely because the workers couldn't handle it. You show very little faith in the working class, and that is depressing.


Workers will need to commit to big plans and it shouldn't be possible for some firm within the plan to start making their own decisions independently of the plan that was agreed to before.
I don't understand what you are saying here.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, it's just impossible with present state of development of technology to grant enough time to every worker to take part in democratic activities. Labor in itself is brain damaging and the less developed the means of production or service, the more damaging it will become for the worker. Until and unless the level of development of technology is heightened to such a level that most of the workers will have enough leisure time so that they could develop their mental ability more than the present level, workers democracy and other such rubbish is just impossible.
We call ourselves Marxist, but most of us just either forgot or just don't learned the basic lessons of Marxism. As per Marxism, technological developments create the field of social transformations following the "change in quantity leads to change in quality" law of Dialectic Materialism.
If you follow and analyze the workers who take part in meetings and union activity, you can find it out that leading section comes from production or service level with higher productivity i.e. those who have better wages and less working hours. Because, they have developed the mental ability to think and take decisions on the basis of logic and knowledge. Those, who are working in less productive sector, have lesser mental ability and will take part less in union and other organizational activities. Certainly there are exceptions, but that's a generalized view.
If you ask me, I can strongly announce that USSR during Lenin and Stalin had the highest level of workers democracy that can be achieved with that level of technological development. Most of us, criticizing our great leaders just forgot the fact that we now live in a much more developed world than their. And, in my opinion, the "criticisms" of left(!) critics of USSR, PRC just arise out of that IGNORANCE.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes, the Chinese working class elected Mao to be the ruler of China and the Koreans elected the Kim monarchy to rule over them. I suppose next you'll be saying that Stalin's purges were matters of working-class resistance.

I'm in the non-doctrinaire camp so I'm not about to praise absolutely everything that happened in the USSR, PRC and DPRK. For a large society to function, leaders have to be elected. Of course it should be much easier to get rid of incompetent people via some democratic process.



It is in the class interests of the proletariat to manage production in a collective fashion which abolishes wage slavery. Besides, revolutionary situations change people - and peoples' attitudes now are hardly reflective on their attitudes when they find out they must continue the class struggle and emancipate themselves. Maybe some people will lead others in temporary situations, but the workers know when they're getting yet another ruler - and generally speaking, they make it their duty to protect the free society they set out to establish.

This is an excellent point in bold.

A ruler in our context is someone who can make decisions arbitrarily without the input of society at large - obviously this should be opposed. As for the 'free society' part - I'm somewhat pessimistic about the notion. I think it is possible to have an authoritarian democracy, that is, collective decisions that curb individual freedom in rational ways. For example, limiting the amount of petrol you can use in a week as a way of forcing people to use public transport. We can't assume that small decentralized units and individuals acting autonomously will spontaneously be able to produce a just socialist society. Sometimes entire cities will have to make decisions that 49% of people will not like.


Socialism is not about pure efficiency - it is about workers' control. If I wanted pure efficiency immediately, I would ask for fascism - no need for things like the "free market" (which is already an oxymoron, anyway). Most factories in the anarchist areas of Spain were managed democratically - and I didn't hear of massively long delays in simple production processes, especially not simply because of democratic management. In the Paris Commune, the St. Louis Commune, the German Revolution and the early stages of the Russian Revolution, production was democratically managed by the workers - and not once did a factory fail purely because the workers couldn't handle it. You show very little faith in the working class, and that is depressing.

I tell non-socialists about the examples you have highlighted in bold in order to make the point that you're making now - that society can function without an exploiting class. I have plenty of faith in the working class, but I do believe in producing goods efficiently - that is minimal effort, minimal energy, maximum output. If you look at the production of a pencil, you'll see a myriad of inputs coming from different places handled by different workers across large factories and transported across large distances. The amount of coordination required for this to work doesn't seem compatible with workers being able to make decisions about absolutely everything at each small factory.


I don't understand what you are saying here.

The reason I brought up my previous example was to demonstrate how big projects will need to be agreed upon collectively and adhered to in a disciplined manner. If Firm B needs inputs from Firm A, but the workers in Firm A have decided to slow down production, then an entire project can be severely delayed. So it shouldn't be possible for each decentralized workplace to have so much democratic power over production. So we shouldn't be so naive to think that human organization via decentralized workplace democracy where workers make decisions about absolutely everything will function seamlessly.

[AK]

I'm in the non-doctrinaire camp so I'm not about to praise absolutely everything that happened in the USSR, PRC and DPRK. For a large society to function, leaders have to be elected. Of course it should be much easier to get rid of incompetent people via some democratic process.
Local ground-level organs of workers' power (such as communes and workers' councils) can easily co-ordinate their actions - either by doing so at a base-level, or by electing delegates (not representatives which can make their own decisions) to a forum where delegates from other communes (or councils, whatever) meet and discuss matters dealing with wider regions and economic sectors.


This is an excellent point in bold.

A ruler in our context is someone who can make decisions arbitrarily without the input of society at large - obviously this should be opposed. As for the 'free society' part - I'm somewhat pessimistic about the notion. I think it is possible to have an authoritarian democracy, that is, collective decisions that curb individual freedom in rational ways. For example, limiting the amount of petrol you can use in a week as a way of forcing people to use public transport. We can't assume that small decentralized units and individuals acting autonomously will spontaneously be able to produce a just socialist society. Sometimes entire cities will have to make decisions that 49% of people will not like.
Agree with most of what you're saying here, but I think that in the case of such a small margin, there would have to be another vote or a compromise.


I tell non-socialists about the examples you have highlighted in bold in order to make the point that you're making now - that society can function without an exploiting class. I have plenty of faith in the working class, but I do believe in producing goods efficiently - that is minimal effort, minimal energy, maximum output. If you look at the production of a pencil, you'll see a myriad of inputs coming from different places handled by different workers across large factories and transported across large distances. The amount of coordination required for this to work doesn't seem compatible with workers being able to make decisions about absolutely everything at each small factory.
Guess what: this administrative work has already been done by workers in the past and, these days, it is only a few who do it. This could be done much more efficiently if the administrative workload was given to multiple workers.


The reason I brought up my previous example was to demonstrate how big projects will need to be agreed upon collectively and adhered to in a disciplined manner. If Firm B needs inputs from Firm A, but the workers in Firm A have decided to slow down production, then an entire project can be severely delayed. So it shouldn't be possible for each decentralized workplace to have so much democratic power over production. So we shouldn't be so naive to think that human organization via decentralized workplace democracy where workers make decisions about absolutely everything will function seamlessly.
It won't function seamlessly, but I assume there would be consequences for the factory that slowed down production or the other factories would slow down production also.

-----------------

Despite any concerns you may have, the organs of self-government and self-management that the workers establish for reasons of expropriation and resistance to the capitalist classes during revolution must be the very same ones that are used during socialism - or else we will never hear of socialism in practise.

[GreenCommunism]

The reason I brought up my previous example was to demonstrate how big projects will need to be agreed upon collectively and adhered to in a disciplined manner. If Firm B needs inputs from Firm A, but the workers in Firm A have decided to slow down production, then an entire project can be severely delayed. So it shouldn't be possible for each decentralized workplace to have so much democratic power over production. So we shouldn't be so naive to think that human organization via decentralized workplace democracy where workers make decisions about absolutely everything will function seamlessly.

the workers in firm A are not stupid enough to purposely slow down production when it will hurt firm B. they might negociate and consider it, but they will take into account other firm and will be in contact with firm B.

[bie]

Remind me where exactly I could find examples of the working class expropriating the bourgeoisie and directly becoming masters of production post-WW2? You'd think we'd be hearing the old workers' tales about all the socialist revolutions in Eastern Europe and everyone was filled with enthusiasm to take control of their factories and collectively manage their workplace - but we don't. Because the "socialist revolutions" never happened.
I am not surprised that you have missed that part of the history, it is rather doubtful if one can learn it in the bourgeoisie school. There were not only workers taking over privately owned industries but there were also peasants taking over the lands of the aristocracy and gentry. The revolution - i.e. change of the class in power occurred relatively peacefully, on the way of the national referendum. Of course, there was also some resistance from the right-wing, connected to bourgeoisie old regime, groups, that killed teachers, officials etc. (more than 30 000 of communist activists were killed by reactionary underground in Poland 1945-1949).

Therefore it is just a pure ignorance to deny the importance of socialist revolutions in Eastern Europe.


Simply having your version of a "voice" in politics isn't enough. Oh no. Your idea of workers having a voice amounts to having politicians promise they'll do something for the workers, all the while keeping wage slavery alive and well. Simply electing politicians as representatives creates social inequality in power relations.
This is a pure nonsense and misunderstanding of the basic principles of political sciences. Marxist analysis states clearly that political power is the issue of the class relations. In capitalism the ruling class is a bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie doesn't need to exert their power directly - they have politicians to do so. Imagine when every decision in a capitalist state has to be made the bourgeoisie class collectively on the basis of the direct democracy. I would be a farce. And it is the same story with proletariat. Proletariat doesn't need to be directly involved in politics if it has its political wing. Theses are basic principles of politics.

The "huge bureaucratic work" (and by that, you mean administrative work, because 'bureaucratic' implies a bureaucracy of hierarchical social relations (i.e. who does the work)
No. Bureaucracy means excessive, unnecessary paperwork.

- whereas 'administrative' actually defines what kind of work we are dealing with) would not be as much of a workload because the work needed to be done is being spread among all the individual communes. Secondly, if you have a bureaucracy, you don't have socialism. I wouldn't rush to call those bureaucratic messes "socialist" societies. Politics is not meant to be exciting, and it tells us a lot about the level of workers' power in a society when politics has been made into a career.
You didn't get my point. Imagine a situation, when a simple decision has to be made - lets suppose the increase in military conscription on the certain land, inhabited by - let's say - 10 million people. Now - in USSR those decisions were carried out by Soviets on the administrative level corresponding to the administrative unit (e.g. oblast), and decisions were made by the group of elected representatives coming from the level below. Therefore it was possible to make the decision quite rapidly.

Now imagine a "direct democracy" case. First - how to do work to get 10 millions people together in one place in order to make a decision? Remember that you need to have more than 50% present on the meeting. For each meeting there has to be crowds involved in administrative work - checking identities, making lists of voters etc.

How would you carry on the any single decision for the state of 200 millions people with "direct democracy"? It is an absurd!


Bureaucracy involves hierarchical social relations, which implies that an individual must have more power over matters than other individuals. Direct democracy is a complete negation of that. I don't think you quite know what direct democracy is.
"Bureaucracy" is a term that have 2 meanings: as an adjective it means the excessive paperwork - as noun it is a pejorative name of certain professional group, involving office workers, managers, accountants, economists, programmers, technical intelligentsia etc.

Now - have you ever visited a factory of other productive unit? How can you imagine work of any company or any other productive entity without the administration, supervision and management.

It is so childish in its absurdity...


I'm in the non-doctrinaire camp so I'm not about to praise absolutely everything that happened in the USSR, PRC and DPRK.
There is a difference between defending achievements of the XX century socialism and its overall framework against anticommunists attacks (from left or right) and - "praising absolutely everything that happened in the USSR, PRC, DPRK". There was lots of mistakes done on the different levels of administration. There is nothing perfect in the reality. However, our critique (as Marxist-Leninists) is significantly different from bourgeois-Trotskyist that it aspiration for being scientific.

[RED DAVE]

I am not surprised that you have missed that part of the history, it is rather doubtful if one can learn it in the bourgeoisie school. There were not only workers taking over privately owned industries but there were also peasants taking over the lands of the aristocracy and gentry. The revolution - i.e. change of the class in power occurred peacefully, on the way of the national referendum. Of course, there was also some resistance from the right-wing, connected to bourgeoisie old regime, groups, that killed teachers, officials etc. (more than 30 000 of communist activists were killed by reactionary underground in Poland 1945-1949).

Therefore it is just a pure ignorance to deny the importance of socialist revolutions in Eastern Europe.Too bad there weren't any.


This is a pure nonsense and misunderstanding of the basic principles of political sciences. Marxist analysis states clearly that political power is the issue of the class relations. In capitalism the ruling class is a bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie doesn't need to exert their power directly - they have politicians to do so. Imagine when every decision in a capitalist state has to be made the bourgeoisie class collectively on the basis of the direct democracy. I would be a farce. And it is the same story with proletariat. Proletariat doesn't need to be directly involved in politics if it has its political wing. Theses are basic principles of politics.You have no understanding whatsoever of working class democracy. Pure stalinism.


No. Bureaucracy means excessive, unnecessary paperwork.No, bureaucracy means a fucked-up system like the old USSR where the state bureacuracy ran the economy.


You didn't get my point. Imagine a situation, when a simple decision has to be made - lets suppose the increase in military conscription on the certain land, inhabited by - let's say - 10 million people. Now - in USSR those decisions were carried out by Soviets on the administrative level corresponding to the administrative unit (e.g. oblast), and decisions were made by the group of elected representatives coming from the level below. Therefore it was possible to make the decision quite rapidly.Pure stalinism.


Now imagine a "direct democracy" case. First - how to do work to get 10 millions people together in one place in order to make a decision? Remember that you need to have more than 50% present on the meeting. For each meeting there has to be crowds involved in administrative work - checking identities, making lists of voters etc.A complete misunderstanding of workers democracy. Typical of a stalinist.


How would you carry on the any single decision for the state of 200 millions people with "direct democracy"? It is an absurd!By ruling the country rationally starting with complete workers democracy at the base, which stalinism never had and which stalinists never supported.


"Bureaucracy" is a term that have 2 meanings: as an adjective it means the excessive paperwork - as noun it is a pejorative name of certain professional group, involving office workers, managers, accountants, economists, programmers, technical intelligentsia etc.Somebody needs a good dictionary.


nonelective government officials
any organization in which action is obstructed by insistence on unnecessary procedures and red tape
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Bureaucracy is the combined organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy)
Now - have you ever visited a factory of other productive unit? How can you imagine work of any company or any other productive entity without the administration, supervision and management.Yeah, workers love those adminstrators, supervisors and managers. Do you eat Stalineaties or Stalineerios for breakfast?


It is so childish in its absurdity...That anyone would be a stalinist in this day and age.

RED DAVE

[bie]

RED DAVE - save our time and server space and do not post one line replies that have no informative content, please.

[Vampire Lobster]

Workers never have and never will want their lives to be taken up by 'direct democracy'. After the revolution they will settle back into their own lives, visiting the cinema, spending time with family, chasing women. The left is delusional if it thinks that vasts amounts of workers will want to be attending factory meetings and the like. That was one of the biggest problems in the USSR attempt, fact!

The only thing I'm wondering here;

what the fuck are you doing on a revolutionary leftist forum?

[bie]

The only thing I'm wondering here;

what the fuck are you doing on a revolutionary leftist forum?
And where, the fuck, is your point?
Oh, the truth is painful for some.

[RED DAVE]

RED DAVE - save our time and server space and do not post one line replies that have no informative content, please.Hey, Josefovitch, compared with the bullshit that you're posting, the stuff my grandson writes in daycare is a masterpiece of historical reasoning. Go crawl back in the hole you came out of.

http://www.cpusa.org/

RED DAVE

[Vampire Lobster]

And where, the fuck, is your point?
Oh, the truth is painful for some.

Yeah, it's painful. You have no idea how I'd wish people here would actually be communists and serious about working class emancipation and democratization of our society, instead about being an elitist asshat whose view on politics is based on how stupid the common man is compared to your brilliant revolutionary mind.

If you don't think the society should be democratic, I seriously don't know what you're doing here. It seems more like teenage tankie masturbation than anything else, to be frank.

[bie]

Yeah, it's painful. You have no idea how I'd wish people here would actually be communists and serious about working class emancipation and democratization of our society, instead about being an elitist asshat whose view on politics is based on how stupid the common man is compared to your brilliant revolutionary mind.

If you don't think the society should be democratic, I seriously don't know what you're doing here. It seems more like teenage tankie masturbation than anything else, to be frank.
Working class emancipation will not come even from your best intentions if one is still ignoring real problems like question "how to engage worker into politics". Other thing is that some of you have compete non-sense vision of dictatorship of proletariat as a "direct democracy" that is complete absurd. Proletarian democracy i.e. dictatorship of proletariat doesn't mean that all decisions are being taken of the rallies, the same way as dictatorship of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean that all bourgeoisie get together to make a decision. In both cases the representative democracy is the proper form of the government.

[RED DAVE]

In both cases the representative democracy is the proper form of the government.While representation is obviously necessary on higher levels of government, the root of socialism, of workers power, is day-to-day workers control on the workplace level. Nothing less will do.

This was gone from the USSR by the end of the 1920s and stalinists have never supported this in any country where they have had control. The workers just exchanged one set of managers for another. This is the reason why, in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China, there were no workers protests against the restoration of capitalism. It was already there in the form of state capitalism. There was no workers democracy.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

While representation is obviously necessary on higher levels of government, the root of socialism, of workers power, is day-to-day workers control on the workplace level. Nothing less will do.

This was gone from the USSR by the end of the 1920s and stalinists have never supported this in any country where they have had control. The workers just exchanged one set of managers for another. This is the reason why, in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China, there were no workers protests against the restoration of capitalism. It was already there in the form of state capitalism. There was no workers democracy.

RED DAVE

Well in the PRC the restoration of capitalism has technically not completed yet, and workers in China are protesting it right now. One of the strike leaders of the recent Honda strikes in China is a radical Maoist.

[RED DAVE]

Well in the PRC the restoration of capitalism has technically not completed yet, and workers in China are protesting it right now. One of the strike leaders of the recent Honda strikes in China is a radical Maoist.I beg to differ. You are kidding yourself. Restoration in China of private capitalism is only incomplete because the state-owned industries still exist. However, they are run precisely in the same way as private industry.

State capitalism and private capitalism are quite happy in the same bed together. Check out Taiwan, where capitalism was built by promoting state industry, which has been slowly turned over as private industry.

What is being fought against in China, now, by the working class is capitalism. The workers in China have to start from the bottom and overthrow the Chinese bourgeoisie in private and state-owned industry. The Chinese Maoists, will hopefully get rid of Maoism in their ideology and substitute for it a revolutionary ideology fighting for workers power.

The fact that, in 2010, the left-wing Maoists have trouble with homosexuality, as reported by a poster here on this board, is not a good sign.

RED DAVE

[bie]

While representation is obviously necessary on higher levels of government, the root of socialism, of workers power, is day-to-day workers control on the workplace level. Nothing less will do.

This was gone from the USSR by the end of the 1920s and stalinists have never supported this in any country where they have had control. The workers just exchanged one set of managers for another. This is the reason why, in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China, there were no workers protests against the restoration of capitalism. It was already there in the form of state capitalism. There was no workers democracy.
It was rather Trotsky and co. who insisted on state-controlled worker's organizations after the revolution (remind debate on trade unions in 1921). In USSR and Peoples Democracies there was a model in which workers select their trade union representatives and through them they manage the enterprise. Trade unions had great powers and they we responsible for e.g. employment policy. Of course, not all decisions can be made at the enterprise level, that's why there was a need for a central government and planning authorities which will decide how much of each good is necessary to produce to satisfy people's needs. And the overall shape of the workers democracy was the balance between those two tendencies.

[RED DAVE]

It was rather Trotsky and co. who insisted on state-controlled worker's organizations after the revolution (remind debate on trade unions in 1921).Trotsky did some dumb shit.


In USSR and Peoples Democracies there was a model in which workers select their trade union representatives and through them they manage the enterprise.So you say. Give me documentation of workers management of industry on the workplace level or above.


Trade unions had great powers and they we responsible for e.g. employment policy.Documentation, please.


Of course, not all decisions can be made at the enterprise level, that's why there was a need for a central government and planning authorities which will decide how much of each good is necessary to produce to satisfy people's needs.Stalinism. Where are the national workers councils that ran individual industries and the national economies? Truth is, the fucking bureaucracy ran it all.


And the overall shape of the workers democracy was the balance between those two tendencies.What your saying is that the workers state was a balance between the central bureacracy and industry bureaucracy,

RED DAVE

[Sir Comradical]

There is a difference between defending achievements of the XX century socialism and its overall framework against anticommunists attacks (from left or right) and - "praising absolutely everything that happened in the USSR, PRC, DPRK". There was lots of mistakes done on the different levels of administration. There is nothing perfect in the reality. However, our critique (as Marxist-Leninists) is significantly different from bourgeois-Trotskyist that it aspiration for being scientific.

To paraphrase Parenti, when you compare the imperfect reality to the imaginary ideal, the imperfect reality comes off a poor second.

[Queercommie Girl]

I beg to differ. You are kidding yourself. Restoration in China of private capitalism is only incomplete because the state-owned industries still exist. However, they are run precisely in the same way as private industry.


A deformed worker's state using state-capitalist economic policies to some extent isn't the same as an intrinsically state-capitalist state, that's standard Trotskyist analysis.

Of course, China today is so deformed that frankly although technically I still think China is a deformed worker's state, I don't see much point in arguing with people who think it is already completely state-capitalist.

The MCPC actually thinks China today is already completely state-capitalist, objectively a position more to the left than many orthodox Trotskyists.



State capitalism and private capitalism are quite happy in the same bed together. Check out Taiwan, where capitalism was built by promoting state industry, which has been slowly turned over as private industry.
Don't know about Taiwan, but in the PRC sections of the Chinese capitalist class are certainly planning a bourgeois colour revolution and calling for the CCP to step down. For these capitalists then obviously the CCP today is still "not capitalist enough".



What is being fought against in China, now, by the working class is capitalism. The workers in China have to start from the bottom and overthrow the Chinese bourgeoisie in private and state-owned industry. The Chinese Maoists, will hopefully get rid of Maoism in their ideology and substitute for it a revolutionary ideology fighting for workers power.
I actually think Trotskyism should be re-habilitated in China so one ends up with what Maoists call an "one party, multiple factions" system in the Communist Party consisting of various tendencies.



The fact that, in 2010, the left-wing Maoists have trouble with homosexuality, as reported by a poster here on this board, is not a good sign.
Well, ok, being a radical LGBT activist I admit that homophobia is a problem among the Maoists in China but it's partly to do with Chinese culture. Some mainland Chinese Trotskyists are probably homophobic too.

And it's rather utopian to think that homophobic attitudes no longer exist among the left in the West. Just a few days ago I had an argument with a "borderline homophobe/transphobe" in the Discrimination sub-forum on RevLeft, which eventually ended up with him getting a verbal warning from the mod. Granted, he isn't exactly a Marxist, but he is a leftist (or so he claims himself).

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

While representation is obviously necessary on higher levels of government, the root of socialism, of workers power, is day-to-day workers control on the workplace level. Nothing less will do.

This was gone from the USSR by the end of the 1920s and stalinists have never supported this in any country where they have had control. The workers just exchanged one set of managers for another. This is the reason why, in the USSR, Eastern Europe and China, there were no workers protests against the restoration of capitalism. It was already there in the form of state capitalism. There was no workers democracy.

RED DAVE

Wasn't it Lennin who dismantled the workers councils and put managers in charge of the factories?

[Schwarz]

This is a pure nonsense and misunderstanding of the basic principles of political sciences. Marxist analysis states clearly that political power is the issue of the class relations. In capitalism the ruling class is a bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie doesn't need to exert their power directly - they have politicians to do so. Imagine when every decision in a capitalist state has to be made the bourgeoisie class collectively on the basis of the direct democracy. I would be a farce. And it is the same story with proletariat. Proletariat doesn't need to be directly involved in politics if it has its political wing. Theses are basic principles of politics.The idea that communism equals the conquest of state power has been obliterated by the historical experience of the proletariat in struggle. Far from proving the necessity of working class political power in the normative liberal sense, history has show that the self-activity of the proletariat is an anti-political practice. Anti-political because the separation of politics (as a form of pseudo-universalism and representation) from the social (reproduction and production) is exactly that which the real movement of the proletariat overcomes. In a banal sense, workers in councils or on the streets have acted 'politically' amongst themselves in arguing for/against this-or-that action. However, in the course of struggle it is the content that matters, not that abstract form of organization that anarchist and communist theorists like to constantly bicker about.

Creating a political wing separate from our everyday struggles is a recipe for the reemergence of structures that, while claiming to represent our interests, in fact frustrate our ability to act as that class which abolishes capital and itself through struggle. At most, the role of communists is to fight for our own lives and the lives of our class where we must and dissolve ourselves into larger struggles, while arguing for communist measures when we can.


Imagine a situation, when a simple decision has to be made - lets suppose the increase in military conscription on the certain land, inhabited by - let's say - 10 million people. Now - in USSR those decisions were carried out by Soviets on the administrative level corresponding to the administrative unit (e.g. oblast), and decisions were made by the group of elected representatives coming from the level below. Therefore it was possible to make the decision quite rapidly.

Now imagine a "direct democracy" case. First - how to do work to get 10 millions people together in one place in order to make a decision? Remember that you need to have more than 50% present on the meeting. For each meeting there has to be crowds involved in administrative work - checking identities, making lists of voters etc.

How would you carry on the any single decision for the state of 200 millions people with "direct democracy"? It is an absurd! Ah, more armchair generals preparing to direct the revolution... Your argument against workers' participation in decision making is telling. Your insistent harping about front warfare (if we even get to that point it shows we've failed) and conscription (if there are not already workers' militias we are already screwed) shows that your view of revolution is narrow at best.


"Bureaucracy" is a term that have 2 meanings: as an adjective it means the excessive paperwork - as noun it is a pejorative name of certain professional group, involving office workers, managers, accountants, economists, programmers, technical intelligentsia etc.

Now - have you ever visited a factory of other productive unit? How can you imagine work of any company or any other productive entity without the administration, supervision and management.

It is so childish in its absurdity...Having been a factory worker myself, I can tell you that those on the shop floor are intimately aware of how to run things. Hell, we are the ones pulling the levers, fixing parts and moving shit around!

The only thing management ever did, in my experience, was chew us out for not working fast enough or talking to our coworkers too much (read: being human), or bring orders from the office upstairs down to us, or lecture us on how the place was a family business and everyone worked together and we should be happy with our shitty salaries and there was no need to unionize, etc. You would replace this inhuman form of domination and class oppression with what now?

What they did do upstairs (in the cozy air-conditioned offices) was move papers around, buy materials and sell the goods - for the weapon industry I might add. They were utterly superfluous to our everyday lives. In fact, it's almost like workers, and management/owners had an antagonistic relationship! As AK said, recallable delegates is a decent proposal that has worked well in the past.

If we are creating for use value not exchange value we will certainly figure out a way. Who knows what forms will seem adequate in the future? We don't know, but to take an antiworker stand on this is the real absurdity.

Bureaucracy is more than a contingent factor in organization. It is the necessity to circulate value that breeds a class of mental laborers to manage the extraction of surplus and the movement of value. It is the destruction of workers' craft knowledge that breeds a class of managers and engineers who specialize in the capitalist organization of production that corrodes the health and mind of the worker. It is the obliteration of proletarian organs of self-activity like councils that leads to a class of professional, specialized politicians to manage society against workers.

In a world overflowing with abundance, where surplus population and unproductive labor are rife, you would reimpose Taylorism like the Bolsheviks 100 years before? If we are still looking for the answer to, "What is Stalinism?", we've found it. It is productivist, reductionist, anti-worker opportunism that seeks to impose some all-encompassing model of organization (based upon ideas borne of a century-old struggle) on to the world today.

As Braverman and Tronti (among others) have pointed out, the productive apparatus is not class neutral. We will have to radically reorganize bourgeois production, based around exploitation and alienation, if we hope to make a better world.

This will have to be done in the course of struggle itself.

As a worker, I don't care if it's for capitalist profits or some 'workers' paradise', breaking my back to create surplus value for a different boss still feels like capitalism to me... because it is.

[pranabjyoti]

The idea that communism equals the conquest of state power has been obliterated by the historical experience of the proletariat in struggle. Far from proving the necessity of working class political power in the normative liberal sense, history has show that the self-activity of the proletariat is an anti-political practice. Anti-political because the separation of politics (as a form of pseudo-universalism and representation) from the social (reproduction and production) is exactly that which the real movement of the proletariat overcomes. In a banal sense, workers in councils or on the streets have acted 'politically' amongst themselves in arguing for/against this-or-that action. However, in the course of struggle it is the content that matters, not that abstract form of organization that anarchist and communist theorists like to constantly bicker about.

Creating a political wing separate from our everyday struggles is a recipe for the reemergence of structures that, while claiming to represent our interests, in fact frustrate our ability to act as that class which abolishes capital and itself through struggle. At most, the role of communists is to fight for our own lives and the lives of our class where we must and dissolve ourselves into larger struggles, while arguing for communist measures when we can.

Ah, more armchair generals preparing to direct the revolution... Your argument against workers' participation in decision making is telling. Your insistent harping about front warfare (if we even get to that point it shows we've failed) and conscription (if there are not already workers' militias we are already screwed) shows that your view of revolution is narrow at best.

Having been a factory worker myself, I can tell you that those on the shop floor are intimately aware of how to run things. Hell, we are the ones pulling the levers, fixing parts and moving shit around!

The only thing management ever did, in my experience, was chew us out for not working fast enough or talking to our coworkers too much (read: being human), or bring orders from the office upstairs down to us, or lecture us on how the place was a family business and everyone worked together and we should be happy with our shitty salaries and there was no need to unionize, etc. You would replace this inhuman form of domination and class oppression with what now?

What they did do upstairs (in the cozy air-conditioned offices) was move papers around, buy materials and sell the goods - for the weapon industry I might add. They were utterly superfluous to our everyday lives. In fact, it's almost like workers, and management/owners had an antagonistic relationship! As AK said, recallable delegates is a decent proposal that has worked well in the past.

If we are creating for use value not exchange value we will certainly figure out a way. Who knows what forms will seem adequate in the future? We don't know, but to take an antiworker stand on this is the real absurdity.

Bureaucracy is more than a contingent factor in organization. It is the necessity to circulate value that breeds a class of mental laborers to manage the extraction of surplus and the movement of value. It is the destruction of workers' craft knowledge that breeds a class of managers and engineers who specialize in the capitalist organization of production that corrodes the health and mind of the worker. It is the obliteration of proletarian organs of self-activity like councils that leads to a class of professional, specialized politicians to manage society against workers.

In a world overflowing with abundance, where surplus population and unproductive labor are rife, you would reimpose Taylorism like the Bolsheviks 100 years before? If we are still looking for the answer to, "What is Stalinism?", we've found it. It is productivist, reductionist, anti-worker opportunism that seeks to impose some all-encompassing model of organization (based upon ideas borne of a century-old struggle) on to the world today.

As Braverman and Tronti (among others) have pointed out, the productive apparatus is not class neutral. We will have to radically reorganize bourgeois production, based around exploitation and alienation, if we hope to make a better world.

This will have to be done in the course of struggle itself.

As a worker, I don't care if it's for capitalist profits or some 'workers' paradise', breaking my back to create surplus value for a different boss still feels like capitalism to me... because it is.
Man, you lack the very basic understanding of Marxism, regarding a class based society. IN A CLASS BASED SOCIETY, THE CLASS CHARACTER OF THE RULING IS DEFINED BY HOW MUCH IT GETS A SHARE OF THE SURPLUS, THAT THE WORKERS ARE PRODUCING. IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON WHETHER YOU HAVE A BOSS OR NOT. Can you explain, in USSR during Stalin, which class had the major share of the surplus?
You have repeatedly talked about back braking work, but just forgot that initially Russia was a backward state the common people had to work more harder working during Tsar's time than during Stalin. Do you know, hundreds of thousands of workers from European countries entered USSR during the 30's to get a job there?
The hardship that was imposed on USSR during Stalin was mainly due to constant counterrevolutionary attack and sabotage and ultimately the Nazi attack. Without those factors, workers in USSR during Stalin certainly had a much better life than workers of anywhere else in the world.

[Schwarz]

Man, you lack the very basic understanding of Marxism, regarding a class based society. IN A CLASS BASED SOCIETY, THE CLASS CHARACTER OF THE RULING IS DEFINED BY HOW MUCH IT GETS A SHARE OF THE SURPLUS, THAT THE WORKERS ARE PRODUCING. IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON WHETHER YOU HAVE A BOSS OR NOT. Can you explain, in USSR during Stalin, which class had the major share of the surplus?
You have repeatedly talked about back braking work, but just forgot that initially Russia was a backward state the common people had to work more harder working during Tsar's time than during Stalin. Do you know, hundreds of thousands of workers from European countries entered USSR during the 30's to get a job there?
The hardship that was imposed on USSR during Stalin was mainly due to constant counterrevolutionary attack and sabotage and ultimately the Nazi attack. Without those factors, workers in USSR during Stalin certainly had a much better life than workers of anywhere else in the world.

You've made my point for me, thanks! :thumbup1:

I don't deny that their were specific social and material conditions that affected the dynamic of the workers' movement in Russia in the early 20th century. I also don't want to dream up counterfactuals. What I am pointing to is that the theories and forms of practice that came out of that place and time are historically specific and can not be used as some axiomatic template for our time.

Also, class society is more than simply the distribution of the social surplus. Capitalist class rule is based on far more than simply the share of the surplus it appropriates. It is true that I lack, "the very basic understanding of Marxism," because my understanding of capitalism goes beyond the sphere of distribution.

[Sir Comradical]

You've made my point for me, thanks! :thumbup1:

I don't deny that their were specific social and material conditions that affected the dynamic of the workers' movement in Russia in the early 20th century. I also don't want to dream up counterfactuals. What I am pointing to is that the theories and forms of practice that came out of that place and time are historically specific and can not be used as some axiomatic template for our time.

Also, class society is more than simply the distribution of the social surplus. Capitalist class rule is based on far more than simply the share of the surplus it appropriates. It is true that I lack, "the very basic understanding of Marxism," because my understanding of capitalism goes beyond the sphere of distribution.

The defining feature of the capitalist class is that their ownership of the MOP entitles them to expropriate the surplus and agglomerate it as their own private property. You say that capitalist class rule is based on far more than this to which I'd ask - what else do you feel is a defining feature of the capitalist class?

[Schwarz]

The defining feature of the capitalist class is that their ownership of the MOP entitles them to expropriate the surplus and agglomerate it as their own private property. You say that capitalist class rule is based on far more than this to which I'd ask - what else do you feel is a defining feature of the capitalist class?

I tried to make a comradely joke about revolution and the expropriating of mops, but I don't have enough posts to do links yet ;)

I was only pointing out that the mechanisms through which power is exercised in class society are many and diffuse. I think that your definition of the capitalist class is essential, but remember that capitalism is the dynamic relation between classes. M-C-M' vs. C-M-C demonstrates how (at a very high level of abstraction) the contending classes reproduce themselves, but from this flows the many ways in which a dynamic and antagonistic class society holds itself together and, ultimately, let's hope, pulls itself apart.

[Adi Shankara]

Stalinism has evolved since the 1940's and 50's; it doesn't really exist anymore except in the abstract, and as a base platform for new ideologies to spring-forth.

with that said, I used to really dislike Stalin, but the more I read what he has done for the USSR to defend against Nazism and to eliminate subversives (who contrary to popular opinion on this board, were not starving peasants sent to Siberia for no reason at all), the more so I admire him.

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalinism has evolved since the 1940's and 50's; it doesn't really exist anymore except in the abstract, and as a base platform for new ideologies to spring-forth.

with that said, I used to really dislike Stalin, but the more I read what he has done for the USSR to defend against Nazism and to eliminate subversives (who contrary to popular opinion on this board, were not starving peasants sent to Siberia for no reason at all), the more so I admire him.

There is nothing really "admirable" in Stalin. As a theorist, he did not really advance Leninism by much at all, and in practice, his failure to introduce more proletarian democracy in the USSR is directly responsible in many ways for the emergence of revisionism and the eventual restoration of capitalism in the country after him. His purges against "subversives" largely targeted the wrong kinds of people, e.g. Trotsky.

That said, he played somewhat of a positive role during WWII against the Nazis and he still beats the revisionist bureaucrats that ruled the Soviet Union after he died.

I'd say Stalin is about 70% negative and 30% positive.

[Sir Comradical]

I tried to make a comradely joke about revolution and the expropriating of mops, but I don't have enough posts to do links yet ;)

I was only pointing out that the mechanisms through which power is exercised in class society are many and diffuse. I think that your definition of the capitalist class is essential, but remember that capitalism is the dynamic relation between classes. M-C-M' vs. C-M-C demonstrates how (at a very high level of abstraction) the contending classes reproduce themselves, but from this flows the many ways in which a dynamic and antagonistic class society holds itself together and, ultimately, let's hope, pulls itself apart.

Sorry, I didn't get the joke. lol.

Yes the relationship between the two classes is dynamic, that is to say that its constantly evolving, however the defining feature of the capitalist class remains the same.

[Adi Shankara]

There is nothing really "admirable" in Stalin.

So I guess industrializing the USSR, keeping the Nazis from conquering and exterminating the people of the USSR, raising the standard of living and life expectancy, challenging Western imperialism, and overturning the capitalist New Economic Policy is nothing of admiration to you? :rolleyes:


As a theorist, he did not really advance Leninism by much at all, and in practice, his failure to introduce more proletarian democracy in the USSR is directly responsible in many ways for the emergence of revisionism and the eventual restoration of capitalism in the country after him. His purges against "subversives" largely targeted the wrong kinds of people, e.g. Trotsky.

Actually, that'd be Gorbechev, 35 years after Stalin's death.



I'd say Stalin is about 70% negative and 30% positive.


Oh, you and random unsourced statistics

[Queercommie Girl]

So I guess industrializing the USSR, keeping the Nazis from conquering and exterminating the people of the USSR, raising the standard of living and life expectancy, challenging Western imperialism, and overturning the capitalist New Economic Policy is nothing of admiration to you? :rolleyes:


Though industrialisation was rapid, it was done through huge human cost. Commanding the war effort was pretty much Stalin's only positive point, but it was still directly done through the Russian people.

The biggest problem of Stalinism, as Trotskyists largely correctly point out, is the lack of worker's democracy in how the country is run. What little remained of proletarian democracy that existed under Lenin was essentially crushed.

The NEP isn't capitalist. Lenin was certainly not trying to re-introduce capitalism. If you read what Lenin actually said, the NEP was only a temporary retreat from socialism due to the economic necessities following the civil war. The NEP is nothing like the "market socialism" in China today.



Actually, that'd be Gorbechev, 35 years after Stalin's death.


Yes, and a full scale counter-revolution can just happen overnight, right? :rolleyes:

Stalin and his successor bureaucrats became progressively worse. Bureaucratic capitalism and a "shadow economy" already appeared long before the time of Gorbachev, and the combination of the lack of proletarian democracy to supervise the economy and politics in the country and corruption among the bureaucrats were the long-term causes for the dissolution of the USSR.



Oh, you and random unsourced statistics

It's not a statistic, it's just my opinion of him.

I guess you are going to glorify his "admirable action" in hitting Trotsky with an ice-axe on the back of his head as well, right?

[Adi Shankara]

Though industrialisation was rapid, it was done through huge human cost. Commanding the war effort was pretty much Stalin's only positive point, but it was still directly done through the Russian people.

You in another post said you admired "Stalin and Mao"--why the cognitive dissonance?


The biggest problem of Stalinism, as Trotskyists largely correctly point out, is the lack of worker's democracy in how the country is run. What little remained of proletarian democracy that existed under Lenin was essentially crushed.

Stalin was guiding the USSR through a rough period of revisionist and subversive attacks, and couldn't directly make the leap to Communism; socialism isn't easy to achieve, and if things were too lenient in the early days of the USSR, then the country would've collapsed due to subversive elements.


The NEP isn't capitalist. Lenin was certainly not trying to re-introduce capitalism. If you read what Lenin actually said, the NEP was only a temporary retreat from socialism due to the economic necessities following the civil war. The NEP is nothing like the "market socialism" in China today.

And the economy was faltering when the NEP was instated; Stalin reversed it, and the standard of living and economy grew.


Yes, and a full scale counter-revolution can just happen overnight, right? :rolleyes:

See: Potemkin, Romanian Revolution


Stalin and his successor bureaucrats became progressively worse. Bureaucratic capitalism and a "shadow economy" already appeared long before the time of Gorbachev, and the combination of the lack of proletarian democracy to supervise the economy and politics in the country and corruption among the bureaucrats were the long-term causes for the dissolution of the USSR.

I think you're misguided. Proletarian democracy isn't in the early stages of socialism, but in the later stages of true Communism; Marx never said that nor did Engels; that's a revisionist pipe dream. The road to communism would be hardfisted, but it'd have to be that way since subversives tried everywhere along the line to undermine the USSR.



I guess you are going to glorify his "admirable action" in hitting Trotsky with an ice-axe on the back of his head as well, right?

Considering how quickly Trotsky put down Kronstadt when it posed a threat, I imagine he would've done the same thing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So I guess industrializing the USSR

You know, even though the industrialization process in Russia was fairly quick in relation to other nations, the czars had already started the process, and in many ways Stalin was benefiting off of their spadework. That seems to be overlooked in a lot of discussions about Stalin, in which he's portrayed as singlehandedly developing a nation that consisted of nothing but farms.


keeping the Nazis from conquering and exterminating the people of the USSR

That was accomplished in spite of Stalin. He and the Soviet bureaucracy rewarded a lot of the USSR's military officials with death and purges, in fact.

[revolution inaction]

You know, even though the industrialization process in Russia was fairly quick in relation to other nations, the czars had already started the process, and in many ways Stalin was benefiting off of their spadework. That seems to be overlooked in a lot of discussions about Stalin, in which he's portrayed as singlehandedly developing a nation that consisted of nothing but farms.


i love the way starlinists are so quick to credit starlin with industrialising the ussr but hte moment people killed in ussr are mentioned there all like, it was other people who did that stalin didn't kill them with his bare hands so it doesn't count

[Adi Shankara]

i love the way starlinists are so quick to credit starlin with industrialising the ussr but hte moment people killed in ussr are mentioned there all like, it was other people who did that stalin didn't kill them with his bare hands so it doesn't count

No one is saying people didn't die. but look at the historical context; attacked on all sides, numerous split-factions fighting for power, numerous subversives to deal with, separatist movements, etc.

You think Stalin just decided to go one day "hey, it'd be cool if I killed some people, so maybe I'll be hated by historians forever"? NO, there was a reason behind every execution. Real traitors were in the midst, and most of the deaths happened during the late 20s and early 30s, which quite coincidentally, happened to be when the Soviet state was most volatile.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Shankara,

I recommend you read this. Its a masterpiece and clarifies what was going in the Soviet Union under Stalin. I'm not challenging what you said but its good to keep an open mind.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm

As far as WWII Stalin ignored good intelligence from the German Rote Kapelle,Richard Sorge and many others. Hitler had Stalin conned right up to the last minute. During the first weeks of war Stalin was in a panic (after of course virtually destroying the leadership of the Red Army and abandoning traditional Soviet military doctrine). Stalin eventually did emerge as a good war leader but after costly delay.

The Stalinization of the KPD and the insane Third Period policies enabled Hitler to take power. Its instructive to read Trotsky's writing on the rise of Hitler.

Stalin "built socialism" but at fearsome human cost. It was a socialism which was beset by its own contradictions and played in effect a counter-revolutionary role for the world proletariat. Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution.

There are reasons why the system he created collapsed in the late 80s/90s.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Awful thread.

Signifies why neither Stalinists (sorry, Marxist-Leninists) nor Trotskyists are the vehicle for revolution anymore. Seemingly would rather defeat each other than defeat Capitalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

You in another post said you admired "Stalin and Mao"--why the cognitive dissonance?


Are you really illiterate with respect to the English language or are you just pretending to be so? I've never said I "admire" Stalin. I challenge you to show where I've said this. In fact, I've repeated said that I take Trotsky's side in the antagonism between Trotsky and Stalin. All I said is that I don't completely reject him and I think he is still better than the revisionist bureaucrats that came after him. "Better" or "worse" is always relative.

Mao is different from Stalin in terms of Marxist theory and policy. Mao explicitly introduced many elements of proletarian democracy during the Cultural Revolution, while Stalin always pretty much opposed proletarian democracy.

For a Left Maoist theory of proletarian democracy and other matters, see:

http://politicsincommand.pro-forums.com/ftopic5.php

Marx developed the basic understanding that socialism entails the revolutionary rule of the proletariat. Lenin, on that foundational basis, developed the vision of the rule of the proletariat as a sort of party-state system and devised principles for corresponding party structure (and, of course, for practical work as well). Mao took communist theory to another level in recognizing that Lenin's conception of communist party leadership and leading role in the state had essential validity while also recognizing that the party-state model inevitably winds up divorcing the party, and thereby the state it leads, from the masses...and on the basis of that understanding bringing forward a vision of commune-based socialism under the leadership of the proletariat together with its vanguard party...and likewise in developing the revolutionary strategy of people's war before all this. By contrast,"Stalinism", for example, doesn't really constitute a distinct stage of the communist science's advancement because although it brings new and noteworthy things to the table (both good and bad), it doesn't radically re-envision socialism or the revolutionary process itself beyond the level of Leninism.

I also criticise Mao in many ways as well. But most of Mao's mistakes are indirect rather than direct - e.g. the famines in China. Mao did not purge objectively progressive people like Stalin did during the Great Purges. Mao did not forcefully impose collectivisation and dekulakisation from above. Mao only killed capitalists, landlords and revisionists.



Stalin was guiding the USSR through a rough period of revisionist and subversive attacks, and couldn't directly make the leap to Communism; socialism isn't easy to achieve, and if things were too lenient in the early days of the USSR, then the country would've collapsed due to subversive elements.
Revisionism can only be combated by the working class in general through democratic means, not by a single top leader claiming to speak on behalf of the whole class.



And the economy was faltering when the NEP was instated; Stalin reversed it, and the standard of living and economy grew.
Actually this shows that you know nothing about the early days of the USSR under Lenin. Economically speaking the NEP was actually a success, Lenin called the NEP a "temporary retreat" solely for political reasons, not economic ones, because the NEP was beginning to encourage the growth of economic inequality (though still nothing compared with the kind of inequality that existed in revisionist USSR later on or China today).



See: Potemkin, Romanian Revolution
You are only looking at the short-term causes, not the long-term ones. This is not a historical way to analyse things.



I think you're misguided. Proletarian democracy isn't in the early stages of socialism, but in the later stages of true Communism; Marx never said that nor did Engels; that's a revisionist pipe dream. The road to communism would be hardfisted, but it'd have to be that way since subversives tried everywhere along the line to undermine the USSR.
Do you even know what "revisionism" means? Neither Stalin nor Mao ever claimed that they were creating some new kind of ideology on top of Marxism-Leninism, so actually "revisionism" technically refers to the kind of political line that deviates from the key principles of the original Leninism when Lenin was still alive. Since Lenin introduced proletarian democracy to a significant extent in the early USSR, to reject proletarian democracy is indeed a trait of revisionism.

The "hardfisted" path you describe has led to the formation of the privileged bureaucratic caste that was detached from the people. Eventually this led to the restoration of capitalism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Marx always understood that socialism means that the working class must have actual control of the means of production, as well as actual control of the political state that represents the class interests of the proletariat, not just letting a minority of top bureaucrats make decisions "on behalf of" all the people. The exact details of this proletarian democracy can be debated, but the general principle of worker's democracy certainly cannot be rejected at all, otherwise it becomes a distorted form of socialism.



Considering how quickly Trotsky put down Kronstadt when it posed a threat, I imagine he would've done the same thing.
It is not the fact that Stalin purged people that is wrong, but exactly who are the people that were purged. Sporadic rebellions may indeed threaten the worker's state, but certainly not an advanced Marxist thinker and politician like Trotsky.

[Manic Impressive]

I have a couple of questions for anyone who considers themselves a Stalinist.

What do you think about Lenin's last testament?

Do you think that sending returning captured soldiers to gulags was justified?

Do you think the suppressing and execution of political opponents was justified?

How do you feel about Stalin's refusal to help in the Spanish civil war, while Hitler and Mussolini sent military aid where was Stalin?

[Queercommie Girl]

Do you think the suppressing and execution of political opponents was justified?


Purges aren't necessarily wrong. Socialism is not absolute pacifism. If capitalist revisionists that want to undermine socialism are purged, then why not?

But Stalin on the whole killed more good people than bad. In fact, most of the early Bolsheviks under Lenin were purged by Stalin, not just Trotsky.

[Manic Impressive]

Purges aren't necessarily wrong. Socialism is not absolute pacifism. If capitalist revisionists that want to undermine socialism are purged, then why not?

But Stalin on the whole killed more good people than bad. In fact, most of the early Bolsheviks under Lenin were purged by Stalin, not just Trotsky.

If you purge political opponents in your own party then you no longer have the dictatorship of the proletariat in any definition. Instead you have the dictatorship of one person or a very small minority.

edit:
If they are found to be capitalists then sure by all means purge away :P

[pranabjyoti]

I have a couple of questions for anyone who considers themselves a Stalinist.
What do you think about Lenin's last testament?
Pure BS. As per my knowledge, he recommended to find someone better than Stalin, but not mentioned any name like Trotsky, Jinoviev, Kamenev etc. Not on his last statement, he actually criticized all and at that time, THE REALITY WAS THERE WAS NONE BETTER THAN STALIN TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP.
Bourgeoisie-imperialist media for a long time preaches about the "will" or "last testament" of Lenin. Why are you repeating this pure BS here?

Do you think that sending returning captured soldiers to gulags was justified?
Any source? Why had heard enough of that BS for a long time.

Do you think the suppressing and execution of political opponents was justified?
If they openly advocated capitalism or make conspiracies, then certainly is. Lenin himself warned party members again and again against "grouping". Those political opponents, after being ideologically defeated turned to conspiracies which ultimately harm USSR upto a great extent. Kindly read Albert Kahn's and Michael Sears book The Great Conspiracy Against Russia.

How do you feel about Stalin's refusal to help in the Spanish civil war, while Hitler and Mussolini sent military aid where was Stalin?
So far, even in history books (written by non-communists) that I have read, confessed that the USSR was the main support behind the Republican forces of Spain. It helped the Republicans upto the extent it can. Do you want to rewrite history.

[Manic Impressive]

Pure BS. As per my knowledge, he recommended to find someone better than Stalin, but not mentioned any name like Trotsky, Jinoviev, Kamenev etc. Not on his last statement, he actually criticized all and at that time, THE REALITY WAS THERE WAS NONE BETTER THAN STALIN TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP.
Bourgeoisie-imperialist media for a long time preaches about the "will" or "last testament" of Lenin. Why are you repeating this pure BS here?Firstly why the aggression? I was merely asking questions not stating an opinion.
(typical Stalinist aggressively trying to stop people asking questions :laugh:)

I haven't actually said anything about what his last testament contained, but yes I know that he criticized all of them in it. The one thing he was quite clear on was that he did not want Stalin to be General Secretary. I would still like to know what your opinion of the suppression of this document is?


Any source? Why had heard enough of that BS for a long time.ok I can't be arsed to find documentation that you would find acceptable. If anyone else can then please do.


If they openly advocated capitalism or make conspiracies, then certainly is. Lenin himself warned party members again and again against "grouping". Those political opponents, after being ideologically defeated turned to conspiracies which ultimately harm USSR upto a great extent. Kindly read Albert Kahn's and Michael Sears book The Great Conspiracy Against Russia. WoW ther must have been a lot of capitalists in that revolution. Thanks for answering the question.


So far, even in history books (written by non-communists) that I have read, confessed that the USSR was the main support behind the Republican forces of Spain. It helped the Republicans upto the extent it can. Do you want to rewrite history.Really? I have never read this or never even heard this version of history in fact I have only ever heard that he completely abandoned them. OK your turn documentation please

[RedTrackWorker]

You think Stalin just decided to go one day "hey, it'd be cool if I killed some people, so maybe I'll be hated by historians forever"? NO, there was a reason behind every execution. Real traitors were in the midst, and most of the deaths happened during the late 20s and early 30s, which quite coincidentally, happened to be when the Soviet state was most volatile.

Seven times more people were shot in 1936-37 than in all the other years of Stalin's rule combined (see Rogovin's work). Was the state more at risk in those years than others--no, not from external sources, but from internal discontent because of the increasing separation of the bureaucracy from the society, the re-instutition of capitalist forms and norms of exploitation and division (such as the family).
And then there's the murders by the GPU in Spain. I agree with Trotsky that the POUM led by Nin became the main obstacle to the socialist revolution in Spain, but I also agree with him that his murder by the Stalinists was a blow to the workers movement. The fact that his murder--his assassination--so obviously goes against any kind of working-class interests makes me hesitate to even ask, but I will do it: I challenge you to explain how the killing of Nin, something not done in the heat of a moment or in the fog of war, but planned and thought out ahead of time, how that killing had a reason behind it.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Actually, the returning soldiers didn't go to gulags but went through sortation camp to weed out German spies. After being checked upon, they generally went back to their front line or the work they were doing before being captured.

[L.A.P.]

...who must be rehabilitated in the appropriate medical institutions rather than be locked up.


Fuck that shit, just kill the bastards!:mad:

[Manic Impressive]

Actually, the returning soldiers didn't go to gulags but went through sortation camp to weed out German spies. After being checked upon, they generally went back to their front line or the work they were doing before being captured.


ah ok I apologise for my misuse of the word Gulag that was kind of stupid but I'm sure you can see where someone may get confused on the issue

[The Author]

What is Stalinism? How to fight it?

The question you should be asking is:

"What is Capitalism? How to fight it?"

There's been a plenty of fighting against "Stalinism" on these boards at least. There have been victories, defeats, casualties, heroes, losers, neutral apathetic types, and all sorts of left and right clashes. Outside of the boards, there's been a lot of fighting against the "Stalinists" too, no one need not worry, if there's something we don't have a lack of- it's fighting those "Stalinist" bastards.

Of course, the whole Communist movement is in an abysmal shape right now, not able to fight the real problems in this terrible global economic crisis except in revolutionary areas like Greece and Nepal, thanks to the fight against "Stalinism." But hey, it's a war for the triumph of ideas!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2008/classic_bomb.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ifdfjvH9gtg/SzlDWFXjmzI/AAAAAAAAABs/SSlebj7i1Is/s320/molotov-cocktail-design.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Rifle_AK-47.jpg

These are the only possible answers to this question. Thread over, move along.