Trotskyists revaluate the Russian revoultion [Archive]

Devrim

2nd October 2010, 16:33

In the last issue of 'Permanent Revolution' there is an article examining the traditional Trotskyist ideas on the degeneration of the Russia revolution, putting the onset of thermidor back to 1921, and making Lenin and Trotsky complicit in it:

THE RED JACOBINS: Thermidor and the Russian Revolution in 1921

Stalin was the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution, as conscious agent of the bureaucratic elite that stole power and bloodily repressed opposition. But did Lenin and Trotsky’s earlier suppression of party factions fatally secure his passage to total power? Mark Hoskisson argues that the anti-Stalinist left has underestimated the significance of 1921 in sealing the fate of the revolution.

Read more (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=3111)

It is quite long (though not as long as it appears from looking at the scroll bar as there are lots and lots of comments after it), but worth the effort I think.

The current issue, which isn't online yet examines Kronstadt:

History / The suppression of Kronstadt

Lenin and Trotsky justified the crushing of the Kronstadt uprising outside
Petrograd as a necessary evil in order to preserve the Russian Revolution from a counter-revolutionary overthrow. Bill Jefferies argues that many of the arguments used by the two Bolshevik leaders were specious, false or at variance with the facts
Debate / Dating the counter-revolution

Stuart King replies to an article in the last issue by Mark Hoskisson which argued that the banning of factions inside the Russian Communist Party in 1921 was a decisive moment in the counter-revolution, removing all obstacles to the consolidation of bureaucratic power by Stalin. Here King argues there was still scope for a revival of party democracy after 1921 and the decisive struggles against Stalin lay ahead

Devrim

pranabjyoti

2nd October 2010, 18:33

Stuart King replies to an article in the last issue by Mark Hoskisson which argued that the banning of factions inside the Russian Communist Party in 1921 was a decisive moment in the counter-revolution, removing all obstacles to the consolidation of bureaucratic power by Stalin. Here King argues there was still scope for a revival of party democracy after 1921 and the decisive struggles against Stalin lay ahead.
Lenin was alive then and he himself was the man behind this "banning of factions" inside the party. Factionalism is a petty-bourgeoisie tendency and that must be suppressed.

Devrim

2nd October 2010, 18:52

Lenin was alive then and he himself was the man behind this "banning of factions" inside the party.

Yes, he was.

Factionalism is a petty-bourgeoisie tendency and that must be suppressed.

Yes, the idea that workers should have be able to discuss and debate different political ideas within their political organisations in anathema to Stalinists like yourself, far better the monolith that the party became.

Devrim

Barry Lyndon

2nd October 2010, 19:09

It seems like one's leftist tendency is defined by your view of when and where things 'went wrong' in the Communist project. It's an almost religious concept of 'The Fall', ironically. This appears to be my understanding:

1872- Bakunin expelled from the First International by Marx(Anarchists)

1921- Kronstadt(Left Communists, Luxemburgists)

1924- Lenin dies, Stalin consolidates power(Trotskyists)

1956- Khruschev denounces Stalin in his 'Secret Speech'(Hoxhaists)

1976- 'Revisionists' take power in China after Mao's death(Maoists)

1985- Gorbachev implements perestroika('tankies')

pranabjyoti

2nd October 2010, 19:09

Yes, he was.

Yes, the idea that workers should have be able to discuss and debate different political ideas within their political organisations in anathema to Stalinists like yourself, far better the monolith that the party became.

Devrim
I suggest you to read "How the Steel was tempered"? They can give you some real picture of post 1917 USSR. At least, we Stalinist can differentiate between questions arisen from working class viewpoint and petty-bourgeoisie ideology veiling behind "working class democracy" and other BS.
Just read the statements of Pavel during party meeting and that can teach you what is "working class democracy".

ComradeOm

2nd October 2010, 19:17

Again with the Trotskyists obsessing over political minutiae. Neither Kronstadt nor the banning of the factions (often forgotten to be the result of a democratic vote) constituted a "decisive moment in the counter-revolution". There probably wasn't even one of the latter. By 1921 the roots of the Revolution were dead and its this we should be studying instead of arguing when the rotten trunk finally collapsed

Devrim

2nd October 2010, 19:19

Devrim

2nd October 2010, 19:21

chegitz guevara

3rd October 2010, 00:31

Lenin was alive then and he himself was the man behind this "banning of factions" inside the party. Factionalism is a petty-bourgeoisie tendency and that must be suppressed.

Which is why the Bolshevik Party banned factions in 1903 ... oh wait!

From 1903 to 1921, the Bolsheviks were a multi-tendency organization. The 1921 ban on factions was supposed to be a temporary measure, in order to give the Revolution time to consolidate itself after the Civil War and present a united front to the imperialists.

While one of the main purposes of the measure was to keep the Communist Party from looking like it was fatally splintered to would be invaders, another purpose was to break the growing power of the bureaucracy, and the ban on factions coincided with the expulsion of 200,000 bureaucrats and careerists from the Party.

Unfortunately, the ban was never repealed, and once the bureaucracy had thoroughly infiltrated the Party, it was able to suppress all opposition to itself. So while Soviet 'Thermidor' did not begin in 1921, the path was made easier for it by the ban.

We should keep in mind that preventing a 'Thermidor' was a constant worry of the leaders of the Revolution. They looked around for the one person they thought could play a Bonapartist role: someone handsome, popular, a hero, of great intellect. No one suspected Stalin (though he was a handsome devil). No, everyone suspected the Bonapartist threat was Trotsky, and that led to his eventual downfall.

pranabjyoti

3rd October 2010, 07:30

Which is why the Bolshevik Party banned factions in 1903 ... oh wait!

From 1903 to 1921, the Bolsheviks were a multi-tendency organization. The 1921 ban on factions was supposed to be a temporary measure, in order to give the Revolution time to consolidate itself after the Civil War and present a united front to the imperialists.

While one of the main purposes of the measure was to keep the Communist Party from looking like it was fatally splintered to would be invaders, another purpose was to break the growing power of the bureaucracy, and the ban on factions coincided with the expulsion of 200,000 bureaucrats and careerists from the Party.

Unfortunately, the ban was never repealed, and once the bureaucracy had thoroughly infiltrated the Party, it was able to suppress all opposition to itself. So while Soviet 'Thermidor' did not begin in 1921, the path was made easier for it by the ban.

We should keep in mind that preventing a 'Thermidor' was a constant worry of the leaders of the Revolution. They looked around for the one person they thought could play a Bonapartist role: someone handsome, popular, a hero, of great intellect. No one suspected Stalin (though he was a handsome devil). No, everyone suspected the Bonapartist threat was Trotsky, and that led to his eventual downfall.
Actually, what is absent in your posts is class analysis. As per DM (Dialectic Materialism), conflict is the key factor behind progress and no matter, including a party, can not exist without conflict. So, certainly a communist party should have conflict inside it as per DM. So far, what is observed in almost all revolutionary parties so far is that the key conflict is between the petty-bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Inside the Bolshevik party, certainly there were petty-bourgeoisie elements and Lenin (later Stalin) ruthlessly fought against any kind of petty-bourgeoisie tendency and the banning of factions inside party is a measure taken to control the petty-bourgeoisie elements. During the later part of 20th century, there were ample examples of degeneration of parties due petty-bourgeoisie takeover of the leadership of parties.
Revisionism is nothing but an expression of petty-bourgeoisie opportunism. And without discussion of petty-bourgeoisie, I can not think any debate regarding the degeneration of USSR and the communist movement worldwide can be fruitful.
Anti-Stalinists often accuse us of "personality cult". But, actually they themselves are bearing the torch of the "personality cult" by dragging Stalin on nearly every debate. They just forgot that as per DM, if a single person can do harm upto that level, then he certainly can do good upto same level WHICH IS THE BASIS OF PERSONALITY CULT. They themselves just created some kind of "personality bashing cult", which in turn help the continuation of the "personality cult".

3rd October 2010, 07:41

Devrim

3rd October 2010, 08:47

We should keep in mind that preventing a 'Thermidor' was a constant worry of the leaders of the Revolution. They looked around for the one person they thought could play a Bonapartist role: someone handsome, popular, a hero, of great intellect. No one suspected Stalin (though he was a handsome devil). No, everyone suspected the Bonapartist threat was Trotsky, and that led to his eventual downfall.

I think that there is an interesting point here. When you read primary sources on discussions within the Bolshevik party, they seem, by today's standards, to be almost obsessed with the French revolution, and always looking for comparisons with it in their own situation.

I expect in a new revolutionary situation there would be those searching for the new 'Kerensky', or 'Kornilov' but of course any new revolution would have its own character, and while the past can be a guide it can't be a blueprint.

Devrim

Devrim

3rd October 2010, 08:51

The idea of pinning down a "decisive moment" when the Russian Revolution "went wrong" is about as absurd as pinning down a decisive point at which the revolution started. It makes absolutely no sense and is completely ahistorical/unMarxist. History develops organically, with the past flowing into the present. Any attempt to discretize history is completely arbitrary.

I agree. To try to find the 'exact point' of degeneration is a pointless exercise. Nevertheless, at some point it did degenerate, and there are historical events that although they might not be the point the revolution degenerated at, are indicators that that degeneration had already happened.

Devrim

pranabjyoti

3rd October 2010, 10:47

I agree. To try to find the 'exact point' of degeneration is a pointless exercise. Nevertheless, at some point it did degenerate, and there are historical events that although they might not be the point the revolution degenerated at, are indicators that that degeneration had already happened.

Devrim
Can you give a class analysis of the degeneration?

Devrim

3rd October 2010, 11:01

Can you give a class analysis of the degeneration?

Yes, it is quite simple. The working class lost power.

Devrim

pranabjyoti

3rd October 2010, 11:11

Yes, it is quite simple. The working class lost power.

Devrim
Man, I have asked for analysis, not description. It's rather why and how than what.

ComradeOm

3rd October 2010, 11:25

Can you give a class analysis of the degeneration?There are countless available. Personally, I have come to believe that the Russian proletariat was effectively liquidated as a class (to use a well worn phrase) by 1920 at the latest. The reasons for this are may - the Civil War, growth of the bureaucracy, rampant epidemics, etc - but the underlying cause, IMO, was the failure to halt the rapid economic collapse that was already underway in October 1917. The demographic results are horrific - Petrograd lost up to 75% of its population in 2-3 years, Moscow's nearly halved

This process severely weakened the proletariat in terms of both its actual numerical strength and, more importantly, its class conciousness. The result was a corresponding collapse in the strength of the soviet movement which effectively ended any possibility of constructing a social order

pranabjyoti

3rd October 2010, 13:40

There are countless available. Personally, I have come to believe that the Russian proletariat was effectively liquidated as a class (to use a well worn phrase) by 1920 at the latest. The reasons for this are may - the Civil War, growth of the bureaucracy, rampant epidemics, etc - but the underlying cause, IMO, was the failure to halt the rapid economic collapse that was already underway in October 1917. The demographic results are horrific - Petrograd lost up to 75% of its population in 2-3 years, Moscow's nearly halved

This process severely weakened the proletariat in terms of both its actual numerical strength and, more importantly, its class conciousness. The result was a corresponding collapse in the strength of the soviet movement which effectively ended any possibility of constructing a social order
That's a comparatively better objective analysis better than the trashes so far. But, just some questions, how the economy of USSR had some wonderful growth during the worldwide "Great Depression" in which all the capitalist countries around the world suffered at its worst and which ultimately lead to the WWII. How scientific and technical advances like T-34 and others achievements had been made despite the economic collapse starting from 1917 onwards as per you? Why imperialist countries like UK had to continue counterrevolutionary activities for such a long time if the proletariat of Russia had been effectively finished within 1920?

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

3rd October 2010, 13:58

ComradeOm

3rd October 2010, 14:44

how the economy of USSR had some wonderful growth during the worldwide "Great Depression" in which all the capitalist countries around the world suffered at its worst and which ultimately lead to the WWIIHow is that relevant to the economic collapse of 1916-'21? The NEP period did see a recovery to pre-war economic levels but the damage had already been done during the Soviet state's formative years. The political apparatus of the 1920s was not that of 1917 or that which was promised in that year. Crucially the Russian proletariat never recovered to display the same levels of organisational strength or solidarity that they had in the summer of 1917

Hence a key criticism that I have of most Trotskyist analyses is that they operate under the assumption that things were essentially progressing relatively smoothly until some political upheaval (such as Trotsky's exile) threw a spanner in the works. In reality the potential of the Revolution had been gradually whittled away from October 1917 or even beforehand

As for your actual question regarding the Great Depression, there are a variety of structural reasons as to why this crisis affected different countries in different ways. It effectively bypassed the USSR because this was a pariah economy almost entirely disconnected from the global capital markets. This does not in any way suggest that it was a socialist economy. As for the "wonderful growth", I've made many posts on this forum in the past that showed that industrial growth during under the Stalinist economy actually translated into lower living standards for most of the population

How scientific and technical advances like T-34 and others achievements had been made despite the economic collapse starting from 1917 onwards as per you?Again, I fail to see the relevance. No one has suggested that either the NEP period or the Stalinist economy were incapable of technological innovation. I do not agree with the 'state capitalist' thesis but its worth pointing out that numerous contemporary capitalist nations (not least Nazi Germany) were capable of making the same technological advances

Of course if you are somehow doubting that such an economic collapse ever occurred, and thus looking for reasons to argue that it couldn't have, I suggest you do some further reading. Recovery from the economic abyss of the Civil War years

Why imperialist countries like UK had to continue counterrevolutionary activities for such a long time if the proletariat of Russia had been effectively finished within 1920?One obvious reason is that the perspective of the British establishment does not necessarily correspond to reality

I think that there is an interesting point here. When you read primary sources on discussions within the Bolshevik party, they seem, by today's standards, to be almost obsessed with the French revolution, and always looking for comparisons with it in their own situation.Very true. Which is natural of course but perhaps unfortunate all the same. Its inevitable that arguments of the Russian Revolution will be relived in some future revolutionary crisis (rather more meaningfully than they are on the internet today, one would hope) but I believe that this is a more useful guide or precedent than that of France

Incidentally, I can't help but quote one of my favourite Marx passages. Emphasis mine

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

S.Artesian

3rd October 2010, 15:10

That's a comparatively better objective analysis better than the trashes so far. But, just some questions, how the economy of USSR had some wonderful growth during the worldwide "Great Depression" in which all the capitalist countries around the world suffered at its worst and which ultimately lead to the WWII. How scientific and technical advances like T-34 and others achievements had been made despite the economic collapse starting from 1917 onwards as per you? Why imperialist countries like UK had to continue counterrevolutionary activities for such a long time if the proletariat of Russia had been effectively finished within 1920?

First that's not true, not all capitalist countries around the world suffered at its worst. I suggest you look at the trajectories of the Argentine and Japanese economies. There you will see a short-lived, and uncatastrophic decline in growth, followed by new rounds of expansion. And let's not forget Germany after 1933.

Wait? Are you going to tell me that Germany's growth, or Japan's was built on wage reductions? Which gets us to the second point

The first five year plan was built on declines in consumption by workers and peasants, and reappropriating wages and savings through forced loans.

In addition, there is a real decline in labor productivity in both agriculture and industry in the first 5 year plan.

The second 5 year plan did relatively better, relative to the first 5 year plan.

Wait. Are you going to tell me that real output increased in the fSU in the 2nd plan? It sure did. After the expropriation of the peasantry, the real primitive socialist accumulation, after the familiarization with the machinery imported from the capitalist countries in the 1st plan, the 2nd plan did better. But you know what? So did capitalism after 1934-- experiencing modest growth and even, in 1937, with the bourgeoisie thinking there was light at the end of the tunnel. There was. But the light turned out to be a tracer round coming their way.

And... I don't think Devrim or anybody claimed there wasn't economic recovery as measured by gross output in the fSU after the introduction of the NEP. There certainly was. But here's a news flash, proletarian revolution is not measured in GDP, NIPA, but in the social relations of production, the relation of labor to its own reproduction of society.

Why did the British and the US continue counterrevolutionary activities if "the Russian proletariat was finished"? Well, first because they are the bourgeoisie. That's what they do. Secondly, because they have their own proletariat to worry about. And thirdly, because the proletariat and its revolution is not identical with the Russian proletariat and the status of the then USSR.

Now I know that's a bit tough for you to swallow, grasp, comprehend-- that the proletarian revolution is not immediately and always and forever identical with the course as laid out in great Mother Russia, and that greater Mother...... Russian, but that's your personal problem.

Hit The North

3rd October 2010, 15:45

As for the "wonderful growth", I've made many posts on this forum in the past that showed that industrial growth during under the Stalinist economy actually translated into lower living standards for most of the population

Interestingly, a similar tendency between economic growth and standards of living of the masses can be seen in Britain during its classical stage of industrialisation between 1760 and 1850.

Btw, we should not discount the international situation of failed revolution in the decade after the 1st World War, as another important factor. Obviously the revolution begins to degenerate at that point where it cannot proceed towards the further development of socialist relations. The twin mediating effects of the domestic crisis which ComradeOm outlines and the international isolation of the revolution lead to such an impasse. After that point, the only hopes for the revolution depend upon the political reorganisation of the Russian working class (which was severely repressed by the state) or the eruption of further revolutions internationally which failed in the face of the advance of fascism.

pranabjyoti

3rd October 2010, 18:37

It seems that you want to mean that the production level of USSR could not reach the level of Tsarist Russia, while in reality it had crossed that level just a few years after the revolution. I hope you too know that huge mass of workers flocked to USSR during the great depression from Western Europe. How can a country, whose economy is devastated could afford to employ workers from outside?

ZeroNowhere

3rd October 2010, 18:43

ComradeOm

3rd October 2010, 19:40

It seems that you want to mean that the production level of USSR could not reach the level of Tsarist Russia, while in reality it had crossed that level just a few years after the revolutionWhat? I have absolutely no idea where you got this from. Not only is it completely wrong but its nowhere near relevant to the topic at hand, which was my original point. I suggest that you re-read my post or the one where ZeroNowhere conveniently highlights what you apparently missed

(As a complete aside, and somewhat ironically, the argument that the USSR could in fact not outgrow "the level of Tsarist Russia" was one put forward by Stalinists as an argument in favour of creating the new economy of the 1920s and 30s. In this they were suggesting, not unreasonably in truth, that the NEP growth was due to the under-utilisation of a pre-existing capital infrastructure. Again, not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand but it looks like you're not in line with M-L orthodoxy. Oops)

syndicat

3rd October 2010, 19:49

There are countless available. Personally, I have come to believe that the Russian proletariat was effectively liquidated as a class (to use a well worn phrase) by 1920 at the latest. The reasons for this are may - the Civil War, growth of the bureaucracy, rampant epidemics, etc - but the underlying cause, IMO, was the failure to halt the rapid economic collapse that was already underway in October 1917. The demographic results are horrific - Petrograd lost up to 75% of its population in 2-3 years, Moscow's nearly halved

But St Petersburg's population in 1917 was abnormally swollen because so much of war production was centered there. it had grown from 1 million in 1913 to 2 million by 1917. so the drop to half a million was really a drop to about half its former population. and smaller Russian cities saw smaller proportionate drops in population than St Petersburg and Moscow, and Kharkov gained population.

The working class was sufficiently intact that it could organize mass strikes...against the Communist government. In Feb 1921 there was a general strike in St Petersburg, which the Communist government responded to with repression and martial law. The Kronstadt rebellion was a solidarity strike in support of the workers of St. Petersburg.

The whole consolidation of an administrative and bureaucratic layer not really controlled by the workers was already well underway in 1918, with the hiring of thousands of ex-Tsarist officers to run a conventional top down "Red" Army, one-man managers appointed from above, the overthrow of local soviets in the spring of 1918 when the soviet elections didn't return a Bolshevik majority, thus abrogating worker democracy. These were all attacks on direct working class power.

Lenina Rosenweg

3rd October 2010, 20:41

But St Petersburg's population in 1917 was abnormally swollen because so much of war production was centered there. it had grown from 1 million in 1913 to 2 million by 1917. so the drop to half a million was really a drop to about half its former population. and smaller Russian cities saw smaller proportionate drops in population than St Petersburg and Moscow, and Kharkov gained population.

The working class was sufficiently intact that it could organize mass strikes...against the Communist government. In Feb 1921 there was a general strike in St Petersburg, which the Communist government responded to with repression and martial law. The Kronstadt rebellion was a solidarity strike in support of the workers of St. Petersburg.

The whole consolidation of an administrative and bureaucratic layer not really controlled by the workers was already well underway in 1918, with the hiring of thousands of ex-Tsarist officers to run a conventional top down "Red" Army, one-man managers appointed from above, the overthrow of local soviets in the spring of 1918 when the soviet elections didn't return a Bolshevik majority, thus abrogating worker democracy. These were all attacks on direct working class power.

If this was the case though how would you have avoided it in the nightmarish conditions then prevailing in Russia? The root cause of the revolution's degeneration was Russia's isolation, the failure of revolution in the West, and the destruction of the Civil War.The Bolsheviks were paranoid, not unjustifiably, and they reacted from this. Their "party patriotism" led to major blunders. The Bolsheviks made mistakes, the ban on factions was one of them and this seems to have led directly to Kronstadt.

The Bolsheviks up to 1917 were not some kind of insidious cult. There were factions, bickering, and a huge amount of lively debate within the party.

ComradeOm

3rd October 2010, 20:43

But St Petersburg's population in 1917 was abnormally swollen because so much of war production was centered there it had grown from 1 million in 1913 to 2 million by 1917Your figures are off. Petersburg had at least 1.2 million at the time of the 1897 census and grew further in the following two decades. Furthermore, the expansion of the city's industrial base during the war years is hardly a bad or distorting factor, merely accelerating what would have otherwise occurred in peacetime. More important was the influx of soldiers into the capital, which could legitimately have said to have unnaturally "swollen" the population, but this was of a far smaller magnitude than the figures we are discussing

and smaller Russian cities saw smaller proportionate drops in population than St Petersburg and MoscowWhich is unsurprising given that the Russian proletariat was largely centred in a few major industrial hubs. Of course Petrogrand and Moscow lost more than any other city - they comprised the largest concentrations of the Russian proletariat

To give an example, by 1926, according to Kevin Murphy, Moscow's industrial workforce was still only 60% of its 1912 level. What the war had changed was the composition of this with metal workers comprising a much larger percentage of the workforce than they had a decade previously

The working class was sufficiently intact that it could organize mass strikes...against the Communist government. In Feb 1921 there was a general strike in St Petersburg, which the Communist government responded to with repression and martial law. Let us be clear about this - nothing that occurred post-October compared to the actions of 1917. Am I suggesting that the Russian proletariat simply disappeared or shut up? No. What is clear is that it was, vastly, numerically diminished by the Civil War years and largely concerned with its own survival. By the time it started to recover, if only numerically, in the 1920s the structures that it once called its own were well and truly alien to it

Devrim

3rd October 2010, 21:13

The Bolsheviks made mistakes, the ban on factions was one of them and this seems to have led directly to Kronstadt.

The ban on factions happened at the 10th congress, which was at the same time as Kronstadt.

This article (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-red-jacobins-no-substitute-for-workers-freedom/) was written in reply by a group that has recently come out of from Trotskyism, and goes much further.

Devrim

Lenina Rosenweg

3rd October 2010, 21:19

Yes. What I should have said was that the bans on other worker's parties led to Kronstadt.

S.Artesian

3rd October 2010, 21:47

Nothing wrong with making use of Tsarist officers to organize a regular army to fight a civil war.

Should revolutionists not make use of capitalist engineers, architects, logistics specialists?

How about me? I was chief of operations for a railroad. I sat across the bargaining table from unions, and would not roll over for what I thought were their ridiculous demands to be paid for not working. I fired employees for violation of safety rules and jeopardizing their own lives or those of others. I wouldn't tolerate the refusal to carry out the instructions of line officers.

Now that fact that I'm a Marxist didn't give me a bit a problem in doing my job. Lives were at stake as well as the efficient operation of the railroad. And BTW, efficiency and safety are intimately linked. You allow inefficient, wasteful, procedures to take root, you start allowing payments when no payment is due simply to win favor, pretty soon you have people carelessly operating trains, and somebody gets seriously hurt.

So should a revolution not make use of my experience? Or how about my close friend who worked for CSX as the general manager of the Baltimore region, and isn't Marxist? Don't make use of his experience either? The trick is to utilize that experience, and make those "experts" teach what they know to the class as a whole.

That was no mistake by the Bolsheviks. It was defending the revolution. Any revolutionary government that didn't use every weapon, every weapon, including sticks and stones and Tsarist officers, to mount that defense, would have been committing suicide and betraying its obligations to the proletariat.

That, using Tsarist officers, specialists, etc., is the least thing to fault the Bolsheviks for doing.

Lying about Kronstadt-- claiming that it was inspired and led by whites, that's a big fault.

Selling out left-communists in Turkey in order to secure its access to the Mediterranean, and secure its flank in Asia-Minor... that's a big fault.

Breaking strikes with police forces... that's a big fault.

But the bottom line is... the interruption of the revolution that was supposed to be uninterrupted by national boundaries-- that was supposed to find its completion in the revolution within the advanced countries, the contraction of the revolutionary struggle on the international level is what made a Soviet Thermidor.

ComradeOm

3rd October 2010, 23:00

The ban on factions happened at the 10th congress, which was at the same time as Kronstadt.

This article (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-red-jacobins-no-substitute-for-workers-freedom/) was written in reply by a group that has recently come out of from Trotskyism, and goes much furtherI can't comment on the group itself but that article displays all the hallmarks of a typical Trotskyist critique*. Namely the adulation of Trotsky as the tragic hero (only now given a 'renegade' phase in which a divergence from his earlier sacred positions brings disaster) and the same mind-numbing focus on political manoeuvrings at the very top of the state. None of which is particularly useful when answering the question as to why the Revolution degenerated

This is because this approach only deals with one side of the equation. The constant onus on Lenin and the Bolsheviks makes sense in view of the vast body of literature that they left behind but an exclusive emphasis on them is inherently flawed. If we accept, as we must today, that the October Revolution was the apex of a mass movement that was explicitly democratic and revolutionary in character, then we have to ask how did this surge somehow ultimately give rise to a one (or no) party state that acted against the movement itself? At the very least this entails asking why there were no checks to Bolshevik or bureaucratic expansion. The fortunes of this movement is not to be found in the myriad accounts of government or Bolshevik memoirs. Unfortunately for most internet historians, myself included

If we omit this element then we are, consciously or not, abandoning any real class analysis of the Revolution. Which only leads us back to half-baked anarchist 'analysis' that views Lenin as a scheming undercover counter-revolutionary from the beginning or assumes that the Bolsheviks somehow catapulted themselves and a fully formed repressive state apparatus into power in October 1917. Disappointing to see this theme taken up in that article

So, as an example, in the above link we're told that "the Bolshevik party returned to the traditions of its ideological youth in 1918 before the onset of the civil war". No explanation as to why. No analysis of the actual structures of the party. No mention of its democratic traditions. Instead Lenin was "compelled" to work alongside others and struggling against a rising tide of new members. That there is not a shred of evidence to support this (and certainly no mention of Lenin's appeals to the grassroots when in conflict with the CC) matters not. What is apparently more important than a structural or class analysis of the Bolshevik party (ie, how it actually operated in reality) is pulling up a few pamphlets from a few decades earlier and then constructing from them a suitable theoretical strawman that can be satisfactorily torn down

There are historians out there, including the odd Trotskyist, who are working to redress the above issues and produce real analyses of just what was actually going on in these parties and movements that we so glibly refer to and caricature. Unfortunately despite almost a century of bickering the heirs of the Bolsheviks have produced little of similar note

*Not to say that many Trotskyists haven't put forward very astute or worthwhile analyses of course. There's much to take from many but equally much to abandon

pranabjyoti

4th October 2010, 03:01

ComradeOm's point is here: .
You, on the other hand, are somewhere in Machu Picchu.
Certainly, from there I can have some better view of the world. It seems to you because both of you are on the same boat.

pranabjyoti

4th October 2010, 03:07

But St Petersburg's population in 1917 was abnormally swollen because so much of war production was centered there. it had grown from 1 million in 1913 to 2 million by 1917. so the drop to half a million was really a drop to about half its former population. and smaller Russian cities saw smaller proportionate drops in population than St Petersburg and Moscow, and Kharkov gained population.

The working class was sufficiently intact that it could organize mass strikes...against the Communist government. In Feb 1921 there was a general strike in St Petersburg, which the Communist government responded to with repression and martial law. The Kronstadt rebellion was a solidarity strike in support of the workers of St. Petersburg.

The whole consolidation of an administrative and bureaucratic layer not really controlled by the workers was already well underway in 1918, with the hiring of thousands of ex-Tsarist officers to run a conventional top down "Red" Army, one-man managers appointed from above, the overthrow of local soviets in the spring of 1918 when the soviet elections didn't return a Bolshevik majority, thus abrogating worker democracy. These were all attacks on direct working class power.
Probably the strikes before the coup and assassination of Allende in Chile and strike in the oilfields of Venezuela to overthrow Chavez were also "working class rebellion".:lol:

pranabjyoti

4th October 2010, 03:13

First that's not true, not all capitalist countries around the world suffered at its worst. I suggest you look at the trajectories of the Argentine and Japanese economies. There you will see a short-lived, and uncatastrophic decline in growth, followed by new rounds of expansion. And let's not forget Germany after 1933.
At least Japanese and Argentinian economy suffered, though less while the USSR prospared. And Germany from 1933 onwards effectively followed the model of USSR. Just look at the initial leaflet of Nazi party, delete the anti-Semitic racist slogans, it will look just like a communist party leaflet. During the WWII, the basic difference between the economic structure of USA and USSR is negligible regarding state control over industrial sector.

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 03:53

At least Japanese and Argentinian economy suffered, though less while the USSR prospared. And Germany from 1933 onwards effectively followed the model of USSR. Just look at the initial leaflet of Nazi party, delete the anti-Semitic racist slogans, it will look just like a communist party leaflet. During the WWII, the basic difference between the economic structure of USA and USSR is negligible regarding state control over industrial sector.

Priceless, absolutely priceless. Germany essentially was an anti-semitic Soviet Union. Well so much for the necessity of proletarian revolution. So much for expropriating the bourgeoisie.

And the basic difference of the economic structure of the USA and USSR is "negligible regarding state control over the industrial sector"? 1. You have no idea what you are talking about regarding the US economy and the state's role in WW2 2. You just about nail down the USSR=state capitalist argument with that brilliant formulation.

black magick hustla

4th October 2010, 03:59

And Germany from 1933 onwards effectively followed the model of USSR.

Of course the Nazi Party did, as virtually most of the capitalists countries. By the turn of the century, capitalism started to become statified, not only in the USSR, but Mexico, Turkey, the US, Japan, Italy, and probably many other countries. Of course, it is telling that you say Germany and the USSR had the same economic structures, because they had, they were both capitalist countries. It is no wonder why the USSR considered Mexico "the closest to the Bolsheviks" in terms of economy, because Mexico was a capitalist country, and by the turn of the century, the new Mexican apparatus had effectively liquidated the workers as a political force, either by murdering them, or by buying them off and inviting them to the government (as they did with the anarcho syndicalists and the big trade unions).

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 04:09

See pranabjyoti? I told you so.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 04:19

Nothing wrong with making use of Tsarist officers to organize a regular army to fight a civil war.

Should revolutionists not make use of capitalist engineers, architects, logistics specialists?

How about me? I was chief of operations for a railroad. I sat across the bargaining table from unions, and would not roll over for what I thought were their ridiculous demands to be paid for not working. I fired employees for violation of safety rules and jeopardizing their own lives or those of others. I wouldn't tolerate the refusal to carry out the instructions of line officers.

Now that fact that I'm a Marxist didn't give me a bit a problem in doing my job. Lives were at stake as well as the efficient operation of the railroad. And BTW, efficiency and safety are intimately linked. You allow inefficient, wasteful, procedures to take root, you start allowing payments when no payment is due simply to win favor, pretty soon you have people carelessly operating trains, and somebody gets seriously hurt.

So should a revolution not make use of my experience? Or how about my close friend who worked for CSX as the general manager of the Baltimore region, and isn't Marxist? Don't make use of his experience either? The trick is to utilize that experience, and make those "experts" teach what they know to the class as a whole.

That was no mistake by the Bolsheviks. It was defending the revolution. Any revolutionary government that didn't use every weapon, every weapon, including sticks and stones and Tsarist officers, to mount that defense, would have been committing suicide and betraying its obligations to the proletariat.

That, using Tsarist officers, specialists, etc., is the least thing to fault the Bolsheviks for doing.

There is a crucial difference between leveraging petit-bourgeois managerial-bureaucratic expertise in general, and specifically importing a massive chunk of the very social caste that constitutes the spinal column of the old State. I'm guessing you defend the importation of tens of thousands of Tsarist officers into the Red Army because you have a soft spot for comrade Trotsky, whose idea it was? Of course, good ol' Uncle Joe ameliorated the situation with a nice cleansing purge down the road...;)

Lenina Rosenweg

4th October 2010, 04:21

There was a qualitative difference between the economies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The German economy was coordinated and directed in certain directions and perhaps there is a question of how much control the German bourgeoisie exercised, but the means of production were in private hands.The Soviet economy was collectivized. The ruling strata of each country rested on entirely different foundations.

The Mexican working class and peasantry was pushed out of control, as in the fSU as a new elite consolidated itself, but the new strata rested on a capitalist foundation. My understanding is that US oil interests, esp. Standard Oil, played a huge role in this.

The "great dictators" borrowed techniques from each other but their roles were entirely different.

The fSU was not state capitalist, whatever that is. It was always an economy in transistion.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 04:26

here was a qualitative difference between the economies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
You'd think it would be self-apparent, Lenina. But I guess it needs to be said even here. :laugh:

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 04:37

There is a crucial difference between leveraging petit-bourgeois managerial-bureaucratic expertise in general, and specifically importing a massive chunk of the very social caste that constitutes the spinal column of the old State. I'm guessing you defend the importation of tens of thousands of Tsarist officers into the Red Army because you have a soft spot for comrade Trotsky, whose idea it was? Of course, good ol' Uncle Joe ameliorated the situation with a nice cleansing purge down the road...;)

Nope. No soft spot for Trotsky. Where he was good, he was very, very good. Where he was bad, he was real bad. Using Tsarist officers to build, train, deploy an army to fight a civil war was real real real good. It worked. The counterrevolution was defeated.

The officers were not actually allowed full freedom, were they? Since political officers were attached to all commands? Since I believe their families were safely in the hands of the Soviets?

And those officers... exactly what role did they play in the Soviet Thermidor? None. The Thermidor was a political response to an economic condition, a response of the political, social caste that had developed, not the officer corps.

black magick hustla

4th October 2010, 04:56

You'd think it would be self-apparent, Lenina. But I guess it needs to be said even here. :laugh:

i guess because one talked about anti semitism and the other about class rule they were different lol, nevermind that probably the ussr was responsable for more deaths of communist militants than the ndsap was.

Lenina Rosenweg

4th October 2010, 05:06

The USSR very well might have been responsible for the deaths of more communists than Germany, although Nazi Germany obviously did vastly more damage to the world.We are talking about the structure of the economy and the relationship of social forces this entailed.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 05:11

No way. Even if the USSR was a "typical" bourgeois state, which it wasn't, the Nazis slaughtered 24 million Soviet citizens. Come on...

Lenina Rosenweg

4th October 2010, 05:36

My last statement didn't come out right. I thought of editing it out. I more meant to critique Maldorer's idealist sounding position.I'm tired, nothing I type makes sense right now.

pranabjyoti

4th October 2010, 05:55

Of course the Nazi Party did, as virtually most of the capitalists countries. By the turn of the century, capitalism started to become statified, not only in the USSR, but Mexico, Turkey, the US, Japan, Italy, and probably many other countries. Of course, it is telling that you say Germany and the USSR had the same economic structures, because they had, they were both capitalist countries. It is no wonder why the USSR considered Mexico "the closest to the Bolsheviks" in terms of economy, because Mexico was a capitalist country, and by the turn of the century, the new Mexican apparatus had effectively liquidated the workers as a political force, either by murdering them, or by buying them off and inviting them to the government (as they did with the anarcho syndicalists and the big trade unions).
Actually, you are just unable to understand that by following the industrialization model of USSR, Nazi Germany can not become socialist or USSR was inherently capitalist. Socialism is not only industrialization but also the distribution i.e. how the gains of industrialization are in use. THERE WERE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NAZI GERMANY AND USSR IN THIS REGARD.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 06:01

i guess because one talked about anti semitism and the other about class rule they were different lol, nevermind that probably the ussr was responsable for more deaths of communist militants than the ndsap was.

Quick question malodor, how many Jews did the Left Communists save from the Nazi death camps?

black magick hustla

4th October 2010, 07:46

Quick question malodor, how many Jews did the Left Communists save from the Nazi death camps?

i would try asking some of them but many of them got shot dead either by the nazis or soviets

but 10/10 nice tryi would lol again

Devrim

4th October 2010, 09:18

I can't comment on the group itself but that article displays all the hallmarks of a typical Trotskyist critique*. Namely the adulation of Trotsky as the tragic hero (only now given a 'renegade' phase in which a divergence from his earlier sacred positions brings disaster) and the same mind-numbing focus on political manoeuvrings at the very top of the state. None of which is particularly useful when answering the question as to why the Revolution degenerated.

I can see your point that it isn't particularly useful in answering the question of why the revolution degenerated, but I don't see how it is putting Trotsky into the tragic hero mode.

In my understanding of the 'Trotsky as tragic hero myth', it is not only based on him being one of the leaders of the revolution, but on him consistantly having stood against its degeneration, and him ending up 'martyred' in Mexico. If it turns out that he was complicit in the 'fall' to me it sort of destroys it.

There was a qualitative difference between the economies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The German economy was coordinated and directed in certain directions and perhaps there is a question of how much control the German bourgeoisie exercised, but the means of production were in private hands.The Soviet economy was collectivized. The ruling strata of each country rested on entirely different foundations.

There were of course differences between the economies of Nazi Germany and the USSR. There are also similarities. Both were capitalist, and both were expressions of the universal tendency towards state capitalism prevalent at the time.

The fSU was not state capitalist, whatever that is. It was always an economy in transistion.

I'm sure that you have phrased that badly and it didn't come out how you meant it too, but the Soviet economy was always capitalist.

Devrim

ComradeOm

4th October 2010, 10:42

If nobody minds, can we please take the Nazi comparisons to another thread. I'm more interested in finding out exactly why pranabjyoti believes that the industrialisation of the early 1930s is relevant to the economic and demographic crises of the late 1910s

I can see your point that it isn't particularly useful in answering the question of why the revolution degenerated, but I don't see how it is putting Trotsky into the tragic hero mode.

In my understanding of the 'Trotsky as tragic hero myth', it is not only based on him being one of the leaders of the revolution, but on him consistantly having stood against its degeneration, and him ending up 'martyred' in Mexico. If it turns out that he was complicit in the 'fall' to me it sort of destroys itTo be honest, I'm not entirely au fait with my literary tropes but IIRC the tragic hero is the one who has everything but still fecks it up through some catastrophic misjudgement. In this case we have pre-1917 Trotsky whose analyses are sound and whose critiques of the 'bad' Bolsheviks are cutting. We know that he's right because Rosa agrees with him

Then suddenly (oh no!) Trotsky "adopted the undemocratic organisational principles he had previously criticised"* and "quickly became an admirer of traditional forms of authority". Trotsky was in effect abandoning Trotskyism and embracing Bolshevism. Luckily we have this group around to remind us what the true Trotskyism really was :rolleyes:

*Which ignores the fact that the Bolshevik party that Trotsky joined in 1917 was a mass democratic organisation. A supposedly revisionist account actually peddling well worn myths

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 12:45

Quick question malodor, how many Jews did the Left Communists save from the Nazi death camps?

In which case, what? Patton and Bradley are more Marxist than left-communists?

What a stupid argument. Ranks right up with the first Mayor Daley's "what trees do they plant."

Pavlov's House Party

4th October 2010, 15:00

Quick question malodor, how many Jews did the Left Communists save from the Nazi death camps?

i'm sorry i accidentally pressed the "thank you" button for this post, hope you don't get the wrong idea.

what a shitty question, is this a joke? it's just been said but that would make the american and british bourgeois states more marxist than left coms.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 16:28

it's just been said but that would make the american and british bourgeois states more marxist than left coms.

Agreed.

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 17:29

Agreed.

Agreed what? That it was a stupid question, baiting? Or that yes indeedy, you agree with pranabyjoti-- there was no difference between the US and the fSU in WW2, as both had "state regulated" economies and both saved more Jews from death camps than the left communists, thereby making both more Marxist than left-communists?

And of course, pay no attention as to what facilitated, enabled the rise to power of death camp capitalism.

What a bunch of shite you put forth in that one smirking jerk-off remark.

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 17:37

Actually, you are just unable to understand that by following the industrialization model of USSR, Nazi Germany can not become socialist or USSR was inherently capitalist. Socialism is not only industrialization but also the distribution i.e. how the gains of industrialization are in use. THERE WERE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NAZI GERMANY AND USSR IN THIS REGARD.

No, socialism is not industrialization and distribution. Socialism is the abolition of the social relation of production called wage-labor. Socialism is the collective oversight, direction of the economy so that production is for need, use, and not accumulation.

This requires a certain reciprocating relationship between the process of amplifying productivity of labor as an object, and the rule, control, engagement of the laborers, as subject, engaged in social labor.

Lenin, who got lots of things wrong and got some really big and important things right-- like no coalitions, support of the bourgeoisie no matter how "left" they present themselves, like turning dual power into the power of the working class-- put it rather nicely when he said that socialism equals soviets plus electrification. Too bad so many forget about the soviets part-- actual, functioning soviets as instruments of class, not party, rule.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 17:57

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 21:48

Setting your puerile sophistry aside, if the Left Com line is that the USSR killed more "communist militants" than what would be included in Nazi Germany's 24 million Soviet kills, then yes, any "bourgeois state" is more Marxist than they. But, that isn't saying much.

That, the above, is the "Marxism" of a moron.

I don't know whose "line" that is, and I could care less. Historical distortion and inaccuracy is distortion and inaccuracy. That's what you are engaged in.

black magick hustla

4th October 2010, 22:07

Setting your puerile sophistry aside, if the Left Com line is that the USSR killed more "communist militants" than what would be included in Nazi Germany's 24 million Soviet kills, then yes, any "bourgeois state" is more Marxist than they. But, that isn't saying much.

i think the ussr killed more people for being communists than germany did. germany was engaged in an imperialist war with the ussr, so of course a lot of soviets were murdered, in one of the most barbarous episodes of world history. i dont think you got really what i was trying to say though.

Homo Songun

4th October 2010, 22:26

That, the above, is the "Marxism" of a moron.

I don't know whose "line" that is, and I could care less. Historical distortion and inaccuracy is distortion and inaccuracy. That's what you are engaged in.

Well, if you did care, which you don't, you wouldn't have look far to find the 'primary source document' detailing the line I'm supposedly applying "Historical distortion" towards.

I rest my case.

EDIT: Now you don't even have to do all that backbreaking mouse scrolling to the top of the page. :rolleyes:

S.Artesian

4th October 2010, 22:55

Well, if you did care, which you don't, you wouldn't have look far to find the 'primary source document' detailing the line I'm supposedly applying "Historical distortion" towards.

I rest my case.

EDIT: Now you don't even have to do all that backbreaking mouse scrolling to the top of the page. :rolleyes:

The distortion is in the ridiculous assertion that the US is more Marxist than left communists because left communists, you claim, sufficient numbers from the death camps-- which of course ignores the fact that left communists were often in those very same death camps, or in other prisons. Not to mention how many of them were executed by well.. both sides.

Oh wait, I remember, actually the left-communists, and others like Nin, and the anarchists in Spain, they were plotting a coup to hand Spain over to the fascists. Yeah... that's the ticket.

pranabjyoti

5th October 2010, 02:06

No, socialism is not industrialization and distribution. Socialism is the abolition of the social relation of production called wage-labor. Socialism is the collective oversight, direction of the economy so that production is for need, use, and not accumulation.
YOU ARE JUST UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT CAN NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT ACHIEVING A LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. You are also unable to understand that wage labor is an expression of social relations regarding distribution (as per Marx). Kindly go back to the studies with "Critique of the Gotha Programme", in which Marx himself advocated accumulation for use in research and further development.

This requires a certain reciprocating relationship between the process of amplifying productivity of labor as an object, and the rule, control, engagement of the laborers, as subject, engaged in social labor.
Already said above, don't want to repeat.

Lenin, who got lots of things wrong and got some really big and important things right-- like no coalitions, support of the bourgeoisie no matter how "left" they present themselves, like turning dual power into the power of the working class-- put it rather nicely when he said that socialism equals soviets plus electrification. Too bad so many forget about the soviets part-- actual, functioning soviets as instruments of class, not party, rule.
All classes, including proletariat needs representative organizations, the party, to enact its power. However strong you are, you aren't able to make tools from iron with bare hands. You need a hammer to do that.

Crux

5th October 2010, 02:36

S.Artesian

5th October 2010, 02:47

YOU ARE JUST UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT CAN NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT ACHIEVING A LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. You are also unable to understand that wage labor is an expression of social relations regarding distribution (as per Marx). Kindly go back to the studies with "Critique of the Gotha Programme", in which Marx himself advocated accumulation for use in research and further development.

You've got it ass backwards. The relations of distribution are derived from the social organization of labor. Wage-labor is not a "distributive" relation. Nobody is arguing against research and development. But it's the social relation, the abolition of capital, the emancipation of labor by the act, by the sustained social engagement of the producers themselves that is the core of Marx's analysis of the relationship between means and relations of production.

.

All classes, including proletariat needs representative organizations, the party, to enact its power. However strong you are, you aren't able to make tools from iron with bare hands. You need a hammer to do that.That would be great if it actually worked that way , but the party after 1920 was hardly the tool of the working class. More accurate to say the working class became the tool of the party.

You might try actually reading Marx on some of this stuff. Try his Economic Manuscripts from 1857-1864.

pranabjyoti

5th October 2010, 16:31

So you oppose socialism because humanity is not technologically advanced enough? And you base this on Marx you say? your suggestion wouldn't happen to be 200 years of capitalism would it? 1875 is a while ago technology-wise. That you suggest a multi-class (one-party?) state with the development of technology as it's highest aim to reform us out of capitalism(and the way to get there is through purely armed struggle) is peculiar but it has nothing to do with marxism.
Actually people like you are also unable to understand that political struggles create the basis of further advancements. Scientific and technological advancement had been stalled for a long time specially during the middle ages i.e. during feudalism. Why? Feudalism itself stands in the pathway of further scientific and technological development. Both Marx and Engels repeatedly discussed how superstructures can influence the development of society. Before talking about Marx, kindly try to understand him in a little more depth.

pranabjyoti

5th October 2010, 16:46

You've got it ass backwards. The relations of distribution are derived from the social organization of labor. Wage-labor is not a "distributive" relation. Nobody is arguing against research and development. But it's the social relation, the abolition of capital, the emancipation of labor by the act, by the sustained social engagement of the producers themselves that is the core of Marx's analysis of the relationship between means and relations of production.
Well, can then explain why socialism has not been achieved so far, if this can be done by making act? During the transformation phases of history, there was always revolutionary conditions and if socialism can be enacted by just making act, this can be done long long ago. Once some historian remarked that he is just astonished why socialism wasn't achieved during the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. In reply Engels said that at that time, the maximum level of socialism possible can be found in Christianity.
Do you have any idea that how development of tools i.e. science and technology determined the history of mankind, which is basis of Marxian view of human history.

That would be great if it actually worked that way , but the party after 1920 was hardly the tool of the working class. More accurate to say the working class became the tool of the party.

You might try actually reading Marx on some of this stuff. Try his Economic Manuscripts from 1857-1864.
What you have said just proved one thing. PROLETARIAT IS STILL IN ITS POLITICAL INFANCY AND IT CAN NOT CONTINUE ITS CONTROL OVER ITS OWN REPRESENTATIVES LIKE THE BOURGEOISIE. Once Marx had said that the Proletariat must learn how to achieve and protect its goal and still we are just learning.
So far, as per DM, there is almost always contradictions and conflicts inside a revolutionary party, the contradiction between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. At the initial phase, petty-bourgeoisie defeated proletariat and takes control of party and then slowly its upper layer will turn in bourgeoisie as per the very nature of petty-bourgeoisie. Until and unless we will get rid of the petty-bourgeoisie menace, this will happen again and again. The presence of a party or absence is not a real factor.
Can you give me at least one example of advancement without party or any kind of vanguard organization?

Thirsty Crow

5th October 2010, 16:46

Before talking about Marx, kindly try to understand him in a little more depth.

Coming from a person who thinks that it is possible that two CLASSES stand in a mutual non-antagonistic relationship, I find this patronizing comment particularly hilarious (maybe pathetic and sad, even).

pranabjyoti

5th October 2010, 17:05

Coming from a person who thinks that it is possible that two CLASSES stand in a mutual non-antagonistic relationship, I find this patronizing comment particularly hilarious (maybe pathetic and sad, even).
Isn't there any example of two friendly classes in history? During the Roman empire, slaves and small peasants often fight side by side. History is full of such examples. Class doesn't necessarily always means contradiction and conflict.
Can you explain, why hammer and sickle is the symbol of communist parties so far. While hammer represents workers and sickle represents the peasants. Not only Stalin, but almost every revolutionary leader during the 20th century had talked and discussed about an united front of workers and peasants and revolutionary processes are maximum successful in those places, where this had been done successfully. Stand up from your armchair and try to do some real revolutionary in the real world, I hope then you can understand what I want to say.

Lyev

10th October 2010, 23:51

Isn't there any example of two friendly classes in history? During the Roman empire, slaves and small peasants often fight side by side. History is full of such examples. Class doesn't necessarily always means contradiction and conflict.
Can you explain, why hammer and sickle is the symbol of communist parties so far. While hammer represents workers and sickle represents the peasants. Not only Stalin, but almost every revolutionary leader during the 20th century had talked and discussed about an united front of workers and peasants and revolutionary processes are maximum successful in those places, where this had been done successfully. Stand up from your armchair and try to do some real revolutionary in the real world, I hope then you can understand what I want to say.Maybe he is referring to Maoist advocation of class-collaboration with the "progressive national bourgeoisie" as a means to fight imperialism?

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 00:12

Well, can then explain why socialism has not been achieved so far, if this can be done by making act? During the transformation phases of history, there was always revolutionary conditions and if socialism can be enacted by just making act, this can be done long long ago. Once some historian remarked that he is just astonished why socialism wasn't achieved during the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. In reply Engels said that at that time, the maximum level of socialism possible can be found in Christianity.
Do you have any idea that how development of tools i.e. science and technology determined the history of mankind, which is basis of Marxian view of human history.

What you have said just proved one thing. PROLETARIAT IS STILL IN ITS POLITICAL INFANCY AND IT CAN NOT CONTINUE ITS CONTROL OVER ITS OWN REPRESENTATIVES LIKE THE BOURGEOISIE. Once Marx had said that the Proletariat must learn how to achieve and protect its goal and still we are just learning.
So far, as per DM, there is almost always contradictions and conflicts inside a revolutionary party, the contradiction between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. At the initial phase, petty-bourgeoisie defeated proletariat and takes control of party and then slowly its upper layer will turn in bourgeoisie as per the very nature of petty-bourgeoisie. Until and unless we will get rid of the petty-bourgeoisie menace, this will happen again and again. The presence of a party or absence is not a real factor.
Can you give me at least one example of advancement without party or any kind of vanguard organization?
I never said that the proletariat can take power at any time, much less socialism can be achieved at any time. When however, the capitalist organization of labor and property becomes an obstacle to its own accumulation, when capital becomes an obstacle to social reproduction, then in fact as Marx put it, an era of social revolution opens, and the proletariat can, and must take power.

You don't seem to have grasped the essence of Marx's analysis-- that the reproduction of society in all its relations is based on the specific organization of social labor and its relation to its estranged identity, property-- and instead you talk about distributive relationships . Apparently you think "distributive" substitutes somehow for the interpenetration, and conflicts between the means and relations of production. It, "distributive" does not substitute.

The proletariat is in its "infancy"? Are you kidding me? Have you been paying attention to what's going on in the world, across the world of capitalism, with declining numbers of manufacturing workers across the breadth and depth of capitalism, including places like.... China, Vietnam, Taiwan.. etc. Infancy? For the proletariat to be in its infancy, capitalism would have to be in its infancy, and this system is hardly youthful.

Can I give you an example of advance without a vanguard party? Well, if we're talking about conquering power... sure, Cuba. The 26th July movement did not function as a vanguard party.

But let me ask you, can you give me an example where a vanguard party upon taking power has not been instrumental in the very reversal and conversion of the revolution into capitalism?

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 00:27

I believe he was referring to places (certain countries) where feudalism dominates over capitalism.

In what countries does feudalism "dominate over" capitalism as opposed to countries where uneven and combined development dictates that the features of advanced capitalism are embedded in the midst of backward relations of land and labor, particularly in agriculture?

And that the bourgeoisie are incapable of transforming those archaic relations because of the limitations of private property?

Crux

11th October 2010, 01:03

Actually people like you are also unable to understand that political struggles create the basis of further advancements. Scientific and technological advancement had been stalled for a long time specially during the middle ages i.e. during feudalism. Why? Feudalism itself stands in the pathway of further scientific and technological development. Both Marx and Engels repeatedly discussed how superstructures can influence the development of society. Before talking about Marx, kindly try to understand him in a little more depth.
It's not about a lack of technology, the technological advancement we have today is incredible. It's a question of power and distribution, it's a question of social contradictions in the productive and reproductive sector, to speak with Marx. And of course that creates advances in science, culture, economy society in general. What you're wrong about however is the "bourgeois revolution" part.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 01:12

I don't have a final opinion on this as I have not studied this in detail. I was just trying to understand what pranabjyoti was saying. If you do not mind, I have created this thread to discuss this in detail:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-feudalism-still-t143051/index.html

I don't mind a bit. If that's what he was saying, maybe he can answer that. I just think when we talk about capitalism we need to recognize what it always has been-- an international system of exchange and expropriation with national manifestations.

The notion of the proletariat being in its infancy anywhere in this century is pretty hard to defend. For one thing, just because there weren't, until recently, industrial accumulations equal to in mass or productivity in less developed countries equal to that of the developed countries does not mean there wasn't capitalism, and with capitalism, a proletariat in the less developed countries as far back as the last quarter of the 19th century.

For another, the residual feudal forms are tranformed, adapted, absorbed into the world markets-- look at the plantations and haciendas of Mexico prior to and during the Mexican Revolution. These were units of production for the world markets.

pranabjyoti

11th October 2010, 13:01

It's not about a lack of technology, the technological advancement we have today is incredible. It's a question of power and distribution, it's a question of social contradictions in the productive and reproductive sector, to speak with Marx. And of course that creates advances in science, culture, economy society in general. What you're wrong about however is the "bourgeois revolution" part.
The incredible technologies of today also have incredible loopholes and dark sides. Do you think socialism can really be achieved with present state of technology? I don't think so. Just understand the level of environmental pollution with so few capitalist countries and try imagine some more with present level of technology. Socialism means improved life standard that can not be achieved with present level of technology. If we are trying to increase the life standard of people throughout the world with present level of technology, we will just going to destroy to whole Homo Sapiens and many more species from the Earth.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 16:01

The incredible technologies of today also have incredible loopholes and dark sides. Do you think socialism can really be achieved with present state of technology? I don't think so. Just understand the level of environmental pollution with so few capitalist countries and try imagine some more with present level of technology. Socialism means improved life standard that can not be achieved with present level of technology. If we are trying to increase the life standard of people throughout the world with present level of technology, we will just going to destroy to whole Homo Sapiens and many more species from the Earth.

If the level of today's technology is not sufficient to support socialism, then socialism can never be achieved. The critical points of Marx's analysis are that: the social relation of production of capitalism, private property/wage-labor, impedes, obstruct the advance, application, and dispersal of technology; of improvements in the productivity of labor; of improvements to the social development, reproduction, of human beings; AND that this inability, failure, conflict, obstruction is the result of capital's success in improving the productivity of labor, of developing the means of production, of accumulating, applying, dispersing technology.

Consequently the means of production have come into conflict with the relations of production, and the class that is created by capitalism to provide the source of value, to provide the reproduction of capital is alone the class that can overthrow the system, abolish capitalism and reorganize production for use, for need, and NOT present a barrier to the advance of technology.

That's called a dialectic.

KlÃ©ber

11th October 2010, 16:36

Do you think socialism can really be achieved with present state of technology? I don't think so.
I thought you were of the opinion that socialism was constructed in the USSR in 1934 and the PRC in 1957?

pranabjyoti

12th October 2010, 02:14

I thought you were of the opinion that socialism was constructed in the USSR in 1934 and the PRC in 1957?
That were the initial stages of socialism, NOT FINAL. I myself prefer to call those states example of "dictatorship of proletariat" than socialism and PRC is actually even not dictatorship of proletariat too as proletariat was too weak there to enforce a dictatorship in such a backward country.

ern

19th October 2010, 10:18

This manifesto written by the Workers Group of the Russian Communist Party written in the early 1920's is very interesting critique of the degeneration of the party and revolution by comrades who had been fighting against the growing opportunism of the party for several years. They paid for their defense of Internationalism and the critical spirit of Marxism by being driven out of the party: a clear indication of how far the party had degenerated.
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/142/workersgroupmanifesto

On the question of the banning of fractions at the 10th Congress, this was obviously a sign of the growth of opportunism in the party, but it did not ban the expression of criticism in the party. The Resolution is at pains to say that comrades could and needed to express criticisms, It expresses the contradictory nature of the process of degeneration. The party was being torn apart by the forces working on it due to having become the governing party and its increasing integration into the state.
I think sometimes we can underestimate how difficult it must have been for those caught up in this situation. This can only underline the importance of the comrades of the Workers Groups struggle to try and save the party.

blake 3:17

19th October 2010, 22:41

pranabjyoti

20th October 2010, 14:13

Apologies for not having read every post in this thread.

I tend to think the banning of the other parties and the suppression of factions (which in some (not all) ways are same thing) helped speed up the degeneration of the Russian revolution. There needs to be room for disagreement in public and in our orgainzations and we need to be able to not freak out about these disagreements.

How would things have turned if Lenin and Trotsky had supported the Workers Opposition? We'll never know.

One lesson we can take from the Stalinist experiences is the need for both grass roots and multiparty democracy.
The banning of factions inside party was initiated by Lenin, then how can it become some kind of "STALINIST" experience? Multiparty democracy can be observed at present almost all around the world, how much that multiparty system helped in the progress of workers of that country? I hope you want mean something other than a bourgeoisie democracy by multiparty system, but there is no explanation of that. And by this kind of words, do you want to push us towards bourgeoisie democracy?

21st October 2010, 04:43

Apologies for not having read every post in this thread.

I tend to think the banning of the other parties and the suppression of factions (which in some (not all) ways are same thing) helped speed up the degeneration of the Russian revolution. There needs to be room for disagreement in public and in our orgainzations and we need to be able to not freak out about these disagreements.

How would things have turned if Lenin and Trotsky had supported the Workers Opposition? We'll never know.

One lesson we can take from the Stalinist experiences is the need for both grass roots and multiparty democracy.

The entire point of democratic centralism is that the party can evolve with the times and restructure itself to best respond to historical developments. The banning of factions is a debatable tactic, but the only reason that it was able to spur the development of bureaucratization is because the majority of the most advanced sections of the proletariat were wiped out or exhausted.

I really think too much emphasis is placed on these types of things.

S.Artesian

21st October 2010, 05:02

The entire point of democratic centralism is that the party can evolve with the times and restructure itself to best respond to historical developments. The banning of factions is a debatable tactic, but the only reason that it was able to spur the development of bureaucratization is because the majority of the most advanced sections of the proletariat were wiped out or exhausted.

I really think too much emphasis is placed on these types of things.

What's debatable about it? Lenin led factions throughout the struggle for the Russian Revolution. He formed blocs, alliances with other party members. Too much emphasis is placed on the banning of factions. I happen to agree, but only because there is something wrong with the structure and functioning of "the party" itself even without the banning of factions.

We can acknowledge the incredible strains put on the Russian revolution, but we have to recognize the proletariat and the rural poor bore those strains, those costs. Certainly individuals in the Bolshevik party made incredible sacrifices, but the party as a party didn't make sacrifices. The party used ever circumstance to consolidate the rule of its bureaucracy, not to reanimate that self-organization of the proletariat that had brought it, the Bolsheviks, to power.

21st October 2010, 05:08

We can acknowledge the incredible strains put on the Russian revolution, but we have to recognize the proletariat and the rural poor bore those strains, those costs. Certainly individuals in the Bolshevik party made incredible sacrifices, but the party as a party didn't make sacrifices. The party used ever circumstance to consolidate the rule of its bureaucracy, not to reanimate that self-organization of the proletariat that had brought it, the Bolsheviks, to power.

This is just a ridiculous historical caricature.

pranabjyoti

21st October 2010, 14:44

What's debatable about it? Lenin led factions throughout the struggle for the Russian Revolution. He formed blocs, alliances with other party members. Too much emphasis is placed on the banning of factions. I happen to agree, but only because there is something wrong with the structure and functioning of "the party" itself even without the banning of factions.

We can acknowledge the incredible strains put on the Russian revolution, but we have to recognize the proletariat and the rural poor bore those strains, those costs. Certainly individuals in the Bolshevik party made incredible sacrifices, but the party as a party didn't make sacrifices. The party used ever circumstance to consolidate the rule of its bureaucracy, not to reanimate that self-organization of the proletariat that had brought it, the Bolsheviks, to power.
You just want to prove that those who sacrifice their lives for a bigger cause are just gobbets and they don't have the capability to understand which organization can represent the future.
After all, parties is nothing but an assembly of people. This is like saying that all the atoms of a body are moving in the same direction but the body stands still. TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

S.Artesian

21st October 2010, 17:13

You just want to prove that those who sacrifice their lives for a bigger cause are just gobbets and they don't have the capability to understand which organization can represent the future.
After all, parties is nothing but an assembly of people. This is like saying that all the atoms of a body are moving in the same direction but the body stands still. TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

What the fuck are you talking about? Is that the future of war communism? Of the NEP? Of the first five year plan? Of the second five year plan?

I certainly do understand that the bureaucrats, the right wing Mensheviks and SRs brought into the party new where their future lay, and they acted accordingly.

To KC's "point": the issue isn't factions, nor is it "democratic centralism," but rather the party's self-determination of itself as the authority to rule over the proletariat.

It's one thing to say that the absence of reciprocating revolution in the West, coupled with the devastation brought on by the civil war severely weakened the Russian Revolution and decimated the ability of the economy to sustain proletarian democracy. It's quite another thing to not hold the party responsible for taking the necessary measures to preserve, and extend where possible, such democracy despite the adverse conditions; to not introduce mechanisms for reversing that negative impact coincident with economic policies.

That is where the Bolsheviks, as a party, failed. Unless of course, you don't consider the policies and programs of the Bolsheviks to have been a failure.

Kiev Communard

21st October 2010, 18:02

pranabjyoti

21st October 2010, 18:34

The issue of timing of October Revolution's degeneration is crucial indeed, despite some labelling it as "of merely historical interest". In my view, without properly determining the time of this degeneration and its principal causes we would be unable to realize what are the main dangers for the future revolutionary movements that may face the same problems and difficulties the Bolsheviks had.

It would be useful, to my mind, to trace the beginnings of the potential roots of degeneration of Communist movement in Russia to the pre-revolutionary (even pre-1905) years, when the life in constant situation of repressions by Tsarist police and secret services led to the formation of quite rigid organizational culture, which potentially could have disastrous consequences in the post-revolutionary period. It should be noted, however, that not only Bolsheviks but also the SRs, Mensheviks and, to a certain degree, many Anarchists were guilty of the same substitutionist tendencies, so it is asinine to blame the situation on "Leninist vanguardist conspiracy". The Russian Anarchists had their vanguards, too.
In my opinion, the reason is the lack of support from oppressed people around the world. Actually, they are in deep sleep while USSR had to fight imperialism almost alone. If the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America were more awake, at least half of today's level, USSR wouldn't had to suffer than much loss which ultimately lead to its demise. What can save the USSR from loss occurred due to imperialist attack, sabotage and WWII is an worldwide front of peoples. But, the world proletariat and the oppressed people lack that capability. In short, the shortcomings and faults of the USSR is actually the expression of faults and shortcomings of world proletariat and oppressed people of that time.

Kiev Communard

21st October 2010, 19:16

In my opinion, the reason is the lack of support from oppressed people around the world. Actually, they are in deep sleep while USSR had to fight imperialism almost alone. If the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America were more awake, at least half of today's level, USSR wouldn't had to suffer than much loss which ultimately lead to its demise. What can save the USSR from loss occurred due to imperialist attack, sabotage and WWII is an worldwide front of peoples. But, the world proletariat and the oppressed people lack that capability. In short, the shortcomings and faults of the USSR is actually the expression of faults and shortcomings of world proletariat and oppressed people of that time.

How could you say that? The proletarian elements in both West Europe and China fought hard in 1920s in alliance with pro-Soviet forces. And during the WW II the Communist-led resistance in occupied territories actually facilitated the overthrow of Nazism. One can not demand everything from the oppressed, ignoring their hardships, and blaming his/her ideological compatriots' failures on "faults and shortcomings of world proletariat and oppressed people" - as if they constituted the indissoluble organic unity!

S.Artesian

21st October 2010, 20:14

In my opinion, the reason is the lack of support from oppressed people around the world. Actually, they are in deep sleep while USSR had to fight imperialism almost alone. If the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America were more awake, at least half of today's level, USSR wouldn't had to suffer than much loss which ultimately lead to its demise. What can save the USSR from loss occurred due to imperialist attack, sabotage and WWII is an worldwide front of peoples. But, the world proletariat and the oppressed people lack that capability. In short, the shortcomings and faults of the USSR is actually the expression of faults and shortcomings of world proletariat and oppressed people of that time.

Were more awake? What planet are you on? Definitely not the planet that included China in the 1920s, Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, Vietnam in the 1930s and at the close of WW2, Spain in the 1930s, Chile in the 1930s, France in the 1930s, Mexico in the 1930s and 1940s....

pranabjyoti

22nd October 2010, 03:56

Were more awake? What planet are you on? Definitely not the planet that included China in the 1920s, Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, Vietnam in the 1930s and at the close of WW2, Spain in the 1930s, Chile in the 1930s, France in the 1930s, Mexico in the 1930s and 1940s....
China (specifically Mao) had done some good job by engaging the Japanese army in the Eastern front. But, did there an international army exist at that time that can fight side by side with USSR? I just want to know why there wasn't an international army to fight with USSR against the Nazi force? Remember, there were an international army to fight with the Republicans in Spain, so this isn't something unimaginable at that time.
The partizan and guerrilla groups in the West Europe weren't as strong as to counter the Nazi army or engage a huge part of them. If that so, the loss of USSR wasn't that high.

S.Artesian

22nd October 2010, 04:38

China (specifically Mao) had done some good job by engaging the Japanese army in the Eastern front. But, did there an international army exist at that time that can fight side by side with USSR? I just want to know why there wasn't an international army to fight with USSR against the Nazi force? Remember, there were an international army to fight with the Republicans in Spain, so this isn't something unimaginable at that time.
The partizan and guerrilla groups in the West Europe weren't as strong as to counter the Nazi army or engage a huge part of them. If that so, the loss of USSR wasn't that high.

Maybe because the policies of the 3rd International had so eviscerated the proletarian revolution, that it was impossible to raise such an army. I include in those policies particularly the policy followed in Spain of the popular front, of suppressing left communists, syndicalists etc who recognized the need to expropriate the bourgeoisie as a class, renounce all colonial ties, and move beyond reform of Spanish capitalism.

And maybe because wherever the fascists took power, among the initial tasks was the destruction of any and all independent organizations of the working class.

And maybe because the fSU was always seeking accommodation to, an alliances with, one section of international capitalism or the other.

An international proletarian army to fight the German-fascist military machine would have required state power in multiple states to sustain itself logistically. An international army would have required an international revolution.

This may come as a surprise, but the whole thrust of the fSU's policy from 1926 on, if not earlier, was antagonistic to the prospects of international proletarian revolution.

You think any of that might have had something to do with it?

pranabjyoti

24th October 2010, 08:24

Maybe because the policies of the 3rd International had so eviscerated the proletarian revolution, that it was impossible to raise such an army. I include in those policies particularly the policy followed in Spain of the popular front, of suppressing left communists, syndicalists etc who recognized the need to expropriate the bourgeoisie as a class, renounce all colonial ties, and move beyond reform of Spanish capitalism.

And maybe because wherever the fascists took power, among the initial tasks was the destruction of any and all independent organizations of the working class.

And maybe because the fSU was always seeking accommodation to, an alliances with, one section of international capitalism or the other.

An international proletarian army to fight the German-fascist military machine would have required state power in multiple states to sustain itself logistically. An international army would have required an international revolution.

This may come as a surprise, but the whole thrust of the fSU's policy from 1926 on, if not earlier, was antagonistic to the prospects of international proletarian revolution.

You think any of that might have had something to do with it?
Your whole arguments stands on "may be" and highest point is that "An international proletarian army to fight the German-fascist military machine would have required state power in multiple states to sustain itself logistically". Why so? Do all the revolutionary process going on around the world at present need much logistic help or some kind of backing of "State power"? If we follow the teachings of Mao, then your whole argument just vanishes in air. Mao said that the more the enemy strengthen its own army, the more it will become the source of arms to us. That rule can easily be applied while making an international army. What was necessary was manpower, because USSR was in very short supply of that. USSR didn't lack the resources but rather the manpower to use it to its optimum limit.
The 8th root army of China fought the Japanese invaders with Japanese arms, snatched from the enemy. They actually don't need much state support to continue the fight against Japanese invaders. At present, huge amount of armed struggle around the world is going on with arms snatched from enemy or handmade. Do you want to say that wasn't possible at that time?

S.Artesian

24th October 2010, 15:05

Your whole arguments stands on "may be" and highest point is that "An international proletarian army to fight the German-fascist military machine would have required state power in multiple states to sustain itself logistically". Why so? Do all the revolutionary process going on around the world at present need much logistic help or some kind of backing of "State power"? If we follow the teachings of Mao, then your whole argument just vanishes in air. Mao said that the more the enemy strengthen its own army, the more it will become the source of arms to us. That rule can easily be applied while making an international army. What was necessary was manpower, because USSR was in very short supply of that. USSR didn't lack the resources but rather the manpower to use it to its optimum limit.
The 8th root army of China fought the Japanese invaders with Japanese arms, snatched from the enemy. They actually don't need much state support to continue the fight against Japanese invaders. At present, huge amount of armed struggle around the world is going on with arms snatched from enemy or handmade. Do you want to say that wasn't possible at that time?

The "maybe" is used in an ironic sense. Clearly, irony is lost on you.

Obviously, the experience of the Chinese 8th Army is so applicable to heavily industrialized Europe with its great population centers, small rural populations and highly developed infrastructure allowing for mobility an rapid concentration of forces. Sure, completely applicable. If only those sleeping workers had a Mao of their own, the world would be so much different.

Sure, all those German and French workers should have simply bounded off to the countryside where they would have swum among the millions and millions of peasants like fish among other fishes. Absolutely.

Well since subtlety seems to be lost on you, let's try this: The working class organizations had been pulverized in the run-up to WW2. In large part, that defeat is the result of the policies of the Comintern which subordinated the potential for successful international revolution to the "national" "needs" of the fSU.

No "maybes" about it.

pranabjyoti

25th October 2010, 14:18

The "maybe" is used in an ironic sense. Clearly, irony is lost on you.

Obviously, the experience of the Chinese 8th Army is so applicable to heavily industrialized Europe with its great population centers, small rural populations and highly developed infrastructure allowing for mobility an rapid concentration of forces. Sure, completely applicable. If only those sleeping workers had a Mao of their own, the world would be so much different.

Sure, all those German and French workers should have simply bounded off to the countryside where they would have swum among the millions and millions of peasants like fish among other fishes. Absolutely.

Well since subtlety seems to be lost on you, let's try this: The working class organizations had been pulverized in the run-up to WW2. In large part, that defeat is the result of the policies of the Comintern which subordinated the potential for successful international revolution to the "national" "needs" of the fSU.

No "maybes" about it.
The problem with is that you go often out of context and just unable to notice that. I have mentioned the 8th root army regarding how to snatch arms and arm yourself with enemies arms. In that context, you put the whole guerrilla tactics. You just forgot that during WWII, the paritzan groups used almost the same tactics. And the context is about how to get arms and logistics for the army, in reply I pointed out Mao's one teaching, you just dumped the whole half-boiled, half-digested understanding of Mao's teaching on me
Just try to remember that at present the point is whether volunteer army from third world countries can be able to prevent the loss of USSR by Nazi invasion or not. I just want to say at least they can fill the vacuum of human resource loss.

S.Artesian

25th October 2010, 14:58

The problem with is that you go often out of context and just unable to notice that. I have mentioned the 8th root army regarding how to snatch arms and arm yourself with enemies arms. In that context, you put the whole guerrilla tactics. You just forgot that during WWII, the paritzan groups used almost the same tactics. And the context is about how to get arms and logistics for the army, in reply I pointed out Mao's one teaching, you just dumped the whole half-boiled, half-digested understanding of Mao's teaching on me
Just try to remember that at present the point is whether volunteer army from third world countries can be able to prevent the loss of USSR by Nazi invasion or not. I just want to say at least they can fill the vacuum of human resource loss.

You're original point wasn't about the 3rd world per se, but about workers being basically asleep.

Volunteer army of the third world in the 1930s and 1940s? Doing what? Being sustained in what theater of operations?

The only way to have prevented the Nazi invasion was to defeat the Nazis in Germany-- something which the policies of the Comintern made impossible. Perhaps you don't recall the strategic brilliance of "Nach Hitler, Uns!"

And fill the vacuum of human resource loss? Really? Well exactly how do you get your 20-30 million 3rd world volunteers to the USSR? Ocean liners? Right, commandeer the maritime fleets of.... of exactly whom? Chile? Mexico? The British colonies? Where are you going to get the "lift" capacity, when the governments of your noble bourgeoisie allied with the fSU have all the capacity and are using it to sustain their own forces?

And let's say you get enough capacity to deliver 40, 000 from 40 different ports so there's no congestion at the ports-- and it's a 14 day crossing, so every month, as the ships return empty, you deliver 40,000 brave volunteers. After 25 months, you've replaced a million. At that rate, somewhere around year 2000, you will have accomplished your goal, 55 years after the end of WW2.

That's genius, pure genius. Do you even know what logistics means?

KlÃ©ber

25th October 2010, 15:59

pranabjyoti

25th October 2010, 17:15

Mao's party did not quite "snatch" those vast quantities of Japanese arms. They were mostly captured by the Soviets during their 1945 occupation of Manchuria; the Soviet army then handed them over to their allies in the Eighth Route Army.
For a long time, Mao's party was operating in the southern part of China, if you follow the route of the Long March, then you can find that it's far far away from Soviet border. What you have said may be right, but the question is what % of arms of 8th root army had come by this way. There was no proper corridor for CPC for a long time to get arms from USSR. And also, kindly tell me that whether the Japanese haven't improved their arms since the Manchurian invasion or not?
Whatsoever, at least you have confessed that Stalin helped in the revolutionary process of another country (though Mao himself admitted that long before).

KlÃ©ber

25th October 2010, 23:14

For a long time, Mao's party was operating in the southern part of China, if you follow the route of the Long March, then you can find that it's far far away from Soviet border.I didn't criticize the CPC's decision to move the bulk of the Chinese Red Army (renamed the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies in 1937) from Jiangxi to Yan'an where it was easier to beat off Nationalist encirclements and receive Soviet aid shipments. I simply agree with S.Artesian; the fact the CPC moved itself North to be closer to the USSR proves his point that Mao's party, like virtually all parties engaged in guerrilla warfare, was reliant on foreign aid for its seizure of power.

From the 1927 purge through the Jiangxi Soviet period, the territory controlled by the CPC (mostly in peripheral areas of the South and West) had no serious industrial capacity, and practically no Soviet aid, although CPC/CRA leaders had tried every means, even attempting to capture coastal cities, to gain access to Soviet arms. The CRA's numbers were slowly dwindling in Jiangxi in the face of offensives by the German-trained and -equipped Nationalist army, and the Comintern strategy of fortifying the Chinese Soviet Republic with mud and thatch blockhouses was a total failure. The Party-army under the effective leadership of Li De (Otto Braun) realized the situation was hopeless and decided to flee; when Mao took command of the Party during the Long March and learned of the base area at Yan'an, he decided it would be best because it was much more remote from the Nationalist power base, and much closer to the Soviet Union, whose military aid and hand-over of the captured Kwantung Army arsenal would decide the war in the CPC's favor.

the question is what % of arms of 8th root army had come by this way
What % of small arms I'm not sure, although the size of Communist forces ballooned after the takeover of Manchuria, but it was only the acquisition of those Japanese weapons that allowed the CPC to create the nucleus of a regular, mobile People's Liberation Army with tanks and heavy guns, that could finally engage in modern conventional battles against the Nationalists, something that was impossible before 1945.

And also, kindly tell me that whether the Japanese haven't improved their arms since the Manchurian invasion or not?You mean in the present day? The Japanese army in China was smashed by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and surrendered quickly.