"Failed" attempts at communism and socialism?

[Ninja]

While I just recently converted (probably not the best word) myself to anti-capitalist and I'm currently reading up on the multiple forms of socialism and communism.
All in all I'm not to well read in this literature.

So my, probably stupid, question is what is the explanation of the failed attempts at communism and socialism?
And what about Communist China allowing private ownership into their economy?

[Apoi_Viitor]

So my, probably stupid, question is what is the explanation of the failed attempts at communism and socialism?

Depends on who you ask or what example of 'socialism' you are referring to. I'll stick with the example you brought up of China.

Here's a generic Anarchist critique that I had written about the lack of communism in China:

I would argue that State Capitalism is a centrally planned economy, which is in the hands of a class outside the proletariat. I like this definition, because I very much prefer to describe 'existing socialist regimes' as state-capitalist and not 'deformed workers states'...for my rationale, look at China... I believe the Maoist argument, is that Mao's China was a genuine 'socialist state', while during the period of Deng Xiaoping's reforms it was a 'deformed workers state', and that current China is essentially 'state-capitalist'. I reject that argument, because how could capitalist reformation happen in a State by reform alone, and not by the emergence of a bourgeios revolution? If socialism requires a 'proletariat revolution', why shouldn't capitalism require a 'bourgeios revolution'. Along the same lines, if capitalist reformation was so easily implemented from the top-down, then that seems to prove there was never any genuine 'worker's power'. The seemingly swift and easy transformation the Eastern Bloc and other pre-existing socialist states have adopted and changed towards socialism, seems (at least to my eyes) put tremendous doubt on the notion that existing models of 'socialism' can be regarded as "anykindof-workers state". Because (similar to capitalist states) in existing models of socialism, the economic and political sphere seems to be in the hands of a small, but highly concentrated elite class, who uses violence and whatever means available to continue to exert their political rule.

TL/DR - Chinese communism failed because there was never a sufficient degree of Worker's Power - instead, political power was in the hands of a small party elite, which made it easily susceptible to altering from the path of Communism.

[Invincible Summer]

They all failed because none of them survived.

[Queercommie Girl]

TL/DR - Chinese communism failed because there was never a sufficient degree of Worker's Power - instead, political power was in the hands of a small party elite, which made it easily susceptible to altering from the path of Communism.


State-capitalism (in the cliffite sense) is a fundamentally flawed concept. Much better are the Trotskyist conception of a "deformed worker's state" or the Maoist conception of "revisionism".

But I generally agree with your particular statement here. In Maoist terms, there was insufficient integration between the party and the masses, and then the party was hijacked by right-wing revisionist bureaucrats; In Trotskyist terms, China lacked real and direct worker's democracy, so a bureaucratic caste developed and gradually became a new class of bureaucratic capitalists. In both theories, lack of mass worker's control is the key element.

Which is why I keep on "hammering in" this single political slogan Mao's little red book style:

without effective worker's democracy there is no genuine socialism...
without effective worker's democracy there is no genuine socialism...
without effective worker's democracy there is no genuine socialism...

Long Live The Great and Glorious Proletarian Democracy and People's Mass Rule! May it survive and prosper for ten thousand years!!!

This is a line all genuine Trotskyists, anarchists and left Maoists can agree on.

[ZeroNowhere]

State-capitalism (in the cliffite sense) is a fundamentally flawed concept. Much better are the Trotskyist conception of a "deformed worker's state" or the Maoist conception of "revisionism".Not really, because only the state-capitalist theory deals, ultimately, with modes of production. The Trotskyist conception of the 'degenerated workers' state' requires that there be some form of workers' state, and the dictatorship of the proletariat may exist only under capitalism (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html). So essentially, it is a theory of state capitalism, although I agree that the Cliffite notion is flawed (however, it was by no means the first or the most representative, and superior state-capitalism analyses, such as Paresh Chattopadhyay's, differ quite significantly). 'Revisionism' analyses are often fairly nebulous on the question, often positing a 'socialist' stage with generalized commodity production.



So my, probably stupid, question is what is the explanation of the failed attempts at communism and socialism?When it comes to Russia, there were many factors. For example, the proceeding liquidation of the Russian working class as a result of crisis, something which the user ComradeOm can probably detail best if you're interested. This complemented the general relative weakness of the proletariat due to their low numbers, as indeed did the Civil War, and meant that the Bolsheviks were able to hold back the proletariat, as detailed for example by Maurice Brinton, and even stay in power once they lost mass support (around the Fifth All-Russian Congress). This could be said to result from a lack of what De Leon called the 'might' of the proletariat requisite for the enforcement of political rule.

Other factors included the large quantity of peasants, which meant that their support had to be gained through land-grabs, for example, which broke up the larger estates and further entrenched petty production. Along with this, most production was already not social, whereas socialism requires production to be directly social, and the solution which Lenin attempted (quite consciously and publically) was the development of capitalism, the 'consummation of the bourgeois revolution'. Unsurprisingly, this lead to further opposition by workers (as well as the creation of further workers), and hence the entrenchment of the bureaucracy as a means of imposing capitalism, of expropriating the peasants, and so on. At this point, one also had the state running capitalist industry, what Lenin called 'state capitalism', albeit, during the NEP, alongside a petit-bourgeoisie. However, the development of capitalism is precisely the perpetuation of the social slavery of the worker, which, as Marx pointed out, is incompatible with the political rule of the producer; political power became a means of imposing capitalism, the state a capitalist producer, and as such the workers got left in the lurch, so to speak.

If you're asking about the final fall of the Soviet Union, Mike Lepore's point is probably relevant, although in addition Paresh Chattopadhyay has an interesting analysis in 'The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviety Experience' of how the Soviet economy was progressively crippled by crisis, which would have widened discontent.

[RedMaterialist]

So my, probably stupid, question is what is the explanation of the failed attempts at communism and socialism?
And what about Communist China allowing private ownership into their economy?

Good questions. Let me start by asking you a question, and seeing where it goes. Sort of dialectically. :cool:


What kind of economic system would you say China has today? Feudal, Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist?

[Queercommie Girl]

Not really, because only the state-capitalist theory deals, ultimately, with modes of production. The Trotskyist conception of the 'degenerated workers' state' requires that there be some form of workers' state, and the dictatorship of the proletariat may exist only under capitalism (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html). So essentially, it is a theory of state capitalism, although I agree that the Cliffite notion is flawed (however, it was by no means the first or the most representative, and superior state-capitalism analyses, such as Paresh Chattopadhyay's, differ quite significantly). 'Revisionism' analyses are often fairly nebulous on the question, often positing a 'socialist' stage with generalized commodity production.


I'm aware of different conceptions of "state-capitalism". I was only referring to the Cliffite concept, not rejecting the other variants of "state-capitalism".

The radical left Maoists in China today actually label the PRC at the moment as "state-capitalist".

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm aware of different conceptions of "state-capitalism". I was only referring to the Cliffite concept, not rejecting the other variants of "state-capitalism".

The radical left Maoists in China today actually label the PRC at the moment as "state-capitalist".
Fair enough, Iseul. However, I'm not sure that, when it was brought up earlier in this thread, they were using the Cliffite concept per se, so I wasn't sure if you meant to criticise all conceptions or not. I hope that the confusion is forgiven.


Good questions. Let me start by asking you a question, and seeing where it goes. Sort of dialectically. :cool:


What kind of economic system would you say China has today? Feudal, Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist?This is the learning forum, where we answer questions, Socrates.

[RedMaterialist]

This is the learning forum, where we answer questions, Socrates.

Oh. I forgot your superior knowledge of the subject. I am always trying to learn. And I think, I hope, I can learn from a superior intellect like you. Please, would you answer the question for me?

[revolution inaction]

I'm aware of different conceptions of "state-capitalism". I was only referring to the Cliffite concept, not rejecting the other variants of "state-capitalism".

The radical left Maoists in China today actually label the PRC at the moment as "state-capitalist".

then why would you bring up the cliffite theory at all, especaly given that the poster you where respoding to is an anarchist ans is therefore quite unlikely to subscribe the the cliffite theroy of stat capitalism, especially when you consider that anarchists considered the ussr to be state capitalist before trotskyism, never mind the cliffite tendency, even existed?

[Ke Pauk]

There are no 'failures' there are only bastardizations and destruction from capitalists whether externally or internally. Capitalists love to bastardize certain things with words such as 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', or 'genocide'... Yet, they refuse to admit their blatant hypocrisy.

[Apoi_Viitor]

There are no 'failures' there are only bastardizations and destruction from capitalists whether externally or internally. Capitalists love to bastardize certain things with words such as 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', or 'genocide'... Yet, they refuse to admit their blatant hypocrisy.

True, only a God damn capitalist would bastardize this as being 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', or 'genocide'...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2009/09/071005_KhmerRouge_wide-horizontal.jpg

What failure? This sure as hell looks like success to me!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8up7h6T0Kzc/RqljJ1NXHJI/AAAAAAAABiI/UJ6ypN1b0Xc/s400/khmer_rouge_0726.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

Has there been a socialism to develop out of a capitalist economy yet (other than arguably social democratic europe)?
Has any of these attempts at socialism been democratic?

[Apoi_Viitor]

then why would you bring up the cliffite theory at all, especaly given that the poster you where respoding to is an anarchist ans is therefore quite unlikely to subscribe the the cliffite theroy of stat capitalism, especially when you consider that anarchists considered the ussr to be state capitalist before trotskyism, never mind the cliffite tendency, even existed?

This is true. My definition of State Capitalism is based mainly off of the writings of Bakunin: "State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class. And finally, when all the other classes have exhausted themselves, the State then becomes the patrimony of the bureaucratic class and then falls—or, if you will, rises—to the position of a machine."

Unlike Trotskyites (such as Tony Cliff) I regard the Bureaucratic Class as a distinct class from the Proletariat. And after every socialist revolution, political power was concentrated into the hands of the few - the new 'bureaucratic class' - which extracted surplus value off of the labor of the proletariat, while using terror, suppression, and other means to self-perpetuate their political power. Thus every socialist revolution which ends in a 'dictatorship of the bureaucracy' is merely a transitory state, which heads towards the more efficiently exploitative system of 'Liberal' Capitalism... So I refer to the stage in between as 'State Capitalism'.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Has there been a socialism to develop out of a capitalist economy yet (other than arguably social democratic europe)?
Has any of these attempts at socialism been democratic?

With the sole exception of 1968, I don't believe there has been any other semi-legitimate attempt to develop socialism out of a moderately formed capitalist economy.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE=broadcastingsilence;1896740]True, only a God damn capitalist would bastardize this as being 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', or 'genocide'...


Only a capitalist would say that was a chance to make a profit.


What failure? This sure as hell looks like success to me!

The guys in the black pajamas won.

[RedMaterialist]

Has there been a socialism to develop out of a capitalist economy yet (other than arguably social democratic europe)?
Has any of these attempts at socialism been democratic?

Depends on what you call socialism. If 50% control of the boards of directors of major corporations by workers is socialism, then Germany is getting a good start.

If universal voting rights, free public education, a national bank controlled more or less by the voters, government ownership of major highways, a graduated income tax, national health insurance, public regulation of the stock market, are examples of socialism (which Marx advocated) then Western Europe and Canada are getting good starts.

[Ke Pauk]

True, only a God damn capitalist would bastardize this as being 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', or 'genocide'...



What failure? This sure as hell looks like success to me!


The first picture are the remains of bodies mostly due to US bombing campaigns in the major cities of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Also, the previous government had offered money to those that would behead a Khmer Rogue guerrilla, there was also massive torture done by them. The torture statements made by Western Sources are largely untrue.
In the second picture, all I'm seeing is a man being taken prisoner. Which in a time during war happens.

[Amphictyonis]

With the sole exception of 1968, I don't believe there has been any other semi-legitimate attempt to develop socialism out of a moderately formed capitalist economy.

Which Marx saw as necessary for socialism to take root.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

While I agree with the analysis of the USSR as a degenerated workers state, I don't think that Maoist China ever ceased being capitalist. The means of production may have been for the most part state managed, but they in many cases only functioned as an intermediary for the "national bourgeoisie." The bourgeoisie was never expropriated.

[Queercommie Girl]

While I agree with the analysis of the USSR as a degenerated workers state, I don't think that Maoist China ever ceased being capitalist. The means of production may have been for the most part state managed, but they in many cases only functioned as an intermediary for the "national bourgeoisie." The bourgeoisie was never expropriated.

That's BS. While not all the Chinese bourgeoisie were immediately expropriated after 1949, certainly by 1955-1956 there was no capitalist class remaining in China at all. There is no essential difference between the economies of USSR and China under Stalin and Mao. In both cases, there was a centrally controlled state-owned planned economy, and in both cases there was no effective direct worker's democracy. If anything, there was more worker's democracy under Mao than under Stalin. Through the Angang constitution, workers had limited powers of management in China, whereas in the Soviet Union every factory was commanded directly by the one man at the top. Also, during the Cultural Revolution, Chinese workers had the right to strike, something no worker in the Soviet Union under Stalin or any of his revisionist successors ever had the right to do.

You've got to be out of your fucking mind to consider Maoist China "more deformed" than Stalinist USSR.

[scarletghoul]

With the sole exception of 1968, I don't believe there has been any other semi-legitimate attempt to develop socialism out of a moderately formed capitalist economy.
East Germany ? shanghai, moscow, kathmandu, caracas....most cities considered in isolation are developed capitalism... but even DDR went poor. The problem isnt that these countries were undeveloped before revolution (socialism has develooped them after anyway right), its that the US-based reactionary/imperialists kept superior technology + wealth and strangled the socialist territories. The way to beat this is to expand liberated territory over the world, cut the head off the US empire, gain access to all that wealth thats been stolen from the people of the world, and use it to bbuild a prosperous socialism

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

That's BS. While not all the Chinese bourgeoisie were immediately expropriated after 1949, certainly by 1955-1956 there was no capitalist class remaining in China at all.

The state taking control of management from the capitalist class is not the same thing as expropriating the capitalists.


Capitalist industry and commerce in the country has, by and large, come under joint state-private operation
"A fixed rate of interest was paid by the state for the total investment of the capitalists in the joint state-private enterprises. Irrespective of locality and trade, the interest was fixed at a rate of 5% per annum, thus maintaining exploitation."


There is no essential difference between the economies of USSR and China under Stalin and Mao.Except that Stalin's economy was never managed on behalf of capitalists.


In both cases, there was a centrally controlled state-owned planned economy, and in both cases there was no effective direct worker's democracy. If anything, there was more worker's democracy under Mao than under Stalin. Through the Angang constitution, workers had limited powers of management in China, whereas in the Soviet Union every factory was commanded directly by the one man at the top. Also, during the Cultural Revolution, Chinese workers had the right to strike, something no worker in the Soviet Union under Stalin or any of his revisionist successors ever had the right to do.None of this really has anything to do with whether the bourgeoisie has been expropriated...


You've got to be out of your fucking mind to consider Maoist China "more deformed" than Stalinist USSR.More deformed? You quote that as if I used the term...I said it was capitalist. It wasn't a workers state deformed or not. I think that Trotsky's early prediction on the outcome of a revolution lead by the CCP was fairly accurate:


The party actually tore itself away from its class. Thereby in the last analysis it can cause injury to the peasantry as well. For should the proletariat continue to remain on the sidelines, without organization, without leadership, then the peasant war even if fully victorious will inevitably arrive in a blind alley.
In old China every victorious peasant revolution was concluded by the creation of a new dynasty, and subsequently also by a new group of large proprietors; the movement was caught in a vicious circle. Under present conditions the peasant war by itself, without the direct leadership of the proletarian vanguard, can only pass on the power to a new bourgeois clique, some “left” Kuomintang or other, a “third party,” etc., etc., which in practice will differ very little from the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek. And this would signify in turn a new massacre of the workers with the weapons of “democratic dictatorship.”

[Ismail]

Through the Angang constitution, workers had limited powers of management in China,That sounds like Tito-esque demagoguery. "Workers self-management" is not a socialist phrase, it is a social-democratic and syndicalist viewpoint. It is probably why Mao himself noted that, "Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed." (Selected Works Vol. V. 1977. p. 304.)


whereas in the Soviet Union every factory was commanded directly by the one man at the top.This is a simplistic view. While proletarian democracy (which comes from the power of the working-class) was increasingly limited as time went on, it was not due to any reasons put forward by liberal Trotskyists or Maoists, and had its origins in the days of Lenin.


Also, during the Cultural Revolution, Chinese workers had the right to strike, something no worker in the Soviet Union under Stalin or any of his revisionist successors ever had the right to do.In the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, especially during the Great Purges era (as noted by Prof. Robert W. Thurston in Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia), workers didn't need to strike. In fact as Thurston notes workers openly condemned their managers if they behaved in an anti-communist fashion and held elections within their own factories in which many managers winded up being replaced. The managers themselves strongly protested these moves and sought to bring "stability" and "rational work" (aka: rightist tendencies) back into dominance. Furthermore as Prof. Grover Furr has noted (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html), Stalin sought to democratize Soviet society in the 1930's and the time near his death, whereas Mao practically liquidated the CCP and established himself as the sole authority of all China in the 1960's and 70's.

Workers striking for better wages and such shouldn't need to happen under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Queercommie Girl]

The state taking control of management from the capitalist class is not the same thing as expropriating the capitalists.


The exploiting classes were no longer in possession of the means of production, which was given over to the centralised state, how is that not expropriation?

It's not just "management", it's also about ownership rights.



"A fixed rate of interest was paid by the state for the total investment of the capitalists in the joint state-private enterprises. Irrespective of locality and trade, the interest was fixed at a rate of 5% per annum, thus maintaining exploitation."
The "joint state-private enterprises" were only maintained in a limited sense for a few years. By the late 1950s they were abolished on the whole.

Also, in a semi-colonial country like China, many of the so-called "national bourgeois" were objectively no more than small businesses in the Western sense. And even during the "joint ownership" period, the state paying a bit of interest to the capitalists isn't the same as capitalist ownership and direct exploitation.

Even if there were a little bit of private ownership in Maoist China, it certainly did not exceed the level of private ownership during the NEP era in the Soviet Union. Unless you also call the NEP "capitalist", Mao's China is certainly not capitalist by any means.

You should also note that in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country like China before 1949 there was simply no overall ruling capitalist class in the Western sense. The Chinese capitalist class was extremely weak and was incapable for ruling the country in any effective manner.



Except that Stalin's economy was never managed on behalf of capitalists.
It was managed on behalf of the elite bureaucratic caste around Stalin which objectively were in some ways even worse than capitalists. It was not managed on behalf of the working class in general.

Jeez, I thought a Trotskyist like you would understand this rather than defending Stalin.



None of this really has anything to do with whether the bourgeoisie has been expropriated...
The bourgeois was expropriated in Maoist China.



More deformed? You quote that as if I used the term...I said it was capitalist. It wasn't a workers state deformed or not. I think that Trotsky's early prediction on the outcome of a revolution lead by the CCP was fairly accurate:
After the failure of the 1927 revolution in China, Chinese socialism no longer had an urban proletarian base, the turn to the peasantry was a strategic necessity in those times.

Trotsky was right to highlight the potential risks that were present, but he wrote this before the 1949 revolution. The CCP did not (not in the Maoist era) turn into another KMT regime. Even though it was certainly deformed in some ways, workers' conditions still improved dramatically and qualitatively compared with under the KMT regime.

[Ismail]

... the elite bureaucratic caste around Stalin [was] objectively in some ways even worse than capitalists.That's ridiculous and spawns the same mentality as those Trots who became Neo-Conservatives. Give examples of how the Soviet Politburo (which is seemingly what you mean by the "elite") was worse than millionaire and billionaire capitalists.

[Queercommie Girl]

That sounds like Tito-esque demagoguery. "Workers self-management" is not a socialist phrase, it is a social-democratic and syndicalist viewpoint. It is probably why Mao himself noted that, "Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed." (Selected Works Vol. V. 1977. p. 304.)


BS. Without worker's self-rule there is no genuine socialism, just bureaucratic rule imposed from above.

Interestingly the Trotskyist leader of the USFI, Ernst Mandel, actually called Tito a semi-Trotskyist.



This is a simplistic view. While proletarian democracy (which comes from the power of the working-class) was increasingly limited as time went on, it was not due to any reasons put forward by liberal Trotskyists or Maoists, and had its origins in the days of Lenin.


Whether or not the Leninist system was somewhat deformed even from the beginning is debatable, but what is not debatable is that 1) genuine socialism does not exist without effective proletarian democracy; 2) there was a huge difference in the level of deformation between the Leninist and Stalinist eras.

Mao's China was also deformed in this way, I don't deny that, but Mao at least genuinely tried to introduce elements of real proletarian democracy in China, Stalin never did.



In the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, especially during the Great Purges era (as noted by Prof. Robert W. Thurston in Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia), workers didn't need to strike. In fact as Thurston notes workers openly condemned their managers if they behaved in an anti-communist fashion and held elections within their own factories in which many managers winded up being replaced. The managers themselves strongly protested these moves and sought to bring "stability" and "rational work" (aka: rightist tendencies) back into dominance. Furthermore as Prof. Grover Furr has noted (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html), Stalin sought to democratize Soviet society in the 1930's and the time near his death, whereas Mao practically liquidated the CCP and established himself as the sole authority of all China in the 1960's and 70's.

Workers striking for better wages and such shouldn't need to happen under a dictatorship of the proletariat.


Of course, worker's strikes within a socialist system are fundamentally different from worker's strikes within a capitalist system. Some of what you are describing here are actually similar to what happened in Maoist China.

But in Maoist China the right to strike was considered to be a pre-cautionary measure against revisionist bureaucratic degeneration, and it was written into the Chinese Constitution until Deng Xiaoping removed it in 1982.

The fact of the matter is that degeneration is potentially possible in any system so workers must always be prepared to fight in order to protect their rights.

Eternal revolution is the price of genuine communism.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's ridiculous and spawns the same mentality as those Trots who became Neo-Conservatives. Give examples of how the Soviet Politburo (which is seemingly what you mean by the "elite") was worse than millionaire and billionaire capitalists.

I'd say bureaucratic degeneration wasn't actually that bad during Stalin's time, (Stalin after all still had a relatively frugal lifestyle) but due to his failure to implement effective worker's democracy (which Mao tried to do but objectively also failed), during the revisionist era after him in some ways it probably did became worse. As Mao himself said: revisionism is often worse than real capitalism.

Chinese revisionism is even worse than Soviet revisionism. And at the moment conditions for workers are worse in the PRC than they are in the US.

[Ismail]

BS. Without worker's self-rule there is no genuine socialism, just bureaucratic rule imposed from above."Any direct or indirect legalization of the possession of their own production by the workers of individual factories or individual professions or of their right to weaken or impede the decrees of the state power is the greatest distortion of the basic principles of Soviet power and the complete renunciation of socialism." (Lenin)


Interestingly the Trotskyist leader of the USFI, Ernst Mandel, actually called Tito a semi-Trotskyist.Interestingly most Trotskyists (except seemingly types like Healy) were absolutely infatuated with Tito. Then again so was the British Labour Party, the Swedish Social-Democrats, and a host of other "socialist" groups of which many Trots attempted "entryism" in. One of the marvelous aspects of Titoism was its ability to accrue "over 11 billion dollars" in debt as of 1978, of which the United States alone had given it "over 7 billion dollars in credits." (Hoxha, Yugoslav "Self-Administration": A Capitalist Theory and Practice, p. 26.) Tito's commitment to internationalism was so great that everyone from President Carter to General Secretary Brezhnev to Kim Il Sung to Deng to Queen Elizabeth II loved him. Actually it seems he was a semi-Trotskyist, since I cannot think of any other "communist" who the bourgeois press was so "curious" about. This internationalism and "semi-Trotskyism" was so clear in Yugoslavia that it quickly moved towards Dengist-style capitalist practices after Tito died (not mentioning Deng-esque practices under Tito) along with having to bear an enormous debt, not to mention the breakup of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines and Serbian chauvinism coming out in full force.

Also Mandel sucked in his political analyses on other subjects in ways which make his praise of Tito (which is little different from the supposed "unconscious Trotskyism" of Castro) look naïve in retrospect.


1) genuine socialism does not exist without effective proletarian democracy;And proletarian democracy does not come from social-democracy à la Titoism.


2) there was a huge difference in the level of deformation between the Leninist and Stalinist eras.Care to give any examples?


Mao's China was also deformed in this way, I don't deny that, but Mao at least genuinely tried to introduce elements of real proletarian democracy in China, Stalin never did.Again, give examples beyond mere social-democracy. The left-communist and quasi-Trot Bordiga for instance noted that, "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step." So if your only example of "proletarian democracy" in China was a longtime social-democratic demand up until the 1990's, then we're in trouble.


Of course, worker's strikes within a socialist system are fundamentally different from worker's strikes within a capitalist system. Some of what you are describing here are actually similar to what happened in Maoist China.Of course in Maoist China the denunciations were more like, "They did not adhere to the brilliant thoughts of Mao Zedong. Mao is God. He is the radiant sun of mankind. The Party is nothing compared to the awesome glories of Mao." Etc.


The fact of the matter is that degeneration is potentially possible in any system so workers must always be prepared to fight in order to protect their rights.Striking is a fundamentally reformist action.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The exploiting classes were no longer in possession of the means of production, which was given over to the centralised state, how is that not expropriation?

And? The bourgeoisie lacking any direct control over production is nothing new, it has been a feature of capitalism for more than a century:


The railways and a large part of the sea-going steamships are owned, not by individual capitalists who manage their own business, but by joint-stock companies whose business is managed for them by paid employees, by servants whose position is to all intents and purposes that of superior, better paid workpeople. As to the directors and shareholders, they both know that the less the former interfere with the management, and the latter with the supervision, the better for the concern. A lax and mostly perfunctory supervision is, indeed, the only function left to the owners of the business. Thus we see that in reality the capitalist owners of these immense establishments have no other action left with regard to them, but to cash the half-yearly dividend warrants.


It's not just "management", it's also about ownership rights.

Ownership rights as in...the right to appropriate surplus?


The "joint state-private enterprises" were only maintained in a limited sense for a few years. By the late 1950s they were abolished on the whole.There were still enough capitalists being payed dividends for them to become a target during the cultural revolution. And when things got out of hand Mao and the state defended them.


Also, in a semi-colonial country like China, many of the so-called "national bourgeois" were objectively no more than small businesses in the Western sense.

This is true. Trotskyists have long taken account of uneven development in semi-colonial countries:


The internal regime in the colonial and semicolonial countries has a predominantly bourgeois character. But the pressure of foreign imperialism so alters and distorts the economic and political structure of these countries that the national bourgeoisie (even in the politically independent countries of South America) only partly reaches the height of a ruling class. The pressure imperialism on backward countries does not, it is true, change their basic social character since the oppressor and oppressed represent only different levels of development in one and the same bourgeois society


Thus, the feebleness of the national bourgeoisie, the absence of traditions of municipal self-government, the pressure of foreign capitalism and the relatively rapid growth of the proletariat, cut the ground from under any kind of stable democratic regime. The governments of backward, i.e., colonial and semi-colonial countries, by and large assume a Bonapartist or semi-Bonapartist character; and differ from one another in this, that some try to orient in a democratic direction, seeking support among workers and peasants, while others install a form close to military-police dictatorship. This likewise determines the fate of the trade unions. They either stand under the special patronage of the state or they are subjected to cruel persecution. Patronage on the part of the state is dictated by two tasks which confront it.. First, to draw the working class closer thus gaining a support for resistance against excessive pretensions on the part of imperialism; and, at the same time, to discipline the workers themselves by placing them under the control of a bureaucracy.


etc


And even during the "joint ownership" period, the state paying a bit of interest to the capitalists isn't the same as capitalist ownership and direct exploitation.

Don't you claim to be some sort of Trotskyist or something? The existence of a bourgeoisie means a great deal. Whatever the case Trotsky is again helpful here:


The words of Mussolini: “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state” (May 26, 1934), are not to be taken literally. The fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners. These two things are not identical. Popolo d’Italia says on this subject: “The corporative state directs and integrates the economy, but does not run it (‘dirige e porta alla unita l’economia, ma non fa l’economia, non gestisce’), which, with a monopoly of production, would be nothing but collectivism.” (June 11, 1936) ... The corporative state,” correctly writes the Italian Marxist, Feroci, “is nothing but the sales clerk of monopoly capital ... Mussolini takes upon the state the whole risk of the enterprises, leaving to the industrialists the profits of exploitation.” If I desired,” boasts Mussolini, “to establish in Italy – which really has not happened – state capitalism or state socialism, I should possess today all the necessary and adequate objective conditions.” All except one: the expropriation of the class of capitalists. In order to realize this condition, fascism would have to go over to the other side of the barricades – “which really has not happened” to quote the hasty assurance of Mussolini, and, of course, will not happen. To expropriate the capitalists would require other forces, other cadres and other leaders. (ie a proletarian party)
Until and unless this expropriation took place, the state remained bourgeois, however "deformed."



It was managed on behalf of the elite bureaucratic caste around Stalin which objectively were in some ways even worse than capitalists. It was not managed on behalf of the working class in general.

Jeez, I thought a Trotskyist like you would understand this rather than defending Stalin.

So saying that Stalinist USSR was a degenerated workers state and not capitalist is non-trotskyist and pro-Stalinism, while uncritically accepting the CPCs statements that it resolved the contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat is...?


=IseulAfter the failure of the 1927 revolution in China, Chinese socialism no longer had an urban proletarian base, the turn to the peasantry was a strategic necessity in those times.So the party was transformed from a proletarian party into a peasant party and yet this basically has no implications for the possibility of establishing socialism?


Trotsky was right to highlight the potential risks that were present, but he wrote this before the 1949 revolution. The CCP did not (not in the Maoist era) turn into another KMT regime. Even though it was certainly deformed in some ways, workers' conditions still improved dramatically and qualitatively compared with under the KMT regime.Not to defend the KMT...but lol :laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

"Any direct or indirect legalization of the possession of their own production by the workers of individual factories or individual professions or of their right to weaken or impede the decrees of the state power is the greatest distortion of the basic principles of Soviet power and the complete renunciation of socialism." (Lenin)


Actually the quote here is only speaking against sporadic worker's actions without party directive or attempting to create a new kind of "capitalism" through worker's ownership of factory on a purely local level. This is a fair point, but it has nothing to do with opposing worker's democracy in general.



And proletarian democracy does not come from social-democracy à la Titoism.


Not fundamentally. But genuine Marxists must give support to every real attempt at socialist reform, while still pushing for a revolution. This is applicable in countries like Chavez's Venezuela today.



Care to give any examples?


Didn't Stalin purge almost the entire original Bolshevik cadre who threatened his rule? :rolleyes: Very *democratic* indeed.



Again, give examples beyond mere social-democracy. The left-communist and quasi-Trot Bordiga for instance noted that, "The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step." So if your only example of "proletarian democracy" in China was a longtime social-democratic demand up until the 1990's, then we're in trouble.


Mao's China was never capitalist. In fact, strictly speaking even China before 1949 was not really capitalist, it was a semi-feudal semi-colonial country. The Chinese capitalist class never as a class effectively ruled over the country. They were relatively small and weak. In Mao's China, even during the days where there existed a small minority of private and semi-private enterprises in the economy, it never went beyond the level of privatisation that occurred under the Lenin's NEP, and the "commanding heights" of the economy was certainly nationalised and placed under the directives of the planned economy.

China was not a Western-style Social Democracy by any means.



Of course in Maoist China the denunciations were more like, "They did not adhere to the brilliant thoughts of Mao Zedong. Mao is God. He is the radiant sun of mankind. The Party is nothing compared to the awesome glories of Mao." Etc.


Actually the "personality cult" existed in Stalin's Russia too.

The interesting thing is to compare China during the Maoist era and China today. In Mao's time you couldn't criticise Mao but you could criticise the local party bosses and even physically fight them. Today in China they allow you to criticise Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao sometimes but if you criticise the local capitalist boss running the plant they drag you away into a prison. Evidently the ability to criticise the "top leader" isn't even 1% as important in the pragmatic sense as the rights to criticise the local bosses, because the latter directly affects people's livelihoods.



Striking is a fundamentally reformist action.

No it's not. The risk of revisionist bureaucratic degeneration is ever-present, so workers always need a potential means to fight back in order to defend their rights.

[Apoi_Viitor]

East Germany ? shanghai, moscow, kathmandu, caracas....most cities considered in isolation are developed capitalism... but even DDR went poor. The problem isnt that these countries were undeveloped before revolution (socialism has develooped them after anyway right), its that the US-based reactionary/imperialists kept superior technology + wealth and strangled the socialist territories. The way to beat this is to expand liberated territory over the world, cut the head off the US empire, gain access to all that wealth thats been stolen from the people of the world, and use it to bbuild a prosperous socialism

I wasn't critiquing any of the nations that were 'underdeveloped' before the socialist revolution, I was just responding to Revolution Starts With U's question: Has there been a socialism to develop out of a capitalist economy yet (other than arguably social democratic europe)? And I regard France as the only modernized industrial country where such a crisis took place.

[Ismail]

Actually the quote here is only speaking against sporadic worker's actions without party directive or attempting to create a new kind of "capitalism" through worker's ownership of factory on a purely local level. This is a fair point, but it has nothing to do with opposing worker's democracy in general.Except "worker's democracy" and "workers self-management" are not the same. The former is basically just proletarian democracy under a different name, the latter is a social-democratic policy employed by Tito and supported by Swedish Social-Democrats, etc. You're projecting essentially social-democratic views and aspirations on China and Mao.


Not fundamentally. But genuine Marxists must give support to every real attempt at socialist reform, while still pushing for a revolution. This is applicable in countries like Chavez's Venezuela today.Chávez is not a socialist and Venezuela is not engaged in "socialist reforms" of any type.


Didn't Stalin purge almost the entire original Bolshevik cadre who threatened his rule?The various trials from 1936-1938 established that there was a conspiracy against the government from both "left-wing" and rightist elements which involved cooperation with Nazi Germany and Japan, and plots for a military coup. Various persons of note (e.g. Churchill, US Ambassador to the USSR Davies, and other observers I could list who along with Davies actually witnessed the trials alongside gaggles of foreign ambassadors and diplomats) attested to the genuineness of the trials, and more evidence has come out since the 1930's in favor of the validity of the basic charges of the trial. The most recent compilation of most of this evidence is Prof. Furr's article (http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf) on the subject, which contains most of the post-1930's evidence, including evidence from the Soviet archives.


Very *democratic* indeed.I'm pretty sure Stalin advanced proposals for multi-candidate elections both within the Party (which occurred) and for Supreme Soviet elections (as noted not only by Furr, but by a significantly less sympathetic source such as Prof. Getty) and fighting bureaucracy within the Party and State apparatuses (as noted by Lars Lih and others).


Actually the "personality cult" existed in Stalin's Russia too.The difference is that Stalin openly criticized it (http://www.oocities.com/acero.rm/Britain/StalinBB.htm), and it never caused the Party to crawl into the background. The CCP was rendered practically inoperable under the "GPCR."


No it's not. The risk of revisionist bureaucratic degeneration is ever-present, so workers always need a potential means to fight back in order to defend their rights.Again, strikes are a fundamentally reformist activity. They can fan revolutionary situations under skilled leadership (and in particularly severe cases), but they will not steer anything on their own. There were various strikes under Lenin, does that mean Soviet Russia was a horrible anti-worker hellhole?

[Apoi_Viitor]

The first picture are the remains of bodies mostly due to US bombing campaigns in the major cities of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Also, the previous government had offered money to those that would behead a Khmer Rogue guerrilla, there was also massive torture done by them. The torture statements made by Western Sources are largely untrue.
In the second picture, all I'm seeing is a man being taken prisoner. Which in a time during war happens.

I agree. As a direct resultant of the US bombing campaigns, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was able to take power, and systematically massacre the Cambodian population.

And here is a picture of the Khmer Rouge, in all of its 'authoritarian, 'genocidal' glory.

http://www.intellasia.net/news/uploads/5/KhmerRougeCanal600.jpg

Also, here's John Pilger's documentary on the subject:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9159164859238659487#

And here's 'some largely untrue' tales of Khmer Rouge atrocities.
http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/stories/index.html

[Ninja]

Good questions. Let me start by asking you a question, and seeing where it goes. Sort of dialectically. :cool:


What kind of economic system would you say China has today? Feudal, Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist?

From my knowledge, or lack there of, I would think china is a Capitalist state with poor welfare for its citizens. I say that due to the fact there is a huge rich-poor gap.

And specifically why did the USSR fail? I know Stalin didn't create a real accurate form of Communism.

[Ke Pauk]

I agree. As a direct resultant of the US bombing campaigns, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was able to take power, and systematically massacre the Cambodian population.

And here is a picture of the Khmer Rouge, in all of its 'authoritarian, 'genocidal' glory.



Also, here's John Pilger's documentary on the subject:


And here's 'some largely untrue' tales of Khmer Rouge atrocities.


In your picture all there is a labor colony, which many in it are likely to have commited crimes and are being punished for their crimes through corrective labor. Which was also a respectable punishment in the USSR as well. Especially during war time it is best to use the prison population with corrective labor as opposed to not assigning corrective labor. I fail to see the problem in the photo.

The same John Pilger that sided with Vietnam after their invasion of Cambodia in order to spread their socially and military imperialist agenda at attempting to make Cambodia a puppet state of Vietnam?

Also most of your stories there are from a Bourgoise faction of Cambodian society that were taken as prisoners due to their previous crimes such as working with the Cambodian Monarchy or exploiting the Cambodian agricultural class. (Which the CPK mainly was a result from, so they had to speak directly for the peasant class and hand out harsh sentences to the Cambodian bourgoise for their crimes.) Also, if you read half the stories there they also deny the struggle in other countries as 'genocidal' such as the struggle in Angola and various other parts of the world. So yes they are largely untrue tales.

[RedMaterialist]

From my knowledge, or lack there of, I would think china is a Capitalist state with poor welfare for its citizens. I say that due to the fact there is a huge rich-poor gap.

And specifically why did the USSR fail? I know Stalin didn't create a real accurate form of Communism.

In China is there government planning of the economy?

If Stalin did not create a real accurate form of communism, what form of economy did he create?

[Ke Pauk]

From my knowledge, or lack there of, I would think china is a Capitalist state with poor welfare for its citizens. I say that due to the fact there is a huge rich-poor gap.

And specifically why did the USSR fail? I know Stalin didn't create a real accurate form of Communism.
China is a Capitalist state now due to the fact of Revisionists in the CCP which have completely disregarded the Maoist line in which the party was founded on. Its sickening that its still even called the CCP at this point with the party members doing what they're currently doing. Stalin did indeed create an accurate form of Communism in the 1930's that would later be destroyed by Revisionists in his own party unfortunately. The USSR fell because of the Revisionism that was created by Khrushchev. The final blow that the USSR could take was Gorbachev dismantling the very Soviet System and pushing forward Capitalism that the other Revisionists before him had set up to happen.

[Barry Lyndon]

a) Except "worker's democracy" and "workers self-management" are not the same. The former is basically just proletarian democracy under a different name, the latter is a social-democratic policy employed by Tito and supported by Swedish Social-Democrats, etc. You're projecting essentially social-democratic views and aspirations on China and Mao.

b) Chávez is not a socialist and Venezuela is not engaged in "socialist reforms" of any type.

c) The various trials from 1936-1938 established that there was a conspiracy against the government from both "left-wing" and rightist elements which involved cooperation with Nazi Germany and Japan, and plots for a military coup. Various persons of note (e.g. Churchill, US Ambassador to the USSR Davies, and other observers I could list who along with Davies actually witnessed the trials alongside gaggles of foreign ambassadors and diplomats) attested to the genuineness of the trials, and more evidence has come out since the 1930's in favor of the validity of the basic charges of the trial. The most recent compilation of most of this evidence is Prof. Furr's article (http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf) on the subject, which contains most of the post-1930's evidence, including evidence from the Soviet archives.

d) I'm pretty sure Stalin advanced proposals for multi-candidate elections both within the Party (which occurred) and for Supreme Soviet elections (as noted not only by Furr, but by a significantly less sympathetic source such as Prof. Getty) and fighting bureaucracy within the Party and State apparatuses (as noted by Lars Lih and others).

e) The difference is that Stalin openly criticized it (http://www.oocities.com/acero.rm/Britain/StalinBB.htm), and it never caused the Party to crawl into the background. The CCP was rendered practically inoperable under the "GPCR."

f) Again, strikes are a fundamentally reformist activity. They can fan revolutionary situations under skilled leadership (and in particularly severe cases), but they will not steer anything on their own. There were various strikes under Lenin, does that mean Soviet Russia was a horrible anti-worker hellhole?

a) Workers do not collectively manage their own factories in Sweden like they did in Yugoslavia. Stop throwing around words you don't know the meaning of.

b) I'm sure if he made a speech tomorrow extolling the glories of Stalin and Hoxha you would sing a different tune. Maybe when the right wing tries to overthrow him again your Hoxhaist buddies can lend a helping hand like they did in Ecuador.

c) Grover Furr's main method of argument is screaming that every allegation against Stalin is a 'lie'. The 'evidence' for these charges was written confessions obtained through psychological and physical torture by NKVD goons. General Tugachevsky, an alleged leader of the coup plot against Stalin, had blood splattered on his confession document. Furr doesn't deny this, but absurdly claims that blood is no evidence of torture!
Furr also has no background in Russian or Soviet history, but is an English professor.
Yes, Churchill relayed that information-from conversations with Stalin himself. What a great source.
Typical Stalinist hypocirsy. If an anti-Stalin source was a capitalist at any point in their life, that source is discredited forever. But if a capitalist praises Stalin, well thats just fine.

d) Oh, that must be why when the majority of the 17th congress of Communist Party of the Soviet Union voted against Stalin's proposals in 1934, over half the delegates at that meeting were subsequently executed or sent to the Gulag. Doesn't sound like proletarian democracy to me.

e) Actually, Stalin's alleged 'modesty' was also part of the personality cult, as can be clearly seen in films from that era.
The GPCR was aimed at making the party 'inoperable' because the party had grown corrupt and unresponsive to the needs of the workers and peasants. Undermining sections of the party was a good thing in those circumstances. But because your a Stalinist you worship the party and don't care about the people that the party is supposed to serve, not to dominate.

f) Your saying that there was no proletarian democracy under Lenin because their were strikes? Boy your tying yourself in knots here.

[Ismail]

a) Workers do not collectively manage their own factories in Sweden like they did in Yugoslavia. Stop throwing around words you don't know the meaning of.Neither did they in Yugoslavia, where managers handpicked by the Party were the actual leaders of factories on a "market socialist" basis. The Swedish Social-Democrats under Olof Palme and others had practically the same program as Titoist Yugoslavia, and it's fairly easy to find examples of the Yugoslav "Communists" meeting with social-democratic parties (e.g. the League of Communists of Vojvodina meeting with the Swedish "Left Party" in the early 80's).

If you're accusing me of being ignorant as to the meaning of words, how does one explain you calling the Second Spanish Republic a "socialist state" months back, when no one (well, except Franco and far-rightists today) claims such a thing?


I'm sure if he made a speech tomorrow extolling the glories of Stalin and Hoxha you would sing a different tune.Actually yes, that would signify he's a Marxist-Leninist at least in words, and it would take quite some courage to openly defend Stalin and Hoxha. Instead Chávez has called himself a Trotskyist, a Maoist, a "non-dogmatic communist," a non-communist, a reformist, and a revolutionary all at different times.


c) Grover Furr's main method of argument is screaming that every allegation against Stalin is a 'lie'.... and providing evidence that something is either a lie or distorted.


The 'evidence' for these charges was written confessions obtained through psychological and physical torture by NKVD goons.There is no evidence of this in regards to Moscow Trial defendants. The most verifiable statement in this regard (and it comes from I think Rakovsky during the actual trials) is that they were locked up for a really long time in confinement (which, considering they were suspects in a complex case, isn't too surprising), but they still had the ability to read a newspaper, write in a diary, send/receive letters from relatives, walk around a bit outside, etc.


General Tugachevsky, an alleged leader of the coup plot against Stalin, had blood splattered on his confession document. Furr doesn't deny this, but absurdly claims that blood is no evidence of torture!Tukhachevsky's trial went differently from the others (it was a private military tribunal that sentenced him, not an open court), and Furr said that there's no way to see if it's blood or not. Even if we assume that Tukhachevsky was tortured, it doesn't change the amount of evidence against him from others regardless of what he said during the military trial.

This is what Furr said:

According to a Khrushchev-era commission, the marks on one draft of Tukhachevsky's confessions are blood. Even if that is true, and even if they are Tukhachevsky's blood (this has not been established) a glance at them shows they are not "fingerprints." There is no evidence whatsoever that Tukhachevsky was "beaten" or physically abused in any way. The stains may be seen at http://images.izvestia.ru/lenta/35492.jpg
Furr also has no background in Russian or Soviet history, but is an English professor.Irrelevant. As Furr says:

The "qualifications" game is nonsense. Every faculty member has to develop and teach courses outside his area of specialty. The real, valid questions to ask include these:


Has the professor thoroughly prepared his course by studying the major research on the subject in question?
Does the professor attempt to be objective, reaching his conclusions according to the best evidence available?
Does the professor make explicit the underlying assumptions governing the differing viewpoints or perspectives expressed by experts on this subject?
Does the professor clearly state his own perspective; method, and presuppositions?
Does the professor encourage students to question all statements and viewpoints, including -- especially -- his own?

Neither Horowitz nor his "researcher", DiPippo, asked any of these questions about my teaching. In fact, neither of them ever interviewed a single student in any of my courses, or obtained a single complaint from any individual student!

Furthermore, Robert Conquest, the famous, anti-communist, and hugely dishonest historian of the USSR, is a poet. He has no academic degree in poetry or literature. Yet he has written about literature. Victor Davis Hansen, neo-con political commentator on any subject under the sun, is a Classicist.

What are THESE neocon liars' "qualifications"? Do Horowitz et al. complain that THEY are writing as "amateurs guided by political agendas"?
For that matter, what are Horowitz’s, or DiPippo’s, "qualifications"? They make basic, flagrant errors about Soviet history, and then accuse me of not agreeing with their nonsense.
But if a capitalist praises Stalin, well thats just fine.I was unaware Davies praised Stalin whilst talking about the validity of the Moscow Trials from the standpoint of an ex-lawyer. In his diary he is quick to criticize the USSR in various aspects. In fact Davies actually tries to "outsmart" Stalin whenever he actually details his meetings with him, such as claiming that the amount of taxes he pays means he wasn't such a bad capitalist and that communism is unrealistic and so on.


d) Oh, that must be why when the majority of the 17th congress of Communist Party of the Soviet Union voted against Stalin's proposals in 1934, over half the delegates at that meeting were subsequently executed or sent to the Gulag. Doesn't sound like proletarian democracy to me.Ian Grey notes in a footnote, "Medvedev has stated that dissatisfaction with Stalin was expressed in the election of the Central Committee by the Seventeenth Congress, when Stalin received fewer votes than any other candidate. In view of the overwhelming support for Stalin, expressed throughout the Congress, this allegation is hard to credit. Indeed, A. Ulam has pointed out that the allegation is based on ignorance of the voting procedures of the Congress. He has added that there is every reason to believe that the election of the Central Committee, including the new Stalinist members, was unanimous." (Stalin: Man of History, p. 493)

The supposed "rival" at the Congress, Kirov, was noted by Getty (and others) as having not actually been opposed to Stalin, and in fact was closely working with him until the day he was shot dead.


e) Actually, Stalin's alleged 'modesty' was also part of the personality cult, as can be clearly seen in films from that era.It was also true, regardless of the cult.

As noted by Grey:

"On December 21, 1929, the nation celebrated Stalin's fiftieth birthday with unprecedented extravagance... It was the beginning of the Stalin cult, which developed on a phenomenal scale.

The frenetic adulation was in part the enthusiastic work of the party machine in Moscow and of the party officials throughout the country. They were praising and ensuring that the people joined by praising their chief, the General Secretary of the party. They owed their positions to him and they knew how his authority could reach into the most distant corners of the party organization. But servility and self-interest were accompanied by genuine veneration...

While accepting the need for the cult, however, Stalin probably took little active part in promoting it. The Yugoslav communist Milovan Djilas, meeting him in 1945, formed the opinion that 'the deification of Stalin . . . was at least as much the work of Stalin's circle and the bureaucracy, who required such a leader, as it was his own doing.'

Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum. He had the same lack of personal vanity as Peter the Great or Lenin....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 233-35.)


The GPCR was aimed at making the party 'inoperable' because the party had grown corrupt and unresponsive to the needs of the workers and peasants.It wasn't responsive to them starting in... 1949.


Undermining sections of the party was a good thing in those circumstances.There's nothing wrong with undermining revisionist factions in a party. As Hoxha said, there cannot be anything like a "two-line struggle" or factionalism in a party of the working class.


f) Your saying that there was no proletarian democracy under Lenin because their were strikes? Boy your tying yourself in knots here.No, I'm saying strikes are irrelevant. Learn to read (and differentiate between "your" and "you're" while you're at it).

[milk]

True, only a God damn capitalist would bastardize this as being 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian', or 'genocide'...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8up7h6T0Kzc/RqljJ1NXHJI/AAAAAAAABiI/UJ6ypN1b0Xc/s400/khmer_rouge_0726.jpg

This picture was taken during the 1970-1975 war. It shows soldiers belonging to the FANK (republican army). The blindfolded man is a captured KPNLAF (Khmer Rouge) soldier. Or suspected of being one.

[milk]

The same John Pilger that sided with Vietnam after their invasion of Cambodia in order to spread their socially and military imperialist agenda at attempting to make Cambodia a puppet state of Vietnam?

And the ousted Khmer Rouge received diplomatic and material support from, among others, the United States, through a coalition borderland government of former republican and royalist enemies.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5803/undkflagstamp.jpg

[Ismail]

As much as Hoxha condemned pro-Soviet governments, he did support Vietnam in its disputes with the Khmer Rouge and viewed the Vietnamese invasion as preferable to the them. It shows just how strange and objectively reactionary the Khmer Rogue had become.