Whats bad about being a Tankie?

[EvilRedGuy]

Averyone keep talking about it. I just want to know.

[Vendetta]

'tankie' refers to those who call back on some 'glory days' of the Soviet Union as proof that their idealogy is better than all else due to how well the USSR was at rolling over eastern European states with masses of troops.

Or something. Not really anything I understood either.

[Khalid]

The term derives from the fact that the divisions within the communist movement first arose when the Soviet Union sent tanks into communist Hungary in 1956, to crush an attempt to establish an alternative version of communism which was not embraced by the Russians. Most communists outside the eastern bloc opposed this action and criticised the Soviet Union. The "tankies" were those who said "send the tanks in". The epithet has stuck because tankies also supported "sending the tanks in...

I think this sums it up.

[Sasha]

i prefer mine:


tankie is an (revleft?) slur for ML's who either glorify the USSR supression of the hungary or chech uprisings (as in "sent in the tanks"), ML's who just cant shut up about USSR weaponry (huhr hurh T-34 and kalishnikov huhr huhr) or ML's who seem to get their main political insperation from playing too much command and conquer red-alert.

most tankies seem to fit all 3 catogeries at once
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1862394&postcount=60

[Armchair War Criminal]

"Tankie" isn't native to this website; it arose after the invasion of Hungary - as psycho said, as a derogatory term for those who said "send in the tanks." I haven't seen the latter two meanings from psycho's definition, so those might be site-specific drift.

This space is too short for a full and even-handed discussion of the merits or lack thereof of allowing socialist countries to liberalize, but I think the arguments against it are pretty obvious. You may also note that there are some who think to be philosophically consistent you need to either uphold both the Soviet and Vietmanese invasions of Hungary/Czechoslovakia and Kampuchea or neither, but I personally find that a bit silly.

[28350]

My political position is probably closest to that of the late Sam Marcy. You could probably describe me as a tankie. That being said, I don't glorify the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I support them. I support the Soviet Union throughout its existence, not because I think it always had good leadership or was the best place to live in the world, but because it was on our side. There were terrible, terrible things perpetrated by the USSR, but this is a war. Wars are ugly. We don't have the luxury of applying bourgeois morality to every belligerent, and only siding with those who are "ideologically pure."

[Queercommie Girl]

My political position is probably closest to that of the late Sam Marcy. You could probably describe me as a tankie. That being said, I don't glorify the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I support them. I support the Soviet Union throughout its existence, not because I think it always had good leadership or was the best place to live in the world, but because it was on our side. There were terrible, terrible things perpetrated by the USSR, but this is a war. Wars are ugly. We don't have the luxury of applying bourgeois morality to every belligerent, and only siding with those who are "ideologically pure."

Only thing is though, are you sure they are always on "your side"? How do you define what "your side" is?

You are over-simplifying an immensely complex phenomenon.

[Nolan]

Those who confuse communism for Russian nationalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to Paul Cockshott, the Hungarian CP wasn't effective enough in purging society of Horthyite fascist elements such that, by 1956, they were extensively involved in the mislabelled "Hungarian Revolution."

My take on other incidents:

Prague Spring was an attempt to "social-democratize" Czechoslovakia, but really why turn a blind eye much earlier to the bigger problem that was Poland ("send in the tanks") and its thoroughly petit-bourgeois agriculture?

The Viet Cong just about liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge insanity when China, that same country that cozied up to Suharto and his massacre of Indonesian communists, had to intervene.

Afghanistan was an obvious case where many who claimed to be "on the revolutionary left" sided with the ultra-reactionary mujahedeen against the progressive military regime backed by so-called "social imperialism."

All of this means that, very critically, I am for "sending in the tanks."

[Dimentio]

My political position is probably closest to that of the late Sam Marcy. You could probably describe me as a tankie. That being said, I don't glorify the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I support them. I support the Soviet Union throughout its existence, not because I think it always had good leadership or was the best place to live in the world, but because it was on our side. There were terrible, terrible things perpetrated by the USSR, but this is a war. Wars are ugly. We don't have the luxury of applying bourgeois morality to every belligerent, and only siding with those who are "ideologically pure."

Kampuchea attempted a full-scale invasion of Vietnam, which Vietnam turned into a full-scale invasion of Kampuchea.

[Kiev Communard]

According to Paul Cockshott, the Hungarian CP wasn't effective enough in purging society of Horthyite fascist elements such that, by 1956, they were extensively involved in the mislabelled "Hungarian Revolution."

My take on other incidents:

Prague Spring was an attempt to "social-democratize" Czechoslovakia, but really why turn a blind eye much earlier to the bigger problem that was Poland ("send in the tanks") and its thoroughly petit-bourgeois agriculture?

The Viet Cong just about liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge insanity when China, that same country that cozied up to Suharto and his massacre of Indonesian communists, had to intervene.

Afghanistan was an obvious case where many who claimed to be "on the revolutionary left" sided with the ultra-reactionary mujahedeen against the progressive military regime backed by so-called "social imperialism."

Rather true, the only thing I have to somewhat disagree with you, comrade, is "Hungarian question". While it was not in any sense socialist revolution (as many anarchists and council communists claim) the workers' councils of Budapest had some revolutionary potential (compare this with the situation in Napoleonic-time Spain during Peninsular War, where progressive Liberales and pro-absolutist Serviles due to the "enemy of my enemy" logic found themselves in one anti-French camp, only to start fighting each other after French defeat).

[Kléber]

My political position is probably closest to that of the late Sam Marcy. You could probably describe me as a tankie. That being said, I don't glorify the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I support them. I support the Soviet Union throughout its existence, not because I think it always had good leadership or was the best place to live in the world, but because it was on our side. There were terrible, terrible things perpetrated by the USSR, but this is a war. Wars are ugly. We don't have the luxury of applying bourgeois morality to every belligerent, and only siding with those who are "ideologically pure."
This perspective was very popular, back when the Soviet Union still existed. Today it just seems kinda ridiculous to support every single action of the Soviet government except for the very last one (the dissolution of the USSR itself). Maybe blind support for the Stalinist bureaucracy fills some kind of emotional void, like knowing there is or at least was a mighty superpower "on your side" when you are feeling down. Perhaps pointing to the past glory of the USSR helps win arguments in left-wing online echo chambers. Unfortunately, "Everything was great until someone pressed the 'surrender' button in 1991" is not a real answer that you can give to people while organizing and doing political work, if they ask why Soviet "communism" failed.

At least the Maoists and Hoxhaists realized something had gone wrong before 1991, although their strategy for rejuvenating world socialism - a hollow call for people's war against "Khrushchevism" to establish an identical regime but with a purer, orthodox Stalinist "line" - was even sadder than Marcyism.

I mean, do you support Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Haiti in 1802 as well? Governor Toussaint Louverture signed secret trade and military treaties with the British imperialists, and the French leadership believed he was a counter-revolutionary traitor who planned to secede from the Republic.

[Queercommie Girl]

At least the Maoists and Hoxhaists realized something had gone wrong before 1991, although their strategy for rejuvenating world socialism - a hollow call for people's war against "Khrushchevism" to establish an identical regime but with a purer, orthodox Stalinist "line" - was even sadder than Marcyism.


Many Maoists aren't orthodox Stalinists though.

See this:

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

Marx developed the basic understanding that socialism entails the revolutionary rule of the proletariat. Lenin, on that foundational basis, developed the vision of the rule of the proletariat as a sort of party-state system and devised principles for corresponding party structure (and, of course, for practical work as well). Mao took communist theory to another level in recognizing that Lenin's conception of communist party leadership and leading role in the state had essential validity while also recognizing that the party-state model inevitably winds up divorcing the party, and thereby the state it leads, from the masses...and on the basis of that understanding bringing forward a vision of commune-based socialism under the leadership of the proletariat together with its vanguard party...

Left Maoism does not just call for a "return to the orthodox Stalinist line" before Khrushchev, but recognise that the Leninist "vanguard party" has not integrated sufficiently with the masses. To be frank, even some Trotskyists (not all of course) still tend to err a bit too much on the "orthodox vanguardist" side and just "tell the masses what to do" rather than truly integrating with the masses.

[Kléber]

Many Maoists aren't orthodox Stalinists though.

See this:

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

Marx developed the basic understanding that socialism entails the revolutionary rule of the proletariat. Lenin, on that foundational basis, developed the vision of the rule of the proletariat as a sort of party-state system and devised principles for corresponding party structure (and, of course, for practical work as well). Mao took communist theory to another level in recognizing that Lenin's conception of communist party leadership and leading role in the state had essential validity while also recognizing that the party-state model inevitably winds up divorcing the party, and thereby the state it leads, from the masses...and on the basis of that understanding bringing forward a vision of commune-based socialism under the leadership of the proletariat together with its vanguard party...

Left Maoism does not just call for a "return to the orthodox Stalinist line" before Khrushchev, but recognise that the Leninist "vanguard party" has not integrated sufficiently with the masses. To be frank, even some Trotskyists (not all of course) still tend to err a bit too much on the "orthodox vanguardist" side and just "tell the masses what to do" rather than truly integrating with the masses.
Mao disarmed the popular leftist rebel guard organizations at the end of the GPCR in 1968. Trotsky did make some huge mistakes in the early 1920's but more importantly he called for a radical turn to proletarian democracy in the USSR and suppression of the privileges of all officials, whereas Mao's clique brutally silenced those who called for a People's Commune of China, and those bureaucratic officials who were not deemed "capitalist-roaders" were allowed to enjoy their mansions, limousines, servants and privileges throughout Mao's "socialism."

[28350]

This perspective was very popular, back when the Soviet Union still existed. Today it just seems kinda ridiculous to support every single action of the Soviet government except for the very last one (the dissolution of the USSR itself).

I don't support every action of the USSR.


Maybe blind support for the Stalinist bureaucracy fills some kind of emotional void, like knowing there is or at least was a mighty superpower "on your side" when you are feeling down.

I am sure some people feel this way. As evidenced by my post, I am not one of them. The Russians who do/did mostly turned to ultranationalism, from what I can tell.


Perhaps pointing to the past glory of the USSR helps win arguments in left-wing online echo chambers.

Did I say anything about glory?


Unfortunately, "Everything was great until someone pressed the 'surrender' button in 1991" is not a real answer that you can give to people while organizing and doing political work, if they ask why Soviet "communism" failed.

Because that's exactly what I think.


I mean, do you support Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Haiti in 1802 as well? Governor Toussaint Louverture signed secret trade and military treaties with the British imperialists, and the French leadership believed he was a counter-revolutionary traitor who planned to secede from the Republic.


OF COURSE!

[Kléber]

OF COURSE!
The French Consulate's excuse for the 1802 expedition to Haiti was virtually identical to the Soviet justifications for regime change in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan: the leadership is making secret deals with imperialists and planning to abandon our military alliance. Bonapartist France was a degenerated bourgeois state which you could also say was "on our side" against the monarchist coalition.

[Barry Lyndon]

OF COURSE!

Napoleon was sending troops to restore slavery to the French colonies. Great job, 'Marxist'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kampuchea attempted a full-scale invasion of Vietnam, which Vietnam turned into a full-scale invasion of Kampuchea.

I didn't know Pol Pot and his scum tried to invade! There, Vietnamese revolutionary defencism at work, alongside the revolutionary defencism of Soviet grunts against Chinese adventurism in the border clashes!

[Queercommie Girl]

The French Consulate's excuse for the 1802 expedition to Haiti was virtually identical to the Soviet justifications for regime change in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan: the leadership is making secret deals with imperialists and planning to abandon our military alliance. Bonapartist France was a degenerated bourgeois state which you could also say was "on our side" against the monarchist coalition.

In Afghanistan however objectively the invasion did result in certain social progress, for example in the area of women's rights.

I don't believe national rights are absolute. Class rights over-ride national rights. As long as there is support among the proletarians of the said country, it is perfectly justifiable for a socialist state to invade that country.

Of course, the USSR was already a highly deformed worker's state by this time, but Soviet Afghanistan was still far better than US Afghanistan now.

[Volcanicity]

Has'nt everyone missed the point of the OP's question?Evil red guy asked what's bad about being a tankie not what is it.I'm not one myself just curious to know what the answer is to the OP'S original question.

[Hit The North]

Socialist revolution is the self-conscious activity of the proletariat, not something which can be imported by tank and bayonet. That is why being a 'tankie' is a betrayal of Marxism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Socialist revolution is the self-conscious activity of the proletariat, not something which can be imported by tank and bayonet. That is why being a 'tankie' is a betrayal of Marxism.

There is in principle nothing wrong with proletarian military forces from one country aiding the proletarian forces in another country that is being kept down by their capitalist or feudal rulers, however.

Not to say this is what happened with the Soviet Union exactly, since it was highly deformed.

[Hit The North]

There is in principle nothing wrong with proletarian military forces from one country aiding the proletarian forces in another country that is being kept down by their capitalist or feudal rulers, however.

Not to say this is what happened with the Soviet Union exactly, since it was highly deformed.

True. It is when military force is used to substitute for the self-activity of workers. I should have made that clearer.

[Dimentio]

I didn't know Pol Pot and his scum tried to invade! There, Vietnamese revolutionary defencism at work, alongside the revolutionary defencism of Soviet grunts against Chinese adventurism in the border clashes!

In fact, he did not only attempt an invasion, but openly called for the annihilation of the entire Vietnamese population. No country in the world wouldn't have responded violently. The story was virtually the same with Idi Amin's pathetic attempt to invade Tanzania.

[28350]

Napoleon was sending troops to restore slavery to the French colonies. Great job, 'Marxist'.

Sarcasm, smart one.
There's a difference between fighting imperialism and fighting within imperialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

True. It is when military force is used to substitute for the self-activity of workers. I should have made that clearer.

Why is that a betrayal?

Looking at it from Kautsky's framework for a revolutionary period, "sending in the tanks" is substitutionist only when the first three conditions haven't been met yet (hostility between state and workers, existence of mass party-movement, majority political support given to said party-movement by the workers). Invasions would solve the problem of maintained confidence within the state apparatus, the fourth condition.

[Hit The North]

Why is that a betrayal?

Looking at it from Kautsky's framework for a revolutionary period, "sending in the tanks" is substitutionist only when the first three conditions haven't been met yet (hostility between state and workers, existence of mass party-movement, majority political support given to said party-movement by the workers). Invasions would solve the problem of maintained confidence within the state apparatus, the fourth condition.

If the other conditions are being met then there is no substitution, is there? But all of this is predicated on the assumption that the USSR was socialist, when in fact it was state capitalist; where the mass parties in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were monopolised by the state; and the workers were in conflict not with a workers state but with a capitalist state. So, of course, the real problem with the 'tankies' is that they supported state capitalism.

Anyway, your hero, Kautsky, understood a fair bit about betrayal, so we should perhaps take lessons from his political career, if not his political writings.

[manic expression]

Socialist revolution is the self-conscious activity of the proletariat, not something which can be imported by tank and bayonet. That is why being a 'tankie' is a betrayal of Marxism.
So the Red Army shouldn't have formed to counter the Whites after the October Revolution? The Bolsheviks should have put up a "please don't invade us" sign outside of Petrograd and Moscow and hoped everything worked out? It's incredible that this argument comes from the tendency that is firstly identified with Leon Trotsky, the guy who was at the head of Bolshevik martial victories all around the former Russian Empire.

By the way, it's now fully proven that the Hungarian anti-socialists were willing to collaborate with the CIA and more generally agents of NATO, and did so in multiple instances. It's also been shown that one of the reasons the revolt offered such resistance to the Soviet intervention was because Radio "Free" Europe was telling everyone that American military support was forthcoming. It really comes down to one's ability to support a socialist state when the chips are down...if you do, then you get called a "tankie".

[Kléber]

^The tankie argument rests on a logical fallacy: if you oppose the reactionary violence of the bureaucracy against workers and peoples, you must oppose revolutionary violence too. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Tea Party: "durrr, if you're against the War on Terror you must also be against the struggle of Washington and Lincoln against British imperialism and slavery!"

Sadly, the PSL never gets far from this dictum. According to them, if you oppose the slaughter of students and workers during the Tiananmen Square Incident, you actually oppose the Chinese Revolution. If you oppose market reforms, racism and tourism in Cuba, you really oppose the Cuban Revolution. It's like they forgot what happened to the USSR. Based on the posts of some individuals on RevLeft and elsewhere I have reason to wonder if some of these people even know that the USSR no longer exists. The emotional fetishization of "socialist states" belies a total lack of concern with social differentiation within them or the threat of capitalist restoration from bureaucratic elites. I support the unconditional defense of any small or oppressed country ("socialist" or otherwise) against imperialist attack, but that does not mean giving unconditional political support to traitorous ruling elites that capitulate to imperialism - precisely the opposite.

How are the workers of China and Cuba supposed to prevent their bureaucratic regimes from restoring capitalism? By blindly supporting the corrupt old apparatchiks of "Communist Parties" against "ultraleft" workers, right up to the moment they restore capitalism? Or by organizing a proletarian communist opposition within those countries that fights for working class democracy, against imperialist influence, market reforms and bureaucratic privileges? The PSL and other tankies would say the latter is treason. They want to repeat the winning strategy that got the international left through the collapse of the USSR: stick our heads in the ground so that we can be utterly confused, disillusioned and demoralized when the day of restoration is upon us.


In Afghanistan however objectively the invasion did result in certain social progress, for example in the area of women's rights.
The Khalq regime established by the PDPA coup in 1978 did result in progress for workers, farmers, oppressed/marginalized communities and women. However, I have only ever heard about the Parchami regime rolling back such "radical" policies after the Soviet invasion in 1979.


I don't believe national rights are absolute. Class rights over-ride national rights. As long as there is support among the proletarians of the said country, it is perfectly justifiable for a socialist state to invade that country.Trotsky took this position on the Georgian Affair, siding with Stalin against Lenin and refusing to defend the Georgian workers against the chauvinist policies of the local military authority. It was the worst mistake of his political career. Under the hypocritical cover of combating Georgian national chauvinism, Stalin's policies in the area bolstered anti-Soviet nationalism and alienated the advanced workers from the Bolshevik regime.


Of course, the USSR was already a highly deformed worker's state by this time, but Soviet Afghanistan was still far better than US Afghanistan now.Soviet military aid to the DRA was justifiable and commendable, what was unacceptable was using the Red Army to overthrow the PDPA leadership, purge the Afghan party, murder the President of Afghanistan and replace him with an unpopular weasel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guj2DVBzq_Y), enforce "moderate" policies against the will of the Afghan communists themselves, etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

if you oppose the slaughter of students and workers during the Tiananmen Square Incident, you actually oppose the Chinese Revolution.


Objectively it must be said that the Tiananmen Square Incident was a mixed affair. There were certain layers of students and workers who more or less had progressive and socialist-oriented views, but you also had elitist students who had Liu Xiaobo-like pro-US views and were counter-revolutionary. Furthermore, the elitist students actually refused to let workers join the movement. So while I oppose the massacre itself, objectively the Tiananmen Square Incident had a mixed character. In orthodox Trotskyist terms, it was the embryo of a "political revolution" co-existing side-by-side with the embryo of a "social counter-revolution".

Under no circumstances can students alone, no matter how radical or conscious, pull off a "political revolution" all by themselves without widespread working class support.



Trotsky took this position on the Georgian Affair, siding with Stalin against Lenin and refusing to defend the Georgian workers against the chauvinist policies of the local military authority. It was the worst mistake of his political career. Under the hypocritical cover of combating Georgian national chauvinism, Stalin's policies in the area bolstered anti-Soviet nationalism and alienated the advanced workers from the Bolshevik regime.


You missed what I said about such "invasions" being firmly supported by the proletarians of the "invaded" country. Under no circumstances would I try to justify an "invasion" when it is not democratically approved by the proletariat of the invaded country.



Soviet military aid to the DRA was justifiable and commendable, what was unacceptable was using the Red Army to overthrow the PDPA leadership, purge the Afghan party, murder the President of Afghanistan and replace him with an unpopular weasel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guj2DVBzq_Y), enforce "moderate" policies against the will of the Afghan communists themselves, etc.


It was still much better than Afghanistan under American imperialism now. I mean, now the entire Afghan nation is pretty much on the brink of utter extinction if this continues.

I know Mao said that revisionism can be worse than real capitalism, but this is not an example of that.

[manic expression]

^The tankie argument rests on a logical fallacy: if you oppose the violence of the bureaucracy against workers and peoples, you must also oppose revolutionary violence. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Tea Party: "durrr, if you're against the War on Terror you must also be against the struggle of Washington and Lincoln against British imperialism and slavery!"
I suppose if you ignore everything about the situations in question, you could make believe it was about "bureaucracy vs workers". If you ignore the role and reception of imperialist agents, if you ignore the lynching of socialists, if you ignore the move to leave the Warsaw Pact and aid NATO, if you ignore the fact that anti-socialist parties were legalized and aided by the revolt...if you ignore all that, then yes, I suppose you can then pretend the Soviet intervention wasn't justified. But only then.

And you're the one standing with the Tea Baggers against the Soviet Union, so you should think twice before trying that little argument.


Sadly, the PSL never gets far from this dictum. According to them, if you oppose the slaughter of students and workers during the Tiananmen Square Incident, you actually oppose the Chinese Revolution. If you oppose market reforms, racism and tourism in Cuba, you really oppose the Cuban Revolution. It's like they forgot what happened to the USSR. Based on the posts of some individuals on RevLeft and elsewhere I have reason to wonder if some of these people even know that the USSR no longer exists. The emotional fetishization of "socialist states" belies a total lack of concern with social differentiation within them or the threat of capitalist restoration from bureaucratic elites.You protest the charge and yet you fail to refute it. What makes this even more pathetic is that you seem to believe your tendency ever possessed any genuine support for what the Chinese and Cuban Revolutions actually created. Obviously you want to run away from your own positions: on this very forum you asserted that Fidel and the July 26th Movement weren't socialist before 1959, and you want to sit here and say you support the Cuban Revolution? You have nerve and obliviousness in equal measure. All I have to do is read your own words in order to determine your glaring lack of support for the Cuban Revolution.


How are the workers of China and Cuba supposed to prevent their bureaucratic regimes from restoring capitalism? By blindly supporting the corrupt old apparatchiks of "Communist Parties" against "ultraleft" workers, right up to the moment they restore capitalism? Or by organizing a proletarian communist opposition that fights not only for working class democracy but against market reforms and bureaucratic privilege? The PSL and other tankies would say the latter is treason. They want to repeat the winning strategy that got the international left through the collapse of the USSR: stick our heads in the ground so that we can be utterly confused, disillusioned and demoralized when the day of restoration is upon us.Marxists want to defend the gains made by workers through revolutionary change. A perfect counterexample is your ill-informed support of the anti-socialist Tienanmen demonstrations. Here we have a group of students who rejected working-class involvement, who time and again appealed to capitalist symbols and slogans, who purposefully instigated violence in order to serve their own designs...and you blindly support them, just because they tell you they're against the big bad bureaucracy. Well sure, they're against the "bureaucracy", but only because they want to topple the Chinese Revolution. And you blindly support them. Remember, communists seek to undermine the lies of imperialism.

But we're back to square one. You can convince yourself that the Hungarian revolt or Tienanmen Square represented "proletarian communist opposition"...but that's nothing but imagination.

[Hit The North]

So the Red Army shouldn't have formed to counter the Whites after the October Revolution? The Bolsheviks should have put up a "please don't invade us" sign outside of Petrograd and Moscow and hoped everything worked out? It's incredible that this argument comes from the tendency that is firstly identified with Leon Trotsky, the guy who was at the head of Bolshevik martial victories all around the former Russian Empire.


Should the proletariat arm itself and defend itself against counter revolution against it? Of course. This falls into the category of the "self-activity of the working class".



But we're back to square one. You can convince yourself that the Hungarian revolt or Tienanmen Square represented "proletarian communist opposition"...but that's nothing but imagination.

An imaginative feat comparable to the flight of fantasy which identifies the USSR in 1956 as a workers state or the Chinese state of the 1980s as "communist".

If Hungary was a workers state, why didn't the workers turn on the capitalist agitators, why were Soviet tanks necessary to crush the rebellion?

If the states in the orbit of Russian influence were controlled by the working class, why didn't the workers rally in their millions to defend the states when they disintegrated at the end of the 1980s?

[manic expression]

Should the proletariat arm itself and defend itself against counter revolution against it? Of course. This falls into the category of the "self-activity of the working class".
How does the Red Army of 1920 fall under this category and not the Red Army of 1956? By the end of the Civil War, the Red Army was certainly an institution with bureaucratic mechanisms.


An imaginative feat comparable to the flight of fantasy which identifies the USSR in 1956 as a workers state or the Chinese state of the 1980s as "communist".I call neither communist.


If Hungary was a workers state, why didn't the workers turn on the capitalist agitators, why were Soviet tanks necessary to crush the rebellion?
Because the workers' state had been undermined through revolts and a pro-capitalist layer of the party. Working-class voices were suppressed with brutal violence, pro-capitalist parties were legalized and promoted, the workers' state was falling and internationalist aid was needed. By the same token, why did the Red Army need to establish Soviet power in all corners of the former Russian Empire...why didn't those workers and peasants do it themselves?


If the states in the orbit of Russian influence were controlled by the working class, why didn't the workers rally in their millions to defend the states when they disintegrated at the end of the 1980s?In short, the workers' states and vanguard parties there had a disconnect with the workers. The same political entrenchments of the Soviet state that were once arguably necessary for the Revolution's survival were used against it. As in Hungary decades earlier, working-class voices were silenced while ultranationalist thugs and bourgeois agents were empowered.

[Dr Mindbender]

If the states in the orbit of Russian influence were controlled by the working class, why didn't the workers rally in their millions to defend the states when they disintegrated at the end of the 1980s?
...possibly for the same reason that millions of british and american workers arent rallying to install revolution in their own respective countries at the moment?

I think that Russian workers by that stage had (wrongly felt) that the soviet bourgeoisie truly represented marxist theory and had been hoodwinked into believing they'd be getting a better deal through western capitalism. The right wingers were on the march, the communist party was a sinking ship and there was no theoretical argument, precedence or high ground in the country at the time to do anything to prevent this.

[Barry Lyndon]

Manicexpression I agree with you on a lot of things but your defense of the Tiananmen Square massacre is rather ridiculous to me. Even most Maoists concede that by the late 1980's China had gone down the capitalist road and wasn't anything approaching 'socialist' or a 'workers state'.
I agree with the Maoist view that China had been implementing state capitalism and had abandoned socialism for about ten years prior to Tiananmen- from at least 1978 or even 1972.

[manic expression]

Manicexpression I agree with you on a lot of things but your defense of the Tiananmen Square massacre is rather ridiculous to me. Even most Maoists concede that by the late 1980's China had gone down the capitalist road and wasn't anything approaching 'socialist' or a 'workers state'.
I agree with the Maoist view that China had been implementing state capitalism and had abandoned socialism from at least 1978 or even 1972.
First, the evidence points to no massacre...even serious bourgeois commentators have come to terms with this. The first PLA soldiers were sent in without any weapons, and a lot of them didn't make it back. But I do agree that the PRC had gone further and further down the "capitalist road" (as it were). That doesn't mean Tienanmen Square wasn't anti-socialist, though; and it doesn't mean the Tienanmen students were working for something better than continued CPC control. In fact, the control of the CPC is one of the biggest reasons the PRC isn't under the thumb of the market. However pervasive the market economy is, it is controlled closely by the CPC, and could feasibly be abolished by the party. Recently, we have seen a decrease in market mechanisms, not the other way around, which further drives home this point.

Basically, my position is that the CPC has to be supported against imperialism and moved back to the left, to the workers. Obviously there are many questions to be answered moving forward, but that's the outlook I've taken at this point.

[Queercommie Girl]

Basically, my position is that the CPC has to be supported against imperialism and moved back to the left, to the workers. Obviously there are many questions to be answered moving forward, but that's the outlook I've taken at this point.


Given the class basis of the CCP ruling bloc, which is largely bureaucratic capitalist, or at least far wealthier than any ordinary Chinese citizen, it is complete fantasy short of having a literal class war within the CCP itself. Of course the class basis of the grassroots layers of the CCP are still largely working class and middle class.

I defend the PRC state machine against both Western imperialism and bourgeois ethnic separatism. But I'm completely certain that without an internal political revolution of some kind it is impossible for socialism to be restored in the country.

It's ridiculous to assume that the "princelings" in power with their billions of RMB would suddenly one day discover their own "conscience" and give up all of their wealth and power to the people.

[manic expression]

Given the class basis of the CCP ruling bloc, which is largely bureaucratic capitalist, or at least far wealthier than any ordinary Chinese citizen, it is complete fantasy short of having a literal class war within the CCP itself.
That's essentially what I mean.

[Queercommie Girl]

Manicexpression I agree with you on a lot of things but your defense of the Tiananmen Square massacre is rather ridiculous to me. Even most Maoists concede that by the late 1980's China had gone down the capitalist road and wasn't anything approaching 'socialist' or a 'workers state'.
I agree with the Maoist view that China had been implementing state capitalism and had abandoned socialism for about ten years prior to Tiananmen- from at least 1978 or even 1972.

I oppose the massacre itself but the Tiananmen incident was of a mixed character. It was essentially the potential of a political revolution existing side-by-side with the potential of a counter-revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

Mao disarmed the popular leftist rebel guard organizations at the end of the GPCR in 1968. Trotsky did make some huge mistakes in the early 1920's but more importantly he called for a radical turn to proletarian democracy in the USSR and suppression of the privileges of all officials, whereas Mao's clique brutally silenced those who called for a People's Commune of China, and those bureaucratic officials who were not deemed "capitalist-roaders" were allowed to enjoy their mansions, limousines, servants and privileges throughout Mao's "socialism."

Left Maoists do not worship Mao, just like you don't seem to (I hope) worship Trotsky. Left Maoists admit Mao made mistakes during the Cultural Revolution, but argue that a lot of the mistakes were the fault of revisionist bureaucrats speaking in Mao's name rather than Mao himself.

[Armchair War Criminal]

I oppose the massacre itself but the Tiananmen incident was of a mixed character. It was essentially the potential of a political revolution existing side-by-side with the potential of a counter-revolution.
I doubt that the proletarian members of the protest had political revolution on their minds, but this is basically correct. Workers and peasants upset about attacks on the iron rice bowl existed alongside students who wanted a liberal state with suffrage reserved for intellectuals and the upper classes.

[28350]

Socialist revolution is the self-conscious activity of the proletariat, not something which can be imported by tank and bayonet. That is why being a 'tankie' is a betrayal of Marxism.

Class struggle and class war are not (necessarily, at least) self-conscious actions.

Hungary '56 was not a matter of socialist revolution. It was like the Southern US trying to get their slaves back after the Civil War.

[Hit The North]

How does the Red Army of 1920 fall under this category and not the Red Army of 1956? By the end of the Civil War, the Red Army was certainly an institution with bureaucratic mechanisms.


It's not the formal identity of an institution (the Red Army), what is calls itself or the manner in which it sees itself and the objectives it strives for, which count. It is the objective class interest in which it acts. The Red Army of the civil war was the instrument of an advancing revolutionary class, fighting for its very survival. The Red Army of 1956 was the instrument of a state capitalist bureaucracy, protecting its national interest. Remember that Hungary joined with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in WW2. After the war, as a vanquished nation, its political independence was crushed by the victor so it could never again threaten the USSR. The State Capitalist model was adopted as the model for economic reconstruction after the devastation of war; all the reforms and redistributions were from the top-down; the workers did not seize the means of production.


I call neither communist. I call only one socialist without qualification. Well, which? I'm guesing its not the Chinese regime in the 1980s. If not, then what do you have to gain by supporting the crushing of Tienanmen?


Because the workers' state had been undermined through revolts and a pro-capitalist layer of the party. Working-class voices were suppressed with brutal violence, pro-capitalist parties were legalized and promoted, the workers' state was falling and internationalist aid was needed.
Well, I contest your interpretation of events. It was the repression of workers democracy and the persecution of political opponents which discredited the regime and it was a resurgence in popular democracy which prompted the entry of Russian tanks. In your version of events the fierce street fighting which took place was conducted by pro-capitalist imperialist petite bourgeois layers, whilst the socialist working class - the alleged rulers of society - cowered and did not enter into the struggle.


By the same token, why did the Red Army need to establish Soviet power in all corners of the former Russian Empire...why didn't those workers and peasants do it themselves?
I think the reasons are obvious (the workers and peasants in these corners lacked revolutionary will or leverage) and the necessity compelling (Soviet power must be imposed at all costs against reactionary forces, if the revolution is to succeed). Revolutions are driven by necessity, not the niceties of theory. But the question is what such substitutionalism achieves in the long run.

Of course, in part, the answer is Hungary 1956.


In short, the workers' states and vanguard parties there had a disconnect with the workers. The same political entrenchments of the Soviet state that were once arguably necessary for the Revolution's survival were used against it. As in Hungary decades earlier, working-class voices were silenced while ultranationalist thugs and bourgeois agents were empowered.
At the end of the day, the issue is one of class rule. If, after more than thirty years of uninterrupted socialist development, the working class had either shrunk to a minority, or been so denuded of its political potency that it could not act in its own interest, so that a grubby ragtaggle of "utranationalist thugs and bourgeois agents" could usurp it and restore capitalism, then we are forced to question whether thirty plus years of socialist development had taken place at all!

Personally I don't buy this explanation of a disconnect between the vanguard and the class. A socialist society does not exist on the basis of whether the proleatriat supports or does not support a particular political party at any particular time; it depends on whether the proletariat collectively owns and controls the means of production. The ease with which bourgeois property relations were re-established across Eastern Europe in the 1990s suggests the proletariat never did achieve this ownership and control.

[Hit The North]

Class struggle and class war are not (necessarily, at least) self-conscious actions.


True. That's why I wrote that "socialist revolution is".


Hungary '56 was not a matter of socialist revolution. It was like the Southern US trying to get their slaves back after the Civil War.

Really, you need to come up with a better analysis than this trite and wildly inaccurate caricature.

[Hit The North]

...possibly for the same reason that millions of british and american workers arent rallying to install revolution in their own respective countries at the moment?


Yes, but British and Amercian workers live under capitalism and are subject to the domination of capitalist relations and ideology. According to tankies, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the workers were the rulers of society and busily constructing socialism. You would think workers in this situation would be willing to defend their society. Instead they threw street parties!

[manic expression]

It's not the formal identity of an institution (the Red Army), what is calls itself or the manner in which it sees itself and the objectives it strives for, which count. It is the objective class interest in which it acts. The Red Army of the civil war was the instrument of an advancing revolutionary class, fighting for its very survival. The Red Army of 1956 was the instrument of a state capitalist bureaucracy, protecting its national interest. Remember that Hungary joined with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in WW2. After the war, as a vanquished nation, its political independence was crushed by the victor so it could never again threaten the USSR. The State Capitalist model was adopted as the model for economic reconstruction after the devastation of war; all the reforms and redistributions were from the top-down; the workers did not seize the means of production.
Ah, so it's the class interest the institution (bureaucratic or otherwise) represents and works for. Just a few posts ago you had a different criterion.

But regardless, the Red Army of 1956 represented the same class interest as the Red Army of 1920. It fought for the defense and survival of worker states in both cases. The workers had been empowered in Hungary after the tragedy of WWII (in which the considerably large Arrow Cross carried out massacres against Jews and others), the vanguard party was in power, but this was threatened by the revolt and the internationalist mission was therefore needed to stop Hungary from falling into the clutches of imperialism. It's really the same process as when Trotsky defeated the Whites and established (sometimes reestablished) Soviet power in various areas of the former Russian Empire.


Well, which? I'm guesing its not the Chinese regime in the 1980s. If not, then what do you have to gain by supporting the crushing of Tienanmen?
I would describe the PRC of the 1980's as a worker state, but with an ever-growing reliance on a market economy. It can't be socialist since we can see the mechanisms of capitalist economics at work, but it certainly wasn't capitalist because the state apparatus remained the same.

The crushing of the Tienanmen anti-socialists was crucial because it defended the control of the CPC and the state apparatus of socialism. That's the only thing holding back a full-on imperialist tidal wave that will enslave the Chinese proletariat to the rule of capital. That's why it must be defended fully.


Well, I contest your interpretation of events. It was the repression of workers democracy and the persecution of political opponents which discredited the regime and it was a resurgence in popular democracy which prompted the entry of Russian tanks. In your version of events the fierce street fighting which took place was conducted by pro-capitalist imperialist petite bourgeois layers, whilst the socialist working class - the alleged rulers of society - cowered and did not enter into the struggle.
That's not really what I'm saying. First, there was no workers' democracy because pro-capitalist parties were being legalized and promoted in a time of crisis; this was the exact opposite of what the Soviets and the Bolsheviks did. Second, people who had the audacity to say that maybe the Soviet Union wasn't as bad as NATO were oftentimes cowering because the militias were actively hunting down communists and murdering them in the streets. Some of them were lynched in front of the party headquarters (just more workers' democracy, right?). In addition, while workers certainly took part in the revolt, the leadership did not speak for the working class. Nagy's big power move was backing away from the Warsaw Pact...in between legalizing capitalist parties and lynching socialists, what working-class consciousness does this signify? It was against the interests of the workers, and thus it is absurd to say that workers had anything approaching an independent voice through the revolt.

Finally, it's an established fact that the revolt only resisted as much as it did because of Radio "Free" Europe telling them that American aid was about to ride over the hill and save them. Fighters have admitted this, and people sympathetic to the revolt have since been sour at the US for promising imperialist aid and not delivering.


I think the reasons are obvious (the workers and peasants in these corners lacked revolutionary will or leverage) and the necessity compelling (Soviet power must be imposed at all costs against reactionary forces, if the revolution is to succeed). Revolutions are driven by necessity, not the niceties of theory. But the question is what such substitutionalism achieves in the long run.

Of course, in part, the answer is Hungary 1956.
Right. The Red Army, as during the Civil War, was needed to reestablish working-class power in Hungary.


At the end of the day, the issue is one of class rule. If, after more than thirty years of uninterrupted socialist development, the working class had either shrunk to a minority, or been so denuded of its political potency that it could not act in its own interest, so that a grubby ragtaggle of "utranationalist thugs and bourgeois agents" could usurp it and restore capitalism, then we are forced to question whether thirty plus years of socialist development had taken place at all!
The development, though, was only possible through retreats and entrenchments. It started way back in 1921, and all the progress of the workers from that point on validated those shortcomings instead of the opposite. Bureaucratic mechanisms saved the Soviet Union, and so they were accepted as needed; this ended up being a mistake. But it wasn't just "bureaucracy", it was also the political disorientation of the party, the lack of effective propaganda, the lack of grassroots involvement, the full alignment of the party with the state and a host of other issues within the framework of the Soviet Union. All of them were exposed during Gorbachev's traveling circus.

Again, the socialist development occurred because of the so-called deformities, and thus that development seemed to validate them.


Personally I don't buy this explanation of a disconnect between the vanguard and the class. A socialist society does not exist on the basis of whether the proleatriat supports or does not support a particular political party at any particular time; it depends on whether the proletariat collectively owns and controls the means of production. The ease with which bourgeois property relations were re-established across Eastern Europe in the 1990s suggests the proletariat never did achieve this ownership and control.
The vanguard party achieved this ownership and control, and until the mid-1980's the vanguard party worked for the interests of the proletariat (sometimes more effective or accurately than others, but always in such a direction). Bourgeois property relations were reestablished because the party leadership simultaneously empowered the capitalists and silenced the socialists. As more and more capitalist voices took center stage, no one spoke for the workers. Even when the citizens of the Soviet Union voted heavily in favor of continuing the USSR, it was ignored. The party had been infiltrated, and since 1921, the party had been the state. Its "leaders" quickly destroyed and abandoned both.

Which is all reminiscent of Hungary, 1956. Replace Gorbachev with Nagy and Yeltsin/Walesa with Mindszenty/various other revolt leaders and it's not too far off.

[Queercommie Girl]

I doubt that the proletarian members of the protest had political revolution on their minds, but this is basically correct. Workers and peasants upset about attacks on the iron rice bowl existed alongside students who wanted a liberal state with suffrage reserved for intellectuals and the upper classes.

There were some radical students who had some radical socialist consciousness. After all, some people actually sang the Internationale and waved red flags, not just constructing the Statue of Liberty.

Apparently even some old CCP cadres joined in the initial protests against corruption etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, which? I'm guesing its not the Chinese regime in the 1980s. If not, then what do you have to gain by supporting the crushing of Tienanmen?


Tiananmen was a mixed affair. I oppose the massacre itself, but the potential of counter-revolution was also present among the elitist layers of the students.

Even if you call the PRC a "state-capitalist" state in the Cliffite sense (which I disagree), it was still a better alternative objectively than China under the direct domination of US imperialist interests, which is what the counter-revolution would have resulted in.

There was also the embryo of a political revolution present at the time among the workers and some radical students and even low-level CCP cadres and members. But it is important to note that the elitist students actually refused to let workers participate in the movement.

Under no circumstances can students pull off a "political revolution" without widespread working class support.

[Hit The North]

manic expression,

Your entire post only validates my accusation that 'tankies' are substitutionalists, as you betray this prejudice at ever turn. If its not the red army substituting for the self-conscious revolutionary praxis of the working class, it is the vanguard party, or the state which the vanguard party monopolises.

I repeat: At the end of the day it is a question of class power. But nowhere in your account do we see the working class exercising power as a class. Rather it is the army, the state, the party.


But regardless, the Red Army of 1956 represented the same class interest as the Red Army of 1920. This really illustrates the gulf which we can not traverse in our two opinions. Because you maintain that the USSR was a workers state until the end, there can be no change in the interests of the Soviet state. You buy into the propaganda that everything was done in the objective interests of the workers, even when the workers had the contrary opinion. But again this is another form of substitutionalism as, for you, only the Party can determine the objective interest of the class. In the end, you argue for an ideological interpretation of events, which is why your explanation exists at the level of politics: the avowed intentions of political actors; betrayals; infiltrations. This following passage is a good illustration of your mode of thinking:


The vanguard party achieved this ownership and control, and until the mid-1980's the vanguard party worked for the interests of the proletariat (sometimes more effective or accurately than others, but always in such a direction). Bourgeois property relations were reestablished because the party leadership simultaneously empowered the capitalists and silenced the socialists. As more and more capitalist voices took center stage, no one spoke for the workers. Even when the citizens of the Soviet Union voted heavily in favor of continuing the USSR, it was ignored. The party had been infiltrated, and since 1921, the party had been the state. Its "leaders" quickly destroyed and abandoned both.To unpack your meaning:

1. The vanguard party owned and controlled the means of production (substituting for the class)
2. The vanguard party worked for the interests of the class (more substitutionalism)
3. The vanguard party turned bad and eventually gave in to the imperialists (the substitutionalists betrayed the class).

At every point in your account, the class is passive and the leaders are motive, and it turns out that it is not at all men who make history but, in their place, commissars and conspirators.

In short, your account, being typical of substitutionalism, lacks a material analysis of class power and the social relations of production. If the working class are not the direct masters over society, fully active in the widest and deepest democratic control, then we do not have a "workers state", unless by that you mean a "state which claims it is working in the interests of the working class." But as Marx tells us, just as we don't judge the character of a man solely by his opinion of himself, neither should we judge an epoch only by what the principle actors believed they were doing.

[Queercommie Girl]

1. The vanguard party owned and controlled the means of production (substituting for the class)
2. The vanguard party worked for the interests of the class (more substitutionalism)
3. The vanguard party turned bad and eventually gave in to the imperialists (the substitutionalists betrayed the class).

At every point in your account, the class is passive and the leaders are motive, and it turns out that it is not at all men who make history but, in their place, commissars and conspirators.

In short, your account, being typical of substitutionalism, lacks a material analysis of class power and the social relations of production. If the working class are not the direct masters over society, fully active in the widest and deepest democratic control, then we do not have a "workers state", unless by that you mean a "state which claims it is working in the interests of the working class." But as Marx tells us, just as we don't judge the character of a man solely by his opinion of himself, neither should we judge an epoch only by what the principle actors believed they were doing.

As Left Maoism asserts, there is nothing wrong with a vanguard party, but if the vanguard party is not willing to integrate with the masses of workers, then objectively it is worse than worthless.

Proletarian democracy is the key in genuine socialism. I agree with the Marcyite's defence of deformed worker's states against imperialism, but I have the suspicion that they don't really understand the absolute crucial need for real proletarian democracy in a worker's state, or that a worker's state is fundamentally deformed if it does not have direct worker's democracy.

Degeneration is inevitable in a system without genuine democracy. No "vanguard" can keep their "moral purity" and "discipline" for that long. That's moralistic idealist BS. We should never rely on the good will of the people in any moral sense but the actual socio-economic and political structures of the worker's state to enact supervision and prevent degeneration and corruption.

I agree that imperialist agents probably played a significant role in the downfall of the former deformed worker's states, but frankly the primary reason for their downfall is still internal: the vanguard parties, due to insufficient integration with the masses, were hijacked by right-wing revisionist bureaucrats for their own purposes. The fact that Marcyites don't seem to mention anti-revisionism either is also problematic.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Marcyite's line seems to be that these "socialist states" were basically ok, except for some slight problems with corruption and pro-market policies etc, until foreign imperialist agents came in and brought them down.

This line I reject. I think while imperialist agents were involved, the primarily factor for the downfall of the USSR is internal, not external, and revisionism that occurred was not just some kind of localised problem with corruption, but a systematic flaw in the entire structure of the state.

[manic expression]

manic expression,

Your entire post only validates my accusation that 'tankies' are substitutionalists, as you betray this prejudice at ever turn. If its not the red army substituting for the self-conscious revolutionary praxis of the working class, it is the vanguard party, or the state which the vanguard party monopolises.

I repeat: At the end of the day it is a question of class power. But nowhere in your account do we see the working class exercising power as a class. Rather it is the army, the state, the party.
And in this argument, you betray yourself as a betrayer of Bolshevism. One of the foundations of modern Marxism, that is the vanguard party, which represents the most refined political voice of the proletariat, is termed by you as a negative force, as evidence of a lack of workers' power. However, you have not once come close to substantially differentiating the Red Army of 1956 from the Red Army of 1920. My argument here is quite simple: the self-conscious revolutionary praxis of the working class was represented by the vanguard party, even when taking into account the shortcomings of the Soviet state in the 1950's. This, you avoid at all costs.

Instead of telling us how the Soviet Union wasn't representative of proletarian interests, you expect the low hum of a half-century's imperialist prejudice to do that for you. You even claimed it was an act of pure Russian nationalism with absolutely no basis. Your substitution is in replacing possibly reasonable arguments with illogical ones.


This really illustrates the gulf which we can not traverse in our two opinions. Because you maintain that the USSR was a workers state until the end, there can be no change in the interests of the Soviet state. You buy into the propaganda that everything was done in the objective interests of the workers, even when the workers had the contrary opinion. But again this is another form of substitutionalism as, for you, only the Party can determine the objective interest of the class. In the end, you argue for an ideological interpretation of events, which is why your explanation exists at the level of politics: the avowed intentions of political actors; betrayals; infiltrations. This following passage is a good illustration of your mode of thinking:

To unpack your meaning:

1. The vanguard party owned and controlled the means of production (substituting for the class)
2. The vanguard party worked for the interests of the class (more substitutionalism)
3. The vanguard party turned bad and eventually gave in to the imperialists (the substitutionalists betrayed the class).

At every point in your account, the class is passive and the leaders are motive, and it turns out that it is not at all men who make history but, in their place, commissars and conspirators.
All three of those characterizations are only possible through the rejection of Lenin's theories in their almost entirety. Let's get back to the basics: the vanguard party is composed of the most conscious and militant working-class revolutionaries. To speak of the vanguard party is to implicitly speak of the class interests of the working class.

Your delusion is in thinking that leadership and class interests are mutually exclusive. This is false. Try to write a history of the October Revolution without mentioning Lenin. You can't do it. Try to write a history of the Civil War without mentioning Trotsky. Again, you can't do it. But miraculously, when it comes to anything after 1925, leadership is bad and inherently anti-worker. From what logic does this spring? Khrushchev's ultimate decision was progressive and in the interests of the international proletariat. This, of course, you will not deal with, and will scoff at from behind your phalanx of Cold War anti-Soviet rhetoric.


In short, your account, being typical of substitutionalism, lacks a material analysis of class power and the social relations of production. If the working class are not the direct masters over society, fully active in the widest and deepest democratic control, then we do not have a "workers state", unless by that you mean a "state which claims it is working in the interests of the working class." But as Marx tells us, just as we don't judge the character of a man solely by his opinion of himself, neither should we judge an epoch only by what the principle actors believed they were doing.
Ah, but of course. A materialist analysis would lead us to believe that people who lynch socialists are in fact true proletarian revolutionaries (TM), that Radio "Free" Europe represented the will of the Hungarian workers (:laugh:), that NATO collaborators were genuine progressives, that Cardinal Mindszenty was a regular Lenin.

It's a touch problematic for you to speak of materialism when you consistently refuse to contend with the events of Hungary 1956. In fact, one could even go so far as to call it substitutionalism.

[manic expression]

The Marcyite's line seems to be that these "socialist states" were basically ok, except for some slight problems with corruption and pro-market policies etc, until foreign imperialist agents came in and brought them down.

This line I reject. I think while imperialist agents were involved, the primarily factor for the downfall of the USSR is internal, not external, and revisionism that occurred was not just some kind of localised problem with corruption, but a systematic flaw in the entire structure of the state.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. First, the imperialist agents did come from within. I haven't seen any articles that claim Deng or Gorbachev came from anywhere but the ranks of the party. Second, external pressure was an indirect factor (especially when it came to support for the aforementioned imperialist agents, as well as the threat of military action), not necessarily a primary one, but that pressure reinforced problems that eventually proved fatal. Third, the PRC is not seen as "OK". I think some portions can be seen as "potentially OK" or "more OK than what would replace it", but that's not the same thing.

[Armchair War Criminal]

All three of those characterizations are only possible through the rejection of Lenin's theories in their almost entirety. Let's get back to the basics: the vanguard party is composed of the most conscious and militant working-class revolutionaries. To speak of the vanguard party is to implicitly speak of the class interests of the working class.
Are you asserting that the CPSU of 1956 was "composed of the most conscious and militant working-class revolutionaries," or stating the definition of a vanguard party? If the latter, why is it so obvious that the CPSU of 1956 was a vanguard party?


Ah, but of course. A materialist analysis would lead us to believe that people who lynch socialists are in fact true proletarian revolutionaries (TM), that Radio "Free" Europe represented the will of the Hungarian workers (:laugh:), that NATO collaborators were genuine progressives, that Cardinal Mindszenty was a regular Lenin.
The lynchings were of secret police, not "socialists" in general. The Hungarians organized into soviets, and many first-hand accounts attest that the rebels, in the main, saw themselves as socialist. Obviously any right-wingers in Hungary would support the rebellion as well, and NATO would be stupid not to turn it to its advantage. That doesn't mean the Hungarian Revolution wasn't an uprising of the working class against an enemy class.

[Kléber]

There is no point in arguing with "manic expression" because his historical outlook is Hegelian, not Marxist. You are wasting your time with a 19th-century gargoyle who believes social reality is molded by ideas, not the other way around.


Objectively it must be said that the Tiananmen Square Incident was a mixed affair. There were certain layers of students and workers who more or less had progressive and socialist-oriented views, but you also had elitist students who had Liu Xiaobo-like pro-US views and were counter-revolutionary.
...
So while I oppose the massacre itself, objectively the Tiananmen Square Incident had a mixed character. In orthodox Trotskyist terms, it was the embryo of a "political revolution" co-existing side-by-side with the embryo of a "social counter-revolution".
The social counter-revolution was going on under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. Workers and youth were unconsciously protesting against the social deprivations of "reform with losers." They were exposed to, and misinformed by, bourgeois American imperialist ideas largely because the revisionist Deng regime had directly encouraged the adoption of capitalist values by the Chinese party and people, in line with its campaign of privatization and market "reform."

You are right that working-class upheavals can go in a bad direction; they also took place during the restorations in the Soviet bloc, where proletarian anger against the elite was misdirected against the workers' own public economy by treacherous restorationist elements in the bureaucracy. You are also right that there was rightist ideology present, but that is something to be combated by revolutionaries rather than a reason to condemn the entire movement. The upheavals are unavoidable. The desire of privileged bureaucrats to take advantage of such upheavals for restorationist purposes is also unavoidable. Therefore, the only way to stop this inevitable situation from leading to restoration is to build a proletarian vanguard, independent of the bureaucracy, that can lead such crises in the correct, progressive direction: radical proletarian democratization of the state apparatus, the restriction of market mechanisms, harsh suppression of bureaucratic privileges and committed support for international revolution.

The fact that restoration always comes from within Stalinist regimes themselves is the reason why they must never have our political support, even though we are on the same side with any oppressed country, no matter how reactionary its government, when it is under attack by imperialism. It is, of course, only because socially isolated Stalinist ruling castes have a proven historical tendency to capitulate to imperialism that the Stalinist model is completely unreliable, not only for advancing the revolution but also preventing restoration. Of course, there is the counter-argument that the Cuban, Chinese, Vietnamese and North Korean bureaucracies have "learnt their lesson" from watching the political situation in Russia after the capitulation of the USSR. But this is irrelevant because all they seek to preserve is the Stalinist one-party state to protect their property, while moving toward market capitalism, permitting actual capitalists to accumulate wealth, and are now host to many imperialist-owned enterprises, tourist ventures. Thus, while the governments are ultra-deformed workers' states with a few vestiges of the Soviet system, they have become actual bourgeois dictatorships. This does not mean we should support the peoples of these countries any less in the event of an imperialist attack, but economic revolution will be necessary in addition to a political revolution to abolish the cancerous bourgeois private sector.


Furthermore, the elitist students actually refused to let workers join the movement. That's a bit of a generalization. Some students had an petty-bourgeois conception of the protest movement and rejected proletarian participation while others welcomed its transition into a social movement involving masses of Beijing workers. The workers made their way onto the political scene, and some even organized an abortive independent labor union, in spite of the opposition of a few elitists. The students who remained to the end were allowed to leave after a standoff; most of the dead, however, were workers who set up barricades in neighborhoods leading up to the square, who physically resisted the repression and were executed as lumpen hooligans afterwards. The attempt of liberal anti-communist charlatans and petty-bourgeois rightist students to claim the Tiananmen protests as their own must be resisted. Those events only became so tumultuous and earned a government crackdown because of the involvement of the working class.


Under no circumstances can students alone, no matter how radical or conscious, pull off a "political revolution" all by themselves without widespread working class support.True, but the protests were swelling with widespread working class support which is partly why the government intervened. The CPC-PRC Party-State has usually been rather tolerant of intellectual criticism, but they always crack down when workers start to get radicalized.


You missed what I said about such "invasions" being firmly supported by the proletarians of the "invaded" country. Under no circumstances would I try to justify an "invasion" when it is not democratically approved by the proletariat of the invaded country.Okay, guess I missed that, sorry. While the PDPA wasn't properly elected, its leaders did invite Soviet troops into Afghanistan, so I would even say there was no real "invasion" until Moscow decided to take direct control of the Afghan government in December 1979.


It was still much better than Afghanistan under American imperialism now. I mean, now the entire Afghan nation is pretty much on the brink of utter extinction if this continues.I basically agree, but the Soviet Union squandered its military superiority in Afghanistan and lost the war for political reasons.


I know Mao said that revisionism can be worse than real capitalism, but this is not an example of that.Perhaps I have not explained myself properly, I have no sympathy for the "people's war" or "patriotic struggle" waged by Afghan Maoists and Hoxhaists in concert with religious fundamentalist gangsters against the DRA and Soviet armies. Most of those guerrillas may have been well-intentioned leftist students, but their ultra-left line was disastrous.

[manic expression]

Are you asserting that the CPSU of 1956 was "composed of the most conscious and militant working-class revolutionaries," or stating the definition of a vanguard party? If the latter, why is it so obvious that the CPSU of 1956 was a vanguard party?
The CPSU of 1956 was the organization that promoted the interests of the workers, and if there was a group that was more revolutionary than them, I have yet to see it.


The lynchings were of secret police, not "socialists" in general. The Hungarians organized into soviets, and many first-hand accounts attest that the rebels, in the main, saw themselves as socialist. Obviously any right-wingers in Hungary would support the rebellion as well, and NATO would be stupid not to turn it to its advantage. That doesn't mean the Hungarian Revolution wasn't an uprising of the working class against an enemy class.
So the lynchings were OK because they worked for the state? People regarded as communists were marked throughout the revolt, and they would have been fortunate to only been menaced with intimidation.

Gorbachev and Solidarity (Walesa's little band of counterrevolutionaries) saw themselves as socialist, so that doesn't exactly say all that much.

On this point, it's not NATO opportunism I'm pointing to, it's the open willingness of the militias to accept imperialist aid. CIA documents (check out the GWU document archive) show that a weapons drop was being organized when the Soviet intervention crushed the revolt.

[manic expression]

There is no point in arguing with "manic expression" because his historical outlook is Hegelian, not Marxist. You are wasting your time with a 19th-century gargoyle who believes social reality is molded by ideas, not the other way around.
The presumption here is that Kleber's ideas have anything to do with "social reality". What else could we expect from someone who mocks 19th century ideologies while simultaneously calling themselves a Marxist?

[Hit The North]

First, I want to deal with your falsehoods:


And in this argument, you betray yourself as a betrayer of Bolshevism. One of the foundations of modern Marxism, that is the vanguard party, which represents the most refined political voice of the proletariat, is termed by you as a negative force, as evidence of a lack of workers' power. However, you have not once come close to substantially differentiating the Red Army of 1956 from the Red Army of 1920. My argument here is quite simple: the self-conscious revolutionary praxis of the working class was represented by the vanguard party, even when taking into account the shortcomings of the Soviet state in the 1950's. This, you avoid at all costs.


1) I have no problem with Lenin's conception of the vanguard party; but to extend it as the indefinite ruler of society, post-revolution, substituting for the direct rule of the proletariat, was not Lenin's intention. Only that rare ability that Stalinists possess, to abstract tactical lines and freeze them into context-independent doctrines could endorse a system of rule by a party and bureaucratic elite over the proletariat, as socialist. Only a demagogue who calls upon the authority of the masses, but does not trust the free energy of the masses can support the suspension of mass democracy and make it a virtue of the new society.

2) Neither do I call the vanguard party "a negative force". Again, whether the party plays a negative or positive role depends upon its relationship with the class. When that relationship is substitution, leading to domination over the class, then, yes, it has a negative impact. Precisely because it stands between the proletariat and its right to control society.

3) I have accounted for the difference between the red army 1920 and the red army 1956, by reference to the class struggle. You just weren't paying attention. Meanwhile, you have accounted for its continued fidelity to socialism by an appeal to official propaganda (what the state capitalists - not even the Stalinists, but the Revisionists! - say about themselves).


Your delusion is in thinking that leadership and class interests are mutually exclusive. Where have I argued this as some absolute principle? The relationship between party and class is dialectical and subject to change. If you think Lenin believed otherwise, then, once again, you haven't been paying attention. On the other hand, you seem deluded in thinking that the leadership of the class and its interests are somehow directly guaranteed to coincide merely by the existence of a political organisation who proclaims to be the vanguard.


But miraculously, when it comes to anything after 1925, leadership is bad and inherently anti-worker. From what logic does this spring? The logic appears to spring from your own head, as I have never argued such a thing. You seem intent on setting up a strawman Trotskyist in order to counter my arguments.


Ah, but of course. A materialist analysis would lead us to believe that people who lynch socialists are in fact true proletarian revolutionaries (TM), that Radio "Free" Europe represented the will of the Hungarian workers (:laugh:), that NATO collaborators were genuine progressives, that Cardinal Mindszenty was a regular Lenin.
Again with the strawman! Where have I even hinted that I considered the Hungarian rebellion to be the work of "true proletarian revolutionaries"? On the contrary, I have no problem in conceding that there were nationalist and pro-capitalist interests, alongside anti-Soviet socialists and workers. As with all social upheavals of this sort, there would have been a complexity of rival and contradictory interests. And as I have already a stated, a materialist analysis would begin with an examination of the mode of production the relations of the classes therein, and the external pressures of relations to other powers, before accepting or rejecting the testimony and avowed intentions of political actors (whether these actors are individual leaders, parties, states or their armies).

More to the point, you have yet to tell us how the tanks secured workers power, or why the working class, a generation later, organised as the ruling class (according to you), sat back and allowed their mode of production to be stolen from under them by imperialists.


It's a touch problematic for you to speak of materialism when you consistently refuse to contend with the events of Hungary 1956. In fact, one could even go so far as to call it substitutionalism.I fear it is more problematic to you because you neither understand the concept materialism or are able to apply it to your analysis. What we end up with is a farcical regurgitation of second-rate conspiracy theory: "Gorby was an agent of western imperialism", or "the workers were duped and demoralised by CIA saboteurs" and such like. Really childish nonsense.

[manic expression]

1) I have no problem with Lenin's conception of the vanguard party; but to extend it as the indefinite ruler of society, post-revolution, substituting for the direct rule of the proletariat, was not Lenin's intention. Only that rare ability that Stalinists possess, to abstract tactical lines and freeze them into context-independent doctrines could endorse a system of rule by a party and bureaucratic elite over the proletariat, as socialist. Only a demagogue who calls upon the authority of the masses, but does not trust the free energy of the masses can support the suspension of mass democracy and make it a virtue of the new society.
The isolation of the Russian Revolution, too, was not Lenin's intention. Nevertheless, it was a fact that had to be dealt with, and the workers of the Soviet Union dealt with it by doing what they needed to do to defend their gains. These retreats were not ideal, but they were necessary. The vanguard party, so correctly pinpointed as the core of discipline and strength in the revolution, provided the framework for this. The development that continued from that point (1921, to be specific) were of course tied to what enabled them, and so those shortcomings continued.

While you talk about the "free energy of the masses", there are material conditions that, one way or the other, must be addressed. How was the USSR to deal with being isolated, without any industrial base?


2) Neither do I call the vanguard party "a negative force". Again, whether the party plays a negative or positive role depends upon its relationship with the class. When that relationship is substitution, leading to domination over the class, then, yes, it has a negative impact. Precisely because it stands between the proletariat and its right to control society.On the contrary, given the situations, the vanguard party was the last thing defending the proletariat and its right to control society. Sure, it was imperfect but it wasn't unneeded.


3) I have accounted for the difference between the red army 1920 and the red army 1956, by reference to the class struggle. You just weren't paying attention. Meanwhile, you have accounted for its continued fidelity to socialism by an appeal to official propaganda (what the state capitalists - not even the Stalinists, but the Revisionists! - say about themselves).I hold that you have suggested that the class in control of the Soviet Union changed between 1920 and 1956, but this is quite a different thing.

The divide between anti-Soviet Marxist-Leninists and pro-Soviet Marxist-Leninists had less to do with Hungary in 1956 than it did with the Sino-Soviet Split and Khrushchev's political course within the USSR. If you're trying to paint my position as "too Stalinist for the Stalinists", you're sadly mistaken, because Mao's counsel was one of the big reasons Khrushchev finally got behind the internationalist intervention.


Where have I argued this as some absolute principle? The relationship between party and class is dialectical and subject to change. If you think Lenin believed otherwise, then, once again, you haven't been paying attention. On the other hand, you seem deluded in thinking that the leadership of the class and its interests are somehow directly guaranteed to coincide merely by the existence of a political organisation who proclaims to be the vanguard.Then the party is no longer "the party", is it? The vanguard party has to do with its relationship to the workers, and so if you want to say the CPSU was no longer a vanguard party, please do so, but remember that that relationship was largely put in place in 1921.


The logic appears to spring from your own head, as I have never argued such a thing. You seem intent on setting up a strawman Trotskyist in order to counter my arguments.In the end, you argue for an ideological interpretation of events, which is why your explanation exists at the level of politics: the avowed intentions of political actors; betrayals; infiltrations.

...Except when it comes to Stalin, no?


Again with the strawman! Where have I even hinted that I considered the Hungarian rebellion to be the work of "true proletarian revolutionaries"? On the contrary, I have no problem in conceding that there were nationalist and pro-capitalist interests, alongside anti-Soviet socialists and workers. As with all social upheavals of this sort, there would have been a complexity of rival and contradictory interests. And as I have already a stated, a materialist analysis would begin with an examination of the mode of production the relations of the classes therein, and the external pressures of relations to other powers, before accepting or rejecting the testimony and avowed intentions of political actors (whether these actors are individual leaders, parties, states or their armies).That was, no doubt, hyperbolic, but I don't think it's entirely unfair given your characterization and support of the revolt. The issue is that all the direction of the revolt was spiraling toward a reintroduction of capitalism. The largest capitalist party (among others) was legalized and even took part in Nagy's coalition government. Combined with willful imperialist collaboration and a lack of any independent working-class voice in a position of leadership, one would have trouble seeing this in any other way except a nascent counterrevolution.


More to the point, you have yet to tell us how the tanks secured workers power, or why the working class, a generation later, organised as the ruling class (according to you), sat back and allowed their mode of production to be stolen from under them by imperialists.In the same way the machine guns secured workers' power in all corners of the former Russian Empire. Change the locations, dates and relative time to counterrevolution and all your assumptions apply. But let's be specific: the internationalist mission defeated the militias that were defending Nagy's social democratic (at best) government, collaborating with imperialists, promoting capitalist forces and hunting down communists.


I fear it is more problematic to you because you neither understand the concept materialism or are able to apply it to your analysis. What we end up with is a farcical regurgitation of second-rate conspiracy theory: "Gorby was an agent of western imperialism", or "the workers were duped and demoralised by CIA saboteurs" and such like. Really childish nonsense.What is childish is that you harp on materialism, and yet you at every point refuse to discuss the actual facts of the revolt. I'd like to hear more about your "materialism", actually. What is also childish is that you reject the idea that layers of workers just might fight against their interests, especially in times of nationalist fervor. But of course, that explains why WWI didn't happen, so perhaps you have a point.

[Paul Cockshott]

"Tankie" isn't native to this website; it arose after the invasion of Hungary - as psycho said, as a derogatory term for those who said "send in the tanks." I haven't seen the latter two meanings from psycho's definition, so those might be site-specific drift.

.I thik it much more recent, a 1980s term used by eurucomunists within cpgb to describe morning star supporters.

[Die Neue Zeit]

After all this discussion, this forum really needs Unicorn the tankie extraordinaire to come back.

[milk]

I didn't know Pol Pot and his scum tried to invade! There, Vietnamese revolutionary defencism at work, alongside the revolutionary defencism of Soviet grunts against Chinese adventurism in the border clashes!

They didn't. Only increasingly provocative cross-border raids. But they were preparing for war.

The Vietnamese 'taught them a lesson' in 1977 by making a large incursion into DK territory before pulling out. The hostilities didn't cease, however, and after a Khmer Rouge attack in Tay Ninh province in December 1978, and with a United Front and replacement government cobbled together in that same month, the Vietnamese decided it was time to solve the Khmer Rouge problem in Phnom Penh.