What is Anti-Revisionism?

[promethean]

Someone asked me this question. Revisionism is the abandonment of basic Marxist principles of class and substituting "nations" or "peoples" in place of class. Anti-Revisionists see the historical socialist countries as state capitalist after certain periods of history, specifically, the Soviet Union after the 1960s.

The USSR, beginning with the Kosygin Reforms, abandoned socialism and adopted capitalism. Also the 1977 constitution abandoned the dictatorship of the proletariat: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country".

Starting with Brezhnev, the Soviet Union proclaimed it could attack any country that supposedly turned away from "socialism". This is social imperialism.

[William Howe]

After Lenin died and Stalin took over, Stalin decided to plan to make the USSR a global superpower, whereas Lenin only wanted global revolution and not a major empire. Stalin's ideas, which abandoned Marxist and Leninist goals, were what started the downward shift of the USSR into a beaurocratic failure, whereas in Lenin's era massive advancements were made based on Marxist teachings. De-Stalinization led to even more failure, reverting the USSR to corrupt capitalism.

[Ismail]

Stalin decided to plan to make the USSR a global superpower, whereas Lenin only wanted global revolution and not a major empire.Nothing in Stalin's works suggest this.

As he noted in The Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm) in 1924,

But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.

Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries," (see Vol. XXIII, p. 385)He repeated this (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm) in 1938.

In 1952 he again said (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1952/10/14.htm) (in what was his last official speech):

It would be a mistake to believe that our Party, which has become a mighty power, does not need more support. That would be wrong. Our Party and our country need the continuous trust, sympathy and support of fraternal peoples outside our borders, and will always need it....

It is understood that our Party must do its duty by its fraternal parties and support them and their peoples in the struggle for liberation and in their struggle for keeping peace. This is what the Party does. (Stormy applause.) After the seizure of power by our Party in 1917, and after our Party took real measures to eliminate the yoke of capitalists and landlords, the representatives of the' fraternal parties, inspired by our daring and the success of our Party, gave it the name "Shock Brigade" of the revolutionary movement and the workers' movement of the world. Thereby they expressed the hope that the success of the "Shock Brigade" would alleviate the sufferings of the people in the situation of being under the capitalist yoke. I think that our Party has fulfilled these hopes, especially in the time of the second world war, as the Soviet Union smashed the German and Japanese fascist tyranny and liberated the European and Asian peoples from the danger of fascist slavery. (Stormy applause.)

Of course it was very difficult to fulfil this honourable task as long as there was only one "Shock Brigade," as long as it stood alone, the avant-garde in the fulfillment of this task. But that is in the past. Now it is completely different. Now, from China and Korea to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, new "Shock Brigades" have appeared on the map, in the form of people's democracies; now the struggle has been eased for our Party and also the work proceeds better. (Stormy, prolonged applause.)Show me anything that Stalin wanted a "global superpower" rather than a global revolution.

[28350]

It's totally haaahdkoar.


Nothing in Stalin's works suggest this.
...
Show me anything that Stalin wanted a "global superpower" rather than a global revolution.

Perhaps, I don't really doubt this. However, what Stalin did was, in effect, concentrate resources and efforts on the strengthening of the USSR, and less on a sort of exportation of the revolution outside of Russia.
Or at least he did something that ended up with those results.

[Ismail]

Perhaps, I don't really doubt this. However, what Stalin did was, in effect, concentrate resources and efforts on the strengthening of the USSR, and less on a sort of exportation of the revolution outside of Russia.
Or at least he did something that ended up with those results.Well yes but one could argue the same thing about Lenin. As I noted in another thread, he shrugged as Atatürk was killing Turkish Communists because the objective of fighting British imperialism in Central Asia and so on was seen as a more pressing matter. And thus, "Soviet money and supplies began to pour over the Russo-Turkish frontier, in amounts still unknown, to aid the anti-Bolshevik nationalists. It was the first significant military aid that Soviet Russia had given to a foreign movement." (A Peace to End All Peace, pp. 429-430.)

So evidently the issue of "national" interest versus the development of a communist movement in another country can be tricky in some circumstances.

[penguinfoot]

The problem I have with accounts of revisionism is that they are totally theoretically impoverished. If a leader is said to be "revisionist" or a "capitalist-roader" does that mean that they are consciously committed to the restoration of capitalism and that they have been pretending to be a communist for the duration of their political activity solely in order to eventually find themselves in a position of political influence and undermine the gains that have been made by the working class or people who are genuinely communist? If so, what evidence is there that this was true of, say, Liu Shaoqi? Or does it mean that someone can subjectively see themselves as a communist but have objective tendencies that favor the restoration of capitalism? If so, how can people of this kind be detected and why was it that, in spite of the extent of the purges, it was so easy for Khrushchev to allegedly restore capitalism within a few years of Stalin having died? If Khrushchev coming to power or the defeat of the Gang of Four in 1976 did signal the restoration of capitalism then why was it that restoration was able to occur without the working class recognizing what was happening, let alone fighting to protect socialism? The entire concept of revisionism ultimately makes the safety of socialism dependent on individual leaders, and allows dramatic changes in modes of production to take place solely as a consequence of changes of leadership at the apex of a society, and for that reason it has nothing to do with any kind of materialist account or understanding of what socialism actually entails.


After Lenin died and Stalin took over, Stalin decided to plan to make the USSR a global superpower

No good Trotskyist would ever think this because it makes it seem as if the direction Soviet Russia took after Lenin's death was wholly the result of Stalin's subjective desires. The Trotskyist position is that Stalin was effectively compelled to follow the course he did because of the international forces that were acting on the Soviet Union at the time and that he functioned only as the individual representative of a much larger bureaucratic stratum, not as some omnipotent dictator who was able to come to power because he was especially crafty or because Trotsky was arrogant. It's precisely those kind of individual explanations that dominate the teaching of the Russian Revolution in much of secondary education and they totally neglect the impact of the Civil War and the ultimate fact that the Soviet Union would probably have followed the same course if some individual other than Stalin had been somehow propelled to power, because the same objective forces and conditions would still have been in existence and it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible for any leader to have resisted those forces and conditions.


Revisionism is the abandonment of basic Marxist principles of class and substituting "nations" or "peoples" in place of class

By that definition, Mao was a revisionist, because his own speeches and the constitutions of the PRC that were published in his lifetime are full of references to "the Chinese people" and so on.

[L.A.P.]

You're way off, Anti-Revisionism is a doctrine in Marxism-Leninism that believes the line of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism or Hoxhaism is the correct line. It opposes the ideas of Trotskyism and Left Communism. The idea of Revisionism originates when the ideology of Social Democracy first started to take place and revised, abandoned, or disregarded some concepts of Marxism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Bernstein was the first revisionist, he argues to abandon revolution in favor of reforms.

[L.A.P.]

Bernstein was the first revisionist, he argues to abandon revolution in favor of reforms.

That's right, I forgot to mention the fact that Revisionists prefer reform over revolution.

[red cat]

Not only do they "prefer" reforms over revolution, conscious revisionists back-stab revolutions by sabotaging the associated movements and occasionally try to neutralize the revolutionary masses through reforms. When revisionism wins in a socialist country, revisionists do not even go for reforms; they engage in a continuous process of destroying everything the working-class had gained.

[L.A.P.]

Krushchev Revisionists

Your tendency is showing.:lol:

[Ismail]

If so, what evidence is there that this was true of, say, Liu Shaoqi?"The star of Liu Shaoqi was in the ascent during this period. Liu's leadership of the 'first line' gave him the authority to convene conferences, select speakers, and thus secure passage of the measures he supported. For example, in an expanded CC meeting of January 21-27, 1962 (the 'meeting of the 7,000' cadres), Liu Shaoqi presided and gave a speech (on the twenty-sixth) in which he reported that Hunan peasants had told him that the failure of the Leap was only 30 percent due to natural catastrophes and 70 percent due to 'human errors.'

At the same time, Liu called for the following reforms: (1) immediate cessation of work on projects from which no 'economically relevant results' were expected; (2) shutting down enterprises that make no profit or operate on a loss; (3) reintroduction of free markets and higher prices for agricultural produce; and (4) use of the production team as the basic accounting unit. This conference was followed by the Xilou conference of the Politburo Standing Committee, which was held from February 21 to 26, 1966, and again chaired by Liu. At the meeting, Chen Yun submitted a report pointing to a deficit of two billion yuan. The report, which was accepted and distributed to local levels, justified retrenchment and increased reliance on local initiative to solve economic problems. At the Beidaiho Politburo Conference in August 1962, Liu Shaoqi again raised the questions to be discussed and dominated the meetings."
(Dittmer, L. Liu Shaoqi and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Rev Ed. England: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998. p. 42.)

Liu was similar to Bukharin. Right-wing "communist" when it came to economics. His legacy was rehabilitated under Deng.


Or does it mean that someone can subjectively see themselves as a communist but have objective tendencies that favor the restoration of capitalism? If so, how can people of this kind be detected and why was it that, in spite of the extent of the purges, it was so easy for Khrushchev to allegedly restore capitalism within a few years of Stalin having died?Well considering that no one on earth is psychic, the former can only be spotted through seeing what is objectively anti-communist about whatever part of their outlook is in question.

To the other point, I made a long email to Furr when he asked me what I thought of some things:

The website/journal "Revolutionary Democracy" has quite a few long works by certain figures (one going by the pseudonym of "Inter") in its older issues discussing Soviet views on political economy in the 1940's and 50's, mainly on how the struggles between Marxist-Leninist and revisionist economists played out. I think that Stalin being "pretty much alone, among the Party leadership" is basically correct, and the problems of the Soviet Union, which had their origins (more or less inevitably) under Lenin, meant that erudite discussions behind closed doors (and Stalin replying by writing a book addressed to Soviet economists which was promptly tossed aside after he died) sufficed for debates on Marxism-Leninism itself. In a country so backwards politically, economically, and so on as Russia, the Bolsheviks had to limit input on theory in such a way. In today's world and in the future I am sure that the process of educating workers and having them enjoy significantly more active and substantial input is and will be far easier.

From my relatively limited readings such as The Origin of the Communist Autocracy by L. Schapiro, although obviously anti-communist, and Stalin: Man of History by Grey (specifically the disputes between Lenin and others in the Party leadership) both suggest that the working-class of the Russian SFSR (and later the USSR), lacking political education at large, were persuaded more by demagogy than by actual Marxist theory for rather obvious reasons. It's easy for anti-communists (and to some extent Trotskyists too) to look for instance at trade union unrest at the "center" (the government headed by Lenin) and immediately sympathize with the "small guy" against the "big oppressive state apparatus," ignoring that the trade union bureaucracy was happy to expand its power by criticizing what the center was doing. Of course at some times these same figures did point out things worth pointing out, and in response Lenin (and later Stalin) would simply stand by Marxist theory the best they could in the context of having just acquired state power in a country as unusual (among Marxists at the time) as Russia.

An example of opportunism could be seen below by figures such as Bukharin (who went from accusing Lenin of betraying the revolution due to Brest-Litovsk in 1918, to later becoming a sort of martyr for "market socialists") and Shlyapnikov:

"Another weakness of left communism, which prevented its supporters from gathering around them any effective following against Lenin, was the demonstrable failure of the early experiments in workers' control of industry... Bukharin and Obolensky further advanced the criticism that Lenin's policy amounted to nothing more nor less than state capitalism; and that unless the masses exercised economic dictatorship, their political dictatorship would inevitably disappear. To this Lenin could reply that where the state embodied the interests and the will of the proletariat, economic control by the state meant economic control by the proletariat."
(Leonard Schapiro. The Origins of the Communist Autocracy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1965. pp. 137-138.)

"The case of the railways will suffice as an illustration.... the overall management of the railways was entrusted, and complete control by the workers decreed on 23 January 1918. Within a few months the railways were in a state of collapse. The 'complete and utter disorganization' was growing daily:

'The workers by present-day rules are guaranteed their pay. The worker turns up at his job . . . does his job, or not, as he pleases, no one can control him, because the [railway repair] shop committees are powerless. If the workshop committee attempts to exercise some control, it is immediately disbanded and another committee elected. In a word, things are in the hands of a crowd, which thanks to its lack of interest in and understanding of production is literally putting a brake on all work.'

Ironically enough it fell to Shlyapnikov, the future leader of the Workers' Opposition and advocate of workers' control of industry, to paint this deplorable picture before the Central Executive Committee, and to demand the restoration of work discipline on the railways. On 26 March the Council of People's Commissars centralized control of the railways under the Commissar of Communications, who was given complete dictatorial powers. Lenin drafted the decree. But the railways were only one instance out of many. The inescapable fact that workers' control had failed was Lenin's strongest argument in winning support for his industrial policy of work discipline, one-man management, and efficient methods of production."
(Ibid. pp. 139-140.)

In such cases Lenin (and later Stalin) didn't cease being Marxists. They still would consult the works of Marx when theoretical issues came up in a sincere fashion, they simply were torn by the clear contradictions that had come up. Bukharin, Shlyapnikov, Zinoviev, Trotsky, etc., etc. must have (or at least should have) known about these contradictions too, but instead they appealed to demagoguery (or quasi-demagogic activities) in order to "one-up" each other, and naturally they managed to get some supporters who would also consider themselves genuine Marxists though severely demoralized by what they viewed as conditions radically different then what they envisioned (the defeat of the revolutions of Western Europe, the both pressing and "bloody"—to use an anti-communist phrase—necessity of industrialization and collectivization along with inevitably resistance coming from certain sectors, and so on). In the end the relations of production in the USSR, though at times quite different, never quite became as radical as was expected. In the end the managerial line won out, trapping Stalin and other actual Marxists in an increasingly formal web of bureaucracy. As Getty pointed out in Origins of the Great Purges (p. 206): "Although politics in the thirties was often populist and even subversive, the exigencies of World War II combined with the practical demands of running an increasingly complicated economy meant that radicalism and antibureaucratism would fade into the past and be replaced by a new respect of authority. In the thirties, Stalin was often a populist muckracker, and his image, as Avtorkhanov remembered, was of someone who hated neckties. The real petrification of the Stalinist system set in during and after the war, when commissariats became ministries, when the party leader became premier, and when the man who hated neckties became the generalissimo." In the 1950s Khrushchev's line won out because it was simple and followed every other revisionist: "Bad things happened. They won't happen again. Certain figures were to blame who were dogmatic/stalinist/infantile/ultra-left/etc. We'll make everything better. Don't worry." ...

In these conditions, as you pointed out in your review, we know of no one who could have done better overall in the conditions of the time than Stalin.
If Khrushchev coming to power or the defeat of the Gang of Four in 1976 did signal the restoration of capitalism then why was it that restoration was able to occur without the working class recognizing what was happening, let alone fighting to protect socialism?Because as Hoxha noted socialism was not established in the USSR; Stalin went ahead of himself in saying this, and Stalin himself seemed to imply this in subsequent comments.

But living standards went up under Khrushchev and (to an extent) Brezhnev. The industrial and agricultural basis was laid under Stalin, and the revisionist leadership reaped the rewards. A lack of proletarian education also played a role. If you were to talk to a worker who saw and lived through 1917-1924, or another worker who saw and lived through 1924-1941, or another who lived through 1941-1956, or another who lived from 1956-1991, it's quite unlikely that any of them would be acquainted with Marxism to any considerable degree whether undistorted or revisionist. The Party said that they were embarking on the construction of communism in 1956, everyone just nodded their heads because food was being put on the table. The material conditions of Russia in 1917 prevented much else from occurring than this development.

As Furr noted in his email to me in-re Stalin's industrial and agricultural policies:

* I'd suspect that many backward workers (backward in a political sense) would judge Bolshevik policies according to whether or not they raised the standard of living of the working class.

In fact Bolshevik policies were designed, and openly stated, to LOWER the standard of living of many Soviet workers and peasants (not of the very poorest, but of the rest) for the purpose of making huge investments to industrialize the country in a very short period of time. They were also designed to LOWER the living standards of many peasants (not the very poorest) for the same purpose -- to take huge amounts of agricultural products in order to invest them in industrialization.

Many politically aware workers understood this. The alternatives were unacceptable.
The entire concept of revisionism ultimately makes the safety of socialism dependent on individual leaders,This is a simplification. Khrushchev secured the execution of Beria, the expulsion of the "Anti-Party Group," the resignation or retiring of "dogmatic" or "leftist-deviationist" (aka pro-Stalin) economists and theoreticians, and the purging of the party apparatus. As Hoxha noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1969/01/10.htm) in 1969:

If the Dubcek counterrevolutionaries attacked and purged the Soviet agency—the Novotny counter-revolutionaries whom the Soviet leadership call "the Party's fund of gold," the Khrushchevite counter-revolutionary clique of the Soviet Union in its own country attacked and purged the real revolutionary cadres who were remaining true to the Marxist-Leninist line of the Bolshevik Party and to the ideals of socialism. Under the slogan of the "fight against Stalin's personality cult," or under the pretext of rotation, the Khrushchevite revisionists rode roughshod over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Seventy per cent of the members of the members of the Central Committee elected at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in 1952 were no longer figuring on the list of the Central Committee members elected at the 22nd Congress in 1961. Sixty per cent of the CC members in 1956 were no longer figuring on the list of the CC members that were elected at the 23rd Congress in 1966. A still greater purge has been carried out in the lower party organs. For instance, during 1963 alone, more than 50 per cent of the members of the party central and regional committees in the Republics of the Soviet Union were relieved of their functions, while in the city and district party committees three quarters of their members were replaced with others. The purge of the revolutionary cadres has been carried out on a large scale also in the State organs, and especially in those of the army and State security.
and allows dramatic changes in modes of production to take place solely as a consequence of changes of leadership at the apex of a society,This is incorrect. The Party was the vanguard of society. When it went revisionist it was pretty much a given that economic revisionism would soon follow, as it did.

Bill Bland's view: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/SovietBB.htm
Views from Albanian economists and theoreticians: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/index.htm (under the header "Material from Albania")
The Maoist view: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html


By that definition, Mao was a revisionist, because his own speeches and the constitutions of the PRC that were published in his lifetime are full of references to "the Chinese people" and so on.Hoxha would agree.

[penguinfoot]

The star of Liu Shaoqi was in the ascent during this period. Liu's leadership of the 'first line'

Firstly, what you've done is show that there were a number of policy areas where Liu Shaoqi, at some point in time, called for the relaxation of state planning in some respects - now this might be cited as evidence of Liu having a more reformist or gradualist orientation than Mao and some other sections of the CPC but it is one thing to say this and something completely different to say that Liu was intent on undermining the gains of the 1949 revolution or even that his policies were objectively anti-communist without him being aware of it, whatever that means.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, however Liu might have acted at the 7000 cadre conference, in the immediate aftermath of the GLF it was Mao and his supporters who were calling for the most radical adjustments to be made, many of these adjustments also being shifts in the direction of markets along the same lines as the suggestions later made by Liu - in December of 1960, for example, it was Zhou Enlai in cooperation with Chen Yun who convinced the rest of the Politburo standing committee to support the policy of purchasing grain from abroad, including from imperialist countries such as Canada and Australia, if not fro the United States, with the acceptance of this policy along with changing views of the severity of the food situation eventually resulting in China having to accept an offer of 700,000 tonnes of Cuban sugar from the Soviet Union by August in spite of their ongoing political disagreements (and even whilst China rejected Soviet offers of grain loans on political grounds) and, for all countries over the year of 1961, a net import total of more than five million tonnes of grain. At the same time, and in order to maintain a stable balance of payments, there were arguments from both Zhou and Chen that China needed to increase her exports of primary commodities and low-value manufactured goods, with the adoption of these arguments as policy resulting in increased trade between China and Hong Kong and Macau amongst other export markets. This is just one example of the emergency measures that were taken with Mao's support, and others include a policy of rustication whereby urban residents were encouraged to move to the countryside for some period of time in order to lower the demands of the cities on the agricultural sector as well as the marketing of luxury goods at higher prices in order to deal with the problem of inflation in basic goods (all of the above from MacFarquhar, 'Origins' volume three (1997) pp. 23-39) and the point here is what whilst the narratives that were later put forward during the Cultural Revolution by Mao and his allies were designed to make it seem as if Liu had taken advantage of the aftermath of the GLF to implement right-wing policies, the actual policies that had been undertaken at the time were more or less based on a consensus within the CPC, of which Mao himself was a part, due to the whole of the CPC leadership being aware of the scale of the disaster that had occurred.

Thanks for the detailed reply, but I'll have to deal with the rest tomorrow, I'm a bit busy right now.

[Ismail]

Firstly, what you've done is show that there were a number of policy areas where Liu Shaoqi, at some point in time, called for the relaxation of state planning in some respects - now this might be cited as evidence of Liu having a more reformist or gradualist orientation than Mao and some other sections of the CPC but it is one thing to say this and something completely different to say that Liu was intent on undermining the gains of the 1949 revolution or even that his policies were objectively anti-communist without him being aware of it, whatever that means....I'm not defending Mao, Zhou Enlai or the other revisionist leaders of China. They were all rightists and/or opportunists. I was simply pointing out that Liu was a rightist just like Mao was, just like Deng (who praised him) was, etc.

[Dimentio]

It's totally haaahdkoar.



Perhaps, I don't really doubt this. However, what Stalin did was, in effect, concentrate resources and efforts on the strengthening of the USSR, and less on a sort of exportation of the revolution outside of Russia.
Or at least he did something that ended up with those results.

How could an impoverished country with a crumbling infrastructure, massive illiteracy surrounded by technologically advanced enemies be able to influence world politics?

[People's War]

Anti-revisionism is simple really - the destruction of socialist principles and the replacement of them with state capitalist principles, such as happened after 1953 in the USSR. China is a more debatable case in that Mao has been accused of revisionist policies as early as the 1960s by anti-revisionists such as Bland. Most Maoists would disagree with this obviously - so it depends who you ask.

[Kléber]

How could an impoverished country with a crumbling infrastructure, massive illiteracy surrounded by technologically advanced enemies be able to influence world politics?
It had plenty of influence, drawing on the global support of the proletariat, but once the Stalinist bureaucracy came to power they had another sort of influence: subordinating Chinese Communists to their bourgeois nationalist executioners, ordering the KPD to stop fighting Nazis in the streets, sending arms to Spain with the overriding motive of butchering the Spanish far left, murdering thousands of international revolutionaries and getting rid of the Communist International, playing handmaiden to the growth of fascism in Europe only to barely survive its onslaught, then abandoning Greek Communists at the apex of Soviet power... oh wait a second, revisionism started in 1953, those were just errors made by Dear Stalin's subordinates. Silly me :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

It had plenty of influence, drawing on the global support of the proletariat, but once the Stalinist bureaucracy came to power they had another sort of influence: subordinating Chinese Communists to their bourgeois nationalist executioners, ordering the KPD to stop fighting Nazis in the streets, sending arms to Spain with the overriding motive of butchering the Spanish far left, murdering thousands of international revolutionaries and getting rid of the Communist International, playing handmaiden to the growth of fascism in Europe only to barely survive its onslaught, then abandoning Greek Communists at the apex of Soviet power... oh wait a second, revisionism started in 1953, those were just errors made by Dear Stalin's subordinates. Silly me :rolleyes:You're a troll so I won't respond in depth, but in short:

1. The Chinese CP ignored Stalin and the Comintern's advice. See: http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/NotesChina.htm and http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/olgin9.htm along with http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/com12101.html (the section "Stalin and the World Revolutionary Movement" where in private correspondence with Molotov he blames the CCP)

2. The SPD was harsher on the KPD than they ever were on the NSDAP. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/olgin11.htm and Fascism and Social Revolution (http://www.sovietlibrary.org/Library/Britain/1934_Fascism%20and%20Social%20Revolution_R.%20Palm e%20Dutt_1934.pdf) (chapter VI, PDF page 63 onwards)

3. Stalin/the USSR sent arms (and tanks, and military men of all ranks) to Spain to defend an anti-fascist government against fascist arms and tanks. The section of the PCE most loyal to Stalin (and fixated on literally monopolizing control—a coup after the Barcelona "May Days"), the one led by José Díaz, lost in favor of the line of Dolores Ibárruri, who later followed Khrushchev in condemning Stalin and later became one of the founders of Eurocommunism. The Soviets kept the Republic alive for a few years and organized international brigades to keep it afloat. Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24489987/Spain-the-Unfinished-Revolution) by Arthur H. Landis is a good read on Spain in general during this period.

4. Stalin wanted the Comintern dissolved because of issues of overcentralization coupled with the persecution of the US Communist Party under the Voorhis Act (the PCF was also illegal), not to mention that many CPs had attained maturity at that point. Whatever necessary information and coordination activities were needed pretty much continued de facto under the clandestine OMI (Department of International Information).

5. On Greece see: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73ii.html#s7

Revisionism as a current within Marxism started with Bernstein and everyone knows this. Stop being a smartass troll who strawmans everything.

[Lolshevik]

what do you mean, they attained maturity? if they attained maturity, according to your view, then why - again in your terminology - did they all go "revisionist" after stalin's death?

also, isn't it pretty much always nice to have an international union of parties to coordinate struggle worldwide?

[Ismail]

what do you mean, they attained maturity? if they attained maturity, according to your view, then why - again in your terminology - did they all go "revisionist" after stalin's death?Maturity as in they were able to function relatively well without constant oversight. Of course even after the Comintern dissolved the Soviets still sent plenty of funds to every CP. I know for instance that when the USSR dissolved in 1991 the Communist Party of Canada had severe financial troubles and couldn't even get on the ballot in 1993.

Also plenty of "mature" CPs that embraced revisionist policies (which is a majority of them since even after the Comintern dissolved they were still dependent and tailed the CPSU) had anti-revisionist splits, hence the wonderful world of brackets such as (Marxist-Leninist).


also, isn't it pretty much always nice to have an international union of parties to coordinate struggle worldwide?The Soviet revisionists had their "International Meetings of Communist and Workers Parties" whereas the Chinese and Albanians had the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (before it split into pro-Chinese and pro-Albanian wings). In Reflections on China it is shown that Hoxha had more interest in this than Mao, though both agreed that the days of the Comintern were over. I don't see how a Comintern-like organization would have made much of a difference in terms of making things more efficient.

[penguinfoot]

1. The Chinese CP ignored Stalin and the Comintern's advice. See: http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/NotesChina.htm and http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...ive/olgin9.htm along with http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/com12101.html (the section "Stalin and the World Revolutionary Movement" where in private correspondence with Molotov he blames the CCP)

You're a liar, the entire history of the early CPC is one of the party being forced to bend to the will of the Comintern. Let's look at the facts. At the first congress of the CPC, held in July 1921, there were intense debates over how the party should orientate towards Sun Yat-sen and the government. It was decided that the party would adopt a “closed-door policy” towards government institutions, by which it was meant that party members would not be allowed to take up positions as government officials or as members of provincial assemblies and other such bodies, although party leaders continued to be involved with government institutions and within a year the party would have entered into the united front with the KMT. A majority argued that the party should be opposed to Sun Yat-sen and the regime of the Canton warlord Chen Jiongming, and even after the party's policy had been adjusted to account for the views of the minority their position was still that the party would reject cooperation with Sun and criticize him but would use milder language as compared to other political leaders in China at that time. At the second national congress of the CPC in July of 1922 it had been decided, partly as a result of building pressure from the Comintern, by the dozen representatives speaking on behalf of the 123 party members that they would be willing “to act jointly with” the KMT through a “united front from without”, and whilst the congress was moderate in comparison to the party's previous calls for social revolution, not least because it recognized the important role that the peasantry would play in China, describing the peasants as “the most important factors in our revolutionary movement”, it still made clear that any alliance it did enter into with the KMT would be “temporary” and that the proletariat would still “strive for their own class independently”. It also referred to “all the nation's revolutionary parties” and not just the KMT. At both of their first two congresses, then, the policy of the CPC was one of resolute opposition to submitting the interests of the working class to the KMT. It was only at a special plenum of the party leadership held in August in Hangzhou, that the CPC was forced to change its position. Maring, Comintern representative in China, cited his instructions from the ECCI - that the CPC should enter into the KMT on the terms that had been agreed between Dalin and Sun as a result of their talks earlier in the year, during which it had been made clear that that Sun would only be willing to accept an alliance on the basis of a "bloc within" policy rather than the "bloc without" strategy that had been cautiously accepted by the CPC at their second congress - whilst noting his previous experiences in Indonesia where Communists had participated in the Saraket Islam, which Maring saw as an example of how effective his proposed tactic could be. In spite of the opposition of all five members of the CEC, the leaders submitted to the authority of the Comintern, and agreed to enter the KMT along with the rest of the party, which Sun was happy to accept after his expulsion from Canton by the warlord Chen Jiongming.

(I should make clear in the interests of academic honesty at this point that the scholar who I view as one of the best all-round historians of Communism in China and who was himself part of the Left Opposition, Harold Isaacs (The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, 1938) does not completely agree with the account that has been put forward by (as far as I'm aware) by every single other historian of the CPC, including Harrison 1973, which is the account that I used to make notes, on which my above arguments are based. The mainstream account accepts the view that Maring was faced with the unanimous opposition of the central executive committee of the CPC and that they only agreed to accept his line after he cited the authority of the Comintern, not least because this is the account that Chen Duxiu later put forward himself after the events of 1927, whereas Isaacs says that the central executive committee more or less accepted Maring's views without Maring having to force them to do so and that there were also ample opportunities for redress and discussion through the Comintern at the time, which were not taken up by the CPC leadership. Isaacs' source is a conversation he had with Maring in 1935. He also cites a 1937 account by Pavel Mif for the view that the first formal instructions issued by the ECCI came after the CPC had entered the Comintern, so that Maring did not really have the authority of the Comintern at his disposal. Given that Chen Duxiu later became a Trotskyist, such that Isaacs would have no good reason to undermine his standing, and that his account was corroborated by all the other surviving members of the Hangzhou plenum, and that Maring did the same - that is, become a Trotskyist - at the same time as having a central role in a policy that Trotsky would later condemn over and over again, a role that he would have doubtless wanted to cover up, and given that Isaacs is, as a historian, in a minority of one, I think it's fair to accept that the mainstream account is correct, and that the CPC leadership really did strongly oppose the "bloc within" policy.)

So it's clear that, in its first years at least, the CPC did not support Comintern policy on cooperation with KMT, a policy that Stalin supported, but that they were forced to accept the policy anyway. But what of later years? The pattern is the same - the CPC being forced to accept the authority of the Comintern. In March 1926, by which point the Second Chinese Revolution was in full swing, beginning with the May 30th Movement the previous year, which had led to the creation of China's first Soviet in Canton and Hong Kong, there occurred what has since become known as Chiang's first coup, marking one of the first signs of open tension between the CPC and the bourgeois KMT, with this coup resulting in a set of attacks on the CPC - these attacks included a number of new legal requirements that were designed to undermine the position of the CPC, announced at a session of the KMT central executive committee in May, so that the CPC was required to hand over to the standing committee of the KMT a list of its membership inside the latter, and CPC members of municipal, provincial, and central party committees were limited to one-third of the committee membership, and CPC members were banned from serving as heads of any KMT or government department. Moreover, All instructions henceforth issued by the Communist Central Committee to its own members were to be submitted first to a special joint committee of the two parties for approval. There are a number of interesting things about these set of events - firstly they showed that any kind of alliance existing between the KMT and the CPC could only be temporary because conditions of increasing class struggle would inevitably result in tension between the two and cause the KMT to seek to protect the bourgeois class interests that it was created to represent and defend, but more interestingly, what it shows about the Comintern is the extent of the Comintern (including Stalin)'s faith in the KMT, because the first reaction of the Comintern was to deny what had happened - in this respect they directly anticipated the events of April 1927 because after the massacre had occurred, Stalin's response, also, was to deny that Chiang had struck against the CPC. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly of all, the response of the CPC was to call for a radical change in strategy, in that Chen Duxiu wrote to the Comintern calling for a strategy of a two-party bloc rather than the "bloc within" strategy, this was denied, likewise, the central committee adopted the same position at its plenary session in June, which was, again, shot down by the Comintern.

So, not only did the CPC's initial entry into the KMT as a bloc within only occur because they were forced to by the Comintern, but also, when, in 1926, they wanted to withdraw or at the very least alter their policy, in the face of attacks from the KMT leadership and rising class struggle, they were, again, prevented from exercising their independence - by the Comintern. But it might be conceivable for a Stalinist hack to accept all this and still say that directly before the tragic events of April, the Comintern and Stalin were calling on the CPC to be wary, to get ready to defend itself. Is this true? Let's have a look, firstly at Stalin's April 5th speech where he attempted to answer directly the claims of Trotsky and the Left Opposition:

"Chiang Kai-shek is submitting to discipline. The Kuomintang is a bloc, a sort of revolutionary parliament, with the Right, the Left, and the Communists. Why make a coup d’état? Why drive away the Right when we have the majority and when the Right listens to us? The peasant needs an old worn-out jade as long as she is necessary. He does not drive her away. So it is with us. When the Right is of no more use to us, we will drive it away. At present we need the Right. It has capable people, who still direct the army and lead it against the imperialists. Chiang Kai-shek has perhaps no sympathy for the revolution, but he is leading the army and cannot do otherwise than lead it against the imperialists. Besides this, the people of the Right have relations with the generals of Chang Tso-lin and understand very well how to demoralize them and to induce them to pass over to the side of the revolution, bag and baggage, without striking a blow. Also, they have connections with the rich merchants and can raise money from them. So they have to be utilized to the end, squeezed out like a lemon, and then flung away.”

Did Stalin advocate breaking with the KMT? No, he said "we need the right". Did he recognize that Chiang would become a pawn of the imperialists? No, he said he "cannot do otherwise than lead it against the imperialists". It's interesting, by the way, that this speech - in which Stalin's role in the defeat of the revolution is made clear - was never made available. I'll quote at length from Isaacs on this point:

"Stalin was confronted with these passages by Vuyovitch at the Eighth Plenum of the E.C.C.I. in May, 1927. Vuyovitch had taken them down himself in shorthand. “Comrade Stalin will always have the opportunity of rectifying unintentional inaccuracies by laying his stenogram before us,” he challenged (cf. Trotsky, Problems, appendices, pp. 388-90). But Stalin offered no corrections, nor did he produce the stenogram because, as Trotsky remarked at the same meeting of the E.C.C.I., “a few days later the squeezed out lemon seized power and the army. . . . As a member of the C.C. (Central Committee) I had the right to get the stenogram of this speech, but my pains and attempts were in vain. Attempt it now, comrades, perhaps you will have better luck. I doubt it” ( ibid., p. 91). This speech and its suppression is confirmed not by an Oppositionist, but by one of Stalin’s trusted lieutenants, Albert Treint, at that time a member of the Presidium of the E.C.C.I. “Stalin even went so far as to conceal his own speech. . . . A speech by Stalin himself at the Communist Academy, in the presence of 3,000 officials of the Party, was never published . . . because the coup d’état of Chiang Kai-shek ten days later brought to his words the shattering refutation of events “ ( Documents de l’Opposition Francaise, pp. 36, 64)"

This was, to be fair, a public speech. Maybe the Comintern advised the CPC to change their strategy privately? Let's look at the March 31 ECCI directive to the CPC:

"Arouse the masses against this overturn now being prepared and conduct a campaign against the Right. Open struggle is not to be launched at this time (in view of the very unfavourable change in the relationship of forces). Arms must not be given up, but in any extremity they must be hidden."

Here we get some recognition that tensions were building. But still, the tone is absolutely passive - the fact that the directive was based around warning of the danger from the Right served to encourage the illusion that there was also a left within the KMT which led the CPC to ally with the Wuhan government even after it had been butchered in Shanghai, the directive gives no recognition whatsoever that Chiang was the one who posed the greatest danger to the CPC, such was the Comintern's faith in Chiang at that point, and by encouraging the CPC to hide if not lay down its weapons, it totally negated any possibility of the CPC acting before the KMT did, and in doing so, it encouraged the CPC to completely abandon any form of strategic momentum or advantage. In this area, again, the CPC followed the directives of the Comintern - it kept its weapons, as advised, having used them to capture Shanghai but not form Soviets, which it was not allowed to do by the Comintern, and did not strike against Chiang or any other part of the KMT - it paid the price, because the KMT took the strategic advantage, and, as I've mentioned, it was only later that Stalin and the Comintern even admitted that the CPC had been betrayed, because of the scope of their naivety.

**********************

So come on, Ismail, enough with your Stalinist hackery - the CPC did obey the Comintern:

They obeyed it when they were forced to enter the KMT in 1922 despite their wish to remain independent.

They obeyed it when they were not allowed to quit the KMT in June 1926 at the height of a revolutionary storm and after they had come under attacks - and let's not overlook the fact that one of the things they were forced to do as part of those attacks, pass their membership lists over to the KMT leadership, resulted in the KMT being able to hunt down CPC militants when they did betray the CPC in April of the following year

They obeyed it in March/April 1927 when they did not support Soviets during the Shanghai insurrection and formed a citizens' assembly consisting of the merchants and bourgeoisie

They obeyed it also when they kept their weapons but gave up the strategic momentum by being forced to keep those weapons hidden and not strike against the KMT.

At each and every point, the CPC wanted to do something different, but they were prevented from doing so by Stalin and the Comintern, and no amount of referring to vague warnings and lies about people like Chen Duxiu will change that. Your sources are laughable - I challenge you to show me a single text from before April 1927 where Stalin or the Comintern encourages the CPC to break from the whole of the KMT and to strike against them in order to take the strategic advantage and to form the Soviets that were on the verge of being formed anyway by Chinese peasants and workers, these being the arguments that were being made by the Left Opposition and which were absolutely vindicated.

[Ismail]

You're a liar,Furr called RevLeft poster A.R.Amistad a "liar," and I do think Amistad had a point in replying with, "I'm not a liar. I may be mistaken but I don't lie."

Your history lesson is nice, but the overcentralization of the Comintern seemed like the issue coupled with internal CCP rightism (which never left it, and continued under Mao), which was a major factor in it being dissolved.


In this area, again, the CPC followed the directives of the Comintern - it kept its weapons, as advised, having used them to capture Shanghai but not form Soviets, which it was not allowed to do by the Comintern, and did not strike against Chiang or any other part of the KMT - it paid the price, because the KMT took the strategic advantage, and, as I've mentioned, it was only later that Stalin and the Comintern even admitted that the CPC had been betrayed, because of the scope of their naivety.As was pointed out via Stalin's letters to Molotov, just months after Chiang's betrayal Stalin still considered (July 1927) the Comintern line to have been correct and that the CCP was to blame for botching Comintern directives. Since these were private and confidential letters to Molotov himself, it's safe to say that they reflect his personal views. We read (from the book itself, not the link, p. 141.) that: "The CCP Central Committee was unable to use the rich period of the bloc with Kuomintang in order to conduct energetic work in openly organizing the revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry, the revolutionary military units, the revolutionizing of the army, the work of setting the soldiers against the generals. The CCP Central Committee has lived off the Kuomintang for a whole year and has had the opportunity of freely working and organizing, yet it did nothing to turn the conglomerate of elements (true, quite militant), incorrectly called a party, into a real party. . . . [the Central Committee preferred] to kill time in behind-the-scenes talks with the leaders and generals from the Kuomintang...[the CCP] kills the initiative of the working masses, undermines the 'unauthorized' actions of the peasant masses, and reduces class warfare in China to a lot of big talk about the 'feudal bourgeoisie' (now it has finally been determined that, as it turns out, the author of this term is Roy)."

It seems pretty clear that Stalin from this point on never fully trusted the CCP again, which is why Mao mentioned that upon coming to power in 1949 Stalin suspected that the CCP's victory against the Guomindang "was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed." (Mao's Selected Works Vol. V, p. 304.)

So either Stalin was delusional or either the rigidness of the Comintern coupled with/or the errors of the CCP caused the debacle of April 1927.

[penguinfoot]

Your history lesson is nice, but the overcentralization of the Comintern seemed like the issue coupled with internal CCP rightism

Yet you haven't explained the nature of this alleged "CPC rightism" - you especially haven't explained how it is that the CPC could have been rightist when at various points, from the founding of the party up to its defeat in April 1927, they were calling for independence from the KMT, which was the exact same strategy that was more or less being argued for by the Left Opposition in Russia at the same time, especially from 1925 onwards. Now if you're going to admit that you were wrong and that the CPC did actually follow the Comintern line then I'll apologize for calling you a liar because I can accept people being mistaken and changing their positions when their mistakes have been pointed out to them, but in spite of all the evidence I've provided, you're maintaining the basic position that the loss of so many lives in April and the months that followed was down to the CPC, and not the Comintern. Please, specify the cases where the CPC did not obey Comintern directives, and explain how those directives would have allowed the CPC to avert a massive defeat, if you want your position to have any weight. Better yet, defend the positions that Stalin put forward in the April 5th speech I quoted in my last post - explain to me how Stalin was correct in saying that the CPC needed the right at that point or how he was accurate in saying that Chiang would not be able to do anything but oppose imperialism in his capacity as leader of the KMT armies.


As was pointed out via Stalin's letters to Molotov, just months after Chiang's betrayal Stalin still considered (July 1927) the Comintern line to have been correct and that the CCP was to blame for botching Comintern directives.

Yeah, and? What makes you think that Stalin would have been willing to suddenly admit, either to himself or to someone else, that the entire Comintern line on China, in which he had played such an important part, was wrong, when China had been such an important issue of tension and disagreement between Stalin and the Left Opposition? The fact that Stalin continued to think the line was the right one and that he blamed the CPC doesn't mean that the line was correct or that the CPC was fundamentally at fault, regardless of where and when Stalin expressed his views. You seem to assume that Stalin had no capacity for self-deciet, but let's not forget that both he and the rest of the Comintern leadership initially denied that a coup had even taken place, either in March 1926 or April 1927. As for the substantive points made in that quote, Stalin, like you, is lying - for a start, the CPC did make extraordinary gains in membership during the 1925-7 period to the extent that by the time of the massacres its total membership was around 50,000, half of whom were workers, despite the party having begun as a loose network of study-groups, such that there was little national organization or clear chain of command, in China's elite universities and had as its founding membership mainly a bunch of academics and students who had little knowledge of Marxism or contact with the Chinese working class. If there were cases where the CPC did not actually throw itself into the mass movement in the way it should have then that was often because the Comintern played a key role in preventing it from taking full advantage of the level of class struggle present in China at that time. The Comintern forced the CPC to call for the creation of a citizens' assembly - as I pointed out above - as it took control of Shanghai rather than use its strength amongst the city's workers to form a Soviet of the kind that emerged spontaneously in southern China during the course of the May 30th Movement, because the position of the Comintern was that Soviets were not permissible or viable in China at that point, this being a policy that continued into the period following the April massacres, when the CPC was prevented from forming Soviets because to do so would have undermined the position of the "left-KMT" government in Wuhan. As for the issue of the land, the Comintern effectively tied the hands of the CPC - on the one hand there were frequent demands that the party support the seizure of the land but on the other the Comintern accepted the demand of the KMT that the land of officers and their families be excluded from expropriation, which, given that the KMT drew heavily from the gentry to begin with, and also that, as the party moved northwards, large sections of the gentry in each community joined the party, meant that, when it came to large proportions of the land, the CPC was effectively forced by the Comintern not to take action or support peasant radicalism. This isn't to say that people like Chen Duxiu didn't have problematic attitudes towards the peasantry, but here, as with other areas, it was the Comintern that constituted the biggest block to a real unleashing of class struggle. The CPC not being able to fully support the "working masses" was a direct consequence of them being tied to the KMT - a strategy that Stalin backed all the way.

Again: point out where the CPC did not obey Comintern directives. It kept its weapons, and kept them hidden, as demanded by the Comintern just before April and after all their previous blunders, and it got defeated anyway, because it didn't take up the strategic initiative, and it hadn't challenge the ideological or organizational dominance of the KMT.


It seems pretty clear that Stalin from this point on never fully trusted the CCP again, which is why Mao mentioned that upon coming to power in 1949 Stalin suspected that the CCP's victory against the Guomindang "was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed." (Mao's Selected Works Vol. V, p. 304.)

Fortunately, the CPC generally didn't trust Stalin and the Comintern either, so that Mao was able to win the line struggle against Wang Ming when he was sent over to China from the USSR. None of this stopped the Soviet armed forces from de-industrializing Manchuria towards the end of the war and taking all the industrial infrastructure back to the USSR, though, and nor did it stop Stalin from using Gao Gang as a means to undermine China's sovereignty after the creation of the PRC.

[Ismail]

Yet you haven't explained the nature of this alleged "CPC rightism" - you especially haven't explained how it is that the CPC could have been rightist when at various points, from the founding of the party up to its defeat in April 1927, they were calling for independence from the KMT, which was the exact same strategy that was more or less being argued for by the Left Opposition in Russia at the same time, especially from 1925 onwards.The CCP either had rightist periods or ultra-left periods under its various leaders (Li Lisan, Mao, etc.)

As Enver Hoxha pointed out (Imperialism and the Revolution, pp. 435-436.), "From the very first steps of its activity, the Communist Party of China displayed open nationalist and chauvinist tendencies, which, as the facts show, could not be eradicated during the succeeding periods, either. Li Ta-chao, one of the founders of the Communist Party of China, said, 'the Europeans think that the world belongs exclusively to the whites and that they are the superior class. while the coloured peoples are inferior. The Chinese people,' Li Ta-chao continues, 'must be ready to wage a class struggle against the other races of the world, in which they will once again display their special national qualities.' The Communist Party of China was imbued with such views right from the beginning.

Such racist and nationalist views could not have been eliminated completely from the mentality of Mao Tsetung, let alone that of Liu and Teng."


Better yet, defend the positions that Stalin put forward in the April 5th speech I quoted in my last post - explain to me how Stalin was correct in saying that the CPC needed the right at that point or how he was accurate in saying that Chiang would not be able to do anything but oppose imperialism in his capacity as leader of the KMT armies.Evidently by withdrawing the speech (as it is noted) Stalin realized it was in error as events showcased.


This isn't to say that people like Chen Duxiu didn't have problematic attitudes towards the peasantry, but here, as with other areas, it was the Comintern that constituted the biggest block to a real unleashing of class struggle. The CPC not being able to fully support the "working masses" was a direct consequence of them being tied to the KMT - a strategy that Stalin backed all the way.This is because the KMT was seen as a left-wing force with a growing right-wing. But as noted the Comintern still told the CCP to do the best it could to maintain independence.


Again: point out where the CPC did not obey Comintern directives...it didn't take up the strategic initiative, and it hadn't challenge the ideological or organizational dominance of the KMT.Which is why Stalin criticized them. So again, either Stalin was delusional or something went wrong in either the Comintern or, more likely, the CCP.


Fortunately, the CPC generally didn't trust Stalin and the Comintern either, so that Mao was able to win the line struggle against Wang Ming when he was sent over to China from the USSR.Of course non-rightists are sent to put a stop to Mao. Evidently you defend Mao.


and nor did it stop Stalin from using Gao Gang as a means to undermine China's sovereignty after the creation of the PRC.As Bland noted in Class Struggles in China (http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historymaotable.html), Gao Gang was a Marxist-Leninist. By picking up Maoist propaganda we once again see how so many Trotskyists gravitate towards Mao and Co. and their rightist, pseudo-communist policies.

I must admit, of course, my knowledge on 1920's China is lacking. It is one of the very few areas concerning Stalin that I have read relatively little on besides E.H. Carr's Twilight of the Comintern, and that was mainly post-1927. Even if we assume the worst case scenario, then it means Stalin was simply wrong.

[4 Leaf Clover]

From a leftist stance , anti-revisionism is a line that criticizes and fights against the attempts to revise original theory of Marx , Engels , and Lenin , and switch to "adventurism" of the left , such as market-socialism , social democracy , and similar. We think that miss-interpreting their theory leads to losing sense of the revolutionary theory , since their writings make the basis of revolutionary movement. Revolutionary theory is weapon , not a goal , and Marx Engels and Lenin , never gave any "directions" , so it's open to adapt to any moment-of-speaking circumstances.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Such racist and nationalist views could not have been eliminated completely from the mentality of Mao Tsetung
There is no proof for this. Actually you didn't cite any Mao's racist statement. This is a very bald claim.

[penguinfoot]

The CCP either had rightist periods or ultra-left periods under its various leaders (Li Lisan, Mao, etc.)

That's great, but you have alleged that the disasters of April 1927 were the result of the CPC's "rightism" and not the Comintern's policy, of which Stalin was the main architect, and you haven't provided any evidence for this. I've pointed out at length that the CPC originally did not want to pursue any kind of alliance with the KMT and was forced to adopt the "bloc within" policy as a result of Sun not being willing to pursue any other kind of alliance and the Comintern forcing the CPC to follow what it thought was the best policy, and I've also pointed out that when, in 1926, the CPC wanted to break with the KMT, they were not allowed to do so. I've pointed out further that the CPC being in alliances with the KMT on terms that had been set down by the KMT and accepted by the Comintern meant that their hands were tied when it came to the agrarian struggle and that the Comintern's belief that the revolution would have to proceed by stages meant that they were limited to a citizens' assembly during the Shanghai insurrection. Tell me, Ismail, please: in what ways was any "rightism" on the part of the CPC during the 1920s not the result of the Comintern? How was wanting to break with the KMT in 1926 "rightist"? And if we're talking about Comintern-CPC relations after 1927, then let's not make it seem as if the "ultra-left" policies of people like Li Lisan were somehow the result solely of decisions within the CPC - the policies of Li Lisan were justly described as ultra-left because in the cities they meant refusing to work through the yellow unions that had been set up by the KMT and refusing to back the immediate economic struggles of workers in favor of forming separate unions that called only for insurrection and allowed the agents of the governments to identify the members and supporters of the party underground, but these policies were also the result of the Comintern's interference, in that they were just one dimension of the third period turn that took place from the late 1920s onwards.


As Enver Hoxha pointed out (Imperialism and the Revolution, pp. 435-436.), "From the very first steps of its activity, the Communist Party of China displayed open nationalist and chauvinist tendencies...

If we're talking about racist and chauvinist tendencies, then we couldn't do much worse than Borodin's declaration in 1926, when faced with demands from the CPC and Chen Duxiu in particular that they be allowed to become politically independent, that "the present period is one in which the Communists should do coolie service for the Kuomintang!”. The fact that the Comintern ignored the requests of the CPC to be able to make their own decisions and follow an independent course so many times tell us how deep chauvinism was within the ranks of the Comintern because the Comintern's interference indicates its inability to trust or respect the revolutionaries who were actually in China at the time, even when faced with repeated requests for greater flexibility and political independence. In any case, Li Dazhao making some weird comment doesn't show that the defeats of April 1927 were the fault of the CPC, which is what you need to defend.


Evidently by withdrawing the speech (as it is noted) Stalin realized it was in error as events showcased.

So you accept that Stalin had the completely wrong policy and analysis, that he was dead wrong to say that the CPC was still in need of the right, he was dead wrong to say that Chiang would have no choice but to continue leading the armies against imperialism, and that his distinction between the KMT right and left was highly problematic, as shown by subsequent events? So you accept that the arguments of the Left Opposition - that the CPC should withdraw from the KMT and defend its political independence - were correct, and that Trotsky had the right analysis on China? In any case, how can Stalin have recognized that his analysis was in error, when, according to you, the fact that he continued to proclaim his support for Comintern policy several months after April 1927 is evidence that the policy must have been the right one and that the dire consequences must have been the result of faults on the part of the CPC?


This is because the KMT was seen as a left-wing force with a growing right-wing. But as noted the Comintern still told the CCP to do the best it could to maintain independence.

The Comintern may well have thought this, but they were wrong, as shown by the fact that when the CPC did ally with the so-called left in Wuhan after their betrayal in April, with them not being allowed to form Soviets in order to avoid challenging the Wuhan government's authority, they were, within a short period of time, by July, in fact, betrayed - again. The Comintern also did not tell the CPC to maintain its independence - they did not allow the CPC to even pursue cooperation with KMT in the form of an alliance between organizations rather than the "bloc within" policy, this being the demand of Chen Duxiu in 1926, and whilst, in early 1927, there were directives that called on the CPC to be wary of the KMT, these directives were posed only in the vaguest terms and encouraged an attitude of passivity, because they did not recognize Chiang as the individual who would pose the greatest threat to the CPC (in fact, as we've seen, Stalin believed that he would be a consistent anti-imperialist force) and they did not allow the CPC to take up the strategic initiative by striking against the KMT first or even by demonstrating its armed power, rather than hiding its weapons, which was what they were forced to do. April 1927 was not the time for hiding weapons and looking to Chiang for leadership, it was time to strike against the KMT, to issue the call for a Soviet republic.

You've yet to show any evidence of where the Comintern called on the CPC to be genuinely independent or where the CPC did not follow Comintern directives.


Which is why Stalin criticized them. So again, either Stalin was delusional or something went wrong in either the Comintern or, more likely, the CCP

Stalin, like you, didn't know what he was talking about - the CPC didn't ignore the directives of the Comintern, it was just that Stalin and the Comintern had a terribly policy of passivity and dependence. You assume as an a priori matter that because Stalin was, well, Stalin, and because in his public declarations and private correspondence he kept saying that the CPC was at fault and the Comintern policy had been correct, it's impossible to blame anyone but the CPC - this line of argument only serves to prove that even the most intelligent and knowledgeable Hoxhaists ultimately fail to respect historical evidence and criticize Stalin for his role in China, and that you are forced into contortions because of your desire to avoid saying anything that might make Stalin responsible. I'm going to ask you again: when and where did the CPC not obey Comintern directives?


Of course non-rightists are sent to put a stop to Mao. Evidently you defend Mao.

Whether I defend Mao or not is irrelevant, but it's laughable to say that Wang Ming was some kind of principled revolutionary, or that Mao was on the right during this period, that is, 1934-35, because it was Wang Ming and the Comintern who were the major forces behind the Second United Front - the main reason they supported a front of this kind was because Stalin believed that a China more or less united under Chiang and stabilized through an alliance between the KMT and CPC would make Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria less likely to strike northwards towards Siberia, and it was also apparent to Stalin and the rest of the Comintern leadership that the continuation of war between the KMT and the CPC would possibly cause the KMT to move closer to Germany, which would signal the achievement of one of Germany's main foreign policy aims in the region, Germany already being the KMT's biggest supplier of military equipment and expertise and having played a key role in the military campaigns against the Jiangxi base areas. (Garver, John W., The Origins of the Second United Front: The Comintern and the Chinese Communist Party, The China Quarterly, No. 113 (Mar., 1988), pp. 29-59). It was Mao who initially opposed a united front with Chiang and the KMT.


As Bland noted in Class Struggles in China, Gao Gang was a Marxist-Leninist.

He was a hack who tried to maneuver behind the backs of Liu and Zhou to land himself and his supporters in leadership positions. It's debatable as to whether he even had a meaningful program or set of political positions that distinguished him from other leaders. It's also pretty laughable that you as a Hoxhaist would defend him when one of his closest Soviet contacts was Kosygin - yes, the same Kosygin who allegedly had such a key role in the restoration of capitalism - who was dispatched to the northeast of the PRC on business during the early 50s.


I must admit, of course, my knowledge on 1920's China is lacking

Which is why you cannot cite a single instance where the CPC did not carry out Comintern policy or where the Comintern called on the CPC to be genuinely independent, and why you fail to properly condemn Stalin for the support of a terrible policy with tragic consequences.

[Ismail]

There is no proof for this. Actually you didn't cite any Mao's racist statement. This is a very bald claim.That was Hoxha, not me. Hoxha did however consider the Three Worlds Theory to have been semi-racist, though he didn't expand much on that claim.


Tell me, Ismail, please: in what ways was any "rightism" on the part of the CPC during the 1920s not the result of the Comintern? How was wanting to break with the KMT in 1926 "rightist"?We've already seen that Stalin felt breaking with the GMD would have negative repercussions for the CCP, but at this same time Stalin said (as was noted by Bland), "The CP must not come forward as a brake on the mass movement; the CP should not cover up the treacherous and reactionary policy of the Kuomintang Rights, and should mobilise the masses around the Kuomintang and the CCP on the basis of exposing the Rights[.]" The Comintern of course had a hand in these confusions, but it is clear that Stalin thought things should have gone better than they did.


In any case, how can Stalin have recognized that his analysis was in error, when, according to you, the fact that he continued to proclaim his support for Comintern policy several months after April 1927 is evidence that the policy must have been the right one and that the dire consequences must have been the result of faults on the part of the CPC?Stalin evidently believed that the CCP had failed to prepare adequately enough.


I'm going to ask you again: when and where did the CPC not obey Comintern directives?Stalin evidently viewed them as having underperformed.


Whether I defend Mao or not is irrelevant, but it's laughable to say that Wang Ming was some kind of principled revolutionaryBland notes that Wang Ming was a revisionist, as did Hoxha (in his Reflections on China Vol. II).


It's also pretty laughable that you as a Hoxhaist would defend him when one of his closest Soviet contacts was Kosygin - yes, the same Kosygin who allegedly had such a key role in the restoration of capitalism - who was dispatched to the northeast of the PRC on business during the early 50s.Gromyko was UN Ambassador, Khrushchev was the main party man in the Ukrainian SSR, Suslov praised Stalin, etc., etc. Revisionists tend not to openly advocate revisionist economic or political policies in such situations where they would be pretty quickly found out.

Of course it was Mao who tolerated the existence of revisionism in the CCP under the so-called "two-line struggle."

[penguinfoot]

We've already seen that Stalin felt breaking with the GMD would have negative repercussions for the CCP, but at this same time Stalin said (as was noted by Bland), "The CP must not come forward as a brake on the mass movement

And herein lies the absurdity of Stalin's analysis - the assumption is that the CPC could give full support to the emerging mass movement at the same time as maintaining its alliance with the KMT, and this was an entirely unwarranted assumption for reasons I've already mentioned. Above all, it was unwarranted because it overlooked the fact that as part of their original agreement with the KMT the CPC had been forced by the Comintern not to pursue expropriation of the land when the land was owned by the officers (or the families of the officers) of the KMT, which was significant because of how many officers were drawn from the ranks of the gentry class or who joined the KMT during the course of the Northern Expedition. The fact that the CPC weren't allowed to form Soviets likewise meant that they weren't able to act as a revolutionary leadership when the working class was in a position to revolt - and the working class being in such a position is adequately proven not only by the main body of the CPC's membership being drawn from the ranks of the working class by 1927 but also by the fact that workers in southern China did create a functioning Soviet as a consequence of the May 30th Movement, this Soviet being shut down during the course of the March coup by Stalin's friend Chiang. The rationale for them not being able to form Soviets was based on a wholly mechanical and stageist concept of revolution in that Stalin and his supporters argued over and over again (against the Left Opposition) that China had not yet reached the stage of the socialist revolution because the tasks of the bourgeois-demcoratic revolution remained uncompleted, and that as long as they had not been completed, these tasks, including, for Stalin, the elimination of feudalism, despite the fact that there really wasn't anything feudal about China during this period, it was the task of the CPC and other revolutionary forces simply to support the national bourgeoisie as represented by the KMT, which meant not going beyond those social and institutional arrangements that were deemed to be appropriate for the pre-socialist stage of the revolution - and of course Soviets were considered inappropriate because the creation of Soviets is a sign that socialist revolution is on the agenda, this anti-Soviet policy being one that was continued into the Wuhan period, for broadly the same reasons and with the same dismal consequences.

If you seriously think that the CPC did not back the mass movements of workers and peasants in the way it should have done then you need to explain how this was possible when its agreements with the KMT prevented it from supporting much of the peasant struggle and when the Comintern not supporting the formation of Soviets prevented it from taking full advantage of radicalism amongst the working class. I'll add at this point that the policy of not supporting Soviets became even more absurd just before April 1927 and in the period following the events of that month because at the same time as not permitting Soviets the Comintern was also calling on the CPC to use arms to defend itself and to arm the workers and peasants - as Trotsky was quite right to ask at the time, what is a Soviet if not an armed organization of the producers, and how could these two contradictory policies be reconciled with one another? How can you blame the CPC for not doing enough to arm the masses and defend itself at the same time as holding that Soviets were off the agenda?


The CP should not cover up the treacherous and reactionary policy of the Kuomintang Rights, and should mobilise the masses around the Kuomintang and the CCP on the basis of exposing the Rights[.]"

This is all very well, but we should be judging Stalin's position and Comintern policy in terms of the relationship between the CPC, the Comintern, and specific events and developments, not the vague language in which Stalin's speeches and Comintern directives tended to be couched. It's fine to say that the CPC should have done this and that - but at the end of the day the party was told expressly not to demonstrate that it had the power to defend itself in public, much less to strike against Chiang and his supporters before they attacked the CPC (instead, the party was told to hide its weapons, as we've seen) and the fact that, when entering Shanghai, the party had not been allowed to form a Soviet but had been restricted to reformist demands for a citizens' assembly meant that, when Chiang did strike, which he was able to do because the CPC had not struck first, there were no institutional structures in place that might have enabled the CPC to defend itself or organize the workers of the city. Moreover, we've already seen from his April 5th speech that, up to the end, Stalin maintained an extraordinary level of faith in Chiang, and argued that the CPC was still in need of him - which, to say the least, sits uneasily with the calls made in March of the same year that the CPC should "expose the rights" - and that at each and every point he was insistent on there being a distinction between a KMT right and a KMT left. This was a distinction that closely corresponded to the distinction made during the same period between progressive and reactionary gentry in the Chinese countryside and encouraged the false view that the Wuhan KMT under Wang Jingwei could be relied upon to support the revolution, rather than considering the KMT as a wholly reactionary entity, whatever internal disagreements and factions it contained - this distinction led the CPC to ally with Wuhan after April until they were betrayed, which deepened the defeat of a party that had already suffered appalling losses.

So, Stalin and the Comintern may have issued vague warnings, but:

1) They never permitted the CPC to publicly demonstrate its armed strength,
2) They never permitted the CPC to strike against Chiang first, which would have meant taking up the strategic initiative,
3) They never identified Chiang as the leader of reaction in China, arguing that he was consistently anti-imperialist and that the CPC needed to support him,
4) They never allowed the CPC to form Soviets, in Shanghai or anywhere else, which would have better allowed the party to defend itself,
5) They bound the CPC when it came to the peasant struggle because of the alliance with the KMT,
6) Their distinction between the right and left KMT encouraged faith in the Wuhan government and rapidly ended in disaster after the April massacres.

The problem is not that the CPC didn't follow Comintern advice, but that the Comintern was consistently wrong, that it had too much faith in the KMT, this faith being founded on a totally wrong analysis of the character of the party and the tasks and possibilities of the Chinese Revolution. Trotsky and the Left Opposition avoided all of these errors.

I'm going to as you again: if you won't defend Comintern policy in China, point to specific cases, i.e. don't just cite Stalin's views, where the CPC did not follow that policy.


Stalin evidently believed that the CCP had failed to prepare adequately enough.


Stalin evidently viewed them as having underperformed.

Yet neither you nor him provide any evidence to support blaming the CPC. You haven't pointed to how the CPC did not follow the vague Comintern advice to prepare for battle with the right, you haven't explained how it was right of the Comintern to force the CPC to remain with the KMT even when they wanted to take a radically independent course or even just adjust the terms of the alliance, you haven't explained why the revolution needed to proceed according to a mechanical stageist view that forbade the formation of Soviets, you haven't explained how the distinction between the left and right KMT was at all viable when the CPC was betrayed within a short time of taking the side of the Wuhan government. Your aim is not to understand the highly complex and tragic historical process that was the Chinese Revolution but to defend Stalin's mismanagement.


Bland notes that Wang Ming was a revisionist, as did Hoxha (in his Reflections on China Vol. II).

Yet you still describe him as a "non-rightist" in comparison to Mao, without giving any basis to that description.


Gromyko was UN Ambassador, Khrushchev was the main party man in the Ukrainian SSR, Suslov praised Stalin, etc., etc. Revisionists tend not to openly advocate revisionist economic or political policies in such situations where they would be pretty quickly found out.

Of course it was Mao who tolerated the existence of revisionism in the CCP under the so-called "two-line struggle."

I don't identify with the concept of revisionism, I'm more interested in your views on why Gao Gang was a Marxist.

[Kléber]

The SPD was harsher on the KPD than they ever were on the NSDAP. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/olgin11.htm and Fascism and Social Revolution (http://www.sovietlibrary.org/Library/Britain/1934_Fascism%20and%20Social%20Revolution_R.%20Palm e%20Dutt_1934.pdf) (chapter VI, PDF page 63 onwards)
The SPD was comprised of a social-democratic leadership and a mass base of millions of workers. The only way to beat fascism was to win them over to the KPD banner through joint action or at least get their support for an anti-fascist bloc which would go over the heads of the party leaders. The Comintern-directed KPD policies of abandoning militant anti-fascist struggle, and concentrating political fire and street action against the SPD even to the point of the "Red" Referendum (joint recall by KPD and NSDAP of an SPD provincial government) and joint parades with Nazis, precluded any hope of a united front - from above or below - against Nazism.


Stalin/the USSR sent arms (and tanks, and military men of all ranks) to Spain to defend an anti-fascist government against fascist arms and tanks. The section of the PCE most loyal to Stalin (and fixated on literally monopolizing control—a coup after the Barcelona "May Days"), the one led by José Díaz, lost in favor of the line of Dolores Ibárruri, who later followed Khrushchev in condemning Stalin and later became one of the founders of Eurocommunism. The Soviets kept the Republic alive for a few years and organized international brigades to keep it afloat. Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24489987/Spain-the-Unfinished-Revolution) by Arthur H. Landis is a good read on Spain in general during this period.Yes, the PCE, in spite of its proletarian origins, became during the war a pro-Soviet officers' club divided into Khalqis and Parchamis... but you support it because it's before 1956? The May Days were a disgusting incident of premeditated reaction by the reformists and their hired Stalinist assassins in which weapons were pulled back from the front to make an example of the center of workers' power, which was always the mainstay of anti-fascist resistance.

The Stalinist priority in Spain was explained in Pravda: "cleaning up of Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist elements will be carried out with the same energy as in the USSR" and in a December 1936 EC communication to the PCE that "Whatever happens, the final destruction of the Trotskyists must be achieved, exposing them to the masses as a fascist secret service carrying out provocations in the service of Hitler and General Franco, attempting to split the Popular Front, conducting a slanderous campaign against the Soviet Union, a secret service actively aiding fascism in Spain." (Haslam, Jonathan. The Soviet Union and the struggle for collective security in Europe, 1933-39‎. Palgrave Macmillan, November 1984, page 116.)

Here, GRU deputy chief A.M. Nikonov rages against the POUM like the traitorous bureaucrat that he was, targeting antifascists: "With the connivance of the 'orthodox' anarchists, the Trotskyists (POUMists) at the beginning of the war had their own special regiment with two thousand rifles on the Catalan front. This has now increased to thirty-two hundred men and has received weapons for everyone. This regiment is the rottenest unit of the entire Republican army, but it has nonetheless existed up to now and receives supplies, money, and ammunition. It goes without saying that it is impossible to win the war against the rebels if these scum within the Republican camp are not liquidated." (Radosh, Habeck, and Sevastianov, Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War. Yale University Press: 2001. Pages 132-133, document 33)


Stalin wanted the Comintern dissolved because of issues of overcentralization coupled with the persecution of the US Communist Party under the Voorhis Act (the PCF was also illegal), not to mention that many CPs had attained maturity at that point. Whatever necessary information and coordination activities were needed pretty much continued de facto under the clandestine OMI (Department of International Information).The dissolution of the Comintern in 1943 was merely a formality in the sense that it was already dead as an organization for world revolution, let alone a democratic centralist one. Its last congress was in 1935, no discussion was permitted about the disaster which led to the destruction of the biggest Comintern section in Germany, and thousands of the best activists were murdered in the late 1930's as documented in Enemies within the Gates?: The Comintern and the Stalinist Repression, 1934-1939 by William J. Chase.


5. On Greece see: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73ii.html#s7Lame apologism.


Revisionism as a current within Marxism started with Bernstein and everyone knows this. Stop being a smartass troll who strawmans everything.What is really important is not the subjective ideas but the social relations. The bureaucracy consolidated its economic and political position in the 1930's, under the revisionist leadership of Stalin. If you think an ultraleft dressing to some repressive campaigns justifies the betrayals of that period, you might as well uphold the GPCR.


The Comintern of course had a hand in these confusions, but it is clear that Stalin thought things should have gone better than they did.
All that's clear is that Stalin was applying a Menshevik analysis that assumed the bourgeois-democratic revolution could be triumphant throughout China before the CPC should try to take power, and ignoring the signs that the time for a proletarian revolution was ripe - not to mention forgetting the lessons of the Russian Revolution in which the bourgeois revolution was telescoped into a proletarian one, the only way to complete its historic tasks.


Stalin evidently believed that the CCP had failed to prepare adequately enough.
...
Stalin evidently viewed them as having underperformed.Stalin evidently expected them to "swim in a toilet bowl," as Chen Duxiu put it.

[Kiev Communard]

The "revisionism" that is referred to in the title of "anti-revisionism" was obviously Bernsteinian line of social democracy, which, while not opposing or doubting the possibility of achieving socialism per se (unlike later social democrats), still denied the necessity of revolutionary change, extolling the supposedly "spontaneous" evolution of capitalism to the socialism through technological and economic progress. Khruschev and Brezhnev, on the contrary, were not supporters of this thesis (the "evolutionary" transition) and even in the early 1980s Soviet ideologists continued to maintain that revolution in the Third World countries is the only way to free them from dependency and underdevelopment, so it could be said that in that sense they continued the line of Stalin - tactically opposing the revolution in the "developed" capitalist nations, while seeking to make use of revolutionary movement in the Third World. Of course, in some senses their internal policy differed from that of Stalin's, but considering the fact that Stalin himself was supporter of NEP in mid 1920s, I can't say there was too much discontinuity there, while most central planning institutions of Stalinist era still worked up to perestroika.

[Ismail]

This thread is about explaining anti-revisionism (and, evidently, criticizing/supporting it). As such discussion should be focused on it as a theoretical viewpoint, not Stalin's actions per se.

Penguinfoot, I know little about the early history of the CCP. Out of curiosity I emailed Furr about this and he simply replied with, "I have no opinion on this matter, as I have not studied all the primary documents and relevant secondary sources (studies). Without a study of the evidence, nobody's opinion is worth anything. Worse -- absent study of the primary and secondary sources, one's prejudices are bound to come to the fore. That's true about anything, in any field."

I can only comment on what I know, and from what I know Stalin seemingly considered himself to have been in the right on a personal level on this issue. That is as much as I can honestly say.

So I will just note Kléber's comments on Spain (which I actually do have an interest in). Furr wrote a review (http://clogic.eserver.org/2003/furr.html) on Radosh' book. As he said, what Radosh documents is in many cases valuable and/or interesting despite his anti-communist pretenses and commentary. There is nothing proving that the PCE and/or GPU provoked the Telefónica incident. I in fact wrote a Wikipedia article (using various sources) on a central figure in that incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebio_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Salas

I think Paul Preston was of the opinion (I haven't yet read the book he is said to have mentioned it in) that Prieto was the man who wanted the Telefónica building taken back into government hands. Prieto (as Landis notes) wanted to increase tensions between the PCE and Anarchists to keep them both divided, which was also why Líster was sent at Prieto's express orders (despite his reluctance on tactical grounds) to put an end to the Anarchist presence in Aragón, and the PCE later responded by holding a mass protest to force Prieto to resign.

The GPU had a reason to be concerned with the POUM which had a significant grouping of "dissident" Trotskyists, enough for Nin to attempt to invite Trotsky to Catalonia despite disagreements within the POUM over the issue. (International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, p. 704.) In the USSR itself the Great Purges were in full swing, the trials were still going on.

In the end, as Orwell (of all people) noted,

"The much-publicized disunity on the Government side was not a main cause of defeat. The Government militias were hurriedly raised, ill-armed and unimaginative in their military outlook, but they would have been the same if complete political agreement had existed from the start. At the outbreak of war the average Spanish factory-worker did not even know how to fire a rifle (there had never been universal conscription in Spain), and the traditional pacifism of the Left was a great handicap. The thousands of foreigners who served in Spain made good infantry, but there were very few experts of any kind among them. The Trotskyist thesis that the war could have been won if the revolution had not been sabotaged was probably false. To nationalize factories, demolish churches, and issue revolutionary manifestoes would not have made the armies more efficient. The Fascists won because they were the stronger; they had modern arms and the others hadn't. No political strategy could offset that."
(George Orwell. A Collection of Essays. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc. 1981. pp. 203-204.)
==============================================
Now to deal with Kiev's post!


Khruschev and Brezhnev, on the contrary, were not supporters of this thesis (the "evolutionary" transition) and even in the early 1980s Soviet ideologists continued to maintain that revolution in the Third World countries is the only way to free them from dependency and underdevelopmentThere is a differentiation from the revisionism of Bernstein, the revisionism of the Second International (which Lenin exposed), and the revisionism of Khrushchev, Brezhnev et. al. in the 1956-1985 period. Khrushchev called for the "unity of the working class" through such obviously reactionary parties as the PCF under Guy Mollet and the post-40's Labourites (as Hoxha noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/revisionists.htm)). Khrushchev also successfully sought a rapprochement with Yugoslavia, whose leader was a reformist championed by social-democrats.

"We Jugoslavs have discarded classic deviations between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism. History has erased such a distinction. Life now pushes toward the evolutionary progress... I think that even in the United States there is a tendency toward socialism. A big change began with your New Deal and your economy retains many of its features. For example, state intervention in the economy is much larger."
(Tito, quoted in Cyrus Leo Sulzberger. The Last of the Giants. New York: Macmillan. 1970. p. 270.)

This continued under Brezhnev who said of Tito that "[he] started on the path of a revolutionary; today he is known to us all as the organiser and hero of the liberation, revolutionary struggle of the Yugoslav people, the leader of the Communists of Yugoslavia, the head of the Yugoslav socialist state." (Following Lenin's Course: Speeches and Articles (http://leninist.biz/en/1972/FLC499/21-Electronic.Equipment.Factory.in.Zemun.Yugoslavia), p. 481.) Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev also courted various anti-communist leaders such as Nasser, along with reactionary ones such as Indira Gandhi. Khrushchev eschewed the dictatorship of the proletariat, proclaiming that the USSR was "building communism," which both Mao and Hoxha noted was ridiculous and, in the conditions of the Soviet Union, revisionist.

Then there was Khrushchev on "peaceful coexistence," which the Chinese did a good job criticizing: http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm


but considering the fact that Stalin himself was supporter of NEP in mid 1920s,1. Stalin probably criticized the NEP even from the start as noted in the article "The Transition from War Communism to the New Economic Policy: An Analysis of Stalin's Views" by Robert Himmer in Russian Review, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1994), pp. 515-529. Furthermore, "Stalin's alliance with Bukharin was primarily one of convenience against a common opponent in the Politburo and should not be interpreted as an indication that Stalin shared Bukharin's views. But however strained the partnership, Stalin did not openly challenge Bukharin's line until after the final defeat of the Left Opposition at the end of 1927." (Russia's Last Capitalists: The Nepmen, 1921-1929, p. 45.) Roy Medvedev claimed that Bukharin's line was the most popular at the time in general. (On Stalin and Stalinism, p. 65.)
2. Lenin stated that "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (U.S.S.R. - The Story of Soviet Russia, p. 94.) A state, much less one "building communism" (to be completed circa 1980, no less), shouldn't be going back to NEP-esque policies which were recognized by Lenin as a retreat from socialist construction. "That was why we had to take a step which from the point of view of our line, of our policy, cannot be called anything else than a very severe defeat and retreat." (Lenin's Collected Works (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm) Vol. 33., p. 64.)

As a note the Soviets themselves claimed to be "fighting" against revisionism too. They just identified Maoism as revisionist (calling it reminiscent of Anarchism and Trotskyism) and Hoxha as "ultra-left" and/or "Stalinist." The Soviets did actually try to court Hoxha (with zero success) throughout the 1970's and 80's, though. Every year they'd send a letter calling on Albania to "embrace Marxist-Leninist unity" or whatever and rejoin the Warsaw Pact, which Hoxha promptly refused.

[penguinfoot]

This thread is about explaining anti-revisionism (and, evidently, criticizing/supporting it). As such discussion should be focused on it as a theoretical viewpoint, not Stalin's actions per se.

One of the theoretical bases of anti-revisionism is that the USSR in the 1930s and 40s was ultimately socialist, even though it might also be possible for some anti-revisionists to argue that there were problems and that these problems may even have contributed to the restoration of capitalism, as in the case of those Maoists who argue that Stalin did not sufficiently distinguish between contradictions amongst the people and contradictions between the people and the enemy - so in order to discuss and debate the theoretical adequacy of anti-revisionism we cannot avoid discussing the policies of the Soviet Union and the Comintern during the period in which the USSR is said to have been socialist.


Penguinfoot, I know little about the early history of the CCP. Out of curiosity I emailed Furr about this and he simply replied with, "I have no opinion on this matter, as I have not studied all the primary documents and relevant secondary sources (studies)

I'm sure Furr would also agree that it's practically impossible for a historian in any field to examine all of the empirical evidence that conceivably relates to the object of their study and that even if we accept in theory that it is possible to interpret sources in an impartial way (which is a highly problematic assumption) there will always be partiality built into the historical research process when it comes to historians having to select which types of sources they use as the basis of their research and how they rank different types of sources. If we are thinking about the kinds of evidence that might be relevant to understanding the early history of the CPC then it becomes clear that the quantity of primary source material is staggering. You would probably want to begin by looking at the official directives, resolutions, and speech transcripts of the Comintern in the first decade of the CPC's existence and you would also probably want to look at the official records of the CPC's congresses and plenary sessions as well, where and when these transcripts exist, but those official records would only mark the beginning of the available empirical data, as you would also be interested in the accounts of notable individuals like Chen Duxiu, maybe also newspaper reports from Pravda and the main Chinese- and English-langauge newspapers in China at that time, possibly the recollections of individuals like Maring who were involved in Comintern policy but only became willing to discuss their experiences or accessible to historians some period of time after the events. I'm sure you get the point, which is that if we make looking at all conceivable primary source material our condition for being able to arrive at firm conclusions on the rights and wrongs of a given policy, that condition will never be met. It is precisely because historians cannot conceivably access or comprehend all of the primary sources that might be relevant and that there are no given answers as to how historians should interpret the evidence that they do encounter that there is a necessity for theories of history, because one of the things that a theory of history does is point towards the evidence that is most important and provide guidelines for how that evidence is to be understood and used to form historical arguments - in this context, what is distinctive about the Marxist approach to history is that it tells us that if we want to understand a particular society then the first thing we should do is look at the way that society produces its material wealth, and only then seek to understand the political institutions of that society and relate these institutions to the economic base, for example, as opposed to beginning with, say, the dominant ideas, or standards of justice in that society.

So what I'm saying is: I have not studied all the primary sources either, and neither has any historian, and no historian ever will. Just like Furr has not read all of the Soviet archives from the Stalin period. In spite of this, I am still familiar with many of the primary sources, and there have still been many highly perceptive studies - of which Isaacs' is one of the best examples, because it makes use of a formidable source base and is centered around an attempt to analyze China's mode of production and social classes, even if I don't agree with him on some of the details, such as the exact course of events at the Hangzhou plenum. It is by making use of the primary and secondary sources that we are familiar with that we can form historical judgements, and the sources that relate to the early history of the CPC overwhelmingly indicate that the CPC did follow Comintern directives and that the Comintern was responsible for the CPC's defeat.

If you are interested, Isaacs' book is available here: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/1938/tcr/index.htm It really is considered a classic both of Chinese history and Marxist historiography, whatever you think about Isaacs' politics, and especially his later political development, which involved him being a democratic socialist.

I should add, by the way, that, whatever our political differences, Furr is a very helpful man. He gave me some great information I needed for my thesis when I made a post on the leftist trainspotters group about the history of the American PLP. Thank you to you, also, for conducting our (justifiably heated) discussion with decorum, and I apologize for initially calling you a liar.


That is as much as I can honestly say.

So why is it that you more or less take Stalin's faith in the policy as evidence that the policy must have been the right one and fault must have been located elsewhere?

In any case, these issues aside, I would still be interested in your (or Hoxha's) views about why Gao Gang and Wang Ming were Marxists and revisionists respectively. I have never encountered any information to show that there were substantive political differences between Gao and Mao so maybe you know something I don't? I really think that Gao is one of the most interesting but also understudied figures in PRC elite politics - although one of my dreams as a historian is to write a proper biography of Wang Li some day, because he's even more interesting.

[Ismail]

One of the theoretical bases of anti-revisionism is that the USSR in the 1930s and 40s was ultimately socialist, even though it might also be possible for some anti-revisionists to argue that there were problems and that these problems may even have contributed to the restoration of capitalism, as in the case of those Maoists who argue that Stalin did not sufficiently distinguish between contradictions amongst the people and contradictions between the people and the enemy - so in order to discuss and debate the theoretical adequacy of anti-revisionism we cannot avoid discussing the policies of the Soviet Union and the Comintern during the period in which the USSR is said to have been socialist.Hoxha noted in Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism that Khrushchev's claim that the "construction of communism" had begun was not only incorrect, but that the construction of socialism in the USSR was not yet completed (which Stalin hinted at in subsequent comments some years after the Congress of Victors).

Still, the problem is that I dread that this would just turn into a generic "Stalinist" vs. Trotskyist debate thread in which both sides would argue with each other over Stalin's leadership as opposed to Trotsky's theoretical views. Ideally someone like Wanted Man or Khad should come in here or something to debate us "ultra-leftists" over the nature of anti-revisionism.


So why is it that you more or less take Stalin's faith in the policy as evidence that the policy must have been the right one and fault must have been located elsewhere?That isn't exactly what I was saying. I was saying that in private Stalin seems to have genuinely believed that his policies and/or Comintern policies would have brought great victories to the CCP and that it was the CCP bungling matters (as least as it appeared to him in July 1927), meaning that I doubt Stalin intentionally shot the CCP in the foot.


In any case, these issues aside, I would still be interested in your (or Hoxha's) views about why Gao Gang and Wang Ming were Marxists and revisionists respectively. I have never encountered any information to show that there were substantive political differences between Gao and Mao so maybe you know something I don't?Bill Bland's book on China (specifically in the first chapter under the header "THE 'KAO KANG AFFAIR' (http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historyofmao.html)") mentions Gao Gang. Hoxha only mentions Gao (and Wang) in passing; he admitted in Imperialism and the Revolution that his knowledge on China consisted of what Chinese officials themselves told him, Mao's Selected Works, stuff from translated Chinese newspapers, and international newspapers reporting on Chinese developments.

[Kiev Communard]

Ismail, but don't you think that Mao and Hoxha themselves were guilty of revisionism by supporting the parties and movements that proved to be extremely counter-revolutionary (such that was the case in Angola, Afghanistan and Ethiopia) and leaders whose ideologies were not very much removed from that of pro-Soviet bogus "non-capitalist development" (i.e. Indonesia under Soekarno, Zambia under Kaunda, Sihanouk in Cambodia, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Somalia under Barre). Even though Hoxha might have claimed after 1978 that they were all "revisionists", that doesn't erase the fact that he had actually considered them "true Marxists" just a year before.

[penguinfoot]

Still, the problem is that I dread that this would just turn into a generic "Stalinist" vs. Trotskyist debate thread in which both sides would argue with each other over Stalin's leadership as opposed to Trotsky's theoretical views.

I'm perfectly happy to debate Trotsky's theoretical views, especially his theory of permanent revolution - but I've never seen any convincing anti-revisionist or pro-Soviet explanation of why this theory and the strategic conclusions that Trotsky derived from it were so flawed, keeping in mind that the experience of China was what led Trotsky to conclude that the theory was applicable to all countries in which the conditions of combined and uneven development were present rather than just Russia. In my experience the most common responses to the theory of permanent revolution as put forward in many of Stalin's speeches and statements around China tend to rely either on strawmen, in that they assert that Trotsky did not think that the peasantry would have an important part to play in the revolutionary process or that the working class would need to win over the peasantry by offering concessions such as land reform and protection of inheritance rights in land and means of agricultural production rather than pursuing the immediate nationalization of land (Trotsky did recognize the importance of the peasantry, and the need to make strategic concessions in order to gain its support, he just maintained that it couldn't play an independent political role and would take the side of either the working class or the bourgeoisie) or else they are based on grossly mechanical interpretations of historical materialism which justify class collaborationism, as when Stalin argued in the debate on China that the bourgeoisie or at least a section thereof was capable of playing a progressive role and that the working class would have to wait until the democratic revolution had been completed under the leadership of the bourgeoise before pursuing socialist goals (Trotsky naturally did not accept this because he recognized that the weakness of the colonial bourgeoisie in the age of imperialism is a universal law and that the democratic and socialist revolutions intersect with one another insofar as the working class finds it necessary to go beyond the tasks of the democratic revolution and enter onto the terrain of the socialist revolution simply in order to protect and realize the most elementary bourgeois-democratic gains).


I doubt Stalin intentionally shot the CCP in the foot.

This is a complex issue, because it brings up all sorts of questions about the role and nature of the state, but let me put it this way - I think it's a vulgarization of the Marxist theory of the state to argue that state apparatuses and their leaders act in the ways they do because they are perfectly conscious of where their class interests lie and consciously make use of other ideas and justifications in order to cynically persuade populations that they are basing their decisions on those ideas rather than a narrow set of class interests. I think it's much more nuanced and accurate to argue that many leaders genuinely do believe that they are serving a general interest but that there are structural constraints and forces that lead them to support the interests of the ruling class (which may or may not also be the class interests of the individuals who are in charge of the state) in the sense that their position as the leaders of the state, that is, their position at the top of a hierarchically-organized structure that has been charged with the task of maintaining social cohesion, causes them to internalize certain concepts of rationality and feasibility that favor ruling-class interests. I do not, for example, think that, say, Tony Blair invaded Iraq because he was greedy for profit and knew that there was such a thing as a capitalist class and that he was a member of it - he probably did believe that his decisions reflected the general interests of the Iraqi people not to mention Britain. In the same way, I don't think Stalin built up an apparatus of terror in the 1930s and applied intense labour discipline because he consciously wanted to terrify the Russian working class into submission and high rates of exploitation, instead I think it's perfectly consistent and sensible for Trotskyists to accept that Stalin probably viewed his decisions as in the best interests of the Soviet people. The point here is that we need to be sensitive to the class nature of rationality and the ways in which individuals can, as a result of their position within a particular political structure or social organism, come to believe that they are pursuing a given set of interests when they are actually pursuing a much narrower interest, that is, the interest of the ruling class. In the case of China I think that whilst Stalin did, as with industrialization and state terror, believe that his policy was supportive of the Chinese revolution, but that the interests that were actually guiding his decision-making and that of the Comintern were the foreign policy interests of the Soviet bureaucracy, and that this was true of Comintern in general from the early 1920s onwards.


Bill Bland's book on China (specifically in the first chapter under the header "THE 'KAO KANG AFFAIR'") mentions Gao Gang

I did read the section, but the only real evidence that Bland has to offer for Gao Gang being a Marxist is that he had a close relationship with Stalin, and that he made some negative comments about the CPC allegedly supporting a peaceful transition to socialism - but Bland himself also points out, in order to undermine Mao's argument that Gao was conspiring against the party, that neither he nor his collaborator Rao ever put forward a clear program, so what I'm skeptical of is the notion that there were ever meaningful policy differences between Gao and the rest of the party that might provide justification for viewing Gao as a Marxist but Mao and the rest of the CPC as a bunch of revisionists. Bland certainly doesn't provide sufficient evidence for an allegation of this magnitude.

[Dimentio]

It had plenty of influence, drawing on the global support of the proletariat, but once the Stalinist bureaucracy came to power they had another sort of influence: subordinating Chinese Communists to their bourgeois nationalist executioners, ordering the KPD to stop fighting Nazis in the streets, sending arms to Spain with the overriding motive of butchering the Spanish far left, murdering thousands of international revolutionaries and getting rid of the Communist International, playing handmaiden to the growth of fascism in Europe only to barely survive its onslaught, then abandoning Greek Communists at the apex of Soviet power... oh wait a second, revisionism started in 1953, those were just errors made by Dear Stalin's subordinates. Silly me :rolleyes:

Influence doesn't mean how cool people think you are, and soft power can only match hard power in terms of defensive measures against opponents which are somewhat sensitive to public opinion.

[Ismail]

Ismail, but don't you think that Mao and Hoxha themselves were guilty of revisionism by supporting the parties and movements that proved to be extremely counter-revolutionary (such that was the case in Angola, Afghanistan and Ethiopia)Mao was the one who upheld Kaunda, Mobutu, Pinochet, Ceaușescu, and other bourgeois nationalists or reactionaries. Hoxha didn't. On the issue of Angola Hoxha supported neither UNITA nor the MPLA, whereas in Afghanistan and Ethiopia there were Hoxhaists fighting the pro-Soviet regimes (in Ethiopia the Hoxhaists actually led the struggle). Considering that Hoxha got most of his information (seeing as how he led a small state with no external foreign intelligence service) from the bourgeois press, Soviet press, and news from fraternal pro-Albanian parties, I don't consider this to be revisionist.


(i.e. Indonesia under Soekarno,Hoxha regarded the PKI (which was pro-China and pro-Albania) as progressive, though saying that it made various errors. I haven't seen anything from his English-translated works in reference to Sukarno.


Sihanouk in Cambodia,Sihanouk visited Albania in the 1960's (one of the very few heads of state to do so). Hoxha seemed sympathetic to him (particularly against Pol Pot), but had no illusions about him being a bourgeois nationalist.


Zimbabwe under Mugabe,Hoxha never mentioned Mugabe, at least not in his English-translated works. In his English-translated works he only makes one reference to Zimbabwe at the 1981 PLA Congress in which he says (p. 177) that, "Zimbabwe succeeded in winning its rights, which a reactionary minority of old colonialists denied it." Nothing notable.


Somalia under Barre).Actually when Barre first did his coup d'état Hoxha claimed that he was an American agent. Barre himself was publicly pro-Soviet up until the Ogaden War when the Soviets turned on him. From what I can glean, Hoxha in his Reflections on China (in a brief thing on the Ogaden War, written when Sino-Albanian ties were deteriorating) considered both Mengistu and Barre to have been reactionary and that their war was being used as a proxy war with neither side being progressive.

Hoxha didn't consider any of them "true Marxists" at any point.

Keep in mind that about Hoxha was pro-China, he wasn't a Maoist ideologically. For example, from Isolationist States in an Interdependent World, pp. 116-117:

Faithful to his Marxist-Leninist ideology and his passionate belief in class warfare, Hoxha - as he had done in the case of every other communist/socialist country - maintained a critical view of Chinese internal affairs [before the Sino-Albanian split]. In History of the Party of Labor of Albania, Tirana categorically rejected Mao's doctrine of non-antagonistic disagreements within the party and the resolution of differences and conflicts in a peaceful manner. In his Reflections on China, Hoxha further highlighted his disagreement with Chinese policy vis-à-vis the notion of eternal class warfare:

The Chinese comrades talk a great deal about the class struggle in the Party, but in fact they are not purging the Party, which is the fortress of the revolution, from within, but are encircling it from outside with people who are not organized in a party of the vanguard ... The working class and the peasantry do not appear anywhere in this experiment.Albanian-Chinese relations leveled off by the early 1970s, when China began to come out of isolation. Hoxha believed China's new direction to be opportunistic... China's engagement with the US was especially "counter-revolutionary," a "flagrant departure from the teachings of Marxism-Leninism," and an attempt to "sabotage world communist revolution."

[Kiev Communard]

He may not have supported them directly, but by his alliance with Maoists he had indirectly supported, or at least viewed positively, all these regimes that were practically indistinguishable in their ideology and programme from pro-Soviet governments of, say, Nasser or Toure. Also, I don't think that the example of Hoxhaists "fighting the pro-Soviet regimes in Ethiopia and Afghanistan" is anything positive, considering the fact how all of them ended up and whom they supported in practice.

[Amphictyonis]

Most everyone after Plekhanov was bunkum. Orthodox Marxism for the win! (At least he actually understood Marx) No socialism in one country. No socialism until the region has developed the means of production under capitalism. No socialist revolution waged by farmers/villagers. No socialism brought about by a small band of "terrorists". Lenin completley strayed away from his proper understanding of Marx/Engels works and Stalin even further from the original works. Plekhanov was the last notable fellow in Russia who understood the mistake the Bolsheviks were making. A man who understood the materialist conception of history. Most everyone after him, in the early 20'th century, in my opinion, were revisionists. Most everyone.

Russia needed a bourgeois revolution THEN a workers revolution. This also had to coincide with the western advanced capitalist nations having revolutions. Everything about Russian "socialism" was bunk. It was all pre-mature.

[Amphictyonis]

I figured that post would quiet the thread :) I'm surprised I didn't get any "negative rep" :tt2:

[Kléber]

This thread is about explaining anti-revisionism (and, evidently, criticizing/supporting it). As such discussion should be focused on it as a theoretical viewpoint, not Stalin's actions per se.
Stalin's personal actions are irrelevant, but without his personal role, your entire narrative of revisionism and anti-revisionism falls apart. Maoists and Hoxhaists really have a bourgeois idealist view of politics that fetishizes "great men" and bourgeois nation-states, a result of the ideological production of Maoism and Hoxhaism as components of Chinese and Albanian foreign policy in the Cold War. In fact, revisionism can not be explained as a supernatural phenomenon standing above history. Whether committed by Bernstein, Stalin or Khrushchev it is a bureaucratic tendency representing the social interests of the labor aristocracy. Thus, it is impossible to talk about revising the principles of revolutionary Marxism and Leninism without discussing the historical process by which the bureaucracy defeated the working class in the USSR. It was the Trotskyist Left Opposition, not Molotov's "Anti-Party" clique, that campaigned for democracy, internationalism, social equality, and they were defeated by terror and repression long before Khrushchev succeeded the arch-revisionist Stalin.


I can only comment on what I know, and from what I know Stalin seemingly considered himself to have been in the right on a personal level on this issue. That is as much as I can honestly say.Again, the personal level is meaningless. Trotsky was certain that Stalin thought himself to be in the right, so what? Plenty of reactionaries and murderers are convinced of their own righteousness. What is important from a materialist perspective is that on the political level, Stalin was applying a Menshevik theory of the revolution to China and subordinating the working class to bourgeois nationalism.


There is nothing proving that the PCE and/or GPU provoked the Telefónica incident.There is plenty proving that the PCE and its Soviet handlers had orders to bring about the "final destruction" of other working-class parties, and to "expose" (make up) evidence proving the Spanish left was in fact a Fifth Column. You also openly admit that the PCE went along with all the intrigues of right-wing Republicans against the Spanish workers.


I think Paul Preston was of the opinion (I haven't yet read the book he is said to have mentioned it in) that Prieto was the man who wanted the Telefónica building taken back into government hands. Prieto (as Landis notes) wanted to increase tensions between the PCE and Anarchists to keep them both divided, which was also why Líster was sent at Prieto's express orders (despite his reluctance on tactical grounds) to put an end to the Anarchist presence in Aragón, and the PCE later responded by holding a mass protest to force Prieto to resign.The fact is that the PCE allowed itself to be used as the hired assassin of the right wing of the shadow of the Spanish bourgeoisie, against the working class. The Stalinists only had a crisis of conscience and attacked a scapegoat after they played into Prieto's schemes, gaining short-lived power in Catalonia by beating and demoralizing the anti-fascist workers.


The GPU had a reason to be concerned with the POUM which had a significant grouping of "dissident" Trotskyists, enough for Nin to attempt to invite Trotsky to Catalonia despite disagreements within the POUM over the issue. (International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, p. 704.) Ridiculous. So do you also support the repression of Hoxhaists in Afghanistan by the KGB and AGSA after the PDPA takeover? You know the POUM, in addition to being innocent of the Stalinist accusations, never became a pro-imperialist militia.


In the USSR itself the Great Purges were in full swing, the trials were still going on.Yes, as the quote I posted indicates, the Stalinists wanted to do a Spanish repeat of the Moscow Trials, but it turned out to be an epic failure, as the POUM successfully defended themselves in a less repressive political climate than in Russia (despite the desperate murder of Nin).


In the end, as Orwell (of all people) noted,
Get out of here.. quoting Orwell at his most counter-revolutionary? You would readily dismiss the rest of his writing on Spain, and the Stalinist role in particular, as anarcho-trotskyist garbage, and call him a snitch to boot. In any case, that defeatist paragraph of his you quoted, is telling only of Orwell's own demoralization. I hope you realize that by opposing "Trotskyism" he is attacking the working class and the revolution entirely, since if there is no hope in beating the guns and bombs of imperialism, our fate is to have a "boot stomping on a human face for eternity."


No socialism until the region has developed the means of production under capitalism.
So if a revolution happened in the USA, would you forbid certain desolate areas of Wyoming to take part because they did not in and of themselves possess the means of production to create socialism in that little area?


Russia needed a bourgeois revolution THEN a workers revolution. Russia was an integral part of the European economy, and was being kept underdeveloped by European capitalists who controlled Russian industry. They supported the feudal despotic regime, instead of supporting a liberal opposition like "native" capitalists have throughout history, and they wanted to strip Russia dry instead of developing it in a comprehensive and progressive way. Russia nevertheless did have a bourgeois revolution in early 1917 and it failed to fulfill any of the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie. The Russian workers were being crushed under the continuing strain of war, hunger, reaction, crime and banditry. They had no other choice in November 1917 but to take power, and while conscious of the backwardness of Russia they hoped to spark a European revolution which would solve the issue of national development. The revolution did not break through into Europe, and so what remained in Russia stagnated, the vanguard was killed off, Bonapartist reaction triumphed and capitalism was restored, but that was in spite of the heroic actions of the Soviet workers not because of them.


No socialist revolution waged by farmers/villagers.The Red Army led by Trotsky was made up mostly of peasant conscripts, but they fought under the leadership of the working class, and Communists always served as shock troops in heavy engagements.


No socialism brought about by a small band of "terrorists". The Red Guards were not a small band, they numbered over 200,000 when they seized the power. Not terrorists either, they were armed workers who had formed militias to defend their homes and lives in the crisis, and in 1917 they were responding to the authority of the Soviets of workers', soldiers' and farmers' deputies, to whose leadership the Bolshevik and Left-SR revolutionists had been fairly elected by advancing the program of workers' power.


Lenin completley strayed away from his proper understanding of Marx/Engels works and Stalin even further from the original works. Lenin made many political errors, and eventually admitted that "I stand guilty before the workers," but he did not distort Marxism.


Plekhanov was the last notable fellow in Russia who understood the mistake the Bolsheviks were making. A man who understood the materialist conception of history. Most everyone after him, in the early 20'th century, in my opinion, were revisionists. Most everyone.Plekhanov should have stood with the workers and recognized that history does not always go as you would like it to. Instead this great champion of Marxism disgraced himself as a stodgy naysayer.


This also had to coincide with the western advanced capitalist nations having revolutions. Everything about Russian "socialism" was bunk. It was all pre-mature.The revolution was on the verge of occurring in the West were it not for the treachery of the Social-Democracy. The Russian workers were conscious of international events and believed their revolution would be the opening shot in a European revolution. There are many quotes from Lenin expressing his belief that the Soviet power was doomed without workers' revolutions in the industrialized countries.

In any event, today the world has changed; the industry is mostly located in neo-colonial countries. By globalizing the economy and moving industries to the poorest countries in pursuit of low wages, capitalism has solved the problem of imperialism for us. A workers' revolution in China, for example, would be able to seize vast means of production and perhaps even achieve the first stages of socialism (which it never achieved before and the USSR did not either).

[LiberalDemocraticMarxist]

Leninism was the whole problem with the Soviet Union and most socialist nations. Leninism stated that the majority of the population should be dictated by a minority "Vanguard". This turned away from the marxist theory of a society controlled by the entire people, with the goal of eliminating oppression. Leninism took away the socialist's control over his own life an made it government of men of the people, instead of government of the people. Marxist socialism supports the freedom of the people, although a period of dictatorship is supported, i do not support that. If i don't have the choice to be a socialist, how can i be content, we should be free to choose our own destiny, and then socialism will triumph, because it is right. Real socialism is decisions made by the whole of the people.

[Amphictyonis]

So if a revolution happened in the USA, would you forbid certain desolate areas of Wyoming to take part because they did not in and of themselves possess the means of production to create socialism in that little area? Russia itself, as a nation, had no large working class. Everything centered around Lenin's (and others) miscalculation in thinking capitalism had exhausted it's productive forces by being a global system. The only way the Russian revolution would have worked, again, is if the advanced capitalist nations had socialist revolutions as well. How long did feudalism last? To think capitalism was going to be thrown to the wayside after just a couple generations is absurd. Capitalism was just taking off in Lenins time. Many people saw this but many people were also impatient.



Russia was an integral part of the European economy, and was being kept underdeveloped by European capitalists who controlled Russian industry. They supported the feudal despotic regime, instead of supporting a liberal opposition like "native" capitalists have throughout history, and they wanted to strip Russia dry instead of developing it in a comprehensive and progressive way. Russia nevertheless did have a bourgeois revolution in early 1917 and it failed to fulfill any of the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie. The Russian workers were being crushed under the continuing strain of war, hunger, reaction, crime and banditry. They had no other choice in November 1917 but to take power, and while conscious of the backwardness of Russia they hoped to spark a European revolution which would solve the issue of national development. The revolution did not break through into Europe, and so what remained in Russia stagnated, the vanguard was killed off, Bonapartist reaction triumphed and capitalism was restored, but that was in spite of the heroic actions of the Soviet workers not because of them.
No Russia did not have a true bourgeois revolution in 1917. Lenin thought the actual capitalists would not give up power do he thought the communists should mimic a bourgeois revolution and thats what happened. A psedo socialist bourgeois revolution. France and the US experienced true bourgeois revolutions.

I'm also not criticizing the Russian people I'm criticizing the pre mature nature of the revolution and the subsequent policies enacted.


The Red Army led by Trotsky was made up mostly of peasant conscripts, but they fought under the leadership of the working class, and Communists always served as shock troops in heavy engagements.


No socialism brought about by a small band of "terrorists".
The Red Guards were not a small band, they numbered over 200,000 when they seized the power. Not terrorists either, they were armed workers who had formed militias to defend their homes and lives in the crisis, and in 1917 they were responding to the authority of the Soviets of workers', soldiers' and farmers' deputies, to whose leadership the Bolshevik and Left-SR revolutionists had been fairly elected.

Oh quit it. You know as well as I the Bolsheviks took power from the soviets. If the soviets actually benefited from the revolution that would be a different story but as you know even if the workers councils weer at center stage the revolution would have still ended up in failure as socialism cannot arise in one nation. Everything goes back to the FACT a global revolution was not taking place. The Russian revolution was pre mature.



Lenin made many political errors, and eventually admitted that "I stand guilty before the workers," but he did not distort Marxism.

Yes he did. He did so in order to fit Marxism with the current conditions in Russia due to his impatience.


Plekhanov should have stood with the workers and recognized that history does not always go as you would like it to. Instead this great champion of Marxism disgraced himself as a stodgy naysayer.
No he was right in the end. As history has shown us and when I say he understood the materialist conception of history it means he understood some of the pre conditions necessary for global communism to take hold. He rightly did not see those conditions manifesting.


The revolution was on the verge of occurring in the West. The Russian workers were conscious of international events and believed their revolution would be the opening shot in a European revolution. There are many quotes from Lenin expressing his belief that the Soviet power was doomed without workers' revolutions in the industrialized countries.
No a global revolution was not on the verge and no workers did not see it that way Lenin did. This is the entire point. The revolution was premature. Why do you think Russia never became an advanced communist nation?



In any event, today the world has changed; the industry is mostly located in neo-colonial countries. By globalizing the economy and moving industries to the poorest countries in pursuit of low wages, capitalism has solved the problem of imperialism for us. A workers' revolution in China, for example, would be able to seize vast means of production and perhaps even achieve the first stages of socialism (which it never achieved before and the USSR did not either).

Imperialism isn't necessarily 'solved' but nationalism is on its way to being marginalized which will be necessary for a global workers movement. I agree China and other industrialized nations are key to a future global communist society. All nations which now actually produce are key and globalization is spreading industry around, in that regard it's a good thing. I'm not so sure the USA will "lead" the global revolution unless industry is brought back here on a mass scale. If the USA tried to facilitate a socialist revolution now, without the industrialized nations support, it would end up much like Russia.

[Kléber]

Russia itself, as a nation, had no large working class.
Over 10% of the population was working class, it was the workers with support of soldiers and poor peasants who took power in 1917 and established a Soviet proletarian dictatorship of multiple parties, Bolsheviks, Left SR's and anarchists.


Everything centered around Lenin's (and others) miscalculation in thinking capitalism had exhausted it's productive forces by being a global system. Capitalism has long since ceased to be a progressive force. There is a growing danger that humanity will be wiped out by imperialist war and/or the rape of the environment and natural resources. Trotsky said nearly a century ago that the conditions for revolution are no longer ripe - they're rotten. Whatever our historical disagreements, the time is now for workers' revolution everywhere. No abstention from the struggle, no liberal coalitions with the bourgeoisie.


The only way the Russian revolution would have worked, again, is if the advanced capitalist nations had socialist revolutions as well. How long did feudalism last? To think capitalism was going to be thrown to the wayside after just a couple generations is absurd. Capitalism was just taking off in Lenins time. Many people saw this but many people were also impatient. The Bolsheviks were fully conscious of the inability of the Russian proletariat to magically build socialism. They saw the revolution as the opening shot in a global struggle.

Lenin in 1906: "The Russian revolution is strong enough to achieve victory by its own efforts; but it is not strong enough to retain the fruits of victory. It can achieve victory because the proletariat jointly with the revolutionary peasantry can constitute an invincible force. But it cannot retain its victory, because in a country where small production is vastly developed, the small commodity producers (including the peasants) will inevitably turn against the proletarians when they pass from freedom to socialism. To be able to retain its victory, to be able to prevent restoration, the Russian revolution will need non-Russian reserves, will need outside assistance. Are there such reserves? Yes, there are: the socialist proletariat in the West."


No Russia did not have a true bourgeois revolution in 1917. Lenin thought the actual capitalists would not give up power do he thought the communists should mimic a bourgeois revolution and thats what happened. A psedo socialist bourgeois revolution. France and the US experienced true bourgeois revolutions. A true bourgeois revolution like that of Holland, England, France and the US is impossible in the era of modern imperialism. Look at what has happened over the last century to bourgeois regimes coming to power in the colonial countries. They can not, like the first capitalist countries, conquer empires to establish cheap markets, and they are not the most advanced countries in the world when the bourgeoisie takes power. They are forced to be subordinate to imperialism and look for some great power as a protector and investor. In such a case, the bourgeoisie has no more revolutionary potential and the working class has to seize power. A workers' revolution will not happen over the entire world simultaneously, but it is also true that the working class of any one country can not sustainably create socialism in its own borders; its only solution is permanent international revolution.


I'm also not criticizing the Russian people I'm criticizing the pre mature nature of the revolution and the subsequent policies enacted. I agree that the Russian revolution was wracked by contradictions, and I personally think the worst lot was that of the peasants. But the Russian workers had no choice. The revolutionaries of 1917 knew what they were doing, they were for world-wide revolution.


Oh quit it. You know as well as I the Bolsheviks took power from the soviets.The Bolsheviks repressed the anarchist and Left SR leaders after those groups attempted to overthrow them, and forced many of their activists to join the Bolshevik Party. That definitely was the beginning of the end for Soviet democracy. But what happened to the anarchists and Left SR's was a tragedy precisely because they were good revolutionists who fought alongside the Bolsheviks in the conquest of state power by the proletariat in the glorious revolution of 1917.


Everything goes back to the FACT a global revolution was not taking place.A global revolution looked to be taking place at the time. Workers' power was briefly established in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Socialist_Workers%27_Republic), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic), Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic) and Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_Soviet_Republic).


Yes he did. He did so in order to fit Marxism with the current conditions in Russia due to his impatience. Not really. Marx was not a dogmatist, he said that Russia might be able to establish socialism in his correspondence with Vera Zasulich.


No he was right in the end. As history has shown us and when I say he understood the materialist conception of history it means he understood some of the pre conditions necessary for global communism to take hold. He rightly did not see those conditions manifesting. If there had been more Lenins and fewer Plekhanovs around the world then maybe things would have gone differently. Ignoring the subjective factor in history is a scholastic error.


No a global revolution was not on the verge and no workers did not see it that way Lenin did. This is the entire point. The revolution was premature. The working class elected Bolshevik and Left SR delegates to lead the workers' councils under the slogans of "All Power to the Soviets!" The workers' militias acted promptly on Trotsky's order to seize strategic points throughout Petrograd.


Why do you think Russia never became an advanced communist nation? Like I said, the European revolution didn't take off, the Russian Revolution got isolated and defeated like the French Revolution. But you can't fault the workers for trying. With a planned economy, Russia did become the second most powerful country in the world in spite of the parasitic bureuacratic tumor which ate away at state resources through official corruption and privileges.


Imperialism isn't necessarily 'solved' but nationalism is on its way to being marginalized which will be necessary for a global workers movement.I agree, but nationalist upsurges are possible as bourgeois militarist cliques fight to hold on to power. WWI was an example of this, capitalism seemed to have united Europe just as the world looks economically united today, but the contradictions of imperialism tore it to pieces.


If the USA tried to facilitate a socialist revolution now, without the industrialized nations support, it would end up much like Russia.Interesting assertion. But workers anywhere should fight for revolution no matter what; on the odd chance it happened in the US, it would be an inspiration for workers everywhere.

[Amphictyonis]

How are you going to use "Leninism" to facilitate communism in our modern day? Why not simply look to Marx's original writings and apply them to today's conditions AS LENIN DID IN HIS TIME.

All caps are silly but I couldn't resist :)

[Amphictyonis]

"Not really. Marx was not a dogmatist, he said that Russia might be able to establish socialism in his correspondence with Vera Zasulich."

Only if the advanced capitalist nations went first. Engels also addressed this.

[Kléber]

How are you going to use "Leninism" to facilitate communism in our modern day? Why not simply look to Marx's original writings and apply them to today's conditions AS LENIN DID IN HIS TIME.
So you agree that Lenin was applying Marxism to the political situation faced by the Russian working class. We should definitely learn from the successes and failures of past revolutions while understanding that things always happen differently.


Only if the advanced capitalist nations went first. Engels also addressed this. Lenin explained many times that Russian workers at that time would require the help of more advanced socialist countries to skip the capitalist phase of development. The dialectic of imperialism made the revolution most likely to happen in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, even though the success of that revolution was only ever possible if it spread internationally. As Lenin said in 1918: "Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries."

[penguinfoot]

Russia itself, as a nation, had no large working class. Everything centered around Lenin's (and others) miscalculation in thinking capitalism had exhausted it's productive forces by being a global system

Firstly, Russia had a sizable working class, and what made that class capable of carrying out a socialist revolution in spite of its relative numerical weakness was the fact that, owing to the conditions of combined and uneven development, which had emerged in Russia as a result of investment from the leading imperialist countries, it was concentrated in large units of production and was not weighed down by a conservative trade union bureaucracy in the same way as other countries. It's simply dogmatic to say that because the working class is a numerical minority, it can't be revolutionary, and an argument along those lines is politically conservative because it rules out any possibility of revolution in China today, which is one of the most important countries in the capitalist world-system, and is also one of the countries where class struggle is most intense, on the grounds that the rural population remains a majority in China, if only by a relatively small percentage.

As for capitalism and the advance of the productive forces, the assumption you are making seems to be that if a mode of production is still allowing for the development of the forces then that shows that the mode has not yet exhausted its historically progressive role and that it should be allowed to remain in existence until literally no further development is possible, and if you apply this assumption more broadly the conclusion that you necessarily reach is that revolution is not possible or desirable today either, because economic growth and even development are still talking place under capitalism, even if the way capitalism uses the existing productive forces is highly inefficient and destructive - fortunately for us revolutionaries Marx never argued that socialist revolution only becomes possible when growth literally grinds to a complete stop, his position as put forward in texts like the 1859 Preface and his discussions around the Paris Commune was that socialist revolution becomes possible once capitalism has created the material preconditions for socialism, and that capitalism is historically redundant as soon as it makes possible a future mode of production that can utilize and develop the productive forces more effectively than capitalism can - that is socialism. This is undeniably the case today, not only in that the material preconditions for socialism are already in place, but also in that capitalism is so irrational and destructive that it threatens to undermine the productive forces that have developed during the period of its own existence, through imperialist war, environmental devastation, and so on.

In this respect - that it threatens to decimate the productive forces simply through its own "normal" functioning - capitalism is uniquely inefficient and reactionary as a mode of production. This is why it can and needs to be overthrown, and why working people will never listen to fools like you who think that a system that causes the deaths of millions of people is still progressive.

Your posts are simply a mash of dogmatism and ignorance.

[Amphictyonis]

Firstly, Russia had a sizable working class,



Your posts are simply a mash of dogmatism and ignorance.


Ya sure. Thank you. you have no idea how Marx saw capitalism. When I say it's progressive it's not in support of the system just as when Marx said it was a progressive system he was not condoning the system. "Progressive" means both a step up from feudalism and an expanding market. Marx thought it would be great if capitalism could be overthrown ASAP but thought it unlikely until capitalism's productive forces began to decline. In Lenin's time capitalism's productive forces were just beginning to take off.

I'm not sure why you're so angry? Why does this make you angry?

[penguinfoot]

Marx thought it would be great if capitalism could be overthrown ASAP but thought it unlikely until capitalism's productive forces began to decline. In Lenin's time capitalism's productive forces were just beginning to take off

No, Marx did not think this, and it's you who has no understanding of Marx's theory of history. Marx does not think that the replacement of one mode of production by another more historically advanced one only happens when the first mode of production has exhausted all its progressive potential in the sense that absolutely no more growth of the productive forces is possible within that mode of production and it actually causes the forces of production to decline from the level attained because at no point does he ever suggest that absolutely no more growth was possible within the conditions of feudalism before the bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth century (which is not surprising, because feudal societies were still experiencing growth at the time of their bourgeois revolutions, and the only way that Marx could have followed your argument that modes of production cease to be progressive only when they allow for no more growth at all is by denying this obvious empirical fact) and at no point does he say that this will be true of the overthrow of capitalism either, in the sense that socialism will only become viable once capitalism has resulted in the stagnation and decline of the productive forces, or that this will even ever happen to capitalist societies. What he actually says in the 1859 Preface, which is one of only texts where he employs all the concepts and categories that make up his theory of history, is that epochs of social revolution begin when the relations of production become fetters on the further growth of the forces of production and that it becomes possible for new relations of production to be established and maintained once the conditions for their existence have "matured within the framework of the old society". The concept of fettering as used in the Preface does not entail the view that relations of production that have become fetters result in the growth of the productive forces grinding to a complete halt or declining, and that they are fettering for this reason, but that they are fettering because there exists a different set of relations that will enable the forces to be utilized and developed more efficiently than the current mode of production, these alternative relations having the progressive character that they do because the existing mode of production has developed the forces of production up to the point where the existing mode ceases to be the most effective means of developing the forces further, even if the forces under the existing mode of production actually continue to develop at a more or less rapid pace.

Once you understand this, the fact that capitalism was still producing economic growth and development in 1917 does not show that it was still historically progressive, because by that point, through the creation of a world market and the raising of the productive forces at a global level to the state required for material abundance, capitalism has produced the material conditions for socialism, and socialism, if established on a global level in order to access the productive apparatus developed under capitalism, would have been able to utilize and develop the productive forces more efficiently than under continued capitalist relations. In this way, capitalism had ceased to be historically progressive in 1917, even whilst it continued to enable economic growth. Your view - that capitalism remains progressive so long as it does not exclude any possibility of developing the productive forces to any degree, or as long as the productive forces do not decline - is a recipe for passivity because it entails that capitalism is still progressive today, simply on the basis that economic growth is still taking place, in spite of capitalism simultaneously resulting in war and environmental devastation.

The problem, therefore, is that you completely misunderstand Marx's theory of history, with damaging political consequences. You cannot show a single text where Marx says that modes of production only become fettering when they exclude any further growth and result in the productive forces going into decline, rather than when they cease to be the most effective means of utilizing and developing the existing forces, which is the actual meaning he gives to the concept of fettering, and I challenge you to show otherwise.

[Amphictyonis]

You're twisting my words. I never said capitalism's productive forces must come to a complete halt in order for revolution to take place. Nor did Marx. He thought when it ceased to be a progressive system and material conditions worsened, revolution was more likely. Material conditions, it was theorized, would sharply decline once the capitalist system went global and had no where else to expand into. Lenin thought imperialism had stretched capitalism around the globe and thus capitalism's productive forces would soon be exhausted. This obviously wasnt the case.

Also, you seem to be unaware Marx would praise capitalism in one sentence only to condemn it to the dust bin of history in the next. He did in fact see it as a progressive step in mankinds social development. This isn't a "recipe for passivity" by any means nor was it a stamp of approval for capitalism. Capitalism has proved to be extremely adaptive and able to provide material sustenance for a rather large population in the west. Do you really think ideology alone will cause this population to overthrow capitalism? Yes the modern system is inexcusable, exploitative and corrupt but we need to answer the question concerning WHY socialism isnt on the minds of western workers. Why are they not open to socialist ideology. A large part of that is material.

To think that capitalism will be overthrown while there is a large population of relatively comfortable consumers is naive and A-historical. Of course declining material conditions will be the spark which lights global communism and of course prior struggle and ideology are equally important but the silly notion that Marx didn't propose a 'breakdown theory' or crisis theory and probable pre conditions for global revolution is directly resulted from Stalinist revisionism.


You're quite rude by the way.

[Amphictyonis]

So you agree that Lenin was applying Marxism to the political situation faced by the Russian working class. We should definitely learn from the successes and failures of past revolutions while understanding that things always happen differently.

Lenin explained many times that Russian workers at that time would require the help of more advanced socialist countries to skip the capitalist phase of development. The dialectic of imperialism made the revolution most likely to happen in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, even though the success of that revolution was only ever possible if it spread internationally. As Lenin said in 1918: "Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries."

And his mistake was, as I said, premature revolution in Russia. Pre mature because capitalism, as a system, was too healthy in his time to be overthrown in advanced capitalist nations.

[Amphictyonis]

The assertion that economic crisis will inevitably lead to revolution may sound too mechanical for some of you but it can be shown there is a causal relationship between the two (material conditions and revolution). It's economic development that provides the material foundations on which political activity can be carried out and it would not in any other days than the days of economic crisis that political activity would be driven into radicalization and led to revolution (so long as the working class understands the alternative to capitalism- socialism). This is why ideology and struggle are very very important but to think capitalism will be overthrown in the west while everyone is driving new cars with I-pads in hand, lap tops, walking around decked out in designer clothes is absurd.

IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

Yeah for all caps.

[penguinfoot]

You're twisting my words. I never said capitalism's productive forces must come to a complete halt in order for revolution to take place. Nor did Marx. He thought when it ceased to be a progressive system and material conditions worsened, revolution was more likely. Material conditions, it was theorized, would sharply decline once the capitalist system went global and had no where else to expand into. Lenin thought imperialism had stretched capitalism around the globe and thus capitalism's productive forces would soon be exhausted. This obviously wasnt the case.

You're very muddled, unfortunately. It's necessary to distinguish between different issues here. First, Marx did not believe that revolutions would be most likely to take place or would only take place once capitalism had reached a certain level of development or once capitalism had become global, because he is clear that there were numerous revolts that occurred whilst capitalism was still historically progressive but which failed precisely because the material basis for socialism had not yet come into being, the most obvious of these examples is the Paris Commune, but Marx also hints at other cases in The German Ideology when he suggests the possibility of communism only existing "as a local event" if revolts take place during the early stages of capitalist development. The key issue, and this is the second point, is not whether revolts and revolutions can take place, but whether they "stick" or not, that is, whether they can establish socialism on a permanent and universal basis, this issue being closely bound up with the question of when and how capitalism ceases to be historically progressive. Marx's answer to this question is that revolutions can "stick" once the material conditions for socialism have been prepared under capitalism through the creation of a world market and the development of a productive apparatus that is capable of abolishing materials scarcity, with capitalism ceasing to be historically progressive once these conditions have been established, not because it does not then allow for further growth of the productive forces, but because it is no longer the mode of production that can utilize and develop the productive forces most effectively. These conditions had come into existence by the time of the Russian Revolution, which is why I do not take the view that the Revolution was premature. You do, apparently because the productive forces were still growing at that point, which is why I said that you do not understand Marx's concept of fettering.

Now, your argument seems to be that when capitalism becomes global, the productive forces will cease to develop, material conditions will decline, capitalism will cease to be progressive, and revolution will be viable. Firstly, Marx does not think that material conditions will only deteriorate once this has happened. Marx is insistent that crises are a feature of every stage of capitalist development rather than being phenomena that take place only when capitalism has become a global force, and for this reason if it were the case that deteriorating material conditions are what makes revolution possible it would make no sense to say that revolution only becomes likely or viable once capitalism is global, because Marx believes that capitalism regularly exhibits declines in material conditions - and that this is why capitalism witnessed revolts and revolutions before it ceased to be historically progressive. In fact, the dominant idea that emerges from Capital in particular is that the broad tendency of capitalism is to increase the conditions of the working class, not withstanding the role of crises in driving down conditions, through workers gaining victories over the length of the working day, working conditions, child labor, and the other issues that Marx highlights and analyzes in that text.

The reason that Marx could recognize the improvement of conditions over the long term at the same time as believing that there would come a time when capitalism would cease to be progressive and that it would be overthrown by the working class is that, to the extent that he does offer an account of revolutionary motivation, he does not think that it will come about (primarily) from a worsening of material conditions - and by suggesting that this is the decisive element for Marx account you are falling into the same position as the utopians, for whom, on Marx's account, the working class is significant only by virtue of the fact that it is the most suffering class. The dominant theme in Marx's account of revolutionary motivation is not that conditions will inevitably get worse once capitalism has ceased to be progressive or that it is these worsening conditions that lead to revolutions but that there are tendencies and processes built into capitalism that increase the strength of the working class and favor the development of class consciousness amongst the working class - of these Marx seems to believe that the most important include the increasing concentration of the means of production, due to the way this process brings workers together from a spatial perspective, and the elimination of divisions and distinctions within the working class, along with the working class becoming more educated, more organized, and gaining confidence through its victories in economic and non-revolutionary political struggles, such as the battle over the length of the working day. There is nothing about these processes, which are made clear in the Manifesto, which entails that the conditions of the working class necessarily drop once capitalism had developed to a certain point, and the history of working-class revolutions confirms Marx's view that whilst it may be during crises, when conditions of the whole of the working class are threatened, that revolution becomes most viable, it is not the case that simple living conditions are what determine revolutionary motivation, because it has always been amongst the more well-off, the more skilled, the more educated workers that revolutionary ideas have been able to take hold - this was true in Russia in the form of the Putilov steelworkers.

You do not understand the following:

That capitalism ceases to be progressive not when it prevents further increases in the productive forces or living conditions but when there exists a different set of production relations, socialism, that can better utilize and develop the productive forces

That Marx did not think that deterioration of material conditions only occur once capitalism has become global, and nor did he think that capitalism becoming global would not allow material conditions to continue to increase or for the productive forces to continue to develop,

That Marx recognizes that, when and because material conditions decline during the progressive stage of capitalist development, as a result of crises, revolts during this stage are possible and likely, but that they cannot "stick", because the material conditions for socialism have not come into being

That Marx's account of revolutionary motivation is not about the conditions of workers inevitably deteriorating once capitalism has become global and exhausted its productive potential but about long-term processes and forces that favor long-term improvements in the conditions of the working class and the development of class consciousness, such that the working class does not revolt because of its poverty, but because capitalism leads to it being concentrated, integrated, educated, confident, and organized.

Let me emphasize the last point: if you think that revolution is dependent on drastic deteriorations in the conditions of the working class, and that conditions only become dire enough once capitalism has become global, then you can only conclude that revolution will never occur, because, even if you account for the grossly inefficient ways in which capitalism has utilized the productive forces, due to the contradiction between social production and private appropriation, the long-term tendency of capitalism has been to radically improve the conditions of the working class, not least through the struggles that workers have themselves waged.


You're quite rude by the way.

That's because you condemn revolution and have never read a word of Marx in your life.

[Amphictyonis]

I don't condemn revolution. You're putting words in my mouth again. You're simply clinging to Lenin/revisionism. Referring to Marx's statement that no social formation disappears without having exhausted all its potential, Trotsky wrote that the imperialist war had shown that the “capitalist system had exhausted itself on a world scale” and that “the revolution in Russia was a breaking of the weakest link in the system of world wide capitalism”.

This was revisionism because Marx and Engels thought socialism would arise from the advanced capitalist nations. Marx always said capitalism must first be developed before socialism can take hold. Lenin and his "weakest link" argument was revisionism. A mistake. Lenin and Trotsky almost completley dismissed Marx's materialism and as they (Lenin/Trotsky) were mistaken in thinking capitalism had exhausted it's productive forces.

This is why Russia failed. Firstly it was a backwards nation (not developed under capitalism) and capitalism had yet to exhaust it's productive forces (globally). I'm sorry this angers you.

uNWxEguEeTg


^ Anyway, quite simply, so long as this is happening a revolution to replace capitalism isn't^

[Amphictyonis]

When most westerners in advanced capitalist nations are all walking around like zombies fixated on (capitalist) consumerism they will all of the sudden pick up arms and destroy the system they love so much.

Ya, I see that happening. Pfft.


Why do you think capitalists are pumping huge amounts of anti communist propaganda in America during this current crisis? It would seem even they have a better understanding of Marxism than you. Could it be because the potential for socialism to take hold is strongest when capitalism is at it's weakest?


Hmm...maybe capitalism wasn't at it's weakest in Lenins time? Did you ever think of that? I'm not sure why you people have chosen the "anti revisionist" title- it's obviously one of the most Orwellian play on words I've seen. Stalinists are, well, idiots.

[Kléber]

And his mistake was, as I said, premature revolution in Russia.
It was not Lenin's mistake, fighting for peace, land, bread, and workers' power is never a mistake - like I said, the Russian workers were up against the wall at that point. They had no choice but to take down the bourgeois Provisional Government and go for world revolution, unless they wanted to sit around and get slaughtered by the assassins of Kerensky and Kornilov.


Pre mature because capitalism, as a system, was too healthy in his time to be overthrown in advanced capitalist nations.You said the French Revolution was a "true" revolution, but it was also "premature," its leaders like Robespierre, Danton and Hébert killed each other, the revolution was isolated, degenerated grossly under the Directory, Consulate and Empire, and the French people who had humiliated the kings of Europe were defeated by the forces of monarchist restoration. That doesn't mean the revolutionary bourgeois and sans-culottes were "mistaken" for smashing feudalism. No one has an omniscient understanding of the future, but it's always right for oppressed people to rebel.


maybe capitalism wasn't at it's weakest in Lenins time?If only Lenin had some kind of crystal ball that told him "Cancel the uprising! Tell workers to sit and starve and continue to enlist in the Tsar's army. They will not be able to make revolution for 100 years." In fact, Russia was the weakest link in the global imperialist chain, and a revolution is a revolution whether or not you feel it happened at the optimal time.

[Kléber]

The assertion that economic crisis will inevitably lead to revolution may sound too mechanical for some of you but it can be shown there is a causal relationship between the two (material conditions and revolution).
You are leaving out the vanguard catalyst from your economist equation. Marx was clear that the proletarian revolution must be a political struggle.


This is why ideology and struggle are very very important but to think capitalism will be overthrown in the west while everyone is driving new cars with I-pads in hand, lap tops, walking around decked out in designer clothes is absurd. I don't know where you live that everyone is walking around like that especially since the economic crisis. The diffusion of colonial superprofits only diminishes, not destroys, the revolutionary inclination of workers in imperialist countries. It's funny though that you should use the same generalized caricature of workers in the US as the most banal internet Maoists.

[Amphictyonis]

You are leaving out the vanguard catalyst from your economist equation. Marx was clear that the proletarian revolution must be a political struggle.

I don't disagree. A political struggle fought by the working class themselves, not the Bolsheviks or some centralized minority. A political struggle sparked by declining material conditions.





I don't know where you live that everyone is walking around like that especially since the economic crisis. The diffusion of colonial superprofits only diminishes, not destroys, the revolutionary inclination of workers in imperialist countries. It's funny though that you should use the same generalized caricature of workers in the US as the most banal internet Maoists.

Since the economic crisis we now have more potential to revive socialism. Don't you see my point?

[Amphictyonis]

It was not Lenin's mistake, fighting for peace, land, bread, and workers' power is never a mistake - like I said, the Russian workers were up against the wall at that point. They had no choice but to take down the bourgeois Provisional Government and go for world revolution, unless they wanted to sit around and get slaughtered by the assassins of Kerensky and Kornilov.
The peasants in Russia were right to not put up with conditions in Russia pre revolution but a bourgeois revoloution was needed not a socialist revolution.



You said the French Revolution was a "true" revolution, but it was also "premature," its leaders like Robespierre, Danton and Hébert killed each other, the revolution was isolated, degenerated grossly under the Directory, Consulate and Empire, and the French people who had humiliated the kings of Europe were defeated by the forces of monarchist restoration. That doesn't mean the revolutionary bourgeois and sans-culottes were "mistaken" for smashing feudalism. No one has an omniscient understanding of the future, but it's always right for oppressed people to rebel.

The French revolution was a true bourgeois revolution. Yes. The necessary step towards socialism.



If only Lenin had some kind of crystal ball that told him "Cancel the uprising! Tell workers to sit and starve and continue to enlist in the Tsar's army. They will not be able to make revolution for 100 years." In fact, Russia was the weakest link in the global imperialist chain, and a revolution is a revolution whether or not you feel it happened at the optimal time.

The 'weakest link' stuff flew in the face of Engels/Marx who always said socialism would arise from the advanced capitalist nations. This wasnt happening when Lenin was in the saddle and capitalisms productive forces certainly were not on the decline.

If Russia would have had a bourgeois revolution, if Lenin would have let true capitalism take hold the world would, today, have a different opinion of communism rather than the warped version we saw in Russia. Lenin wasn't as much as a fuck up as Stalin, he wasnt even a fuck up, not by a long shot, he simply ignored most of Marx's historical materialism and was impatient.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both of you need to read Kautsky and the Second International line on revolution in less developed countries, which is continuous with the "Late Marx" of Teodor Shanin.

[Kléber]

I don't disagree. A political struggle fought by the working class themselves, not the Bolsheviks or some centralized minority. A political struggle sparked by declining material conditions.
As I explained before, the councils (soviets) of workers', soldiers' and farmers' deputies were not a small band of drunken bolshie terrorists, they were democratic institutions organized from the ground up, representing the masses of Russian workers and poor peasants; their armed militias alone numbered over 200,000 on the eve of the October revolution, and they represented multiple parties - Bolsheviks, Left-SR's and anarchists. Unless you are confusing the Congress of Soviets with the Constituent Assembly, you should be aware that the transition from a multi-party proletarian dictatorship to a one-party Bolshevik dictatorship did not begin until 1918. The 1917 October revolution was one of the working masses united across party lines.


Since the economic crisis we now have more potential to revive socialism. Don't you see my point?No, what does this have to do with the class character of the Russian revolution?


The peasants in Russia were right to not put up with conditions in Russia pre revolution but a bourgeois revoloution was needed not a socialist revolution. Also something I already responded to, there was already a bourgeois revolution in early 1917 and you basically agreed it was unable to fulfill the historic tasks of the classical bourgeois revolutions.


The French revolution was a true bourgeois revolution. Yes. The necessary step towards socialism. Are you aware of how the French revolution ended? It was defeated. It was "premature" by your definition, like the Russian one.


The 'weakest link' stuff flew in the face of Engels/Marx who always said socialism would arise from the advanced capitalist nations.Again a point I already addressed, re: Marx's correspondence w/ Zasulich. Please don't trample the memory of Marx and Engels by turning them into Eurocentrist dogmatists.


This wasnt happening when Lenin was in the saddle and capitalisms productive forces certainly were not on the decline. Actually the Russian Revolution was due largely to the destructive slaughter of WWI. The left wing of the European Social-Democracy broke free in 1915 in direct response to the outright betrayal of the revisionist "socialist" party leaders who supported their own bourgeois governments in the war. Millions of workers were slaughtered and the productive forces were concentrated on building killing machines for the imperialist armies. The first great imperialist war of the 20th Century was only stopped because of workers' resistance and the imperialists making a truce to attack the Soviet Republic.


If Russia would have had a bourgeois revolution, if Lenin would have let true capitalism take hold the world would, today, have a different opinion of communism rather than the warped version we saw in Russia. You definitely need to read something on the Russian Revolution that wasn't written by anti-communists. John Reed, an American journalist, wrote a sympathetic first-hand account (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/) and Leon Trotsky wrote the classic Marxist history (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm) of the events.


Both of you need to read Kautsky and the Second International line on revolution in less developed countries, which is continuous with the "Late Marx" of Teodor Shanin.
The Second International's line on the colonial question bordered on complicity in imperialist genocide. Kautsky was a renegade from the workers' movement. He defended the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution but in 1917 he condemned the workers and said "They should not have taken up arms!"

[Amphictyonis]

As I explained before, the councils (soviets) of workers', soldiers' and farmers' deputies were not a small band of drunken bolshie terrorists, they were democratic institutions organized from the ground up, representing the masses of Russian workers and poor peasants; their armed militias alone numbered over 200,000 on the eve of the October revolution, and they represented multiple parties - Bolsheviks, Left-SR's and anarchists. Unless you are confusing the Congress of Soviets with the Constituent Assembly, you should be aware that the transition from a multi-party proletarian dictatorship to a one-party Bolshevik dictatorship did not begin until 1918. The 1917 October revolution was one of the working masses united across party lines.

The Bolsheviks didn't facilitate the revolution. They took power from the workers councils and peasants. I never said the revolution is Russia wasn't facilitated by the people. I siad a BOURGEOIS revolution was necessary in order to establish the cultural and economic pre conditions for socialism to manifest in the future. I might go as far as to label the Bolsheviks terrorists. Sure. If revolutionary socialism was all centered around the Bolshevik ideals as practiced in Russia I'd run the other way.


No, what does this have to do with the class character of the Russian revolution? Absolutely nothing. I was speaking to the probable pre conditions necessary for a proper socialist revolution to take place in advanced capitalist nations. One of them being declining material conditions due to capitalism's productive forces becoming regressive.


Also something I already responded to, there was already a bourgeois revolution in early 1917 and you basically agreed it was unable to fulfill the historic tasks of the classical bourgeois revolutions. No I didnt agree.


Are you aware of how the French revolution ended? It was defeated. It was "premature" by your definition, like the Russian one.

Was there then a premature "socialist" revolution in France? No. If there had been France would have ended up as Russia did. A bad example of socialism. What eventually took hold in France was bourgeois capitalism. The necessary step towards socialism.


Again a point I already addressed, re: Marx's correspondence w/ Zasulich. Please don't trample the memory of Marx and Engels by turning them into Eurocentrist dogmatists.

Did Marx say (basically under his breath towards the end of his life) communism could arise out of the peasantry in Russia? Yes, but there were condition's to that. One of them being the rise of socialism in advanced capitalist nations. Marx and Engels were very clear in their long term opinion that socialism would only arise from advanced capitalist regions.


Actually the Russian Revolution was due largely to the destructive slaughter of WWI. The left wing of the European Social-Democracy broke free in 1915 in direct response to the outright betrayal of the revisionist "socialist" party leaders who supported their own bourgeois governments in the war. Millions of workers were slaughtered and the productive forces were concentrated on building killing machines for the imperialist armies. The first great imperialist war of the 20th Century was only stopped because of workers' resistance and the imperialists making a truce to attack the Soviet Republic.

The workers/peasantry rose up because of shity material conditions. You're proving my point for me. The problem was Russia never had a chance to go socialist without the advanced capitalist nations going socialist so it's obvious any socialist revolution in Russia was pre mature.



You definitely need to read something on the Russian Revolution that wasn't written by anti-communists. John Reed, an American journalist, wrote a sympathetic first-hand account (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/) and Leon Trotsky wrote the classic Marxist history (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm) of the events.
I'm going to ignore this patronizing attempt to make me look stupid. :)
Also, keep in mind, I'm corresponding with 2 people at once so some of the things I'm saying in regards to pre conditions for revolution/crisis theory are meant for the other poster. I don't have the time to correspond with 2 people so I'll probably just reply to you from now on (so long as you don't pull any more of this shit-


You definitely need to read something on the Russian Revolution that wasn't written by anti-communists. John Reed, an American journalist, wrote a sympathetic first-hand account (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/) and Leon Trotsky wrote the classic Marxist history (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm) of the events.

:)

Also this was quite funny


The Second International's line on the colonial question bordered on complicity in imperialist genocide. Kautsky was a renegade from the workers' movement. He defended the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution but in 1917 he condemned the workers and said "They should not have taken up arms!"
I can almost see Lenins ghost appearing in your text ;) Your new nickname is Lenin's ghost.


EDIT- for those new to the thread my view of antirevisionism is that Stalinists are suffering from doublethink seeing most everything they think is antithetical to Marx's original works.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Second International's line on the colonial question bordered on complicity in imperialist genocide. Kautsky was a renegade from the workers' movement. He defended the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution but in 1917 he condemned the workers and said "They should not have taken up arms!"

Ever heard of Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution?

This goes for you too, Amphic. Political revolution in less developed countries was encouraged to spark both political revolution and social revolution in more advanced ones.

[Amphictyonis]

Where did Marx/Engels say socialism would form through backwards nations inspiring advanced capitalist nations? That pesky nationalism got in the way of that. The point is to not repeat the mistakes made in the past. Not to fixate ourselves on Lenins path to socialism. I don't have any harsh criticisms for Lenin other than what I've already said, the Russian revolution was premature, not overthrowing the feudal system, but, setting up a "workers state". The means of production and culture (as Marx thought) should have been allowed to advance under true capitalism and Lenin's thought that capitalism had extended it's global productive forces was also wrong. Some patience would have been key. Capitalism was just hitting full stride in his time.

In our modern times we're not going to see global socialism manifest from backwards nations it will take the advanced capitalist nations. It will take nationalism being marginalized while regions that actually produce commodities turn to socialism (China). It's going to take a crisis of the magnitude we have never seen to snap western workers out of the fog we're in at the moment. Western workers won't see socialism take hold in Venezuela then decide to facilitate revolution in the USA. Marx tried to dispel Hegelian idealism of that nature. There will be material causes- most likely sparked by a global capitalist crisis (ie capitalism's productive forces becoming regressive).

If you guys want to place Lenin's ideas above those of Marx/Engels so be it but I think the way forward is to look at Marx/Engels original works and apply them to today's conditions. Perhaps even apply the past works of others in advanced capitalist nations (Germany). There was a reason Marx supported free trade, a reason he wanted capitalism to spread around the globe as quickly as possible. A reason he thought socialism would arise from the advanced capitalist nations. A reason Marx said the bourgeoisie class produces its own “gravediggers”.

It's a fact western workers have appreciated advances in quality of life. Longer life expectancy as well. So long as this keeps going, along with the expansion of the market, I don't see socialism taking hold. I'm not advocating abject material determinism here I'm simply saying our ideology won't be attractive to the masses until they become uncomfortable under capitalism. Marx's crisis theory states the crisis will become worse and worse over time- we're seeing this happen now (declining material conditions). I think this current crisis is a great test for us, I also think we're somewhat dropping the ball (in the USA).

This thread has veered away from "anti-revisionism" as defined by Stalinists ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where did Marx/Engels say socialism would form through backwards nations inspiring advanced capitalist nations?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm

[Amphictyonis]

I've already addressed this in a prior post. Marx is stressing the revolutionary potential of the indigenous communal forms of the Russian village, but not unconditionally: The Russians would not be able to revolutionize their society without linking up to "a proletarian revolution in the West." This western revolution was not happening. The potential for the advanced capitalist nations to turn to socialism wasn't there...hence the "workers state" in Russia was pre mature.

Both Kautsky (who you brought up) and Luxemburg held to the pre Lenin model of the transition to socialism. Any premature seizure of power by workers in conditions of scarcity would result in distorted development, this is what Marx thought. The pre conditions for a successful Russian path to socialism were not in place and hence the distorted development in Russia.

[Kiev Communard]

So you do think that one has to wait before the capitalists themselves develop all the necessary pre-requisites for abolishing scarcity and implement them? Sorry, but that is not bound to happen even in the "developed" world. The very principle of capitalism is taking advantage of material scarcity, without it the capital accumulation could not reasonably proceed. It is the conscious act of proletarians, breaching the "objective" institutions of capital, thus entailing dis-continuity, that may lead to such outcome.

[Amphictyonis]

So you do think that one has to wait before the capitalists themselves develop all the necessary pre-requisites for abolishing scarcity and implement them? Sorry, but that is not bound to happen even in the "developed" world. The very principle of capitalism is taking advantage of material scarcity, without it the capital accumulation could not reasonably proceed. It is the conscious act of proletarians, breaching the "objective" institutions of capital, thus entailing dis-continuity, that may lead to such outcome.

Capitalists will never 'implement' the means of production to end scarcity but socialism/communism/Marxism isn't about going from feudalism straight to communism.I never said, in my entire life, capitalists would end scarcity. That flies in the face of the entire capitalist system. What I meant by scarcity above was a non developed nation full of peasants.

I guess I can see where he confusion came from but if you just want to argue you'll have to pick something else :)

[Amphictyonis]

What do you guys think keeps prisoners (most of the time) from taking over the prison and in cases where it did happen what do you think drove the prisoners to do so?

EDIT- the answer is grievances based in MATERIAL CONDITIONS. Look at the world as a giant mock prison. We're al under teh control of the bourgeoisie (prison guard) but what will cause us to take the prison over? It's simple to understand- it's not economic determinism but a common sense giude to what will spark a successful global revolution. Severe capitalist crisis =declining material conditions.

Why do you think the bourgeoisie are pumping up the anti communist propaganda during teh current crisis? Because they understand Marx/human history.

[Kiev Communard]

Capitalists will never 'implement' the means of production to end scarcity but socialism/communism/Marxism isn't about going from feudalism straight to communism.I never said, in my entire life, capitalists would end scarcity. That flies in the face of the entire capitalist system. What I meant by scarcity above was a non developed nation full of peasants.

I guess I can see where he confusion came from but if you just want to argue you'll have to pick something else :)

First of all, Russia wasn't a "feudal" nation by the beginning of the 20th century. While it is certainly true that the remains of serfdom relations of production ("temporarily dependent peasants", who had to pay their former masters certain tithes in exchange for rights of tenancy), the emergence of rich peasants, the so-called kulaks, who played the role of agricultural capitalists, albeit small ones, the commodification of landlords' households, the development of trade specialization in commercial agriculture, the rapid development of heavy industry, coal mining, oil extraction (in some of these fields Russia occupied 4th to 5th place on the global market, accounting for 4,2% of all capitalist world's production), the multiplication of capital investments, mostly foreign, all showed that Russia by 1917 was in no sense "feudal", autarkic society - it was an integral part of global capitalist market. The remains of personal dependence that I mentioned were rapidly dissolving, and by 1911 one couldn't claim anymore that they pre-dominated in any meaningful sense - on the contrary, the development of labour market (the integral part of capitalist relations of production) was an accomplished fact both in agriculture and industry. So your allegations against Bolsheviks that they supposedly "ignored" the existing economic structure are completely inadequate.

[Amphictyonis]

First of all

First of all you're just being contrarian at this point. Marx never theorized socialism was about developing the means of production. That was capitalism's job. When he did say Russia may be able to skip the capitalist phase he said so skeptically with the condition that the advanced capitalist nations went socialist as well. Lenin mistook imperialism for the inevitable decline of capitalisms productive forces and hence coming socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist nations. he Russian revolution was pre-mature.


Why is communism not the global system? Why has an advanced communist society never existed yet?

[Kiev Communard]

Why is communism not the global system? Why has an advanced communist society never existed yet?

Well, if one takes your logic, one may just as well ask: "why bother with all these revolutionary activities, if the capitalism itself will inevitably lead to socialism? Let's just watch and wait". Sorry, but an approach of yours is easily debunked when one looks at the experience of "advanced" capitalist nations, first of all the U.S. - it seems that such apparently "backward" nations as Brazil and Venezuela are much more progressive than it has ever been. Face it - the development of productive forces does not automatically lead to socialism, on the contrary - if left to profit-making imperatives, it will sooner or later lead to military or ecological catastrophe, and nothing more.

[Amphictyonis]

"why bother with all these revolutionary activities, if the capitalism itself will inevitably lead to socialism? Let's just watch and wait"

That's not my logic. Revolt without a clear understanding of socialism is pointless. Struggle under capitalism may not be the spark that ignites revolt but ideology is key - ideology is what turns revolt into revolution. The working class becomes aware through struggle. Some of you have a nasty habit of putting words in my mouth. :tt2:

Quote me saying revolution is not necessary. Quote me saying struggle isnt key to spreading proper class awareness. Good luck with that.

I never said "the development of productive forces automatically leads to socialism". Quote me saying that. Until then I have no interest in corresponding with such an assumptive person. Next you'll assert I think communism will arise out of a magical Jack In The Box.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/marx-engels-materialism.pdf

[Kiev Communard]

"why bother with all these revolutionary activities, if the capitalism itself will inevitably lead to socialism? Let's just watch and wait"

That's not my logic. Revolt without a clear understanding of socialism is pointless. Struggle under capitalism may not be the spark that ignites revolt but ideology is key - ideology is what turns revolt into revolution. The working class becomes aware through struggle. Some of you have a nasty habit of putting words in my mouth. :tt2:

Quote me saying revolution is not necessary. Quote me saying struggle isnt key to spreading proper class awareness. Good luck with that.

I never said "the development of productive forces automatically leads to socialism". Quote me saying that. Until then I have no interest in corresponding with such an assumptive person. Next you'll assert I think communism will arise out of a magical Jack In The Box.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't claim you asserted that explicitly, I merely said that, proceeding from your general idea (that all the revolutions in "backward" countries are premature/pointless), one has to ignore/underrate the potentials of struggles in those regions and concentrate on the imperialist countries, even though the high level of media indoctrination and relatively high level of living tend to impede the possibilities of revolutionary movement there. And such an approach (viewing the possibilities of socialism only through the lense of already developed productive forces, not the opportunities for their development after the revolution) ignores the fact that capitalists are interested in underdevelopment in the vast swathes of the Earth, and the only way to make those regions "developed" is by overthrowing their local capitalism, despite it being "un-advanced" and thus "not ripe for socialism", and try to, firstly, fulfil the tasks of capitalist modernization (if they are left) by other methods, and then begin the preparation for revolution's expansion and local transition to socialist forms at the same time. That's all what I meant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, if one takes your logic, one may just as well ask: "why bother with all these revolutionary activities, if the capitalism itself will inevitably lead to socialism? Let's just watch and wait". Sorry, but an approach of yours is easily debunked when one looks at the experience of "advanced" capitalist nations, first of all the U.S. - it seems that such apparently "backward" nations as Brazil and Venezuela are much more progressive than it has ever been. Face it - the development of productive forces does not automatically lead to socialism, on the contrary - if left to profit-making imperatives, it will sooner or later lead to military or ecological catastrophe, and nothing more.

It should be said, though, that both Brazil and Venezuela have the advantage of higher industrial development than Russia back then, even if some oligarchic factions now wish to convert Russia into a mere exporter of oil and other natural resources at the expense of manufacturing.

[S.Artesian]

No such thing as a "premature" revolution. Revolutions can't be made wily-nily. They are made when there's no alternative. They survive, or not, based on a myriad of variables, but the Russian Revolution was not "premature." There was no viable alternative facing the workers, and their organs of power, the soviets.

[Amphictyonis]

No such thing as a "premature" revolution. Revolutions can't be made wily-nily. They are made when there's no alternative. They survive, or not, based on a myriad of variables, but the Russian Revolution was not "premature." There was no viable alternative facing the workers, and their organs of power, the soviets.

Yes there was a viable alternative. A truly bourgeois revolution (to advance the industrial means of production) in lieu of a quasi socialist revolution which has distorted the worlds perception of communism ever since. The perception is, Communism creates a world of shit. The reality is rapid industrialization can only be done via capitalism and what we saw in Russia was capitalism on a fast track to industrialization. It was capitalism. Socialism is not about developing the means of production.

We should make another thread on the topic since I'm more so making fun of the Stalinist claim to anti revisionism when Marx said all along communism would arise from advanced capitalist nations. Russia was not an advanced capitalist nation and there was no global socialist revolution happening in the advanced capitalist nations which would have made it possible for Russia to truly become socialist.


Why do you think this idiot came up with this-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

Because he was a revisionist thats why (LOL) one who pissed all over Marx's original writings. Also, Maoist Third Worldists are revisionists as well. Marx NEVER said communism would arise by the third world 'invading' the advanced capitalist nations. The thought of it is absurd. It's never going to happen. Communism will never manifest without workers in advanced capitalist nations taking over the industrial means of production (what we should ask is what now constitutes 'advanced capitalist nation'). A more logical approach would be for the third world to let the capitalists transfer industry to the third world (as is happening) then take over the means of production there. Thats the only way I see socialism developing 'from below' (when i say below I don't mean by the people I mean by less advanced capitalist nations).

[S.Artesian]

Ah... so a bourgeois revolution was possible in Russia? I don't think so.

If you want to start a thread on that-- that's cool. I don't know that I really want to argue about it though.

This is a fundamental issue-- and the issue isn't about socialism in one country. It's about the meaning, and manifestations, of uneven and combined development.

[Amphictyonis]

Ah... so a bourgeois revolution was possible in Russia? I don't think so.

If you want to start a thread on that-- that's cool. I don't know that I really want to argue about it though.

This is a fundamental issue-- and the issue isn't about socialism in one country. It's about the meaning, and manifestations, of uneven and combined development.

Ya this thread was already argumentative enough for my tastes :)

[Amphictyonis]

Not really. Marx was not a dogmatist, he said that Russia might be able to establish socialism in his correspondence with Vera Zasulich.





Like I said, the European revolution didn't take off, the Russian Revolution got isolated and defeated like the French Revolution. But you can't fault the workers for trying. With a planned economy, Russia did become the second most powerful country in the world in spite of the parasitic bureuacratic tumor which ate away at state resources through official corruption and privileges.


Interesting assertion. But workers anywhere should fight for revolution no matter what; on the odd chance it happened in the US, it would be an inspiration for workers everywhere.


http://www.usmarxisthumanists.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-article-marx-late-writings-russia-re-examined.pdf