Questions for Stalinists [Archive]

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 08:25

ArrowLance

7th November 2010, 08:37

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 08:46

1) Famines happen and I'm curious as to what exactly you think the Soviet leadership or policies did to create the famine.

2) Murdered how? As for Stalin himself, I know he didn't personally murder millions of people, but I'm sure thats not what you mean. As for the deaths under the Soviet administration under Stalin, there are some justifications and explanations. If you would like to bring up any specific event or policy I'd be glad to discuss them individually.

3) Again with the justifications and other reasons there could be, specific events or policies would make things easier to discuss. But as a general idea, censorship or cover ups can increase the stability and decrease the possibility of a counter-revolutionary or reactionary movement.
Well for censorship sure it does help keep the proletarian dictatorship but it takes away freedom. You may justify it as the greater good but it seems like it is making the thing that it is fighting to me...

I guess your second point is purely your opinion on morality. To me their is no justified murders unless it is referring to the revolution, but it is to kill those who wish to oppress you not your own people. Yes there is a difference and no it does not make it murder.

To the first I can't really answer. Not sure why I wrote it backwards but there ya go.

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 09:00

1) Famines happen and I'm curious as to what exactly you think the Soviet leadership or policies did to create the famine.

2) Murdered how? As for Stalin himself, I know he didn't personally murder millions of people, but I'm sure thats not what you mean. As for the deaths under the Soviet administration under Stalin, there are some justifications and explanations. If you would like to bring up any specific event or policy I'd be glad to discuss them individually.

3) Again with the justifications and other reasons there could be, specific events or policies would make things easier to discuss. But as a general idea, censorship or cover ups can increase the stability and decrease the possibility of a counter-revolutionary or reactionary movement.

1)I have read in several places that Stalin's great turn from the New Economic Policy caused an agricultural upheaval that led to the famine as the amount of people who died was previously unheard of in Russia.

2) I know he didn't personally murder millions but his policies led to the death of many. Any specific incidents I couldn't name

Of course all of this could have been Capitalist embellishment, but my distaste for him likely stems from my Anarchist tendencies

Oh and as for censorship I could never condone that, propaganda is a different story but cover ups in my opinion are unjustifiable.

Also what do you like about him compared to Lenin?

Noinu

7th November 2010, 09:13

1) Famines happen and I'm curious as to what exactly you think the Soviet leadership or policies did to create the famine.

2) Murdered how? As for Stalin himself, I know he didn't personally murder millions of people, but I'm sure thats not what you mean. As for the deaths under the Soviet administration under Stalin, there are some justifications and explanations. If you would like to bring up any specific event or policy I'd be glad to discuss them individually.

3) Again with the justifications and other reasons there could be, specific events or policies would make things easier to discuss. But as a general idea, censorship or cover ups can increase the stability and decrease the possibility of a counter-revolutionary or reactionary movement.

1. There are ways to keep the population underfed. Not saying that's what happened, just saying it's possible, especially if you're not a very good leader.

2. Excuse me, but since when has massmurder ever been justified? I'm sure you can find explanations, they were against him, against the communist state, blahdy blah blah, but killing off people just because you're scared of what they might do, in my book, accounts to now justice.

3. Almost the same thing here, cencorship is no justice. Keeping people under control is exactly what fascist states do, how on Earth a non-Stalinist can believe this to be a good way to go is beyond me.

ArrowLance

7th November 2010, 09:21

1)I have read in several places that Stalin's great turn from the New Economic Policy caused an agricultural upheaval that led to the famine as the amount of people who died was previously unheard of in Russia.

2) I know he didn't personally murder millions but his policies led to the death of many. Any specific incidents I couldn't name

Of course all of this could have been Capitalist embellishment, but my distaste for him likely stems from my Anarchist tendencies

Oh and as for censorship I could never condone that, propaganda is a different story but cover ups in my opinion are unjustifiable.

Also what do you like about him compared to Lenin?

I don't think that it is unreasonable to think that agricultural changes such as persecution of kulaks and collectivization could haze exacerbated the famine but they can't be solely blamed for it and those policies had other purposes which made gains in other ways. Had those policies not been enacted there could have been different consequences, although any famine may have been less severe.

I didn't really think that you thought he did personally.

I think that being completely opposed to censorship isn't a luxury unstable states and important revolutions can afford at the risk of complete defeat. When reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces pose a real threat to everything that a revolution has fought for, even shed blood for, the situation is quite different. If they were to overthrow the revolution all that would have been done could be considered unjustified, for nothing. But as long as the revolution is still alive it must be defended AT ALL COSTS. Morals can not always be afforded in the fight for justice.

As for what I like about Stalin compared to Lenin? I'm not sure I can even say I like Stalin, although I feel he was capable of great feats of compassion and leadership. Interestingly I know more about Stalin than Lenin, so feel a bit under equipped to make a comparison. The discussion of Stalin is so much more forced than that of Lenin, I guess I've just learned more about the former and not made the effort to research too deeply the latter.

ArrowLance

7th November 2010, 09:25

1. There are ways to keep the population underfed. Not saying that's what happened, just saying it's possible, especially if you're not a very good leader.

2. Excuse me, but since when has massmurder ever been justified? I'm sure you can find explanations, they were against him, against the communist state, blahdy blah blah, but killing off people just because you're scared of what they might do, in my book, accounts to now justice.

3. Almost the same thing here, cencorship is no justice. Keeping people under control is exactly what fascist states do, how on Earth a non-Stalinist can believe this to be a good way to go is beyond me.

Why would they want to keep the population underfed? At least in the sense of the entire population it only damages the state.

What exactly is mass murder? In pursuit of infinite justice and infinite progress anything can be justified. Censorship is a legitimate way to disarm hostile and harmful organizations, something about words and guns and their equivalent power levels.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 09:32

Why would they want to keep the population underfed? At least in the sense of the entire population it only damages the state.

What exactly is mass murder? In pursuit of infinite justice and infinite progress anything can be justified. Censorship is a legitimate way to disarm hostile and harmful organizations, something about words and guns and their equivalent power levels.

Poor choice of wording, I'm afraid. They would not _want_ to, but inevitably do so, if they don't make good decisions. And againt, didn't say that happened, just said it's possible.

I'm sorry, but let's get this straight:
Hypothetical country A.
Has almost always been right-wing, has always been afraid of everythind slightly leftist, calling even tiny tiny socialist ideas communism. Years of persecution toward communists and such, imprisonment, even the capital punishment for "working against the nation".
Then comes the revolution.
And everything continues the same, except now it's left-wingers persecuting everyone and everything they deem to be slightly right-wing and fascist.

Sorry but hypothetical country A, never became communist, it only changed one fascist ideology to another.

Infinite justice does not derive from vengeance and hypocrisy. And even less from something like fear.

ArrowLance

7th November 2010, 09:38

Poor choice of wording, I'm afraid. They would not _want_ to, but inevitably do so, if they don't make good decisions. And againt, didn't say that happened, just said it's possible.

I'm sorry, but let's get this straight:
Hypothetical country A.
Has almost always been right-wing, has always been afraid of everythind slightly leftist, calling even tiny tiny socialist ideas communism. Years of persecution toward communists and such, imprisonment, even the capital punishment for "working against the nation".
Then comes the revolution.
And everything continues the same, except now it's left-wingers persecuting everyone and everything they deem to be slightly right-wing and fascist.

Sorry but hypothetical country A, never became communist, it only changed one fascist ideology to another.

Infinite justice does not derive from vengeance and hypocrisy. And even less from something like fear.

Did no other policies change? Only the name of the persons in power? The end goal is the abolition of the state, the means is the advancement of socialism and democracy at any cost.

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 09:43

Why would they want to keep the population underfed?

It's been referred to as the Ukrainian genocide because many believe it was specifically orchestrated to kill them. It was also referred to as Holodomor

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 09:45

Morals can not always be afforded in the fight for justice.

What's the point of communism and equality without morals?

Noinu

7th November 2010, 09:55

Did no other policies change? Only the name of the persons in power? The end goal is the abolition of the state, the means is the advancement of socialism and democracy at any cost.

End does not justify the means. And if there is a government there is a state. And socialism should not be advanced on the basis of throwing out all that makes us different from those who we oppose.

People's War

7th November 2010, 12:15

1. The famine was caused by the agricultural upheaval following collectivization, which was neccesary as the kulaks were threatening to cut off food supplies to Leningrad and Moscow. They were a clear threat to socialism and the revolution, therefore they had to be dealt with.

2. Contrary to popular misconception, many of those who died in the gulags were criminals, as well as a counterrevolutionaries. I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but this is the example often used.

3. You don't think cover ups and such ever happen in capitalist states?

Thirsty Crow

7th November 2010, 12:33

Well for censorship sure it does help keep the proletarian dictatorship but it takes away freedom. You may justify it as the greater good but it seems like it is making the thing that it is fighting to me...No, it does not help the dictatorship of the proletariat if the censorship is directed also towards proponents of proletarians' power who were not exactly in agreement with the state apparatus.
Just one example: censorship of literature was something that cannot be defended on grounds of the DotP.

Obs

7th November 2010, 12:52

It's been referred to as the Ukrainian genocide because many believe it was specifically orchestrated to kill them. It was also referred to as Holodomor

There's no reason to believe it was orchestrated to kill off Ukrainians. You realise there was an even worse famine in Kazakhstan at the time, right? You just never hear about that as some kind of genocide, because, quite frankly, rich westerners just don't give a damn about them slanty-eyed Asian folks. The idea of a "holodomor" was propagated particularly in Germany, but also in the rest of the Western world, to help foment anti-communist sentiment.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 13:21

3. You don't think cover ups and such ever happen in capitalist states?

Of course they happened. But as we're against capitalism, we really shouldn't strive to do the same things as them. Just because half your class jumps into a well, doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it too.

Obs

7th November 2010, 13:29

Of course they happened. But as we're against capitalism, we really shouldn't strive to do the same things as them. Just because half your class jumps into a well, doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it too.
The dictatorship of one class over another will always be oppressive. Let's not try to fool ourselves into thinking we can be "better" than the bourgeoisie by giving them a fair chance to spark a counter-revolution.

People's War

7th November 2010, 13:54

Of course they happened. But as we're against capitalism, we really shouldn't strive to do the same things as them. Just because half your class jumps into a well, doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it too.

Capitalist ideology has a near monopoly on power currently, and it would continue to threaten socialism as long as it exists. It is necessary to eliminate capitalist ideas.

People's War

7th November 2010, 13:56

Ah yes, the Holodomor. The same story that originally came from an American mogul with Nazi connections. It happened of course, but if Stalin had meant to kill off all the Ukrainians, he did a pretty bad job given that many non-Ukrainians ended up dead from famine.

L.A.P.

7th November 2010, 15:04

Noinu

7th November 2010, 15:11

The dictatorship of one class over another will always be oppressive. Let's not try to fool ourselves into thinking we can be "better" than the bourgeoisie by giving them a fair chance to spark a counter-revolution.

Excuse me, but if one oppresses people, one will always give cause for a revolution. You cannot silence the people just by making what they're doing illegal. Read your history, there's enough evidence.

Apoi_Viitor

7th November 2010, 15:24

There's no reason to believe it was orchestrated to kill off Ukrainians. You realise there was an even worse famine in Kazakhstan at the time, right? You just never hear about that as some kind of genocide, because, quite frankly, rich westerners just don't give a damn about them slanty-eyed Asian folks. The idea of a "holodomor" was propagated particularly in Germany, but also in the rest of the Western world, to help foment anti-communist sentiment.

That's not true at all. Although the Kazakhstan famine is significantly underreported, the Ukrainian famine was substantially larger.

Besides, given the massive level of grain exports from the Ukrainian region (while the famine was occurring), and the relative lack of aid supplied from Moscow, I find it hard to believe the situation doesn't amount to political demoicide.

Also, I've heard reports that the famine stopped directly at the borders of Ukraine - and that the immediate surrounding Russian territory was mostly unaffected by the famine - does anyone know the extent to which this is true?

Muzk

7th November 2010, 15:40

ITT: Blaah-Blaah!

He hasn't furthered leninism at all, his ideas contradicted the original bolshevik programme (and therefore Lenin)

He's a revisionist.

“The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism ... can be accomplished with the forces of a single country.”
While the party earlier clearly stated that socialism is not possible without the help of the international proletariat...

BTW you won't get any serious historical accounts from stalinists, only apologist crap. "Oooh, that happened, let me find a way on how to interpret history the way it will fit my narrow world view..."

Noinu

7th November 2010, 15:40

Also, I've heard reports that the famine stopped directly at the borders of Ukraine - and that the immediate surrounding Russian territory was mostly unaffected by the famine - does anyone know the extent to which this is true?

I can't say if it's true or not but I can do something else:
"To corroborate this, between 1926 and 1939, the Ukrainian population dropped by 11%, whereas Russia and Belarus grew by 28% and 11%, respectively"
Krawchenko, Bohdan (1989). "The great famine of 1932-3 in Soviet Ukraine: Causes and consequences.". Critique 17 (1): 136-137.

(Stumbled upon this, so I can't say if this is reliable).

Kléber

7th November 2010, 15:55

the famine happened because the wealthy land owners would rather burn their own crops than allow collectivization so if anything it was there fault. This is acknowledged by pretty much every historian but many of them believe the actions of the wealthy landowners was justifiable and therefore not their fault but the Soviet Union's.
Not quite. The state promoted those wealthy landowners for years before it decided to expropriate them in response to a grain crisis. During the heyday of NEP, Bukharin (in alliance with Stalin) had advanced the infamous kulak slogan, "Enrich yourselves!" Trotsky and the Left Opposition were the earliest and strongest advocates of a turn away from NEP toward collectivization and heavy industry, an unpopular line at the time which turned out to be correct after their political defeat. The rightist policies of Stalin and Bukharin were amenable to the interests of comfortable bureaucrats, small businesspeople (nepmen) and "rich" farmers (kulaks), but they masked contradictions within the Soviet economy, put off the unavoidable task of industrialization and worsened the inevitable crisis resulting from social differentiation in the countryside.

Obs

7th November 2010, 16:03

Excuse me, but if one oppresses people, one will always give cause for a revolution. You cannot silence the people just by making what they're doing illegal. Read your history, there's enough evidence.
I have read my history. Maybe you should take your own advice, since you'd find that all class rule is built on oppression, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must be as well.

Muzk

7th November 2010, 16:07

Thirsty Crow

7th November 2010, 16:25

Spot on! A worker's state oppressing workers! :laugh::laugh:

At least it's one group of workers oppressing other groups of workers. hey, that's better than capitalist oppression!

Noinu

7th November 2010, 16:37

I have read my history. Maybe you should take your own advice, since you'd find that all class rule is built on oppression, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must be as well.

The idea of a dictatorship is not oppression, in any way. Oppression can easily derive in any form of government. We live in oppression even now.
But if that said leader makes decisions that affect half of the people negatively, it is oppression.

EDIT: I don't mean to exclude a possibility of affecting less than half, or even the entire population.

Obs

7th November 2010, 16:50

The idea of a dictatorship is not oppression, in any way. Oppression can easily derive in any form of government. We live in oppression even now.
But if that said leader makes decisions that affect half of the people negatively, it is oppression.

EDIT: I don't mean to exclude a possibility of affecting less than half, or even the entire population.
...Are you sure you know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is?

RED DAVE

7th November 2010, 16:54

I have read my history. Maybe you should take your own advice, since you'd find that all class rule is built on oppression, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must be as well.This seem, unless I'm mistaken, to be the new Stalinist line: that the USSR was the oppression of one segment of the working class (the industrial workers) by another segment: (the bureaucracy).

Yeah, right.

RED DAVE

Bright Banana Beard

7th November 2010, 16:55

But workers never oppress anybody, what the hell!? :crying:

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 17:00

The idea of a dictatorship is not oppression, in any way. Oppression can easily derive in any form of government. We live in oppression even now.
But if that said leader makes decisions that affect half of the people negatively, it is oppression.

EDIT: I don't mean to exclude a possibility of affecting less than half, or even the entire population.
Noinu, I don't think you know what dictatorship of the Proletariat means,it's the complete opposite of the dictatorship of the Bourgeouisie which is where are now.

RED DAVE

7th November 2010, 17:09

But workers never oppress anybody, what the hell!? :crying:Workers as a class, do not oppress other workers. Unlike Stalinists/Maoists/Hoxhaists for who oppression of the working class is what they do.

RED DAVE

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 17:17

Workers as a class, do not oppress other workers. Unlike Stalinists/Maoists/Hoxhaists for who oppression of the working class is what they do.

RED DAVE
As opposed to Trotskyist's who just sit back and do nothing while telling other's what should be done in their ideal Utopian world.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 17:18

...Are you sure you know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is?

Oh for f's sake, I do know, but now I really do need to appologise.
I should start reading the text I'm answering to less quickly since I tend to jump over words (being slightly dyslexic).
So maybe more clearly:
I read your last text wrong. Forgive me.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 17:19

Noinu, I don't think you know what dictatorship of the Proletariat means,it's the complete opposite of the dictatorship of the Bourgeouisie which is where are now.

And you should read my other answer, I explained and appologised.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 17:23

I have read my history. Maybe you should take your own advice, since you'd find that all class rule is built on oppression, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must be as well.

And after making that terribly embarrassing post, I'll try to make another...and this time read what I'm writing to ^^;;; (I'm still so sorry).

Making decisions against someone else's views, doesn't really constitute as oppression. But think of this, why would illegalising all other views than the left be better than what happened in the US during the Cold War?

Lee Van Cleef

7th November 2010, 17:36

Making decisions against someone else's views, doesn't really constitute as oppression. But think of this, why would illegalising all other views than the left be better than what happened in the US during the Cold War?
Because in a socialist society, we would be working to stop the spread of capitalist, reactionary ideas that would work against attempts to propagate Marxist thought and culture.

During the Red Scare, attempts to silence the left were attempts by the capitalist class to prevent the spread of revolutionary Marxist ideas that would increase class consciousness among the proletariat, and encourage them to seize power.

Obs

7th November 2010, 17:44

And after making that terribly embarrassing post, I'll try to make another...and this time read what I'm writing to ^^;;; (I'm still so sorry).

Making decisions against someone else's views, doesn't really constitute as oppression. But think of this, why would illegalising all other views than the left be better than what happened in the US during the Cold War?
Because we're right and they're wrong.

People's War

7th November 2010, 17:56

Workers as a class, do not oppress other workers. Unlike Stalinists/Maoists/Hoxhaists for who oppression of the working class is what they do.

RED DAVE

Cute little post you have there. Care to prove it?

Noinu

7th November 2010, 18:10

Because we're right and they're wrong.

Double post, internet went haywire, sorry.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 18:14

Because we're right and they're wrong.

So basically 'cause they think they're right and we're wrong, that would give them just as much right to oppress? Not much of a reason is it?

I'm just saying that since just because one is right, doesn't mean one has to make all other ideas illegal.

Obs

7th November 2010, 18:21

So basically 'cause they think they're right and we're wrong, that would give them just as much right to oppress? Not much of a reason is it? No, because this has nothing to do with who we think is right or wrong, it has to do with who is actually right - us - and who is actually wrong - them. Sure, they could use the same line of reasoning, but they'd be, well, wrong.

I'm just saying that since just because one is right, doesn't mean one has to make all other ideas illegal.
You can't make counter-revolutionary ideas illegal (not with any degree of effectiveness, at any rate). But you can do things to keep them from spreading too much.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 18:23

No, because this has nothing to do with who we think is right or wrong, it has to do with who is actually right - us - and who is actually wrong - them.

You can't make counter-revolutionary ideas illegal (not with any degree of effectiveness, at any rate). But you can do things to keep them from spreading too much.

Then how about just proving that to the world, then one would never need to keep other ideas from spreading.

Obs

7th November 2010, 18:31

Then how about just proving that to the world, then one would never need to keep other ideas from spreading.
You go ahead and do that, meanwhile I'll be trying to make a revolution.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 18:34

You go ahead and do that, meanwhile I'll be trying to make a revolution.

As if both together would somehow be impossible.
Sure, you go ahead with your revolution, I'll with mine, and we'll see who'll go further.

4 Leaf Clover

7th November 2010, 19:11

I'm new to Rev Left and I must say I was quite surprised to see the amount of Stalinists on this site. Now I understand he furthered Leninism but I'm curious as to how you justify some of his atrocities.

1) The Soviet Famine 1932-1933.

2) The millions of Polish, Jewish, and Russian people he had murdered.

3) 1984 style cover ups and censorship

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilov%2C_Molotov%2C_Stalin%2C_with_Nikolai_Ye zhov.jpg

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg

Thanks in advance from a curious communist

I have a question for you as well

Why do any Marxist-Leninist have to justify any of the Stalin's actions to be what they are ? Marxism-Leninism is not about Stalin

And why would we have to completely support or not support someone ? We approve what is good , criticize what is bad , and take a general stance. Our general stance is that Stalin implemented Socialism in USSR well , and that was successful in stopping revisionist trends in Soviet Union. We criticize him for backing up in some situations of crucial importance etc. etc. Stalins so called "crimes" are done for political reasons , and therefore in eyes of leftists , they are less relevant , then crimes someone does out of National or Religious or any other prejudices. In politics there is always sides confronting each other to take political power. Stalin didn't want "throne wars" in Soviet Union , but to continue Lenin's road to develop USSR into true Socialist state , and sometimes , yes , he got rid of any opponents for his position violently. We are not uncritical of Stalin

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 19:16

I've also got a question,why is the OP calling themselves an Anarchist and then ending their post with from "a curious Communist."

Muzk

7th November 2010, 19:20

I've also got a question,why is the OP calling themselves an Anarchist and then ending their post with from "a curious Communist."

Anarchism originated in the first international and is a form of socialism, therefore they are communists.

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 19:28

^When have I ever called Anarchist's "bourgeoise scum or whatever"?That's wishful thinking on your part.You've edited your post since I originally posted so this make's no sense whatever.

Muzk

7th November 2010, 19:43

^When have I ever called Anarchist's "bourgeoise scum or whatever"?That's wishful thinking on your part.You've edited your post since I originally posted so this make's no sense whatever.
I just thought I shouldn't go down on your level and post strawmen :)

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 19:47

I just thought I shouldn't go down on your level and post strawmen :)
My level what are you talking about? Big set of balls you got there pal accusing me of something and then backing down from it and accusing me of being a strawman especially as I had'nt said anything of the sort.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 20:07

I have read my history. Maybe you should take your own advice, since you'd find that all class rule is built on oppression, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must be as well.
I don't understand your stance, are you saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is wrong and shouldn't happen, if so how are you a Marxist-Leninist? Or are you saying it is oppressive? Then why fight for it? At least Anarchists just eliminate all classes, to me it seems like you should either be an Anarchist if you think the DotP is so harmful or just be a right wing if you love oppression so much.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 20:12

No, because this has nothing to do with who we think is right or wrong, it has to do with who is actually right - us - and who is actually wrong - them. Sure, they could use the same line of reasoning, but they'd be, well, wrong.

You can't make counter-revolutionary ideas illegal (not with any degree of effectiveness, at any rate). But you can do things to keep them from spreading too much.
Horrible reasoning. You can't just argue after you kill millions, hypothetically speaking, and say well we were right but we don't need to prove it! You need to use logic and reasoning not 6 year old arguing tactics. Sure maybe stop some spreading of reactionary views through propaganda but not through censorship at all. Propaganda is fine as long as it is factual. But you can't justify inhumane tactics just because we think they're wrong.

Noinu

7th November 2010, 20:15

Horrible reasoning. You can't just argue after you kill millions, hypothetically speaking, and say well we were right but we don't need to prove it! You need to use logic and reasoning not 6 year old arguing tactics. Sure maybe stop some spread but not through censorship at all. Propaganda is fine as long as it is factual. But you can't justify inhumane tactics just because we think they're wrong.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you~~~
(Extremely glad someone was able to produce to words the things I was thinking).

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 20:29

No, it does not help the dictatorship of the proletariat if the censorship is directed also towards proponents of proletarians' power who were not exactly in agreement with the state apparatus.
Just one example: censorship of literature was something that cannot be defended on grounds of the DotP.
I said that as a hypothetical. I said might to just assume there is a chance but still defend against it anyway. Sorry if wording was confusing. I for one in no way condone censorship at all, it is a right not a privilege or a luxury.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 20:31

My level what are you talking about? Big set of balls you got there pal accusing me of something and then backing down from it and accusing me of being a strawman especially as I had'nt said anything of the sort.
Though I can not speak for Muzk and I disagree with his tactics but what he meant is that he could say something ridiculous because you did. Like saying Anarchists can't be Communists. He was trying to show how that was an insult, though I think there are more clear and easy ways of doing so.

RED DAVE

7th November 2010, 20:44

As opposed to Trotskyist's who just sit back and do nothing while telling other's what should be done in their ideal Utopian world.Which group or groups are you talking about?

What Trotskyists hopefully do is work for the revolution in as many countries as possible.

RED DAVE

Obs

7th November 2010, 20:52

I don't understand your stance, are you saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is wrong and shouldn't happen, if so how are you a Marxist-Leninist? Or are you saying it is oppressive? Then why fight for it? At least Anarchists just eliminate all classes, to me it seems like you should either be an Anarchist if you think the DotP is so harmful or just be a right wing if you love oppression so much.
I'm saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessarily oppressive against all classes other than the proletariat, and that that's okay.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 20:54

I'm saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessarily oppressive against all classes other than the proletariat, and that that's okay.
Why are there are other classes in the first place? The Bourgeoisie is not needed if the means of production are open to everyone. Plus we were talking about how the worker's were getting oppressed. When you censor a nation you censor everyone but the government.

Lee Van Cleef

7th November 2010, 21:00

Why are there are other classes in the first place? The Bourgeoisie is not needed if the means of production are open to everyone. Plus we were talking about how the worker's were getting oppressed. When you censor a nation you censor everyone but the government.
Just because the proletariat seizes power does not mean that other classes disappear over night. The entire purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to oppress the other classes and consolidate the proletariat as the ruling class. Once this happens, and socialism continues to develop, class distinctions will begin to disappear, and take the proletariat state with it.

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 21:01

Which group or groups are you talking about?

What Trotskyists hopefully do is work for the revolution in as many countries as possible.

RED DAVE
Yes hopefully work for the Revolution,but the Trotskyist's I've come across in the UK are to busy telling people what they think went wrong in previous Revolutions rather than concentrating on the next Revolution.Their complete ignorance of the Maoist's in India and Nepal is nothing but chauvinism.The SWP being the prime example of this.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 21:02

Yes hopefully work for the Revolution,but the Trotskyist's I've come across in the UK are to busy telling people what they think went wrong in previous Revolutions rather than concentrating on the next Revolution.Their complete ignorance of the Maoist's in India and Nepal is nothing but chauvinism.The SWP being the prime example of this.
Much better then coming up with excuses for the murders that Stalin helped to commit.

Volcanicity

7th November 2010, 21:06

Much better then coming up with excuses for the murders that Stalin helped to commit.
So you advocate sitting back and doing nothing?I've never excused the death's in stalin's time what I complain about are the staggering number of death's that are attributed to him.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 21:11

So you advocate sitting back and doing nothing?I've never excused the death's in stalin's time what I complain about are the staggering number of death's that are attributed to him.
Of course not, and I am not a Trotskyist at all either. All I am saying is that you should not think that everyone in a group does nothing. Anarchists spread propaganda and I'm sure Trotskyists and Marxists and Leninists etc. etc. do the same. Just don't stereotype is all, anyways this is straying from the main point..

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:24

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:27

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:29

The dictatorship of one class over another will always be oppressive. Let's not try to fool ourselves into thinking we can be "better" than the bourgeoisie by giving them a fair chance to spark a counter-revolution.

The whole point of a Socialist revolution is the benefit of the masses. The majority of people were not bourgeoisie, and no one needed suppression, although authoritarians seem to very much like the murder of even left revolutionaries. They just didn't want to give up their own domination.

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:32

[QUOTE=Muzk;1917367
BTW you won't get any serious historical accounts from stalinists, only apologist crap. "Oooh, that happened, let me find a way on how to interpret history the way it will fit my narrow world view..."[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's what I've come to realize :p

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:34

At least it's one group of workers oppressing other groups of workers. hey, that's better than capitalist oppression!

Maybe so but that is way fucking far away from being ideal

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:39

I have a question for you as well

Why do any Marxist-Leninist have to justify any of the Stalin's actions to be what they are ? Marxism-Leninism is not about Stalin

And why would we have to completely support or not support someone ? We approve what is good , criticize what is bad , and take a general stance. Our general stance is that Stalin implemented Socialism in USSR well , and that was successful in stopping revisionist trends in Soviet Union. We criticize him for backing up in some situations of crucial importance etc. etc. Stalins so called "crimes" are done for political reasons , and therefore in eyes of leftists , they are less relevant , then crimes someone does out of National or Religious or any other prejudices. In politics there is always sides confronting each other to take political power. Stalin didn't want "throne wars" in Soviet Union , but to continue Lenin's road to develop USSR into true Socialist state , and sometimes , yes , he got rid of any opponents for his position violently. We are not uncritical of Stalin

I know of several Marxist-Leninist's who oppose Stalin, I was just asking about people who don't

And there are people who are very uncritical of him, and if you're not the post wasn't directed towards you

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:40

I've also got a question,why is the OP calling themselves an Anarchist and then ending their post with from "a curious Communist."

Never heard of Anarchist Communism? I hate Capitalism as much as the next proletariat

4 Leaf Clover

7th November 2010, 22:42

Noinu

7th November 2010, 22:47

I call all of anti-revisionists not to fall into trap made by ultra-left , to be forced to defend Stalin to death. And to keep in mind that Stalins tactics don't have to be our tactics. We develop our own tactics and methods using revolutionary theory and that's what revolution is all about. Many before tried to convince us that if we do not explain some of the Stalin's actions , we cannot justify our ideology. I cannot discuss about Stalin with your black&white attitude , because you just close yourself in the tower of "innocence" , from where it is easy to attack

Now I got interested, if someone didn't have a black&white attitude toward Stalin, what would you say to them?

And I do have to agree with you that one should develop our own tactics. Sure revolutions were successes in many ways, but since communism didn't stick, there must be something that one should better in the whole system of approach to the issue (if that made any sense).

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 22:51

I call all of anti-revisionists not to fall into trap made by ultra-left , to be forced to defend Stalin to death. And to keep in mind that Stalins tactics don't have to be our tactics. We develop our own tactics and methods using revolutionary theory and that's what revolution is all about. Many before tried to convince us that if we do not explain some of the Stalin's actions , we cannot justify our ideology. I cannot discuss about Stalin with your black&white attitude , because you just close yourself in the tower of "innocence" , from where it is easy to attack

If you're talking to me I must disagree because my intentions were never to criticize. And any one who says to justify your ideology you must justify his actions is stupid.

WeAreReborn

7th November 2010, 22:52

I call all of anti-revisionists not to fall into trap made by ultra-left , to be forced to defend Stalin to death. And to keep in mind that Stalins tactics don't have to be our tactics. We develop our own tactics and methods using revolutionary theory and that's what revolution is all about. Many before tried to convince us that if we do not explain some of the Stalin's actions , we cannot justify our ideology. I cannot discuss about Stalin with your black&white attitude , because you just close yourself in the tower of "innocence" , from where it is easy to attack
What is so black and white that he was responsible for many people's death? The number is in question but the action isn't. He made the USSR a bureaucratic police state. Sure it was better then say America but I hardly consider it a left country.

Amphictyonis

7th November 2010, 22:54

Stalins major mistake-

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

Amado

7th November 2010, 23:01

Just because the proletariat seizes power does not mean that other classes disappear over night. The entire purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to oppress the other classes and consolidate the proletariat as the ruling class.This brings a question I have been looking for an opportunity to ask for some time, so sorry if I'm being inopportune: isn't the class of a person determined, very roughly speaking, by their relations of production? If so, if the means of production of a country aren't privately owned, then the bourgeoisie of a country has ceased to exist as bourgeoisie (at best they are would-be capitalists). So if there is no bourgeoisie, who exactly are we suppressing, and why is this suppression necessary (I mean how is a would-be capitalist going to start a business if the state won't enforce their property rights)?

The only possible ways for a capitalist class to crawl back into a socialist state would be 1) invade the socialist country or 2) infiltrate the Party with spies and traitorous elements and conduce a return to capitalism, like what eventually happened in the USSR and China, both tasks which are made that much easier with a highly centralized state (since if you take power from the top you take over everything).

Property Is Robbery

7th November 2010, 23:17

ArrowLance

7th November 2010, 23:24

This brings a question I have been looking for an opportunity to ask for some time, so sorry if I'm being inopportune: isn't the class of a person determined, very roughly speaking, by their relations of production? If so, if the means of production of a country aren't privately owned, then the bourgeoisie of a country has ceased to exist as bourgeoisie (at best they are would-be capitalists). So if there is no bourgeoisie, who exactly are we suppressing, and why is this suppression necessary (I mean how is a would-be capitalist going to start a business if the state won't enforce their property rights)?

The only possible ways for a capitalist class to crawl back into a socialist state would be 1) invade the socialist country or 2) infiltrate the Party with spies and traitorous elements and conduce a return to capitalism, like what eventually happened in the USSR and China, both tasks which are made that much easier with a highly centralized state (since if you take power from the top you take over everything).

There is no real problem with saying that the Soviet Union could and should have had more grass roots organization, but while both the means you mentioned for the recreation of the capitalist class were real threats actively fought against they were not the only threats.

The capitalists can also work from the bottom. Withholding grain and making people doubt or outright oppose the socialist government both present a direct threat to the state and increase the strength of outside influences threatening the state. Oppression practiced towards these 'grass-roots' capitalists, while they are not technically part of any bourgeoisie class, is still a protection of the working class and its interests.

4 Leaf Clover

7th November 2010, 23:30

@Noinu
I would tell him that Stalin was responsible for the number of deaths that i can prove. I can't and neither of you can prove more then the official statistic that stays in USSR archive that counts from 500.000 deaths from all causes. Now i see 800.000 number and if someone asked is Stalin is responsible , i would say yes. If someone asked were those people inocent i would say "i dont know". If someone asked me is it important for revolutionary movement , i would say no.

@WeAreReborn

Actually , i made mistake by answering the original question , since its a question for Stalinists. Im not a Stalinist, and you will actually find very little , if none people who define themselves this way at the forum. But about that , even if someone was a Stalinist , he is a Stalinist because he strictly supports "Stalins way" into Leninism , which is sectarian and dogmatic. Anyway no deaths describe any ideology

WeAreReborn

8th November 2010, 05:56

@Noinu
@WeAreReborn

Actually , i made mistake by answering the original question , since its a question for Stalinists. Im not a Stalinist, and you will actually find very little , if none people who define themselves this way at the forum. But about that , even if someone was a Stalinist , he is a Stalinist because he strictly supports "Stalins way" into Leninism , which is sectarian and dogmatic. Anyway no deaths describe any ideology
I understand but I am just being critical of a man who was bureaucratic and a murderer. Though I respect you for being a devil advocates of sorts, I still think that no good can come out of a Stalin based society. He worked for only himself and making the USSR a super power. He did not seem to uphold Marxism at all. Also a Marxist-Leninist approach should be strictly based upon the country and situations and not emulating Stalin or Lenin. With that said, I do not see the benefit in using Stalin's name to describe your tendency. I think Lenin will suffice as well as the fact that you can convince many more people as Lenin was not attributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That is how I feel on it anyways.

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 06:22

All class societies are dictatorships. a communist society is classless therefore inherently unoppressive. until then one class dominates another.

a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is like western society. but it can also come in the form of undemocratic bourgeois dictatorship like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

Socialist society is supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, a society where in the working class dominates. this is not reserved to a territorial boundary, as it aims to be global, but revolutions dont all happen at once everywhere. ultimately, socialism is to be a working class world. the last vestiges of bourgeois rule under attack.

So why where all revolutions have happened, was there a strong centralized state?

Because so long as there is an international and imperialist bourgeoisie, and a pro-imperialist national bourgeoisie, the state must exist to defend the revolution, further the revolution, and combat the forces of counter revolution and imperialism.

bourgeois society oppresses the proletariat.
proletarian society, or proletarian society what is being built, dominates the bourgeoisie.

did it go as planned in the Soviet Union? China? the DRPK? Cuba? not exactly, no. How about in non Marxist Leninist societies? no. revolution is not perfect. it is a constant fight. Cuba and the DPRK are especially fighting. whereas you see vietnam doing well.... shit..
And china, well, after mao and the 'gang of four' were done away with they decided on a different direction of socialist development.

anyways...

stalinism is not an actual theory. stalinism is pretty much just a defense of the soviet union during his leadership.

also, what about the 3 million due to the soviet intervention?
nearly 1,000,000,000 in india under british rule?
millions in colonized china?
200+ mil natives in north and south america?
6-8 mil in Nazi Germany?
500,000 in US sanctioned Iraq?
there are bigger fish to fry if all you care about is deaths during a period of time.

WeAreReborn

8th November 2010, 06:30

also, what about the 3 million due to the soviet intervention?
nearly 1,000,000,000 in india under british rule?
millions in colonized china?
200+ mil natives in north and south america?
6-8 mil in Nazi Germany?
500,000 in US sanctioned Iraq?
there are bigger fish to fry if all you care about is deaths during a period of time.
You are absolutely right, but this is a forum about the left so we are required to bicker! Anyways, the reason that we are pointing it out is because people are defending the murders. If you defended the Iraq war or the Nazis, and just for clarification the Nazis exterminated more like 18 million counting all the homosexuals, disabled, Communists, political prisoners, gypsies etc, they would be banned or shot down. There definitely are differences, I will not deny that. But I cannot see how one can justify such actions.

Property Is Robbery

8th November 2010, 06:35

Because so long as there is an international and imperialist bourgeoisie, and a pro-imperialist national bourgeoisie, the state must exist to defend the revolution, further the revolution, and combat the forces of counter revolution and imperialism.

...

also, what about the 3 million due to the soviet intervention?
nearly 1,000,000,000 in india under british rule?
millions in colonized china?
200+ mil natives in north and south america?
6-8 mil in Nazi Germany?
500,000 in US sanctioned Iraq?
there are bigger fish to fry if all you care about is deaths during a period of time.

I don't think the state is necessary to defend the revolution. A collective people's army would work just as well.

Of course all those incidents were horrific in my mind, no matter what intentions the murderers had.

btw I love your user name

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 06:56

You are absolutely right, but this is a forum about the left so we are required to bicker! Anyways, the reason that we are pointing it out is because people are defending the murders. If you defended the Iraq war or the Nazis, and just for clarification the Nazis exterminated more like 18 million counting all the homosexuals, disabled, Communists, political prisoners, gypsies etc, they would be banned or shot down. There definitely are differences, I will not deny that. But I cannot see how one can justify such actions.

i didnt intend to equate defending the soviet union with defending Nazism :lol:

I don't think the state is necessary to defend the revolution. A collective people's army would work just as well.

Of course all those incidents were horrific in my mind, no matter what intentions the murderers had.

btw I love your user name

first off, thanks :D

now to the discussion...

for one, the use of 'murderer' or 'evil' to describe any leftist leader is asinine.

as for the use of the state. a "collective peoples army" is still an army. and in an army you have a hierarchy, and a division of labor. without that you have a "mob." also, a military is an organ of state. it is a coercive force to defend some sort of institution. and along with the army existing, there is probably some body regulating it. now there is government. since there are other tasks at hand, the state grows a bit.

so long as there is class society, the state is a reality. we cannot will away the state and all coercive forces. its kind of like "fighting fire with fire."

Property Is Robbery

8th November 2010, 07:16

So any left leader what so ever is instantly not evil? I never used that word but come on now. Look at Obama he's a "left" leader and he's pretty damn evil

fine then a collective mob will do :p

I think KotH is underrated

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 07:25

evil is subjective. its as if they have some master scheme they have been plotting about in a basement or something.

obama is not evil.
hell, hitler wasnt evil. he was a tool for industrialists and financiers to maintain capitalist control when everything went south.

ill reserve the term evil for the supernatural.

and ok, well, mob it is then.

and yeah KotH is great.

NecroCommie

8th November 2010, 07:29

I'll have to go with the same line than I did in the "how do leninists justify the persecution of anarchists"-thread.

Yes, Stalin did some things that should not have been done, no we should not copy everything. Nor do any Stalinists want to. "Stalin kiddies" are a phenomenon by themselves, but "Stalinist" seems to be just a term to describe a person who refuses to condemn everything he did just because it includes some bad things also.

So, while I don't even attempt to "justify" something someone did over fifty years ago, I don't see why I should. After all I have never claimed we should re-create soviet union as it was.

Also, it's amazing how Stalin is viewed as something worse than any other statesman. He was not. Many western statesmen have committed horrors unimaginable and we can still talk about them without excess emotion and troll-like flaming. For example, I am sure we all agree that for whatever reasons Lincoln banned slavery it was a good thing, despite the fact that he was a supporter and a statesman of a parliamentarist hellhole.

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 07:32

Property Is Robbery

8th November 2010, 07:34

Property Is Robbery

8th November 2010, 07:35

Lincoln didnt even liberate slaves. he only made it illegal to own slaves in the rebel territories. you know, where the north had no control.

and maintained slavery in the 4 slave holding border states that stayed with the north.

True and even after the emancipation proclamation there were still slaves for 15+ years. Lincoln was a two faced liar like every other politician

NecroCommie

8th November 2010, 07:35

Lincoln didnt even liberate slaves. he only made it illegal to own slaves in the rebel territories. you know, where the north had no control.

and maintained slavery in the 4 slave holding border states that stayed with the north.
Can't say that I knew that, so I guess thanks are in order. ;) If you have any articles on the subject please link.

But still, the point stands. Supporters of bad things can simultaneously be supporters of good things.

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 07:39

Can't say that I knew that, so I guess thanks are in order. ;) If you have any articles on the subject please link.

But still, the point stands. Supporters of bad things can simultaneously be supporters of good things.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnandproclamation.htm

fourth paragraph

On January 1, 1863, the definitive proclamation was issued, its chief provision being that in regions then designated as "in rebellion" (with certain notable exceptions) all slaves were declared free. So famous has this proclamation become, and so encrusted with tradition, that a correct historical conception of its actual effect is rarely found in the voluminous literature which the subject has evoked. The stereotyped picture of the emancipator suddenly striking the shackles from millions of slaves by a stroke of the presidential pen is altogether inaccurate. On this point one should carefully note the exceptions in the proclamation itself. The whole state of Tennessee was omitted; none of the Union slave states was included; and there were important exceptions as to portions of Virginia and Louisiana, those being the portions within Union military lines. In fact freedom was decreed only in regions then under Confederate control. "The President has purposely made the proclamation inoperative [declared the N. Y. World] in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous." As to the effect of the proclamation the World declared:

WeAreReborn

8th November 2010, 07:48

i didnt intend to equate defending the soviet union with defending Nazism :lol:

first off, thanks :D

now to the discussion...

for one, the use of 'murderer' or 'evil' to describe any leftist leader is asinine.

as for the use of the state. a "collective peoples army" is still an army. and in an army you have a hierarchy, and a division of labor. without that you have a "mob." also, a military is an organ of state. it is a coercive force to defend some sort of institution. and along with the army existing, there is probably some body regulating it. now there is government. since there are other tasks at hand, the state grows a bit.

so long as there is class society, the state is a reality. we cannot will away the state and all coercive forces. its kind of like "fighting fire with fire."
I did not mean to imply you were defending Nazism I just meant that killing is killing, and chances are it is my fault for poor wording. Anyways here is a quote from Durruti that relates to what you are saying about the army issue.
"I have been an Anarchist all my life. I hope I have remained one. I should consider it very sad indeed, had I to turn into a general and rule the men with a military rod. They have come to me voluntarily, they are ready to stake their lives in our antifascist fight. I believe, as I always have, in freedom. The freedom which rests on the sense of responsibility. I consider discipline indispensable, but it must be inner discipline, motivated by a common purpose and a strong feeling of comradeship."
So it can be voluntary and not nearly as hierarchical. For example if it is voluntary they can leave whenever, and they don't HAVE to follow orders they just know if you don't you probably will die or get dropped from the cause. Therefore it is purely voluntary and gives you choice.

Property Is Robbery

8th November 2010, 07:54

I did not mean to imply you were defending Nazism I just meant that killing is killing, and chances are it is my fault for poor wording. Anyways here is a quote from Durruti that relates to what you are saying about the army issue.
"I have been an Anarchist all my life. I hope I have remained one. I should consider it very sad indeed, had I to turn into a general and rule the men with a military rod. They have come to me voluntarily, they are ready to stake their lives in our antifascist fight. I believe, as I always have, in freedom. The freedom which rests on the sense of responsibility. I consider discipline indispensable, but it must be inner discipline, motivated by a common purpose and a strong feeling of comradeship."
So it can be voluntary and not nearly as hierarchical. For example if it is voluntary they can leave whenever, and they don't HAVE to follow orders they just know if you don't you probably will die or get dropped from the cause. Therefore it is purely voluntary and gives you choice.

Thanks, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Noinu

8th November 2010, 12:23

@Noinu
I would tell him that Stalin was responsible for the number of deaths that i can prove. I can't and neither of you can prove more then the official statistic that stays in USSR archive that counts from 500.000 deaths from all causes. Now i see 800.000 number and if someone asked is Stalin is responsible , i would say yes. If someone asked were those people inocent i would say "i dont know". If someone asked me is it important for revolutionary movement , i would say no.

Alright, so let's start with this.
None of us (us=humans) can ever know how many it actually was. Reason: We weren't there. Official statistics, sure, usually, are more reliable than just random numbers produced in someone's head, but they're still not reliable enough to base any sort of belief in them.

Of course one can't know if those people we're innocent or not, again, we weren't there. But is there even any sort of proof that they were killed in self-defense? No. Again not. And we can never know, except if someone finally builds that time machine.....

Somewhat it is important, again somewhat, since I do believe it shouldn't, but the problem is that if enough people think it's a good idea to start killing off people who might be a threat, it's going to be a problem. Never mind the past.

4 Leaf Clover

8th November 2010, 12:50

I still think that no good can come out of a Stalin based society. He worked for only himself and making the USSR a super power. He did not seem to uphold Marxism at all.

What makes you think that ?

You can find a lot of thoughts and contributions by Stalin on Marxism , Socialism and Left generally here http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/decades-index.htm

again , you make an inquiry for all Marxist-Leninist and you will see that very few , if none declare themselves as Stalinists

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 15:25

I had actually read/heard(i dont remember) somewhere that Durruti ended up supporting some sort of state. not a full blown one like the USSR or anything. if anyone has any sources that would be great.

anyways...

Durruti was a great revolutionary. The freedom he is talking about is more about liberty. the individuals right to choose. Freedom is as subjective as evil.

But i know what freedom you are talking about.

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 16:13

All class societies are dictatorships.
I understand what you mean and I agree with it, but I have a problem with your wording here.
I don't think that it is appropriate, if communists wish to undertake u successful mission of promoting a revolutionary transformation of society, to use the term "dictatorship".
Historically speaking, the connotations which this term bears have changed from the time when "dictatorship of the proletariat", as a political term, had been invented. So we could end up with an oxymoron like "democratic dictatorship", and that is a term which better encapsulates the political rule of the proletariat and other pro-revolutionary classes (or parts/specific groups within this classes). In my opinion, this "dictatorship" would necessarily surpass liberal democracy in its mechanisms and institutions of democratic decision making, which take root at the "lowest" levels - the levels of factory/workplace assemblies. Of course, as history has shown, this holds true at least for the beginning of the period of transition, but it is not necessarily so as time goes by, especially if the revolution remains isolated to a single country, or even to a "bloc" of countries.
DotP, as a term, also goes against the grain of "economic democracy", which is another way of describing a possible outcome of proletarians' revolution.

But the term "democratic dictatorship" it is not logically sound, since there are new layers of connotations with respect to the term "dictatorship".
So, it seems to me that maybe we ought to drop the term ("dictatorship") when it comes to debates on the possible period of transition, following a seizure of the means of production undertaken by the whole of proletariat as a class.

Sorry if this seems nitpicking, but I still think that it's important to work things out before a successful "propaganda" and education campaign may commence.

Rusty Shackleford

8th November 2010, 16:38

well i see what you are getting at.

the dictatorship i not in how the political system works, but which class the political system(however it works) works for.

a socialist society can have varying degrees of workers democracy. depending on the theory that is driving socialist construction in that society.

i agree though the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is something that takes a bit of learning before it can be understood. Glenn Beck got his hands on the phrase and is now saying anarchists and communist are trying to make 1 person dictatorships....

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 17:00

well i see what you are getting at.

the dictatorship i not in how the political system works, but which class the political system(however it works) works for. I perfectly understand what exactly does the term explain. It is a matter of education propaganda performance that I'm getting at. For this purpose, I think we ought to drop the term when it comes not to an internal debate among communists, but rather when we reach out to other proletarians and society at large.

a socialist society can have varying degrees of workers democracy. depending on the theory that is driving socialist construction in that society.
If you mean, by "socialist society", a global network of communities (which implies a successful global revolution) which have eliminated commodity production, capitalist social relations and political rule specific for class societies - then I do not agree. The highest degree of proletarian democracy is not merely a result, but a basic precondition of this historical development.

On the other hand, if you support the idea of achieved socialism in one country or in a " socialist bloc", then you are right, in theory, a "socialist" society can indeed have varying degrees of proletarian democracy.

i agree though the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is something that takes a bit of learning before it can be understood. Glenn Beck got his hands on the phrase and is now saying anarchists and communist are trying to make 1 person dictatorships....
I don't see why we, as communsits, shouldn't play the same game. Reinvent the term, and if a term is proven to be beyond the point of "taking back" unto our movement, come up with a different one, potentially one that would not sound like a political nightmare to an average individual who knows almost nothing about labour history and practice of class struggle, and communist theory.

Kiev Communard

8th November 2010, 17:27

While the wording of the notion of "dictatorship of proletariat" is discredited, I see no reason why the idea of transitory proletarian polity should be opposed (of course, unless one is anarchist). Even if we conceive the transitory period as the time when the ideal of decentralized equalitarian communities (polises) have already been realized, it is still self-evident that, unless such society has become a norm around the globe and the capitalist world-system itself eliminated, some state-like forms of organization of defense and internal security should still be necessary, and the example of Makhnovists and CNT in Spain showed that, despite being anarchists, they fully understood their necessities in the circumstances these movements faced.

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 17:31

4 Leaf Clover

8th November 2010, 19:41

So, it seems to me that maybe we ought to drop the term ("dictatorship") when it comes to debates on the possible period of transition, following a seizure of the means of production undertaken by the whole of proletariat as a class.

Sorry if this seems nitpicking, but I still think that it's important to work things out before a successful "propaganda" and education campaign may commence.

I thought you just deny transition as "vanguardism"

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 19:53

I thought you just deny transition as "vanguardism"

Well, you thought wrongly, as usual.
The period of transition, as a reasonable projection of the most broadly conceived political and social action by the working class, which could work against the existing class opposition, has nothing to do, necessarily, with the organizational platform of a revolutionary organization/organizations.

But if you wanna know, yeah, I deny the idea of a command economy, which necessitates separation between the nascent institutions of political power of the proletariat as a whole (that is: workplace assemblies/councils) and the state institutions run by the Party (who could ban other workers' organizations and factions within it - a historically validated argument).

4 Leaf Clover

8th November 2010, 20:33

But if you wanna know, yeah, I deny the idea of a command economy, which necessitates separation between the nascent institutions of political power of the proletariat as a whole and the state institutions run by the Party

If you deny the idea of command economy , then you deny the idea of socialism and communism as well. What is revolution about , then taking command of economy. Workers need to get themselves political power in order to make classless society. Call it a bald conclusion , but the conclusion i get is , all that proletariat needs to do is overthrow capitalist government , and then lay back. How are production forces supposed to connect and coexist.

And how does command economy necessitates separation between workers and their political bodies

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 20:54

Call it a bald conclusion...Oh, it is a bald conclusion all right. Almost every one of yours is.

4 Leaf Clover

8th November 2010, 21:05

Oh, it is a bald conclusion all right. Almost every one of yours is.

And there we get too much personal , and i still got no explanation how is command economy supposed to make distance between workers bodies and their own political vanguard

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 21:22

And there we get too much personal , and i still got no explanation how is command economy supposed to make distance between workers bodies and their own political vanguardNo, not really personal, but I had to exploit your mistake :p

"Command" here implies that, historically, it were not the workers themselves, organized in Soviets and unions, democratically making decision regarding the plan for production. The centralized state institutions, that is - bureaucrats - occupied a great portion of those positions of power. Workplace assemblies played no effective role in planning. I don't think that it is so hard to understand that there was separation between workers' democratic institutions and the agencies, bureaus and institutions of the State.

Proletarian democracy does not and can not rest upon effective command from top to bottom. It is dependant on the broadest participation of workers within the decision making process. This logically follows from what Marx termed "the emancipation of the working class" which "must be the act of the working class itself", and not of a specific section of the class or any other class.

4 Leaf Clover

8th November 2010, 21:36

No, not really personal, but I had to exploit your mistake :p

"Command" here implies that, historically, it were not the workers themselves, organized in Soviets and unions, democratically making decision regarding the plan for production. The centralized state institutions, that is - bureaucrats - occupied a great portion of those positions of power. Workplace assemblies played no effective role in planning. I don't think that it is so hard to understand that there was separation between workers' democratic institutions and the agencies, bureaus and institutions of the State.

Proletarian democracy does not and can not rest upon effective command from top to bottom. It is dependant on the broadest participation of workers within the decision making process. This logically follows from what Marx termed "the emancipation of the working class" which "must be the act of the working class itself", and not of a specific section of the class or any other class.

Yes but since the working class captures the political power , it emancipating itself is obvious. I , as marxist-leninist also support democracy both in a work-place decision making , and both in a Party that is a political body , but if all production forces were to start producing autonomously immediately after the fall of bourgeoisie government , then you wouldn't get communism , but Proudhonism. How are relations between production and consuming supposed to get sorted out.

durhamleft

8th November 2010, 21:45

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 22:11

Yes but since the working class captures the political power , it emancipating itself is obvious. I , as marxist-leninist also support democracy both in a work-place decision making , and both in a Party that is a political body , but if all production forces were to start producing autonomously immediately after the fall of bourgeoisie government , then you wouldn't get communism , but Proudhonism. How are relations between production and consuming supposed to get sorted out.

This doesn't make any sense.
Proudhon's theories have effectively been market socialist in that he advocated competition of worker cooperatives on the market. From what I've said it does not, by all means, follow that I advocate market socialism, although it is a legitimate model for a society in transition, but the goal remains the same (unlike some of Proudhonists who view this as an elimination of class society; it is not): a global network of classless, stateless societies.

But the issue with market socialism isn't about political rule within the period of transition, but rather about conditions necessary for the elimination of market exchange and the generalized commodity production (GCP was also a characteristic of the former socialist bloc; or in other words, technically, the bloc also employed the market in that the workers were still producing commodities - products which are meant for sale; it is irrelevant if the State controls the market if the economic, social and political conditions necessitate such a production, and consequently, market exchange).

Furthermore, the conquest of political power by the Party by no means equates with proletarians' emancipation, which can only be accomplished once the global revolution eradicates any traces of the existence of classes, including the bureaucratic class/section of the working class.

4 Leaf Clover

8th November 2010, 22:35

But the issue with market socialism isn't about political rule within the period of transition, but rather about conditions necessary for the elimination of market exchange and the generalized commodity production (GCP was also a characteristic of the former socialist bloc; or in other words, technically, the bloc also employed the market in that the workers were still producing commodities - products which are meant for sale; it is irrelevant if the State controls the market if the economic, social and political conditions necessitate such a production, and consequently, market exchange).
The commodities were meant to bring profit only by exporting them , to capitalist countries. Domestic market for those brought no real income. There was a watch factory in DDR , in which was a list for waiting for DDR citizens, because it was important to export models outside of Eastern bloc , to get foreign currency , and the real income. Inability of this factory to satisfy domestic requests is another story

Furthermore, the conquest of political power by the Party by no means equates with proletarians' emancipation, which can only be accomplished once the global revolution eradicates any traces of the existence of classes, including the bureaucratic class/section of the working class.

That "emancipation" quote is interpreted in thousand ways. If you read the rest of that text and i bet you did , you would notice that he was countering elitist practice and prejudice that workers are generaly uneducated and incapable of leading such a movement. He opposed working class being lead by bunch of intellectual elite , and asked for revolutionary theory to be available. Hence the quote.

Thirsty Crow

8th November 2010, 22:47

The commodities were meant to bring profit only by exporting them , to capitalist countries. Domestic market for those brought no real income. There was a watch factory in DDR , in which was a list for waiting for DDR citizens, because it was important to export models outside of Eastern bloc , to get foreign currency , and the real income. Inability of this factory to satisfy domestic requests is another storyCommodity production. I see we are in agreement.
But another question is why was a supposedly socialist bloc forced to organize production in this way. I'm not implying, far from it, that it was some kind of a sinister plot to enslave the workers or anything like it.
But facts are facts.

That "emancipation" quote is interpreted in thousand ways. If you read the rest of that text and i bet you did , you would notice that he was countering elitist practice and prejudice that workers are generaly uneducated and incapable of leading such a movement. He opposed working class being lead by bunch of intellectual elite , and asked for revolutionary theory to be available. Hence the quote.
Yes, I have read it, and yes I could agree with your interpretation.
Which is another argument in favour of full prole democracy as opossed to command economy since it leaves no room for an "educated elite" to take hold of the means of decision making, so to speak.

Rusty Shackleford

9th November 2010, 01:12

I perfectly understand what exactly does the term explain. It is a matter of education propaganda performance that I'm getting at. For this purpose, I think we ought to drop the term when it comes not to an internal debate among communists, but rather when we reach out to other proletarians and society at large.
aye, that is basically how i use it :D

If you mean, by "socialist society", a global network of communities (which implies a successful global revolution) which have eliminated commodity production, capitalist social relations and political rule specific for class societies - then I do not agree. The highest degree of proletarian democracy is not merely a result, but a basic precondition of this historical development.
well, why would we stop producing commodities? what will we eat, wear, or entertain ourselves with? unless im misunderstanding this, commodities are basically any good with a use and take human labor time to produce.

capitalist relations will be demolished.

and socialism is basically the time in history where the working class does have state rule. socialism still exists in the realm of class.

On the other hand, if you support the idea of achieved socialism in one country or in a " socialist bloc", then you are right, in theory, a "socialist" society can indeed have varying degrees of proletarian democracy.

I support the construction of socialism. Just because it happens to not happen around the world at the same time does not mean i wont fight for it.

"socialism in one country" is not the end game. it was just a realization that the Soviet Union had to build socialism on their own. Revolutions in the rest of Europe and the world did not materialize. it was the reality of the day.

revolutions happen unevenly across the world. so, therefore, some countries will end up being surrounded by imperialist and comprador states and will be forced to build "socialism in one country" for a while. either until counterrevolution wins or the rest of the world follows suit in revolution. it is a period of construction.

I don't see why we, as communsits, shouldn't play the same game. Reinvent the term, and if a term is proven to be beyond the point of "taking back" unto our movement, come up with a different one, potentially one that would not sound like a political nightmare to an average individual who knows almost nothing about labour history and practice of class struggle, and communist theory.
Working class rule. Workers' power.

Thirsty Crow

9th November 2010, 02:18

well, why would we stop producing commodities? what will we eat, wear, or entertain ourselves with? unless im misunderstanding this, commodities are basically any good with a use and take human labor time to produce.

No, you are in fact referring to semething we may call just "products" or "goods".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism)

Rusty Shackleford

9th November 2010, 02:20

No, you are in fact referring to semething we may call just "products" or "goods".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_%28Marxism%29)

oooh. ok so these goods have to be put in a market.

thanks haha.

ArrowLance

9th November 2010, 02:27

what about the liquidisation as the kulak as a class and the dekulakisation that followed?

The kulak was a counter-revolutionary force, they actively fought grain requisitions and collective farming. They were loyal to market forces and would on some occasions destroy their product rather than provide them to the state. The dekulakisation was difficult as although it was not incredibly difficult to find many kulaks and remove them, their ideas penetrated the peasant class further than to just those with higher material conditions. The result was excessive deportations which affected the peasant class as a whole.

As part of the process of collectivization it isn't hard to imagine how dekulakisation effected the famines and shortages experienced in agriculture, but, even with this set back, it was a step forward into socialist economics and industrialized agriculture.

To be much shorter, the event can be seen as a part of the process of socialist (soviet) progress in agriculture although it had some immediate setbacks.

WeAreReborn

9th November 2010, 02:33

Whoever said anything about opposing the idea of a transitional proletarian polity?
Maybe you're just providing a cautious advice in advance, but I doubt that even the anarchists would oppose the idea. And I don't think that anyone in this thread has been vocal concerning this opposition.
As an Anarchist I can only speak for myself, but I do agree where some organization is needed to transition initially, but it must be well regulated and ensure that it cannot be abused. But it would not be like a role of a leader, just some oversight to help get resources and the army in good working care. I just wanted to clarify.

4 Leaf Clover

9th November 2010, 19:58

Commodity production. I see we are in agreement.
But another question is why was a supposedly socialist bloc forced to organize production in this way. I'm not implying, far from it, that it was some kind of a sinister plot to enslave the workers or anything like it.
But facts are facts.

I agree there were differencies between different socialist countries. But generally commodity production is not something that is relevant for citizens of a Socialist country , until it becomes a "luxury". Yes , i can agree , that some of the bureaucratic elite that had commodities that weren't available to random peasants or workers, but these things were minor compared to differences we have today. And that as well is result of too much compromising. Anyone who wants to live at the back of workers should hang the rope and all well all good. About commodities and their value in socialsit state , in North Korea for example, all citizens get flats that are already set-up , with all those "commodities" they need , TV , fridge , Oven , all the necessary toilet and kitchen parts , you know what i mean. Anyway , whatever way you go , these commodities are not a luxury for working class.

Yes, I have read it, and yes I could agree with your interpretation.
Which is another argument in favour of full prole democracy as opossed to command economy since it leaves no room for an "educated elite" to take hold of the means of decision making, so to speak.

why would workers be an "educated elite". Leading political body is supposed to be worker ruled. As much as it is supposed to preserve the rule of the working class , and bring econimical changes by force. After all , you agreed that it is a transition phase

Thirsty Crow

9th November 2010, 20:36

I agree there were differencies between different socialist countries. But generally commodity production is not something that is relevant for citizens of a Socialist country , until it becomes a "luxury".

You don't get it, do you. I'm not talking about the consumption patterns of high ranking bureaucrats.
Generalized commodity production means that the dominant model of production takes the form of the commodity. This is one of the defining characteristics of the capitalist mode of production. The production of USSR also followed this model. Therefore, we can only speak of the period of transition (dictatorship of the proletariat, "revolutionary government"), and not of achieved socialism since this kind of production implies market exchange.

why would workers be an "educated elite". The goal is to abolish the social class of the educated elite. In other words, the goal is to abolish the division of labour in order that every man and woman may, if they wish, acquire skills and knowledge necessary for both manual and intellectual labour. Again, full proletarian democracy is a prerequisite of such a transformation of society, since it is reasonable to suppose that the before mentioned elite, which has at its disposal institutions of its reproduction as a separate class, will not initiate the process of its own abolition as a class.

4 Leaf Clover

9th November 2010, 21:02

and not of achieved socialism since this kind of production implies market exchange, and market exchange.
Which is exactely why socialist block , tightly connected actually existed. And that is why Yugoslavia failed economically , because inside autonomous market was made. I again must inform you , that in soviet union , workers pretty much decided about the funds of their factory. Which is why they were often granted bonuses , and the actual profit was ultimately spent on things like , making shows , sport events , trip to somewhere etc. Some use before but i don't know which one , posted a story about some British lad that was sent to Russia to examine factories and small enterprises etc. and to actually teach managers how to make profit in western way. So he opened files and tried to find how much profit did they make so far , how much did they spend , earn etc.. And he was stunned to see that none of the enterprises he visited made absolutely any profit. So he questioned how did those enterprises actually survive. He was then explained. There was profit , but workers always decided to make some activity and entertainment with it, rather then invest it.

The goal is to abolish the social class of the educated elite. In other words, the goal is to abolish the division of labour in order that every man and woman may, if they wish, acquire skills and knowledge necessary for both manual and intellectual labour. Again, full proletarian democracy is a prerequisite of such a transformation of society, since it is reasonable to suppose that the before mentioned elite, which has at its disposal institutions of its reproduction as a separate class, will not initiate the process of its own abolishment as a class.

No one says any worker , milkman , carpenter or similar cannot be involved in his own political destiny. After all , Lenin said "a cook should be able to run a country" , which implies that socialism must be a system in which is self-governed , in which power goes from bottom to top as well as the other way round. Which means that decision-making is always supposed to be pushed to minimum. But however , me and you don't seem to agree on understanding "democracy". Economy must be directed , but not supervised. What is democracy then having a choice in your workplace , in your home , in your neighborhood.

CAleftist

10th November 2010, 04:43

The reason people defend Stalin at all is because he is vilified for things which he did not necessarily do (like the famine), and other actions which he was justified in doing (like going after the counter-revolutionaries).

The fact is, the Revolution was under attack by many forces and groups, in the Soviet Union and from Germany and the West. There were (and are) many interests who had/have a stake in seeing history being unkind to Communism, and so they spread lies and half-truths about Stalin or the Soviet Union so as to make themselves look good, and the Commies bad.

If you want to attack Stalin, do it in an objective way without an agenda.