Problems of "Anti-Revisionism"(Maoist, Hoxhaist, Pan-Socialist e.g CPGB-ML)

[bailey_187]

Many 'anti-revisionists' claim Krushchev derailed the USSR. Putting aside Krushcehv's other poor policies, what policies could have been pursuid if "genuine Marxist-Leninist" leadership remained?

The USSR in the Stalin years saw massive economic growth, while the post-Stalin years saw a gradual decline in growth rates. This is often blamed on 'Revisionism' etc, but to have high growth rates isnt hard to acheive under a planned economy when you are producing capital goods e.g. factories, machines.

I have seen economic problems blamed on Krushchev etc's decision to move to consumer goods production, away from capital goods production. Do 'Anti-Revisionists' just think the USSR should have continued to favour capital over consumer goods? How else are living standards to be raised for the Soviet population though?

What economic policies should have been pursued? Surely just the constant creation of more factories and machines at the expense of goods for workers could no continue forever

Krushchev is criticised for his "liberalisation", with reducing the GULAGs numbers, but the numbers in the GULAG, following the deaths of the war and birth rate disruption would have led to a demographic crisis surely?

Krushchev is also criticised for end the DOP by proclaiming the "State of the People" etc. But after the October Revolution, the ministers in the government were called Peoples Commisars, not Proletarian Commisars or whatever. So if we take the class character of a state on pure names, the USSR was never socialist (i think it was).

If im not getting something explain, but these are the things in anti-revisionism that dont make sense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The key is the end of socialist primitive accumulation (the policy of practically the whole Stalin era) between the last years of Stalin (actually) and the mid 1950s. It was a process, not mere "revisionism," that culminated in minimum wage laws (wages were depressed by more than half in the late 20s, and savings were wiped out through currency revaluations) and social housing projects based on prefab construction (not 19th-century construction methods). Khrushchev should be commended for starting to implement Stalin's confession in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR regarding kolkhozy vs. sovkhozy.

On the level of salad dressings, if Khrushchev hadn't made the Secret Speech and merely let the Stalin cult die down slowly, less fuss would have been made about his other stuff.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Many 'anti-revisionists' claim Krushchev derailed the USSR. Putting aside Krushcehv's other poor policies, what policies could have been pursuid if "genuine Marxist-Leninist" leadership remained?

The USSR in the Stalin years saw massive economic growth, while the post-Stalin years saw a gradual decline in growth rates. This is often blamed on 'Revisionism' etc, but to have high growth rates isnt hard to acheive under a planned economy when you are producing capital goods e.g. factories, machines.

I have seen economic problems blamed on Krushchev etc's decision to move to consumer goods production, away from capital goods production. Do 'Anti-Revisionists' just think the USSR should have continued to favour capital over consumer goods? How else are living standards to be raised for the Soviet population though?

What economic policies should have been pursued? Surely just the constant creation of more factories and machines at the expense of goods for workers could no continue forever

Krushchev is criticised for his "liberalisation", with reducing the GULAGs numbers, but the numbers in the GULAG, following the deaths of the war and birth rate disruption would have led to a demographic crisis surely?

Krushchev is also criticised for end the DOP by proclaiming the "State of the People" etc. But after the October Revolution, the ministers in the government were called Peoples Commisars, not Proletarian Commisars or whatever. So if we take the class character of a state on pure names, the USSR was never socialist (i think it was).

If im not getting something explain, but these are the things in anti-revisionism that dont make sense.

Production and processing of raw material is not accidentally the primate in Socialism. Its secures independence , self-reliance and resource basis for a society of a ruling working class. No one says there is no space for "consumer" goods , but as long as they are made to satisfy needs , not to compete in world-wide market. Such necessities would be produced in a way that wouldn't make even 15% of whole production. Socialist bloc is forced to trade , but in a way that foreign market doesn't interfere with domestic economy , and in a way that goods traded are those needed for maintenance of worker controlled facilities


Krushchev is criticised for his "liberalisation", with reducing the GULAGs numbers, but the numbers in the GULAG, following the deaths of the war and birth rate disruption would have led to a demographic crisis surely?

Actually , questionable thing is how many people actually were imprisoned and died in Gulags , and how much it made impact to demographics

[bailey_187]

Its secures independence , self-reliance and resource basis for a society of a ruling working class.

Since when was socialism about "self-reliance"?


Such necessities would be produced in a way that wouldn't make even 15% of whole production.

How can an economy continue to use 85% of its productive potential to produce capital goods forever? This makes no sense.

Stalin (imo, correctly) argued for the creation of an industrial base for socialism, to expand the basic productive forces. However the creation of this is not the realisation of socialism itself. A revolution in Germany (assuming Germany's economy was not destroyed in it) would not require the expansion of Germans industry by much, however Russias did.

Stalin was succesful with his policies of building soviet industry. However any sane person must realise that the continual expansion of production using 85% of economies resources can not continue forever.

What must happen is that the industry created is utilised to provide an abundance of consumer goods. Or else what is the point? "Each according to his needs in steel and pig iron" isnt exactly the aspirations of workers.

This is the issue Kruschev tried to address. Stalin (not him personally, but u kno what i mean) had created an industrial base, but living standards still remained low with workers and peasents lacking access to consumer goods. Krushchev tried to reshape the economy to produce consumer goods more efficently. However the reshaping was a failure but it was an attempt to a real problem. Anti-revisionists seem to think that it would have been a tollerable situation to continually create industrial goods.

Whether or not the USSR was ready for a transition to creating consumer goods is of course up to debate, but one day it would have been and the Stalinist model of the economy would no longer have been applicable.


Socialist bloc is forced to trade , but in a way that foreign market doesn't interfere with domestic economy , and in a way that goods traded are those needed for maintenance of worker controlled facilities

Yeah but what are these factories creating? It is easy in the Stalinist (i dont use this term as slander but to refer to the actual economic model that emerged in Stalins years) economic model to direct the production of capital goods. No so for consumer goods.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Since when was socialism about "self-reliance"?
Since socialist don't want to support capitalist economies through mutual trade and compromise their own



How can an economy continue to use 85% of its productive potential to produce capital goods forever? This makes no sense.

Forever ? Why ? I was being rather not precise , but i think i made point. We are talking about building socialism. Socialist states need to exploit their natural resources in order to supply their own needs mutually (which was later described by Yugoslav opportunists as a desire of Stalin to make Yugoslavia colony and similar bullshit) , and therefore to be compatible as an alliance. Further , accent is on modernizing and improving means of production , and maximizing industry capacities , and then we can steadily start improving consumer goods , only to satisfy needs of population. A Socialist bloc/state/alliance/union with very progressive heavy industry is able to last forever in it's struggle. Such as Soviet Union was able to survive in war Isolation , and to move a complete military production facilities miles away


Stalin (imo, correctly) argued for the creation of an industrial base for socialism, to expand the basic productive forces. However the creation of this is not the realisation of socialism itself. A revolution in Germany (assuming Germany's economy was not destroyed in it) would not require the expansion of Germans industry by much, however Russias did.
Well , to make a table you do need woods do you. Own productive forces must be in a state to exploit maximum of domestic materials , Socialist state doesn't want to fall in a trap to be dependent on these crucial necessities.


Stalin was succesful with his policies of building soviet industry. However any sane person must realise that the continual expansion of production using 85% of economies resources can not continue forever.

It is not supposed to continue forever , but it can make a solid existential model


What must happen is that the industry created is utilised to provide an abundance of consumer goods. Or else what is the point? "Each according to his needs in steel and pig iron" isnt exactly the aspirations of workers.

Socialism is still a transition. However even Socialist states produced consumer goods for own satisfaction. From each according to his needs , refers to classless society


This is the issue Kruschev tried to address. Stalin (not him personally, but u kno what i mean) had created an industrial base, but living standards still remained low with workers and peasents lacking access to consumer goods. Krushchev tried to reshape the economy to produce consumer goods more efficently. However the reshaping was a failure but it was an attempt to a real problem. Anti-revisionists seem to think that it would have been a tollerable situation to continually create industrial goods.

Kruschev was moderately wrong economically and very wrong politically.


Whether or not the USSR was ready for a transition to creating consumer goods is of course up to debate, but one day it would have been and the Stalinist model of the economy would no longer have been applicable.


There is always a need in less developed countries to maximize material exploitation. It's not really a never ending process



Yeah but what are these factories creating? It is easy in the Stalinist (i dont use this term as slander but to refer to the actual economic model that emerged in Stalins years) economic model to direct the production of capital goods. No so for consumer goods.

Basically , they are creating a solid basis for all other industrial development on long terms. I already explained above. Nazi Germany was in a huge rush to end war on eastern front as fast as possible. They cheered and applauded over capturing tank producing facilities and of other war machinery as a deadly blow to Soviet war machine. One of captured facilities was those of KV-2 at the time , a flagship tank. However , Soviet moved or built new factories , and confidentially not only continued production , but developed and created new and improved models