Question about Maoism and Stalinism

[Apoi_Viitor]

Seeing as it is necessary for a revolution to change the mode of production in a given society, how is it possible that a death of a single leader can result in the complete altering of the relations to the mode of production in that society? As far as I know, there were little political/structural changes after the death of both Mao and Stalin, that allowed for their predecessors to take power... If either society was a dictatorship of the proletariat, wouldn't a bourgeios revolution be necessary to overthrow that dictatorship?

I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeios. But how could Khrushchev succession of power lead to a complete change in the mode of production?

[BIG BROTHER]

Seeing as it is necessary for a revolution to change the mode of production in a given society, how is it possible that a death of a single leader can result in the complete altering of the relations to the mode of production in that society? As far as I know, there were little political/structural changes after the death of both Mao and Stalin, that allowed for their predecessors to take power... If either society was a dictatorship of the proletariat, wouldn't a bourgeios revolution be necessary to overthrow that dictatorship?

I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeios. But how could Khrushchev succession of power lead to a complete change in the mode of production?

You my friend have discovered why the whole "Anti-Revisionist" analysis of what happened int the USSR and China after Mao is flawed.

What I believe then is that in both the USSR, and China due to the material conditions that they faced, among other things like having an isolated revolution, or in China having a very tiny working class which played no role in the revolution, etc a priviledged cast rose in both States. The successors of Stalin and Mao continued the trend of protecting their privileges as a caste while slowly doing away with whatever gain the working class had and introducing capitalism to ensure their complete domination.

[Wanted Man]

You my friend have discovered why the whole "Anti-Revisionist" analysis of what happened int the USSR and China after Mao is flawed.

Except that that's not what their analysis is at all.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Except that that's not what their analysis is at all.

Sure, but it's what happened.

[RED DAVE]

Seeing as it is necessary for a revolution to change the mode of production in a given society, how is it possible that a death of a single leader can result in the complete altering of the relations to the mode of production in that society? As far as I know, there were little political/structural changes after the death of both Mao and Stalin, that allowed for their predecessors to take power... If either society was a dictatorship of the proletariat, wouldn't a bourgeios revolution be necessary to overthrow that dictatorship?It would indeed be required. In the case of the USSR, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was always weak, was overthrown by the bureaucracy 1923-1928 and state capitalism was installed. In the case of China, the working class never ruled: it was state capitalism from the beginning. And state captalism morphs easily into private capitalism.

By the way, half the "political" debates on this board discuss precisely this. Maoists and Stalinists want you to believe that somehow, after the death of the fearless leader, those sneaky capitalists got in without the workers noticing.

RED DAVE

[Kléber]

To be fair, the ultra-Hoxhaist Stalin apologist Bill Bland (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/) tried to make the Stalinist position more nuanced. According to his theory, the USSR had effectively gone "revisionist" by 1935, and Stalin was a prisoner in his own office who tried to do what he could for democracy and workers' rights while the right-wing party bosses held a gun to his head, then finally they poisoned him in 1953. There is a kernel of truth to this analysis - Stalin was a pawn of larger forces and Beria may well have knocked him off - but the suggestion that he secretly resisted his own caste interests, while overseeing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of the ruling bureaucracy's communist political opponents, is absolutely ridiculous.

[The Douche]

I'm pretty sure most of the anti-revisionists on here will acknowledge that there are always opportunist elements within the party. I don't think it takes an anti-revisionist to see that, and I believe that they would maintain that certain individuals made certain attempts to prevent the opportunists from gaining power, but failed.

This thread appears to be a disgusting misrepresentation of the politics of anti-revisionists, and its really dishonest of people to act that way. If you have the correct ideas then you shouldn't have to falsify the ideas of others.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm pretty sure most of the anti-revisionists on here will acknowledge that there are always opportunist elements within the party. I don't think it takes an anti-revisionist to see that, and I believe that they would maintain that certain individuals made certain attempts to prevent the opportunists from gaining power, but failed.

Sure, but where's the revolution? You can't just change the mode of production by switching party members around. I'll ask my question again:

I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeios. But how could Khrushchev's succession of power lead to a complete change in the mode of production?


This thread appears to be a disgusting misrepresentation of the politics of anti-revisionists, and its really dishonest of people to act that way. If you have the correct ideas then you shouldn't have to falsify the ideas of others.

Misinterpretation? I just asked a question...

[The Douche]

Sure, but where's the revolution? You can't just change the mode of production by switching party members around. I'll ask my question again

Well nobody says that the USSR or China reached communism. So the mode of production would at best, be socialism.


I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeios.

? This is a hypothetical which can't actually be dealt with. If the working class has siezed the state then that means they are building towards socialism. How did a communist take power, how does that not include the masses building socialism?


But how could Khrushchev's succession of power lead to a complete change in the mode of production?


I believe there were actual political changes under Krushchev and Deng.


Misinterpretation? I just asked a question...

Those comments weren't really directed at you, more at the ideologues like Red Dave.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Well nobody says that the USSR or China reached communism. So the mode of production would at best, be socialism.

And that's different than capitalism.


? This is a hypothetical which can't actually be dealt with. If the working class has siezed the state then that means they are building towards socialism. How did a communist take power, how does that not include the masses building socialism?

Can the working class seize the state by reformist means? I doubt it. If a communist leader were to be elected, he would be co-opted by the bourgeios, right? So in a dictatorship of the proletariat, why can a bourgeios candidate take power without being co-opted by the proletariat?


I believe there were actual political changes under Krushchev and Deng.

But these political changes had to occur before, to allow for the bourgeios to take power. My question is, what changes occurred from Stalin's death to Khrushchev's consolidation of power, that allowed the bourgeios to overthrow a dictatorship of the proletariat? If there were no significant events, than obviously a revolution didn't take place, and the whole system was not a dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place.

[The Douche]

And that's different than capitalism.


Well unfortunately there are no anti-revisionists in this thread. So I am not going to say that either of those places ever had a socialist mode of production.


Can the working class seize the state by reformist means? I doubt it

No.


If a communist leader were to be elected, he would be co-opted by the bourgeios, right?

They wouldn't be a communist. We determine if somebody is a communist by their actions, not their party affiliation or whatever.


So in a dictatorship of the proletariat, why can a bourgeios candidate take power without being co-opted by the proletariat?


Do you understand that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the struggle of the working class to destroy what is left of the bourgeoisie? There will still be bourgeois elements left in society, and some of them will still have positions of power, and there will certainly be remanants of bourgeois ideology, the communist party is not excluded from this. So you have opportunists, who at some point (or from the start) sought to use the revolution for their own benefit or the benfit of a particular circle of people.


But these political changes had to occur before, to allow for the bourgeios to take power

Why do you think that?


My question is, what changes occurred from Stalin's death to Khrushchev's consolidation of power, that allowed the bourgeios to overthrow a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Because communism had not been reached, and class society not abolished, there were still capitalists in society, including in the CP, there was a struggle waged against them, unsuccessfully. Its like you're assuming socialism means that the revolution is complete, but thats not true.


If there were no significant events, than obviously a revolution didn't take place, and the whole system was not a dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place.

Capitalist restoration does not equal capitalist revolution.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Because communism had not been reached, and class society not abolished, there were still capitalists in society, including in the CP, there was a struggle waged against them, unsuccessfully. Its like you're assuming socialism means that the revolution is complete, but thats not true.

My assumption is that in a socialist society, there would be a different mode of production, and a different privileged class. Sure the bourgeios would still remain, but they would be in the position that socialists are in right now - as in, they are fighting against the state, not occupying it.

The differences in our point of you, are that you believe that during the socialist mode of production, capitalists can retain substantial control of the state, and even have the ability to completely reverse the socialist mode of production. So I'll ask you: although the feudal landlords retained a number of privileges during the immediate capitalist phase, did they have the ability to completely overturn the capitalist, bourgeios revolution, and lead to the restoration (without a revolution...) of feudalism? If not, then why would a capitalist be able to do so after a socialist revolution?

[Crimson Commissar]

Basically Stalinists think that because Khruschev disliked Stalin's regime, this automatically makes the USSR after Stalin a 100% Capitalist society. Completely illogical viewpoint. :/

[LibertarianSocialist1]

How could Lenin´s death have resulted in a change in the mode of production?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The idea that a few 'revisionists', who remained undercover until Stalin popped his clogs, could send the fSU socially and economically backwards is the obverse of reformism.

That is, it is based on the odd idea that social change can be effected by a few individuals operating in government, by-passing the organised working class - who, apparently, were so dopey that they failed to notice what was going on, even though the fSU was supposed to be a 'workers' state'.

[Kléber]

How could Lenin´s death have resulted in a change in the mode of production?
It didn't.

[scarletghoul]

A change in leadership can mean a change in the ruling ideas, and despite what mechanical materialists will say, ideas do change the world. Khruschev's new ideas included 'peaceful coexistence', a 'state of the whole people', and most importantly capitalistic ideas in economic planning. It did not instantly turn the Soviet Union into a capitalist state, because a system is defined by economic relations, not one mans ideas. But the revisionist ideas paved the way for capitalist relations to emerge. The culmination of this was Gorby and the collapse of the USSR itself, which was a direct result of the capitalist ideas in economic planning, which Khruschev introduced.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Basically Stalinists think that because Khruschev disliked Stalin's regime, this automatically makes the USSR after Stalin a 100% Capitalist society. Completely illogical viewpoint. :/
No. That is not what "Stalinists" believe. Khruschev is revisionist because he put the USSR on a reactionary road. Not because anyone thinks he magically changed everything which was set up under Lenin and Stalin.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

A change in leadership can mean a change in the ruling ideas, and despite what mechanical materialists will say, ideas do change the world. Khruschev's new ideas included 'peaceful coexistence', a 'state of the whole people', and most importantly capitalistic ideas in economic planning. It did not instantly turn the Soviet Union into a capitalist state, because a system is defined by economic relations, not one mans ideas. But the revisionist ideas paved the way for capitalist relations to emerge. The culmination of this was Gorby and the collapse of the USSR itself, which was a direct result of the capitalist ideas in economic planning, which Khruschev introduced.
This exactly.

[Kléber]

A change in leadership can mean a change in the ruling ideas, and despite what mechanical materialists will say, ideas do change the world. Khruschev's new ideas included 'peaceful coexistence', a 'state of the whole people', and most importantly capitalistic ideas in economic planning.
These ideas that supposedly reverted a socialist society back to capitalism were neither new ideas nor Khrushchev's. They were Stalin's ideas and they represented the interests of the parasitic ruling bureaucracy.

"Peaceful coexistence" was an outgrowth of the revisionist theory of "socialism in one country." Khrushchev did not ally with US imperialism - Stalin and Mao did. Khrushchev did not say the idea of world revolution was a "tragicomic misconception" for which "We never had such plans and intentions." Stalin said that.

"A state of the whole people" was already established under Stalin with the revisionist 1936 Constitution which remodeled the political system along bourgeois lines.

"Capitalist ideas in economic planning" had been there from 1917; bourgeois culture was impossible to shake off instantly in an isolated semi-feudal country. Khrushchev's administration did not ramp up the privileges and wealth of bureaucrats, as happened under Stalin and Brezhnev. Khrushchev was one of the only Soviet leaders to try and mitigate social inequality, it's one of the reasons his caste got rid of him.


It did not instantly turn the Soviet Union into a capitalist stateThen how do you justify Maoist sectarianism in the Sino-Soviet split?


But the revisionist ideas paved the way for capitalist relations to emerge.And what allowed revisionist ideas to emerge? What class or caste did Khrushchev represent? Was Stalin wrong to say there were no antagonistic classes in the USSR after 1934?

[Apoi_Viitor]

The culmination of this was Gorby and the collapse of the USSR itself, which was a direct result of the capitalist ideas in economic planning, which Khruschev introduced.

So you believe that up until the dissolution of the USSR, it was a dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


A change in leadership can mean a change in the ruling ideas, and despite what mechanical materialists will say, ideas do change the world.

So, you are an Idealist. We always suspected you were...


Khruschev's new ideas included 'peaceful coexistence', a 'state of the whole people', and most importantly capitalistic ideas in economic planning. It did not instantly turn the Soviet Union into a capitalist state, because a system is defined by economic relations, not one mans ideas. But the revisionist ideas paved the way for capitalist relations to emerge. The culmination of this was Gorby and the collapse of the USSR itself, which was a direct result of the capitalist ideas in economic planning, which Khruschev introduced.

This is reformism in disguise, the idea that a few individuals can change society, by-passing the masses/workers -- in what was suposed to be a workers' state!

[scarletghoul]

"Capitalist ideas in economic planning" had been there from 1917; bourgeois culture was impossible to shake off instantly in an isolated semi-feudal country. Sure but since the Stalinist industrialisation and collectivisation there was no capitalist economic ideas guiding the plans.

One strong indicator of this is the simple fact that the plans were so successful in developing the country. Capitalist ideas would not work very well when applied to a collectivised economy (which is why the once-glorious soviet economy became a disaster after khruschev, and stagnated then collapsed.. because central planning is awful for capitalist economics).


Khrushchev's administration did not ramp up the privileges and wealth of bureaucrats, as happened under Stalin and Brezhnev. Khrushchev was one of the only Soviet leaders to try and mitigate social inequality, it's one of the reasons his caste got rid of him. Honestly I dont know much about this. Though surely the great purge was not the happiest time for the bureaucrats..


Then how do you justify Maoist sectarianism in the Sino-Soviet split? I don't tbh. Mao was ultraleftist in his 3 worlds theory, and in thinking that the USSR should be opposed as much as the US just because the leader was a capitalist-roader


And what allowed revisionist ideas to emerge? What class or caste did Khrushchev represent? Was Stalin wrong to say there were no antagonistic classes in the USSR after 1934?He was inaccurate.. he thought that because the bourgeoisie had been eliminated as an actual social class that bourgeois thought was no longer a threat. Revisionism was able to rise to power because Stalin failed in combatting bureaucracy and did not make sure the working class could keep the party in check, and didn't try to wipe out bourgeois culture a la cultural revolution

[scarletghoul]

So you believe that up until the dissolution of the USSR, it was a dictatorship of the proletariat?
I'm not sure what it can be labelled as. It was socially owned, so some kind of socialist.
DoftheP i dont think so.. but really, this labelling varies among people..revisionist state-capitalist degenerated bla bla .. I dont think the labelling is that important, compared to understanding the dialectical process that caused the USSR's collapse.


Scarlet:



So, you are an Idealist. We always suspected you were...

LOL:lol:
I guess Marx n Lenin were idealists too then.

And so are you. Or do you just write all your anti-dialectics ideas for fun, knowing that they can not affect the world at all ?

[Kléber]

Sure but since the Stalinist industrialisation and collectivisation there was no capitalist economic ideas guiding the plans.

One strong indicator of this is the simple fact that the plans were so successful in developing the country.
Industrialization and collectivization were achieved in spite of Stalinism; they were key planks of the Left Opposition's platform from the start. The bureaucracy eventually embarked on the five-year plans out of necessity, due to international threats and domestic crises, after opposing industrialization for years and delaying the inevitable. Stalin spoke for the rightists during the 1920's when he compared building up industry to "a peasant buying a gramophone instead of a cow." Also, in 1934 there was a slowdown in industrial production which only ended in '36 because of the threat of war.


Capitalist ideas would not work very well when applied to a collectivised economy (which is why the once-glorious soviet economy became a disaster after khruschev, and stagnated then collapsed.. because central planning is awful for capitalist economics).The economic inheritance of Stalin's successors was not exactly what I would call "glorious" and its failure was due to its isolation and the stagnation of the revolution, not some spoiled brats who fought over the controls and pissed away Uncle Joe's inheritance. Ultimately capitalism was restored because the unaccountable bureaucracy looted the public sector until there was nothing left, just as Trotsky had predicted would happen if the working class didn't regain power, and Stalin had denied was possible short of an imperialist conquest of the USSR.

One question is where did these hopeless careerist leaders come from? They were part of the "Generation of 1937" - insignificant toadies who were promoted to great positions in the wake of mass-murder of all experienced Bolshevik leaders who posed a threat to Stalin's clique.


Honestly I dont know much about this. Though surely the great purge was not the happiest time for the bureaucrats.. Actually the 1930's was a time of social differentiation, the abolition of partmaximum (salary limit), the first Soviet millionaires, growth of a luxury economy, establishment of special stores and restaurants only for "comrades" of a certain rank, waste of resources on pharaonic construction projects and opera houses, while workers' conditions improved little. Stalin's cronies loved to wank about the "full and joyous life" their master had given them, allowing the bureaucratic elite to emulate the lifestyles of western capitalists.


He was inaccurate.. he thought that because the bourgeoisie had been eliminated as an actual social class that bourgeois thought was no longer a threat.But bourgeois thought can not pose a threat to the workers' state unless there are contradictions within it, any more than a seed can grow into a plant without light, water, and soil. Therefore, socialism never existed in the USSR, so Stalin was not just "inaccurate" - he was either a liar or an ignoramus.


Revisionism was able to rise to power because Stalin failed in combatting bureaucracy and did not make sure the working class could keep the party in checkThe bureaucracy led by Stalin succeeded in combating the working class and keeping it in check. The founders of the Soviet state did fail to put checks and balances on the party-state, but to suggest that Stalin was some kind of democratic reformer is absolutely ridiculous, in fact it's quite disgusting given the shooting deaths of hundreds of thousands of communists by the bureaucratic traitors. It seems like these Stalin apologetics are just a sad, upside-down parody of Trotskyism, or a lump of clay molded in reaction to the blows of dialectical materialist historical analysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


I guess Marx n Lenin were idealists too then.

No, because they would not have argued as you do, that ideas change the world.


And so are you. Or do you just write all your anti-dialectics ideas for fun, knowing that they can not affect the world at all ?

In fact, as you have had it pointed out to you before, this is what I actually argue about dialectics (at the end of a recent post about why this 'theory' of yours is analogous to religious belief):


Hence:

Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Unfortunately, these sad characters will need (materialist) workers to rescue them from themselves.

I stand no chance...

And, I can only thank you and your fellow mystics here for proving me right...:thumbup1:

[bailey_187]

Khruschev's new ideas included 'peaceful coexistence'

tbh, id take this from Krushchev over the Chinese mad foreign policy. Krushchev gave aid to revolutionar movements abroad. The Chinese ended up giving aid to groups for geopolitics e.g. UNITA etc



a 'state of the whole people'

Peoples Republic of China, Peoples Democracy in E.Euope, Peoples Commisars created by the Bolsheviks after the Revolution.


and most importantly capitalistic ideas in economic planning

Which ideas? Krushchev main economic concern was increasing the production of consumer goods and raise Soviet living standards, since the industrial base had finaly been created. Production was decentralised (which IMO was a bad idea), but it was also done in the PRC.

[bailey_187]

once-glorious soviet economy became a disaster after khruschev, and stagnated then collapsed

The Soviet economy under Stalin was good for one thing only: industrialisation. The massive economic growth in the USSR was always new factories, mines etc being created, but its growth internally in industries e.g. productivity was always poor. Hence once industrialisation was acheived, growth slowed. The same thing would have happend no matter how "loyal" to MLism the leadership was, so long as they kept the basic method of Soviet planning.