Are Purges Inherent In Revolutions?

[Rakhmetov]

As we look at the historical record there seems to have been a fairly amount of purges by many, if not all, revolutions.

Correct me if I'm wrong but only perhaps in the U.S. bourgeois revolution (1776-1783) were purges nonexistent or rare. Then again that revolution was not very profound.

[Agent Ducky]

I'm not sure. I think a way we could begin to look at it is speculatively what would have happened regarding these revolutions if the purges had not happened? Would there have been counter-revolutions in every case?

[dernier combat]

Did the working class systematically purge its political opponents in Paris, St. Louis, Bavaria and Russia? No. Purges have only been observed to be undertaken by members of a minority ruling class, desperate to remove any opposition to their rule by any opposing class. The working class would have no need to do this. Workers' revolution will not come in the form of a select few party members coming in to power and silencing their enemies; it will come in the form of a mass mobilisation of all elements of the working class, expropriating the capitalist classes and tearing down all of the power structures of the old system.

[Le Socialiste]

So, I had prepared and typed out a long, detailed answer to the question posed - but when I clicked 'submit reply' my account logged off. :(

I'll just condense what I wished to say: no, I do not believe that purges are inherent in revolutions. At its most basic level, it is a tool wielded by the State and the political vanguard; remove the political power and influence of both, and such purges may not occurr (maybe, I cannot say for sure). I personally find such purges to run counter to the true revolutionary character of any socialistic movement. Decentralize state power and politics into the councils, committees, and unions of the workers themselves, and any potential bourgeois elements within the revolution will be outed soon enough.

[Jose Gracchus]

As we look at the historical record there seems to have been a fairly amount of purges by many, if not all, revolutions.

Historical revolutions failed to bring about a consolidated revolutionary breakthrough by working and majority classes. Purges are typically a tool by minoritarian, dictatorial, and frequently increasingly counter-revolutionary elements to secure a dictatorship over the working and majority classes, and should be understood in that context.


Correct me if I'm wrong but only perhaps in the U.S. bourgeois revolution (1776-1783) were purges nonexistent or rare. Then again that revolution was not very profound.

American historiography whitewashes the American Revolution so you'll think it was some sort of tidy liberal construction of Main Street USA in Disneyworld. The American Patriots purged the Tories from government, business, and expropriated their property. People basically ran their pro-monarchist neighbors out with pitchforks. Many of them settled in Canada, hence the perennial wariness with which our neighbor to north regards the U.S.

There was then Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion by radical plebeian farmer elements, put down by force and including executions subsequently. The Adams Administration infamously passed its Alien and Sedition Acts partially in reference to pro-French, Jeffersonian political elements.

It was not cute and tidy and perfect by any means. That's just American whitewash, like what we've done to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the like.

[pranabjyoti]

The so-called "purges" are actually an expression of class struggle between proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie after revolution. As per DM, nothing can exist without contradiction and everything either a part of contradiction or have contradiction in itself. Any revolutionary workers party also have contradiction in itself and so far, the contradiction is between petty-bourgeoisie faction and proletariat. Purges are nothing but a bloody expression of this class struggle.

[Jose Gracchus]

Nothing but LOL CONTRADICTION mumbo-jumbo to justify bloody cleansing following intra-party palace intrigues.

[dernier combat]

The so-called "purges" are actually an expression of class struggle between proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie after revolution. As per DM, nothing can exist without contradiction and everything either a part of contradiction or have contradiction in itself. Any revolutionary workers party also have contradiction in itself and so far, the contradiction is between petty-bourgeoisie faction and proletariat. Purges are nothing but a bloody expression of this class struggle.

Which petit-bourgeoisie? The new bureaucratic co-ordinator class that time and time again rises in a textbook opportunistic fashion at the climax of class struggle only to lead the proletariat astray and dismantle workers' democracy? Is "petit-bourgeois" just a throw-around phrase to you, used in the same way that a lot of Marxists and anarchists label any class society they take a particular disliking towards as "fascism"?

Or do you actually believe that the traditional petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners or a similar, more specific definition) actually present a serious threat as a social force (or maybe you even think they constitute the primary antagonistic social force, given that you fetishize their demise so often)? Whilst the traditional petit-bourgeoisie are certainly no sympathisers of workers' revolution, it is still important to note that they play only a minor role in modern capitalism. In fact, Pannekoek predicted (correctly, but this process is not complete yet) that the traditional petit-bourgeoisie would be soon replaced by a new petit-bourgeoisie - the bourgeoisie's second line of defence against the inevitable climax of the proletariat's daily struggle; revolution - as the bourgeoisie continued to monopolise and, in the process, decrease in size.

And who was killed in the Soviet and Maoist purges? Many genuine reactionaries, no doubt. But of course there were everyday workers, dedicated to the proletarian cause and having seen the lies put forward by the Bolshevik and Maoist ruling cadres. So yes, you would be right. The purges are an expression of class struggle between proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie, only, contrary to your warped understanding, it was the new middle class which purged elements of the proletariat.

[pranabjyoti]

Which petit-bourgeoisie? The new bureaucratic co-ordinator class that time and time again rises in a textbook opportunistic fashion at the climax of class struggle only to lead the proletariat astray and dismantle workers' democracy? Is "petit-bourgeois" just a throw-around phrase to you, used in the same way that a lot of Marxists and anarchists label any class society they take a particular disliking towards as "fascism"?

Or do you actually believe that the traditional petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners or a similar, more specific definition) actually present a serious threat as a social force (or maybe you even think they constitute the primary antagonistic social force, given that you fetishize their demise so often)? Whilst the traditional petit-bourgeoisie are certainly no sympathisers of workers' revolution, it is still important to note that they play only a minor role in modern capitalism. In fact, Pannekoek predicted (correctly, but this process is not complete yet) that the traditional petit-bourgeoisie would be soon replaced by a new petit-bourgeoisie - the bourgeoisie's second line of defence against the inevitable climax of the proletariat's daily struggle; revolution - as the bourgeoisie continued to monopolise and, in the process, decrease in size.

And who was killed in the Soviet and Maoist purges? Many genuine reactionaries, no doubt. But of course there were everyday workers, dedicated to the proletarian cause and having seen the lies put forward by the Bolshevik and Maoist ruling cadres. So yes, you would be right. The purges are an expression of class struggle between proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie, only, contrary to your warped understanding, it was the new middle class which purged elements of the proletariat.
The problem of petty-bourgeoisie is that it is some kind of fluid nature, not solid as bourgeoisie or proletariat. In many families, at least in my own country, petty-bourgeoisie and worker stay side by side and often they belong to the same family. The so-called "bureaucratic class" you mentioned actually originated from the petty-bourgeoisie remains otherwise there is no explanation of origin of this class.
Actually, small and medium farmers constitute most of the petty-bourgeoisie, not the city based small and medium traders. If you have little idea about the collectivization process in USSR, then you must know that how much it has been resisted by even farmers and even a section of medium sized farmers joined the Kulaks to resist collectivization.
The people, who were purged during the 30's, were men like Bukharin, who are openly advocating introduction of private property in USSR and how can sabotage, alliance with imperialism can be strategies of leaders of proletariat? Can you explain? So far, I have repeatedly ask the questions to many, but found nothing in reply other than personal slandering.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You're a Maoist. You're the kind of guy who should think that purges are too "mechanical," as opposed to public shame and denunciations, like that of Deng.

I'm for some sort of "honourable retirement" system, like the one afforded to a senile Kirilenko by Andropov for the sake of co-opting the former's organizational "tail" or network of client-supporters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Kirilenko_(politician)#Later_life.2C_death_ and_recognition). "Honourable retirement" would solve the problem of revolutionaries staying in power too long as well as the stagnation inevitably resulting from idiotic "stability of cadres," without having to shoot anybody needlessly (Late Stalin didn't have this insight re. Molotov, Mikoyan, or Voroshilov). Dishonourable "retirement" could also be used, such as against Khrushchev.

Demarchically speaking, the disqualification can be "Has served too long to be eligible for random selection."

[Blackscare]

Did the working class systematically purge its political opponents in Paris, St. Louis, Bavaria and Russia? No. Purges have only been observed to be undertaken by members of a minority ruling class, desperate to remove any opposition to their rule by any opposing class. The working class would have no need to do this. Workers' revolution will not come in the form of a select few party members coming in to power and silencing their enemies; it will come in the form of a mass mobilisation of all elements of the working class, expropriating the capitalist classes and tearing down all of the power structures of the old system.

This all makes sense... if you ignore the fact that it's all strawman.

First, I'm not sure you're even using any coherent working definition of what a "purge" is. I think maybe you're confusing "purges" with doing nasty things in general. Then again, expropriation of the capitalist class and smashing it's power structure might be exceedingly nasty, maybe unavoidable. All you have to do is think about what expropriation means instead of treating it as an empty slogan to see what I'm saying.

Since you didn't provide any definition of the "purges" that you're referring to and only spouted vague platitudes about how your ideal proletarian revolution would never, ever have to do anything bad, I'll just address purges as they actually occur.

The Bolsheviks from early on "purged" at a pretty decent pace, although all that that meant (at the time) was that you were no longer allowed to participate in the party. They did this a good deal when they were growing rapidly, in order to remove reformists from their ranks. That type of purge I support, although you can see how such things can get out of hand.

I also wonder what the person quoted above would think about purging in worker's councils. If there were workers who were trying to vote in some reactionary shit that was against everyone's best interest (lets say that someone is bribing them or it's something regarding racism, etc), would it be right for other workers to "purge" them from the council? I should hope so.


Maybe we should just call it something else in that case, like a "proletarian push" or something, so that it won't sound like anything those mean statists do. But it would be the same thing.

[dernier combat]

The problem of petty-bourgeoisie is that it is some kind of fluid nature, not solid as bourgeoisie or proletariat. In many families, at least in my own country, petty-bourgeoisie and worker stay side by side and often they belong to the same family.
The petit-bourgeoisie you refer to are of as fluid a nature as the working class. The workers often stand with the haute-bourgeoisie, as demonstrated by whenever they vote for a capitalist party. Why hasn't the working class been accorded this special status of "fluidity" by you? Workers have the potential to be just as reactionary as the capitalist classes. Then again, they can be revolutionary; just like the old and new petit-bourgeoisie. Every non-ruling class is of a "fluid" nature. It's just rare that we see a traditional petit-bourgeois revolution.


The so-called "bureaucratic class" you mentioned actually originated from the petty-bourgeoisie remains otherwise there is no explanation of origin of this class.
The bureaucratic class I referred to only took power very shortly after its creation. The growth of the class in the case of Russia and similar revolutions was basically an unintentional by-product of the centralised Bolshevik/Bolshevik-influenced/Leninist government having to spread its control over a wider area, although the class itself was created in the process of the Bolsheviks assuming economic control and state power. The reason I call it the petit-bourgeoisie is because many factory managers were deposed of in the revolution, yet were put back in control of their factories after the Bolsheviks needed people with experience to run the economy.


Actually, small and medium farmers constitute most of the petty-bourgeoisie, not the city based small and medium traders. If you have little idea about the collectivization process in USSR, then you must know that how much it has been resisted by even farmers and even a section of medium sized farmers joined the Kulaks to resist collectivization.
The people, who were purged during the 30's, were men like Bukharin, who are openly advocating introduction of private property in USSR and how can sabotage, alliance with imperialism can be strategies of leaders of proletariat? Can you explain? So far, I have repeatedly ask the questions to many, but found nothing in reply other than personal slandering.
I didn't deny that there were genuine reactionaries purged. I made special effort to mention that.

[dernier combat]

This all makes sense... if you ignore the fact that it's all strawman.

First, I'm not sure you're even using any coherent working definition of what a "purge" is. I think maybe you're confusing "purges" with doing nasty things in general. Then again, expropriation of the capitalist class and smashing it's power structure might be exceedingly nasty, maybe unavoidable. All you have to do is think about what expropriation means instead of treating it as an empty slogan to see what I'm saying.

Since you didn't provide any definition of the "purges" that you're referring to and only spouted vague platitudes about how your ideal proletarian revolution would never, ever have to do anything bad, I'll just address purges as they actually occur.
Basically I'm referring to the strategies adopted by the Soviet state to expel reactionaries and dissidents among others from Soviet society by imprisoning or executing them. That's my definition in this context. Sorry for any confusion.


The Bolsheviks from early on "purged" at a pretty decent pace, although all that that meant (at the time) was that you were no longer allowed to participate in the party. They did this a good deal when they were growing rapidly, in order to remove reformists from their ranks. That type of purge I support, although you can see how such things can get out of hand.
Of course, I agree here. See above for my definition of purge in context. It's the exceptionally bloody kind that seems to be advocated by the likes of pranabjyoti.


I also wonder what the person quoted above would think about purging in worker's councils. If there were workers who were trying to vote in some reactionary shit that was against everyone's best interest (lets say that someone is bribing them or it's something regarding racism, etc), would it be right for other workers to "purge" them from the council? I should hope so.
That's almost completely hypothetical, and I'm sure they would pursue other means to achieve the example goal set out in your post rather than through the very organs of workers' power formed during a revolution which would have had global workers' solidarity as a central theme and a catalyst. I can't imagine a worker holding racist attitudes in a world where racial discrimination was analysed and found to be simply divisionary and unproductive.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This could probably be becoming of an essay question. Or even an entire book.

But i'll keep it very short and succinct:

You have to define what a purge is. In the sense that a purge is a murderous, partially extra-judicial rampage, based on political 'reasons', then no, the purge can be seen as mistake of the 20th century revolutions that should be seen as particular to them, and eliminated in any future revolution.

In the sense that we purge the bourgeoisie - peacefully if possible, with violence if we must - from control of the means of production - from control of land, labour and capital -, then of course, that is inherent in revolution.

We should always approach revolution, and the disarming of the bourgeoisie, both of arms and economic/political/social control, from the standpoint of peaceful first, violence if we must. We should not be an inherently violent movement, but simply be prepared to do the minimum required for revolution. If death is not necessary (I realise the unlikeliness here, but it is an outlook, not solely a reality), then it shouldn't be sought.

So, the purge has resonance when used to wrest control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie. That includes crushing any attempts at counter-revolution, of course, but it is vitally important that, once any revolution is becoming, that this defensive outlook sought in many of the revolutions of the 20th century does not become in future revolutions. In particular, the purging of other ideologies of the left in the name of counter-revolution should be absolutely avoided and prohibited. Trotskyists, anarchists, left-communists and even Benn or Galloway types should not be purged in any way for their political beliefs. If you include them in the revolutionary system, then you'll find they will not in any way try to restore Capitalism, as a combined strata of society. If you exclude people from the political system based on their left ideology being different to yours, then you'll find they will oppose you at every corner and the revolution will degenerate and die, as happened in the USSR.

[pranabjyoti]

You're a Maoist. You're the kind of guy who should think that purges are too "mechanical," as opposed to public shame and denunciations, like that of Deng.

I'm for some sort of "honourable retirement" system, like the one afforded to a senile Kirilenko by Andropov for the sake of co-opting the former's organizational "tail" or network of client-supporters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Kirilenko_%28politician%29#Later_life.2C_de ath_and_recognition). "Honourable retirement" would solve the problem of revolutionaries staying in power too long as well as the stagnation inevitably resulting from idiotic "stability of cadres," without having to shoot anybody needlessly (Late Stalin didn't have this insight re. Molotov, Mikoyan, or Voroshilov). Dishonourable "retirement" could also be used, such as against Khrushchev.

Demarchically speaking, the disqualification can be "Has served too long to be eligible for random selection."
Well, by imitating Lenin, I want to say that a true Maoist takes only the procedure i.e. the cream of the Mao's thoughts. Purges are necessary, when they act against their own country and the workers by sabotaging, co-operating with imperialist. Those who were purged weren't shot just to oppose Stalin, but for betrayal to USSR and the workers.
The method of "disgraceful retirement" can be used only when the situation is comparatively peaceful. That wasn't the condition of USSR during the 30's. If the condition was comparatively calm, then I am sure that the opposition inside party would given a choice of "disgraceful retirement".

[RED DAVE]

The so-called "purges" are actually an expression of class struggle between proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie after revolution. As per DM, nothing can exist without contradiction and everything either a part of contradiction or have contradiction in itself. Any revolutionary workers party also have contradiction in itself and so far, the contradiction is between petty-bourgeoisie faction and proletariat. Purges are nothing but a bloody expression of this class struggle.Note to future comrades: Do not put this person in any position of power. S/he has no appreciation of the role of the opposition.

Yes, the purges were an expression of the contradiciton of the "petty-bourgeoisie faction and proletariat." And the "petty-bourgeoisie faction," led by Stalin and Co., did a thorough job of it.

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Note to future comrades: Do not put this person in any position of power. S/he has no appreciation of the role of the opposition.

Yes, the purges were an expression of the contradiciton of the "petty-bourgeoisie faction and proletariat." And the "petty-bourgeoisie faction," led by Stalin and Co., did a thorough job of it.

RED DAVE
Ya, and that's why the purged persons were so much liked by imperialist media and later they had been rehabilitated by the bustard Gorby. What an example of proletarian leaders!

[Rakhmetov]

So, I had prepared and typed out a long, detailed answer to the question posed - but when I clicked 'submit reply' my account logged off. :(


Next time you write a long answer/post and you press click to submit but it takes you to "account logged off" just log in your username/password and you will be taken back to your prepared and typed detailed answer. It happened to me quite a few times before I got wise to it. :)

[Rakhmetov]

Historical revolutions failed to bring about a consolidated revolutionary breakthrough by working and majority classes. Purges are typically a tool by minoritarian, dictatorial, and frequently increasingly counter-revolutionary elements to secure a dictatorship over the working and majority classes, and should be understood in that context.



American historiography whitewashes the American Revolution so you'll think it was some sort of tidy liberal construction of Main Street USA in Disneyworld. The American Patriots purged the Tories from government, business, and expropriated their property. People basically ran their pro-monarchist neighbors out with pitchforks. Many of them settled in Canada, hence the perennial wariness with which our neighbor to north regards the U.S.

There was then Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion by radical plebeian farmer elements, put down by force and including executions subsequently. The Adams Administration infamously passed its Alien and Sedition Acts partially in reference to pro-French, Jeffersonian political elements.

It was not cute and tidy and perfect by any means. That's just American whitewash, like what we've done to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the like.

I want to narrow the defintion of "purge."

Wiki definition:

"In history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), and political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science), a purge is the removal of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), from another organization, or from society as a whole."



I only want to focus "purge" in relation to a revolutionary government or party not society.

BTW in answer to someone who said purges were exclusive to 20th century revolutions. The 18th century French Revolution produced abundant examples of purges (e.g.) the purging of the Girondins, Les Enrages, Danton and his followers and ultimately Robespierre and his followers.

[Blackscare]

That's almost completely hypothetical, and I'm sure they would pursue other means to achieve the example goal set out in your post rather than through the very organs of workers' power formed during a revolution which would have had global workers' solidarity as a central theme and a catalyst. I can't imagine a worker holding racist attitudes in a world where racial discrimination was analysed and found to be simply divisionary and unproductive.

That is blindingly naive, sorry to say. Are you basically saying that your ideal revolution couldn't possibly face any of these problems because it will be by definition absolutely perfect in every way? Somehow spontaneous, global solidarity is supposed to happen and wipe all reaction off the face of the earth like a neutron bomb, at once. That's what it sounds like.

In reference to the part in bold, you must be joking. You think that all of humanity is just going to meet in a town hall somewhere when the revolution comes and conclude that all racism will no longer exist? Revolutions of this nature are, first and foremost, of an economic nature. All sorts of people will be forced to accept that the only viable way forward is socialist economics, but this in no way means that every social prejudice will just melt away.


I think it's going to be basically impossible to debate you on this since your idea of revolution seems to be some absolutely perfect, simultaneous overturning of everything negative economically and socially, which is just absurd. It's like debating someone about god; if you're only satisfied with some mythical perfect revolution where everyone will do away with reaction at once, where can you go from there? I'll tell you one thing, you'll never be satisfied with any revolution because it just won't happen that way. You also won't be able to address serious political issues because you seem to refuse to admit that they will exist.


Also, in reference to the bit quoted above that is not bolded: wat? That didn't make much sense, in fact it was just another string of vague ultraleft platitudes that basically amounted to claiming that worker's councils, which should be the source of all political power in a post-revolutionary society, somehow won't have to maintain their own political integrity. Or that that will be taken care of by other organizations (which to me sounds more contrary to a councilist type revolution than what I'm advocating! :lol:) so that the councils can maintain their pristine nature and avoid the original sin of ever doing anything mean.

At least I think that's what you were saying, hell if I can determine though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All sorts of people will be forced to accept that the only viable way forward is socialist economics, but this in no way means that every social prejudice will just melt away.

What do you think "social prejudice" comes from if not material conditions; if it's not an ideology of the ruling class?

[Blackscare]

What do you think "social prejudice" comes from if not material conditions; if it's not an ideology of the ruling class?

I know it has a material basis in the economic conditions of current society, and thus of course has it's roots in the ruling class.


I just don't think that long-entrenched social memes such as racism, homophobia, and all other forms of bigotry will simply melt away at once. That would be foolish. The trick is to change the material reality of society so that people will change along side it, and you probably wouldn't see the widespread elimination of all such tendencies for a few generations.

[pranabjyoti]

That is blindingly naive, sorry to say. Are you basically saying that your ideal revolution couldn't possibly face any of these problems because it will be by definition absolutely perfect in every way? Somehow spontaneous, global solidarity is supposed to happen and wipe all reaction off the face of the earth like a neutron bomb, at once. That's what it sounds like.

In reference to the part in bold, you must be joking. You think that all of humanity is just going to meet in a town hall somewhere when the revolution comes and conclude that all racism will no longer exist? Revolutions of this nature are, first and foremost, of an economic nature. All sorts of people will be forced to accept that the only viable way forward is socialist economics, but this in no way means that every social prejudice will just melt away.


I think it's going to be basically impossible to debate you on this since your idea of revolution seems to be some absolutely perfect, simultaneous overturning of everything negative economically and socially, which is just absurd. It's like debating someone about god; if you're only satisfied with some mythical perfect revolution where everyone will do away with reaction at once, where can you go from there? I'll tell you one thing, you'll never be satisfied with any revolution because it just won't happen that way. You also won't be able to address serious political issues because you seem to refuse to admit that they will exist.


Also, in reference to the bit quoted above that is not bolded: wat? That didn't make much sense, in fact it was just another string of vague ultraleft platitudes that basically amounted to claiming that worker's councils, which should be the source of all political power in a post-revolutionary society, somehow won't have to maintain their own political integrity. Or that that will be taken care of by other organizations (which to me sounds more contrary to a councilist type revolution than what I'm advocating! :lol:) so that the councils can maintain their pristine nature and avoid the original sin of ever doing anything mean.

At least I think that's what you were saying, hell if I can determine though.
Basically, these are charactatristics of armchair revolutionaries with almost no or very little connection with the real world.

[Bilan]

This all makes sense... if you ignore the fact that it's all strawman.

First, I'm not sure you're even using any coherent working definition of what a "purge" is. I think maybe you're confusing "purges" with doing nasty things in general. Then again, expropriation of the capitalist class and smashing it's power structure might be exceedingly nasty, maybe unavoidable. All you have to do is think about what expropriation means instead of treating it as an empty slogan to see what I'm saying.

Since you didn't provide any definition of the "purges" that you're referring to and only spouted vague platitudes about how your ideal proletarian revolution would never, ever have to do anything bad, I'll just address purges as they actually occur.

The Bolsheviks from early on "purged" at a pretty decent pace, although all that that meant (at the time) was that you were no longer allowed to participate in the party. They did this a good deal when they were growing rapidly, in order to remove reformists from their ranks. That type of purge I support, although you can see how such things can get out of hand.

I also wonder what the person quoted above would think about purging in worker's councils. If there were workers who were trying to vote in some reactionary shit that was against everyone's best interest (lets say that someone is bribing them or it's something regarding racism, etc), would it be right for other workers to "purge" them from the council? I should hope so.


Maybe we should just call it something else in that case, like a "proletarian push" or something, so that it won't sound like anything those mean statists do. But it would be the same thing.

The feeble tip-toeing around 'purges' that you're undertaking is truly astounding. Tell me, what kind of success does one expect to have when what are considered by most, and not without due cause, as little more than an atrocity, is then defended through such a linguistic tap dance?

To even suggest that the purges which occurred only resulted in one being removed from the party is utter nonsense. Were that the case there would be a far greater defence of the purges (from people who aren't Stalinists).

And to remove someone from a party for expressing a reactionary opinion is absolutely absurd. What do you expect? Working class people to just assume a thorough class identity without having to shed the ideas that they have been born into and consumed by their entire lives? If you do not expect racism from revolutionaries, you are a fool. I am not saying one ought to defend it, or that it is justifiable, but that it is to be expected.
I mean, really, is it rational to defend purges against those who put up ideas which they have had force-fed to them since they heard their first words? Ideas which all of us come across in the work place? In pubs? Newspapers and televisions?

Reactionary ideas which sit only as ideas need to be confronted politically - not through expulsion but through argument, reason. Reactionaries who attempt political action need to be confronted with political action.

The same rule applies toward any form of discrimination. You could just easily ask TC - or any other female communist who has direct experience of it (which all would) - about the rampant gender chauvinism amongst revolutionaries. This is to be expected. Nevertheless, it is also to be confronted. Expulsion is not confrontation.

Expulsion is not a solution. Expulsion, as you have put it, leads only to a relatively predictable conclusion - one which has occurred throughout the history of communist parties: an increasingly centralisation of power amongst a smaller group of people; the political elite.

A genuine working class revolution doesn't require purges. It requires the utilisation of reason when necessary and force when necessary. That decision ought not to rest in the hands of so few people.

For all this historical posturing your position seems quite naïve.

[Blackscare]

The feeble tip-toeing around 'purges' that you're undertaking is truly astounding.

I already stated just the sort of purges I was referring to, and the my problem with the person I was responding to was that they were being too broad. I'm talking about a specific form of purge, and if you don't want to deal with that, and would rather refer to anything nasty ever done by either the Bolsheviks at large AND Stalin later on, kindly fuck off. I'm not here to defend Stalin and you shouldn't have to erect strawmen to make a point.



Tell me, what kind of success does one expect to have when what are considered by most, and not without due cause, as little more than an atrocity, is then defended through such a linguistic tap dance?

Ah yes, expelling Social Democrats from the Bolshevik party was such an atrocity. :rolleyes: Oh wait, you're trying to pin a position on me that I never took. In fact I entered this debate to point out how utterly idiotic it is to conflate different forms of "purges" as one unified thing.



To even suggest that the purges which occurred only resulted in one being removed from the party is utter nonsense.

What period of time are you talking about here? I was referring to a specific era of Bolshevik history in which a great many opportunists, Soc Dems, and reactionaries were trying to jump on the Bolshie bandwagon and of course had to be purged. In that context I understand why they purged them, they were a revolutionary political party and could not afford to have the very ideals that the party existed for to be subverted by opportunistic newcomers. In those days, before the days of Stalin (although you may lack the critical thinking skills to recognize any sort of difference in those two eras), purges were not bloody, they were simply dismissal from positions in the party. Unless, of course, you're trying to tie in all sorts of unrelated atrocities over a large period of years that really have nothing to do with each other as 'purges', to suit your own left-com fetish for rejecting every single phrase that could at all be connected to something a Leninist has done.


Were that the case there would be a far greater defence of the purges (from people who aren't Stalinists).

Good to know you rely on round-about anecdotes like this in an argument.


And to remove someone from a party for expressing a reactionary opinion is absolutely absurd.

Well, if you intend to have any sort of functioning revolutionary body (and if you had any reading skills at all, I was also talking about worker's councils), you're going to have to do something to prevent organs of worker's power from being subverted. I don't know, maybe you're confusing me with some kind of Stalinist boogeyman from your nightmares, but I'm not advocating kicking out every single person who ever called someone a wetback or something. What I am referring to are situations where a significant minority, or even majority, within a council, or party, whatever, are trying to move forward with some sort of action that would be totally unacceptable. Such as a community council where someone is pushing an initiative to banish black people or the like. I never said anything about banishing individual reactionaries or scrutinizing every member of every group and vetting them, I was talking about utilizing a procedure to head off a real threat. You are an absolute fool if you assumed otherwise. I was talking about a specific form of "purge" because it's absolutely infantile (nothing new there, eh?) to lump in everything that has ever been called a purge as the same thing.


What do you expect? Working class people to just assume a thorough class identity without having to shed the ideas that they have been born into and consumed by their entire lives? If you do not expect racism from revolutionaries, you are a fool.

Listen you condescending dickhead, I just spent the last post pointing this out.


I am not saying one ought to defend it, or that it is justifiable, but that it is to be expected.

No fucking duh, read my posts next time you decide to go off on some crazy ultraleft rant. You're practically foaming at the mouth here and you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say. At all.


I mean, really, is it rational to defend purges against those who put up ideas which they have had force-fed to them since they heard their first words? Ideas which all of us come across in the work place? In pubs? Newspapers and televisions?





Reactionary ideas which sit only as ideas need to be confronted politically - not through expulsion but through argument, reason. Reactionaries who attempt political action need to be confronted with political action.


Jesus fucking christ you are thick, you know that? You're literally arguing with yourself here, because you've substituted everything I've said for an alternate reality where you get to strike a revolutionary, prolier-than-thou pose while slaying teh ev1l stalinists.


The same rule applies toward any form of discrimination. You could just easily ask TC - or any other female communist who has direct experience of it (which all would) - about the rampant gender chauvinism amongst revolutionaries. This is to be expected. Nevertheless, it is also to be confronted. Expulsion is not confrontation.

God you are _monumentally_ condescending for someone with seriously deficient reading skills.



Expulsion is not a solution. Expulsion, as you have put it, leads only to a relatively predictable conclusion - one which has occurred throughout the history of communist parties: an increasingly centralisation of power amongst a smaller group of people; the political elite.



A genuine working class revolution doesn't require purges. It requires the utilisation of reason when necessary and force when necessary. That decision ought not to rest in the hands of so few people.

Like I said earlier, I was mostly talking about worker's councils and practical solutions to problems that may arise, not parties.




For all this historical posturing your position seems quite naïve.


You know, that's pretty rich coming from a guy who is arguing against the very idea of purges under any context (although I bet you're really just arguing against the word because it makes you feel uncomfortable). Why don't you try reading my posts a little more carefully next time before you go off on a rant.

[Jose Gracchus]

Purges are fine so long as they're not Stalinist palace intrigue purges. I have no problem with the working class expelling the counter-revolutionaries from public life. For instance, by analogy the abolitionists, following the Civil War, should have ejected the slaveholders and Confederate politicians, civil servants, and officers should have been restricted from public office and many social opportunities, including the right to vote, etc.

[dernier combat]

So far, I have repeatedly ask the questions to many, but found nothing in reply other than personal slandering.

Basically, these are charactatristics of armchair revolutionaries with almost no or very little connection with the real world.
You were saying?

[Le Socialiste]

I only want to focus "purge" in relation to a revolutionary government or party not society.


Well, if we are to focus on “purges” that apply exclusively to that of a revolutionary government or party, the answer is, I think, yes. In such instances purges are an inherent aspect of any political or governmental body. Does this make them acceptable in the broader sense of revolutionary tactics and struggle? Depends on the ways in which said purges are carried out. However, such actions are little more than the means by which certain blocs or individuals within the government/party may suppress or consolidate power, turning the practice back to its bourgeois roots. For the very essence of the state/party purge is, I would argue, bourgeois in nature. Systemic purging of any potential reactionary or reformist elements, within the confines of the party and state, are only necessary in that they cast out those that seek to corrupt or undermine the dutiful processes of the majority. This is only possible, however, if the majority have a clear sense of identifying these destabilizing influences. Much of the time, they don’t. So, how is one to make an honest decision, if he or she is subjected to countless speeches concerning a particular bloc or individual, ones that paint said people as counterrevolutionary? For I have found it to be the case that the broad majority of any given government or party rarely act without the prodding of some individual(s) leading the way. As such, political purges tend to be nothing more than power-grabs by a small elite within the system, thus reverting the entire “revolutionary” process back to that of the old order (of business). They are the inherent characteristics of the Party and the State. Abolish both, or, at the very least, strip either of such power. Place direct decision-making processes in the hands of the collective, the councils and committees, the unions and syndicates. Let the people debate and dictate how such reactionary/reformist elements within the broader social fabric are to be dealt with. I believe that purges, when left in the hands of a revolutionary government or party, sets a dangerous precedent that only serves to destabilize the struggle in the long-term instead of leading it forward. Certain influences must be done away with, cast out—however, such matters should not be left in the hands of governmental structures (the party I can take some exception with, so long as purges are decided and deliberated on by said party’s membership).

[Bilan]

I already stated just the sort of purges I was referring to, and the my problem with the person I was responding to was that they were being too broad. I'm talking about a specific form of purge, and if you don't want to deal with that, and would rather refer to anything nasty ever done by either the Bolsheviks at large AND Stalin later on, kindly fuck off. I'm not here to defend Stalin and you shouldn't have to erect strawmen to make a point.

I actually didn't mention Stalin's reign (with the exception of calling you a Stalinist). Solid argument though.
It is pretty idiotic to erect a strawman whilst having a go at me for doing, apparently, the same thing. Job well done!




Ah yes, expelling Social Democrats from the Bolshevik party was such an atrocity.

Actually, expelling people from a party for disagreeing with the party line is bullshit: it's an attack on proletarian democracy. If it so happens that one was to actively try and undermine the revolution, and utilise the party do so, that would be different.



Oh wait, you're trying to pin a position on me that I never took. In fact I entered this debate to point out how utterly idiotic it is to conflate different forms of "purges" as one unified thing.

So you pointed out and defended one kind of purge, as you say, whilst sitting on your hands about all others?




What period of time are you talking about here? I was referring to a specific era of Bolshevik history in which a great many opportunists, Soc Dems, and reactionaries were trying to jump on the Bolshie bandwagon and of course had to be purged

Just out of curiosity: why? What success did that bring to the Bolsheviks? I am genuinely interested in how the expulsion of 'opportunists', social democrats and 'reactionaries' brought the Bolshevik revolution forward, as well as what exactly constitutes an 'opportunist' and a reactionary in this case.



. In that context I understand why they purged them, they were a revolutionary political party and could not afford to have the very ideals that the party existed for to be subverted by opportunistic newcomers.

Yeah. If the ideas of the Bolshevik party were so grounded in reason and reflected so clearly the requirements for the continuation of the revolution, then it seems that expulsion would be rather redundant (again, it seems necessary to point out that this is only not true for those who entered the party specifically to smash the revolution, as another lame strawman is not something I really want to read).




In those days, before the days of Stalin (although you may lack the critical thinking skills to recognize any sort of difference in those two eras)

Skillz brah! Make an argument and save your snide shit. It's pathetic.



, purges were not bloody, they were simply dismissal from positions in the party.

Evidence. What were the repercussions then if I am so mislead?



Unless, of course, you're trying to tie in all sorts of unrelated atrocities over a large period of years that really have nothing to do with each other as 'purges', to suit your own left-com fetish for rejecting every single phrase that could at all be connected to something a Leninist has done.

These little personal jabs are getting very old. I'm barely half way through your post and there is more snide than substance.




Good to know you rely on round-about anecdotes like this in an argument.

Is it not true?




Well, if you intend to have any sort of functioning revolutionary body (and if you had any reading skills at all, I was also talking about worker's councils),

Yeah, see, again. But this time coupled with such eloquence. "reading skills". Cool.

Anyhow:
"Ah yes, expelling Social Democrats from the Bolshevik party was such an atrocity."

You're pretty consistently spoken about both the party and workers councils. The fact that you intend to only talk about workers councils hasn't prevented you from going on a tangent about it happening in the party and defending it.



you're going to have to do something to prevent organs of worker's power from being subverted

Yes. We agree on this. We do not agree that expulsion is the 'something' which will prevent subversion.



I don't know, maybe you're confusing me with some kind of Stalinist boogeyman from your nightmares

I don't care enough about Stalinists to think about them.



, but I'm not advocating kicking out every single person who ever called someone a wetback or something. What I am referring to are situations where a significant minority, or even majority, within a council, or party, whatever, are trying to move forward with some sort of action that would be totally unacceptable. Such as a community council where someone is pushing an initiative to banish black people or the like. I never said anything about banishing individual reactionaries or scrutinizing every member of every group and vetting them, I was talking about utilizing a procedure to head off a real threat. You are an absolute fool if you assumed otherwise. I was talking about a specific form of "purge" because it's absolutely infantile (nothing new there, eh?) to lump in everything that has ever been called a purge as the same thing.

Amazing. This is the first time in your entire post you've actually said anything which might have clarified any kind of misunderstanding or disagreement.
However it is entirely inconsistent to everything else you have said. You have defended expelling social dems, 'reactionaries' and 'opportunists' from the party and workers councils without hinting at whether or not they were organised or intended to do anything so heinous as "banning all black people" from an area. Just that they were social dems, 'reactionaries' or 'opportunists'.






No fucking duh, read my posts next time you decide to go off on some crazy ultraleft rant. You're practically foaming at the mouth here and you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say. At all.


Don't kid yourself, bro.







Jesus fucking christ you are thick, you know that?

Seriously, shut your fucking mouth, you juvenile brat.


You're literally arguing with yourself here, because you've substituted everything I've said for an alternate reality where you get to strike a revolutionary, prolier-than-thou pose while slaying teh ev1l stalinists.

Do you think I care that much about your stupid political ideology? Suck up the dust of your rotting books, in your rotting party rooms with your rotten ideologies. Go for gold. I, like everyone else, does not give a flying fuck.



God you are _monumentally_ condescending for someone with seriously deficient reading skills.

Good!






Y
ou know, that's pretty rich coming from a guy who is arguing against the very idea of purges under any context (although I bet you're really just arguing against the word because it makes you feel uncomfortable). Why don't you try reading my posts a little more carefully next time before you go off on a rant.

Jesus christ.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Purges are fine so long as they're not Stalinist palace intrigue purges. I have no problem with the working class expelling the counter-revolutionaries from public life. For instance, by analogy the abolitionists, following the Civil War, should have ejected the slaveholders and Confederate politicians, civil servants, and officers should have been restricted from public office and many social opportunities, including the right to vote, etc.

FYI, while the post-WWII purges in the Soviet Union were palace intrigues, neither the great purges nor the ones in Eastern Europe were those of "palace intrigue." Certainly the great purges were a form of madness.

Then of course there's the question of the Anti-Party Group, many Brezhnevites under Andropov, etc.

I should also note that during the Late Stalin era itself there was a massive Zhdanovite purge of half the membership (no bullets wasted, though) because most of them were politically "illiterate" Red Army soldiers granted membership during and shortly after the war (The Life and Times of Andrei Zhdanov). Literally, most of them had only a few years of primary education!

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't consider most of the state politics of the post-1921 Soviet society to have any relevance to authentic socialism in practice.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Purges are the result of sectarianism. Sectarianism is the result of an authoritarian party/political structure.

It's a problem with Leninism.

[Savage]

I'm not bothered to read all of this thread so this may now be irrelevant or tautologous, but anyway...


Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?


Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible? It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words. -Frederick Engels 1847

[RATM-Eubie]

Purges are just another way to form an authoritarian regime. How can there be no opposition to a authoritarian regime if all the opponents are purged out. It just gives more strength to form an authoritarian regime.
We should avoid purges at all costs no matter what. :thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't consider most of the state politics of the post-1921 Soviet society to have any relevance to authentic socialism in practice.

My point is that you should be careful with your use of the term "palace intrigues." ;)