What if the Anti-Party group gained power?

[Toppler]

What if the Anti-Party group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_Group gained power? I think it would just continue Stalinist messing up of the USSR and delay the rapid increase of living standards that occured under Khrustchev, but Stalinists probably think otherwise. So what's the opinion of the folks (any, Stalinist or non-Stalinist) on this?

[The Douche]

What if the Anti-Party group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_Group gained power? I think it would just continue Stalinist messing up of the USSR and delay the rapid increase of living standards that occured under Khrustchev, but Stalinists probably think otherwise. So what's the opinion of the folks (any, Stalinist or non-Stalinist) on this?

Just so we're clear...you think the overthrow of the soviet union was a good thing? You think the current Russia is a better place to live than the FSU?

[Toppler]

Just so we're clear...you are a retard who can't read? I am talking about the Stalinist clique led by Molotov who wanted to overthrow Khrustchev in 1957, not the "August Coup" that I'd definitely support to prevent the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Did you read my History thread Khrushchev's Thaw: Kaganovich's Economic Thaw (http://www.revleft.com/vb/khrushchev-thaw-kaganovichs-t152859/index.html)? The economic reforms would have continued on, leaving socialist primitive accumulation further in the past, but the harebrained schemes of 105 oblast-based sovnarkhozy (regional councils of people's economy) and splitting the party literally in two to deal with "industry" and agriculture would not have come to pass.

[The Douche]

Just so we're clear...you are a retard who can't read? I am talking about the Stalinist clique led by Molotov who wanted to overthrow Khrustchev in 1957, not the "August Coup" that I'd definitely support to prevent the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

No I did not realize what you were talking about, I confused the anti-party group and the august coup. Thanks for the insult though, bro.

[Ocean Seal]

Just so we're clear...you are a retard who can't read? I am talking about the Stalinist clique led by Molotov who wanted to overthrow Khrustchev in 1957, not the "August Coup" that I'd definitely support to prevent the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
Dude calm down. Your post would have been just as powerful and less insulting had you omitted the sentence in bold.

[Toppler]

No I did not realize what you were talking about, I confused the anti-party group and the august coup. Thanks for the insult though, bro.

Sorry to all.

[Roach]

The Anti-party group would never gain power, it was just a collection of vacillating bureacrats dissatisfied with the Kruschevite revisionist policies, in the end they were unable to create a real political and theoretical resistance against revisionism, that is why there are Maoists and Albanian Marxist-Leninists and not ''Molotovists''.

[Ismail]

The Anti-Party Group basically lacked the backing possible to take power. As was the case of Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng versus the Gang of Four, the "law and order" and "socialism means increased living standards" tendency won out. The two actually ideologically pro-Stalin men, Molotov and Kaganovich, themselves differed on Stalin.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/molotov.htm

Kaganovich actually accused Molotov of being anti-Stalin in the 70's and 80's, and Molotov called Kaganovich a "Stalinist." Despite this Molotov (rather weirdly) noted in the 1980's the following to Felix Chuev, who recounted it: "Later Molotov confessed that even as a very old man, Joseph Stalin regularly visited him in his dreams. He would find himself lost in a destroyed city, unable to find his way out, and then Stalin would appear before him to lead the way."

On a semi-related note, Molotov wanted to write a theoretical book in the 1980's but died before he could complete it. Here was one thing he discussed with Felix Chuev:

All of Khrushchev's errors flowed from this mistake. Marx raised this question, and Lenin confirmed it in his essay State and Revolution. I know it well. There he wrote that at the final stage of communism the principle will be: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The later formulation has only part of this phrase, but the second part, "to each according to his needs," was replaced by "to each according to his work." Our press follows this line like a law, but it's not correct from a Marxist perspective.

Why? First, Marx wrote that only at the final stage of communism could the principle be fulfilled. Why? You can't demand the best from the common laborer under our conditions. But the constitution was written in 1936, when it was impossible to take "from each according to his ability." They didn't even have housing. Only at a higher stage could you talk about it. Could one demand this of a collective farmer? After all, we have established that he must work a certain minimum number of labor-days. But he is paid only a pittance for these labor-days. If he does not fulfill his quota of labor-days, the kolkhoz has the right to exclude him from membership. So what kind of "according to his ability" is that? It's nothing but window dressing. But window dressing is intolerable in Marxism. Marxism is an objective science; it views things soberly. It calls bad things bad and good things good. It demands genuine, uncompromising struggle for good.

Marx argued, and Lenin confirmed, that the rights of man cannot exceed his economic potential. You can demand that a communist work "according to his ability," and it doesn't matter what his working conditions are. But you can't demand this from the people. How can we have the same demands under socialism as under communism? Do we create some kind of fiction about something that does not exist?... Revolutionaries must destroy what is bad and sacrifice themselves if necessary. Workers scape by and receive their crusts of bread—what more can we demand of them? Meet your quota! That's it. God grant that everyone conscientiously fulfill his norm. We would lead a much richer life. Better yet—exceed one's norm. This applies all the more to communists; a communist must work better. This means that contrary to "from each according to his ability" we must inscribe: fulfillment of the norms established by society. Fulfill what is demanded of you by the state, by society; conscientiously fulfill the norms prescribed by the factory, the workshop, the kolkhoz. This applies especially to white-collar workers. They are so many idlers. As they gossip and smoke in corridors, do you believe they are actually working "according to their ability"?

Second, "to each according to his work." This is especially popular. All of our books go on about it. Some people interpret it as follows: If I work in a factory, I am paid according to my work. But if you are a boss, you have no work-norm to fulfill. In a word, you can take all kinds of liberties...

Marx and Engels said, to each according to his work, but in a economy that has abolished money-commodity relations... Our 1961 program states [the opposite]: money-commodity relations are to be retained throughout socialism. It has things turned around... In Lenin's State and Revolution, the words "commodity" and "money" are not even mentioned. Why? Everything was already based on them. But these are vestiges of capitalism.It's also worth noting that, in terms of foreign politics, Molotov would probably rank as a left-wing Brezhnevite more than anything. From his apartment languishing in obscurity he defended the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and said that the war in Afghanistan had to be fought. The pro-Albanian groups and Maoists did not share these views. Furthermore Molotov still considered the USSR into the 1980's as a socialist society, which again differs from pro-Albanian and Maoist groups.

As a note Kaganovich had the best death ever:

In July 1991, sitting in his apartment, he was watching television news reporting on perestroika, and showing Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. His maid heard him said, "It's a catastrophe." When she looked around, he was still sitting in front of the television set, but he was dead.Also an incident near the end of Molotov's life when he was senile:

Shortly before his death, as he was failing in mind and body, Molotov, who was cared for by his grandchildren, was watching TV one day when Soviet Foreign Minister, Edvard Shevardnadze came on the news making some statement. Molotov rose from chair in a rage, shouting “What the hell is he saying! That’s revisionism! Pure revisionism! Worse than revisionism! Has he gone off his head? I hope Stalin hasn’t gotten wind of this yet, or there’ll be hell to pay. Tell Shevardnadze I want to see him in my office TODAY at 4:00 pm SHARP. And he better have a good explanation for this garbage!”

When they heard the shouting, his grandchildren rushed into the room and tried to calm him, saying “Grandpa relax! It’s just the news. You’re not Foreign Minister anymore. It’s 1986. Stalin’s been dead for 30 years.” Molotov calmed down and muttered “I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I just got so worked up. My memory isn’t all it used to be anymore.”

However, later that afternoon, at about 3:45, his grandchildren saw that the old man had put on a suit and was busy knotting his tie. His grandchildren laughed and asked “Grandpa, are you thinking of going somewhere?” Molotov replied “Go somewhere? I wish I could go somewhere! I’m getting ready for Shevardnadze. I should put in a call to Stalin and let know that I’ll handle this.”

Once again, Molotov’s grandchildren had to intervene and tell the old man that he was no longer a party leader, that Stalin was long gone, and that the world had changed.

[Kléber]

The only way to stop Khrushchev's fascist plot to increase living standards, was for Stalin to be immortal. If only he lived 100 years and did a few more great purges, everything would be ok. xD

[Jose Gracchus]

What if the Anti-Party group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_Group gained power? I think it would just continue Stalinist messing up of the USSR and delay the rapid increase of living standards that occured under Khrustchev, but Stalinists probably think otherwise. So what's the opinion of the folks (any, Stalinist or non-Stalinist) on this?

Hey what do you know? Stalinists think that the Great Man Theory of History is in force where ever there are some red flags.