Reading some of Stalin's early works

[Rusty Shackleford]

So, after reading "The Proletarian Class and The Proletarian Party"
(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1905/01/01.htm) "The State Duma and the Tactics of Social-Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/08.htm)"
im now on "Anarchism or Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm)"

and i have to say, i keep running into GREAT stuff. Whats so great about it is it is basically to the point reiterations of lenin's works and leninist theory.

This is a portion from "Anarchism or Socialism"


What must the proletariat do, what path must it take in order consciously to carry out its programme, to overthrow capitalism and build socialism?
The answer is clear: the proletariat cannot achieve socialism by making peace with the bourgeoisie — it must unfailingly take the path of struggle, and this struggle must be a class struggle, a struggle of the entire proletariat against the entire bourgeoisie. Either the bourgeoisie and its capitalism, or the proletariat and its socialism! That must be the basis of the proletariat's actions, of its class struggle.

But the proletarian class struggle assumes numerous forms. A strike, for example — whether partial or general makes no difference — is class struggle. Boycott and sabotage are undoubtedly class struggle. Meetings, demonstrations, activity in public representative bodies, etc.— whether national parliaments or local government bodies makes no difference — are also class struggle. All these are different forms of the same class struggle. We shall not here examine which form of struggle is more important for the proletariat in its class struggle, we shall merely observe that, in its proper time and place, each is undoubtedly needed by the proletariat as essential means for developing its class consciousness and organisation; and the proletariat needs class consciousness and organisation as much as it needs air. It must also be observed, however, that for the proletariat, all these forms of struggle are merely preparatory means, that not one of them, taken separately, constitutes the decisive means by which the proletariat can smash capitalism. Capitalism cannot be smashed by the general strike alone: the general strike can only create some of the conditions that are necessary for the smashing of capitalism. It is inconceivable that the proletariat should be able to overthrow capitalism merely by its activity in parliament: parliamentarism can only prepare some of the conditions that are necessary for overthrowing capitalism.

What, then, is the decisive means by which the proletariat will overthrow the capitalist system?

The socialist revolution is this means.

Strikes, boycott, parliamentarism, meetings and demonstrations are all good forms of struggle as means for preparing and organising the proletariat. But not one of these means is capable of abolishing existing inequality. All these means must be concentrated in one principal and decisive means; the proletariat must rise and launch a determined attack upon the bourgeoisie in order to destroy capitalism to its foundations. This principal and decisive means is the socialist revolution.
The socialist revolution must not be conceived as a sudden and short blow, it is a prolonged struggle waged by the proletarian masses, who inflict defeat upon the bourgeoisie and capture its positions. And as the victory of the proletariat will at the same time mean domination over the vanquished bourgeoisie, as, in a collision of classes, the defeat of one class signifies the domination of the other, the first stage of the socialist revolution will be the political domination of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, capture of power by the proletariat—this is what the socialist revolution must start with.
This means that until the bourgeoisie is completely vanquished, until its wealth has been confiscated, the proletariat must without fail possess a military force, it must without fail have its "proletarian guard," with the aid of which it will repel the counter-revolutionary attacks of the dying bourgeoisie, exactly as the Paris proletariat did during the Commune.

The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to enable the proletariat to expropriate the bourgeoisie, to enable it to confiscate the land, forests, factories and mills, machines, railways, etc., from the entire bourgeoisie.

The expropriation of the bourgeoisie—this is what the socialist revolution must lead to.

This, then, is the principal and decisive means by which the proletariat will overthrow the present capitalist system.

That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1847 :
". . . The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class. . . . The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands . . . of the proletariat organised as the ruling class . . ." (see the Communist Manifesto).

That is how the proletariat must proceed if it wants to bring about socialism.

From this general principle emerge all the other views on tactics. Strikes, boycott, demonstrations, and parliamentarism are important only in so far as they help to organise the proletariat and to strengthen and enlarge its organisations for accomplishing the socialist revolution.


Any recommendations besides "Marxism and the National Question"?

[Omsk]

Our Disagreements (January 5, 1921)
On the Death of Lenin (January 30, 1924)
The Foundations of Leninism (April, 1924)
Trotskyism or Leninism? (November 19, 1924) [Alternate Translation]
The October Revolution & the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924)
Concerning Questions of Leninism (January 25, 1926)
Revolution in China and Tasks of the Comintern (May 24, 1927)
The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now (October 23, 1927)
Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (June 20, 1950)

He didn't write much during the Great Patriotic War,which is understandable.(most written forms were either letters or orders)

[Rusty Shackleford]

i noticed that when i was browsing through the archives. during the war they were mostly "order of the day" for the conduct of the war. and other things were speeches on the campaign in more depth.

i had picked up "The War of National Liberation" from a left-wing book store for $0.25 but failed to recognize that it was actually just a collection of war time addresses. I thought it was Marxism and the National Question (i didnt know the exact name at the time).

anyways, thanks!

almost done with Anarchism or Socialism too and damn so far i have not been disappointed.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Our Disagreements (January 5, 1921)
On the Death of Lenin (January 30, 1924)
The Foundations of Leninism (April, 1924)
Trotskyism or Leninism? (November 19, 1924) [Alternate Translation]
The October Revolution & the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924)
Concerning Questions of Leninism (January 25, 1926)
Revolution in China and Tasks of the Comintern (May 24, 1927)
The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now (October 23, 1927)
Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (June 20, 1950)

He didn't write much during the Great Patriotic War,which is understandable.(most written forms were either letters or orders)

I'd also add 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR' to that

[Omsk]

I'd also add 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR' to that

...Yes..i forgot that one..

[Rjevan]

Whats so great about it is it is basically to the point reiterations of lenin's works and leninist theory.
How can you say that, don't you know that Stalin betrayed Leninism and everything Lenin stands for???

No, seriously, as ComradeErich suggested, another recommendable early work is "Briefly about the Disagreements in the Party", defending Lenin's position and the Bolshevik line against the Mensheviks. To the already mentioned later works I'd add the remarkable interviews with Wells (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm) and Howard (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm), On the Final Victory of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm) where Stalin clarifies the Leninist theory of Socialism in One Country (you'll find that he uses both here and in related works exactly the same Lenin quotes that Trotskyists like to present as "death blow" and "evidence" that Lenin didn't support SIOC :lol:) and last but not least: On the Draft Constitution of the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm). Outlining the changes in the class composition of Soviet society and the differences between bourgeois "democracy" and Soviet democracy it gives insight into the new reality and the possibilities of the USSR.

[robbo203]

One of Stalin's early works was Anarchism or Socialism (1906) in which he described socialism as follows

"Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers". In socialism, argued Stalin, "Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.". (Anarchism or Socialism?J. V. Stalin,Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 297-391)

This was of course in line with the traditional marxian understanding of the word "socialism" and before people like Lenin started mucking around with the word and associationg it with state capitalism (which, in the end, is what Stalin stood for)

[Tommy4ever]

I haven't read much of his pre-revolution stuff. But I read loads of his writings from the 20s and 30s and really wasn't very impressed. Was he better before the revolution, perhaps when he had more time?

[RedSunRising]

I haven't read much of his pre-revolution stuff. But I read loads of his writings from the 20s and 30s and really wasn't very impressed. Was he better before the revolution, perhaps when he had more time?

The Foundations of Leninism is brilliant.

He writes very clearly and makes things that would otherwise be complex easy to grasp.

[Savage]

where Stalin clarifies the Leninist theory of Socialism in One Country (you'll find that he uses both here and in related works exactly the same Lenin quotes that Trotskyists like to present as "death blow" and "evidence" that Lenin didn't support SIOC :lol:)
Can you provide me with the specific sections where Stalin links his own theory to Lenin's? Are you suggesting that he believed that particular national capitals could be socialized, or just that he upheld the 'final victory' position as continued by Stalin?

[Susurrus]

Anarchist here, curious about what Stalin had to say about us.

[Omsk]

You could red his work: "Anarchism or Socialism".
I will provide sufficient links if you wish.

[Kléber]

It's all very monotonous and repetitive - about what one would expect from a seminary student.

[Susurrus]

You could red his work: "Anarchism or Socialism".
I will provide sufficient links if you wish.

Well, I'm interested specifically in the parts of that particular work presumably condemning anarchism, but if they are inseparable from the rest I suppose so. Links welcome.

[Volcanicity]

Anarchist here, curious about what Stalin had to say about us.
These two quotes "from Anarchism or socialism"should give you a good idea on how he viewed anarchists:

"We shall try to prove that, as advocates of small community socialism, the Anarchists are not genuine Socialists."

"We shall also try to prove that, in so far as they repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists are also not genuine revolutionaries. . . ."

Read the whole thing here:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm.

[Susurrus]

These two quotes "from Anarchism or socialism"should give you a good idea on how he viewed anarchists:

"We shall try to prove that, as advocates of small community socialism, the Anarchists are not genuine Socialists."

"We shall also try to prove that, in so far as they repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists are also not genuine revolutionaries. . . ."

Read the whole thing here:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm.

Can't say I'm surprised. Thanks.

[Omsk]

You shouldn't read things that way,because many of the things in "Anarchism or Socialism" are connected to a certain context,so picking out parts where he speaks only about anarchism (in a negative context) usually creates a lot of 'empty space' and unanswered questions.

[Susurrus]

You shouldn't read things that way,because many of the things in "Anarchism or Socialism" are connected to a certain context,so picking out parts where he speaks only about anarchism (in a negative context) usually creates a lot of 'empty space' and unanswered questions.

I'm reading it as we speak, so hopefully that will answer the unanswered questions. Although this quote seems to sum it up:

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

I would disagree with Stalin here, and say that the individual and the masses are coterminous in their emancipation, and that that is the general attitude of anarchism and the works of anarchism.

[Volcanicity]

I agree you should'nt take quotes out of context so do read the whole thing but it is pretty much more of the same.

EDIT:I see you've already started reading it and as you see it is more of the same.

[W1N5T0N]

"Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.".

What Stalin forgot to mention is that he thought the only way to get to this society was through a brutal, bloody, bleak, grinding state-capitalist commissar-ocracy which did not nothing but impose another ruling class on the workers and farmers of Russia and surrounding nations, exposing them to the whims of despotic sociopath who killed every (perceived or real) obstacle in his ways.

[Volcanicity]

What Stalin forgot to mention is that he thought the only way to get to this society was through a brutal, bloody, bleak, grinding state-capitalist commissar-ocracy which did not nothing but impose another ruling class on the workers and farmers of Russia and surrounding nations, exposing them to the whims of despotic sociopath who killed every (perceived or real) obstacle in his ways.
Lets not turn another thread into a sectarian shit-fest.

[Susurrus]

Another thing I've noticed in this, in Lenin and others work as well, that there is often created a strawman anarchist, who embodies negative qualities that are not shared by most anarchists, and who would be criticized by them.

[Omsk]

What Stalin forgot to mention is that he thought the only way to get to this society was through a brutal, bloody, bleak, grinding state-capitalist commissar-ocracy which did not nothing but impose another ruling class on the workers and farmers of Russia and surrounding nations, exposing them to the whims of despotic sociopath who killed every (perceived or real) obstacle in his ways.

Blwhah blah.He wrote that long before he had any chances of taking power in the USSR.
He wrote it in 1906.Commisars didn't even exist.

[Omsk]

Important!

It seems,comrade Winston is eager for a flame war,so i suggest you (Susurrus) continue with your questions,regrading "Anarchism or Socialism" to prevent an argument and a flame fest from erupting.

This is a thread about Stalins written works! If you have something against him (as a man,and against his leadership) take it to the official J.V.S Thread and leave people eager for normal and comradly discussion alone.

[Wanted Man]

Another thing I've noticed in this, in Lenin and others work as well, that there is often created a strawman anarchist, who embodies negative qualities that are not shared by most anarchists, and who would be criticized by them.

There is probably a difference between the Russian anarchists of 1900-1910 and, say, modern-day western ones or whatever. It gets really funny, though, when modern-day "Leninist" groups still write articles against these anarchists from a century ago.

@ComradeErich: I'm sure people are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether to respond to someone or not. W1N5T0N's post may or may not lead to more off-topic trolling, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. For now, we'll be fine without repeated warnings, thanks. I must agree though, and must ask Winston, to take this kind of discussion to the History forum.

[Susurrus]

I must say, this is a very readable thing. I don't know whether it's the translation, the layout, or what, but I'm finding it a lot easier to read than most political works. This is pretty much the first thing I've read by Stalin, other than flipping through Foundations of Leninism, so perhaps it's his style. Weirdly enough, it somewhat reminds me of Emma Goldman's style. How strange.

[Omsk]

I must say, this is a very readable thing. I don't know whether it's the translation, the layout, or what, but I'm finding it a lot easier to read than most political works.
It is because hes works were available to the people,and the workers,and his idea was not to confuse them with terms and 'political language' so he wrote it clear,extremely easy to understand.
Like Lenin,who for instance,also wrote for the workers,his articles in Pravda,were also considered understandable to every worker,simplified but still full of information and with a clear point and stance.

[Susurrus]

There is probably a difference between the Russian anarchists of 1900-1910 and, say, modern-day western ones or whatever. It gets really funny, though, when modern-day "Leninist" groups still write articles against these anarchists from a century ago.


Perhaps so, though I think it mostly due to the fragmented nature of the anarchist movement back then. When Nestor Makhno, an anarchist, visited Lenin, Lenin was surprised at his political views, and said that most anarchists were not like him. When Makhno differed, Lenin said "Perhaps I might be mistaken."

[Susurrus]

It is because hes works were available to the people,and the workers,and his idea was not to confuse them with terms and 'political language' so he wrote it clear,extremely easy to understand.
Like Lenin,who for instance,also wrote for the workers,his articles in Pravda,were also considered understandable to every worker,simplified but still full of information and with a clear point and stance.

Even so, I find it much more readable than Lenin, and other such works intended for the common worker.

Also, thus far he has based his view of anarchists on one magazine and one author, apparently working on the assumption that since the person subscribes to anarchism that they can speak for all of it. Later he cites Kropotkin, but very limitedly and selecting quotes for his use. he doesn't cover much of anarchist theory at all, instead attacking their seeming misconceptions about Marxism, which he procures via selectively quoting the above sources. I didn't find it a very compelling argument against anarchism, but instead an argument for Marxism many anarchists would likely endorse. I find it very amusing that he confirms Marx's view of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the Paris Commune model, considering his later actions, but we shall leave that for the Stalin thread.

[W1N5T0N]

Hey, no tendency war intended, Comrade Erich! I just wanted to mention what maybe many people forget when reading stalin's early stuff...The chasm between words and actions. Because I judge a man more by the latter. I won't retract my former statement, I'll just take my opinion and bring it to the "official" JVS forum. Cya!

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hey, no tendency war intended, Comrade Erich! I just wanted to mention what maybe many people forget when reading stalin's early stuff...The chasm between words and actions. Because I judge a man more by the latter. I won't retract my former statement, I'll just take my opinion and bring it to the "official" JVS forum. Cya!
please do so. Thats all you hear from most people on here about Stalin anyways. How could one forget :confused:

Anyways, goodbye.:thumbup1:

[Hebrew Hammer]

I've begun reading Anarchism or Socialism? and the others listed seems like a good reading list if any.

[Coggeh]

Well there is a very decent work by Stalin actually signed by Trotsky:

Any recommendations besides "Marxism and the National Question"?
Nevermind....

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well there is a very decent work by Stalin actually signed by Trotsky:

Nevermind....
well i already had that on my list. Im trying very\to get it in hard copy.

its not like im some trotskophobe.

[Wanted Man]

Trashed troll post by Kuppo; verbal warning for trolling.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Regarding the debate about whether or not Lenin supported SIOC - how do the stalinists respond to Lenin saying in 1918 "The absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany we shall perish."?

Also, is it conceded that Marx + Engels did not agree with it? "the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries" - The Principles of communism

-Alex

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Regarding the debate about whether or not Lenin supported SIOC - how do the stalinists respond to Lenin saying in 1918 "The absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany we shall perish."?

Also, is it conceded that Marx + Engels did not agree with it? "the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries" - The Principles of communism

-Alex

Reality said otherwise

[Cork Socialist]

Reality said otherwise

You didn't really answer the question or attempt to answer the question.
Also so you believe Marx, Engels and Lenin were wrong with there statements about the need for International Revolution

[Coggeh]

well i already had that on my list. Im trying very\to get it in hard copy.

its not like im some trotskophobe.
Fair enough sorry man