Stalins Russia

[Comrade1]

Im looking for an unbiased answer here please, how did the Soviet union under Stalin express the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

[AnonymousOne]

Im looking for an unbiased answer here please, how did the Soviet union under Stalin express the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

There was a dictatorship, and there were proleteriat, that's about it. Anyone claiming that the USSR from Lenin on was controlled by the workers is delusional.

[gendoikari]

There was a dictatorship, and there were proleteriat, that's about it. Anyone claiming that the USSR from Lenin on was controlled by the workers is delusional.

well... I think lenin had his heart in the right place at least. His methods, well they may have been flawed but at the time they seemed like perfectly valid ideas. They just forgot to account for the fact that all governments get corrupted rather quickly. Then stalin, well stalin WAS that final corruption.

[Comrade1]

Again, Im asking for an unbiased answer...anyone?:confused:

[gendoikari]

The idea was that the government would control industry, and that by being a democracy, the people would be in control of the government, AKA the people in control of the means of production by proxy. The fact of the matter is that democracy has inherent holes in it's logic that need addressing.

[Smyg]

unbiased :confused:

Good luck with that.

[Comrade1]

Good luck with that.
Well I actually privatly talked to someone who told me the answer, and yes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat did exist under Stalin, if you seriously are ignorant enough to say no it didnt, I feel bad for you...

[Tommy4ever]

Well I actually privatly talked to someone who told me the answer, and yes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat did exist under Stalin, if you seriously are ignorant enough to say no it didnt, I feel bad for you...

So you decided on an answer you wanted to hear and then asked a question, when someone didn't provide the answer you has already forumulated you got annoyed?

What a silly way to go about things. :rolleyes:

And no, Stalin did not create the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ....

If you seriously are ignorant enough to say yes it did, I feel bad for you ....

[Aleenik]

So you decided on an answer you wanted to hear and then asked a question, when someone didn't provide the answer you has already forumulated you got annoyed?

What a silly way to go about things. :rolleyes:

And no, Stalin did not create the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ....

If you seriously are ignorant enough to say yes it did, I feel bad for you ....Agreed.

I really can't fathom how there are people who look up the Stalin. Well I guess I kind of can. There are people who still like Hitler.

Ooo I went there.

[Gustav HK]

And no, Stalin did not create the Dictatorship of the Proletariat


That's right, the DoP was created under Lenin, but Stalin continued it.

[Susurrus]

No, they took the power away from the proletariat. Saying that the power belonged to the people under Stalin is the most politically biased statement I've ever heard.

[Gustav HK]

" This was a concrete meaning of the phrase that labor power in the USSR was no longer a commodity bought and sold like any other: its price (wages) was no longer depressed by the existence of a relative surplus army of unemployed and the inalienable right of commodity buyers to refuse to buy -- the right to not hire and to lay off -- was no longer recognized. Except during wartime, workers were free to quit; but managers could not fire them except by proving some criminal offense against them. Thus, lacking the whip hand, the managers were weak. page 48

Moreover, the workers had more than one channel by which to get at directors who abused such authority as they had. As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss. One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":
"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . . . implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)"


I have it from here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html)

[AnonymousOne]

" This was a concrete meaning of the phrase that labor power in the USSR was no longer a commodity bought and sold like any other: its price (wages) was no longer depressed by the existence of a relative surplus army of unemployed and the inalienable right of commodity buyers to refuse to buy -- the right to not hire and to lay off -- was no longer recognized. Except during wartime, workers were free to quit; but managers could not fire them except by proving some criminal offense against them. Thus, lacking the whip hand, the managers were weak. page 48

Moreover, the workers had more than one channel by which to get at directors who abused such authority as they had. As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss. One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":
"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . . . implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)"


I have it from here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html)

The ability of a worker to make an appeal to an authority, most certainly does not mean that workers had the power. In fact that's a good reason as to why workers didn't have power, if they did there wouldn't have been management or factory directors.

[Born in the USSR]

What is the mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, can it be carried out by a party of the proletariat? The position of antistalinists is clear. They believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be carried out only by factory committees or Soviets. In this case, however, is not clear why the proletariat needs the Party.

At the Second Congress of Comintern Lenin said:
“Tanner says that he stands for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is not conceived quite in the same way as we conceive it. He says that by the dictatorship of the proletariat we mean, in essence,** the dictatorship of its organised and class-conscious minority.

“And, as a matter of fact, in the era of capitalism, when the masses of the workers are continuously subjected to exploitation and cannot develop their human potentialities, the most characteristic feature of working-class political parties is that they can embrace only a minority of their class. A political party can comprise only a minority of the class, in the same way as the really class-conscious workers in every capitalist society constitute only a minority of all the workers. That is why we must admit that only this class-conscious minority can guide the broad masses of the workers and lead them.”

In "Concerning Questions of Leninism" Stalin wrote:"The highest expression of the leading role of the Party, here, in the Soviet Union, in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example, is the fact that not a single important political or organisational question is decided by our Soviet and other mass organisations without guiding directives from the Party. In this sense it could be said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in essence, the “dictatorship” of its vanguard, the “dictatorship” of its Party, as the main guiding force of the proletariat."

The presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is determined not by the authority of the Soviets, trade unions or other similar organizations, but by the fact,in the interesting of what class reorganization takes place,and what class is suppressed.

The difference between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship is that the former strikes at the exploiting minority in the interests of the exploited majority" (Lenin."The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government") Against what class strikes are directed - by this factor is determined the presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not by the power to strike committees, trade unions and the Soviets.

To conclude that there was no the dictatorship of the proletariat at the base of the fact of the transition of the power from the Soviets to the party and not to look at the fact, in whose interests the party use this power, is just silly. However, the Communist Party performed the essential functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat until the late 1980's. These functions primarily include: a ban on private ownership and organization of planing production and consumption in society at large.

[praxis1966]

Agreed.

I really can't fathom how there are people who look up the Stalin. Well I guess I kind of can. There are people who still like Hitler.

Ooo I went there.

This is flaming in the form of tendency baiting, Aleenik, and as such is not allowed here. You are free to disagree with whatever you like, but you must do so without intentionally insulting people. Consider this post a verbal warning.

[AnonymousOne]

Born in the USSR,

I'm not going to address your quotes from Lenin or Stalin, in part because I don't really care what they thought/did as the world has changed radically from what it was like then but also because those quotes contained no analysis or warrants, they were just claims.

So moving on from there, let's begin.


What is the mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, can it be carried out by a party of the proletariat? The position of antistalinists is clear. They believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be carried out only by factory committees or Soviets. In this case, however, is not clear why the proletariat needs the Party.

Well, no many Anti-Stalinists don't believe that a DotP (Dictatorship of the Proleteriat) needs to even be carried out. In a society where the means of production are commonly owned, there can be no proleteriat or capitalist. The bourgeoise, is defined by their ownership of the means of production and the accumulation of capital.

If there is still happening after a revolution, I question whether or not it was all that revolutionary to begin with.



The presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is determined not by the authority of the Soviets, trade unions or other similar organizations, but by the fact,in the interesting of what class reorganization takes place,and what class is suppressed.

Once again, as I mentioned above, your revolution really sucks if you still have a case where the bourgeoise still exist in society. If there are no means available for an ex-bourgeoise to accumulate capital, than there is nothing to be afraid about when it comes to class reorganization or class suppression.



The difference between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship is that the former strikes at the exploiting minority in the interests of the exploited majority" (Lenin."The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government") Against what class strikes are directed - by this factor is determined the presence or absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat, not by the power to strike committees, trade unions and the Soviets.


There is essentially no difference in practice because, as you mentioned it is only a minority of the workers ruling over all others. In this case, they cease to become workers and immediately become bureaucrats to lord over the population. They get to rule over others, while the real proletariat works in order to provide for their benefit.

You're not eliminating oppression of the working class, but instead mixing it up and calling it something different.

[Aleenik]

This is flaming in the form of tendency baiting, Aleenik, and as such is not allowed here. You are free to disagree with whatever you like, but you must do so without intentionally insulting people. Consider this post a verbal warning.Sorry, I didn't mean to insult anyone anymore than I had to. I was comparing Stalin supporters to Hitler supporters and said "Ooo I went there" cuz that is how I feel about them. It is true people would take that as an insult, but there is no way to put that in a non-insulting way. Being compared to a Hitler supporter is always an insult unless you actually support Hitler.

[Born in the USSR]

Born in the USSR,

I'm not going to address your quotes from Lenin or Stalin, in part because I don't really care what they thought/did as the world has changed radically from what it was like then but also because those quotes contained no analysis or warrants, they were just claims.



The question was how did the Soviet union under Stalin express the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,and I answered it.


Originally Posted by AnonymousOne http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2195550#post2195550)
Well, no many Anti-Stalinists don't believe that a DotP (Dictatorship of the Proleteriat) needs to even be carried out. In a society where the means of production are commonly owned, there can be no proleteriat or capitalist. The bourgeoise, is defined by their ownership of the means of production and the accumulation of capital.

I am not interested in a fantasy about a society where the wolves are fed and the sheeps are safe .

[AnonymousOne]

The question was how did the Soviet union under Stalin express the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,and I answered it.

Sorry, didn't catch that. I thought you were writing to anti-Stalinists.



I am not interested in a fantasy about a society where the wolves are fed and the sheeps are safe .

But there are no wolves, as long as there is no way for the bourgeoise have no way of accumulating capital. It's as simple as that, if they don't own the means of production they can't oppress workers, or have wage slavery.

The wolves, after a true socialist revolution, have become domesticated puppies.

Could you explain to me how the ex-bourgeoise could begin to oppress the workers in a system where the means of production were collectively owned, and accumulation of capital was impossible?

[Dogs On Acid]

Through the authority of the Vanguard.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The wolves, after a true socialist revolution, have become domesticated puppies.

Yep, after a socialist revolution the newly dis-possessed bourgeios will just throw in the towel and give up...

[jake williams]

The idea was that the government would control industry, and that by being a democracy, the people would be in control of the government, AKA the people in control of the means of production by proxy.
This is the theory.

One could argue either that the workers didn't control the state (and thus didn't control state industry), or that it's actually impossible for workers to control the state (and thus state industry). The former sort of argument is more common from Trotskyists, who believe that the Soviet system could have entailed effective workers' democracy had it evolved differently. The latter is more common from anarchists, believing that any system of state control of industry is intrinsically non-democratic.

Personally I'm more inclined to the former sort of argument, because it's clear that at a minimum there were deficiencies in workers' democracy in the Soviet Union, though there were certainly aspects of workers' control of different things at different points in history. The typical way of assuming that things were great under Lenin and then horrible under Stalin are, I think, overly simplistic.

[AnonymousOne]

Yep, after a socialist revolution the newly dis-possessed bourgeios will just throw in the towel and give up...

No, of course not. But they don't have any tools of which to exploit or gain privilege. What is so hard to grasp about the idea that a person can't become a bourgeois, if they can't accumulate capital, own the mean of production, or engage in wage-labor relations?

This is ludicrous, and if you still have people that can do the above your revolution is most certainly not socialist in the least.