Has a Trotskyist party ever led a revolution ?

[eastwood]

Has any Trotskyist party, organisation or individual ever led a succesful (or even ultimately unsuccessful) proletarian revolution ?

[Weezer]

Trotskyist parties participated in the Vietnamese Revolution before Ho Chi Minh purged them. The most significant Vietnamese Trotskyist was Ta Thu Thau and he and many of his comrades was killed by the Viet Minh.

[Kléber]

Trotsky himself was the leading organizer of the 1917 October Revolution, according to none other than Stalin (in a paragraph he later tried to erase):


All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

[Rooster]

All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising [of the Petrograd soviet] was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military Revolutionary Commitee was organized.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

EDIT: God damn it, Kleber, you beat me to it.

[DaringMehring]

This question, which is usually intended as trolling to start a flame-war, needs to be broken down.

First, all revolutions are not the same. Socialists don't honor George Washington for the American revolution the same way we honor Lenin for the Russian. Despite G. Washington's army being composed of the poor, him "kicking out British Imperialism," setting the ground work for the development and dominance of USA, etc. The point is, the question should be about leading *socialist* revolutions.

On that count, there have been approximately zero success by anybody.

Second, Trotskyism has generally been peripheral and powerless, historically, due to the dominance of Stalinism in the state so-called socialist countries. Today, it may be hard to imagine, since those countries are now gone or don't even pretend to socialism anymore, and Trotskyism, which had a now-validated revolutionary socialist critique of those countries, is on the rise. But in the past, it was a no-brainer for most revolution minded people that they should side with the guys who had a killer (literally) secret service, a military, money and arms for assistance, and so on. It doesn't say much for the ideological content, that Stalinism, Maoism, Khruschevism, Brezhnevism, etc. attracted the majority of the struggling masses -- it does say a lot that they managed to totally defeat and de-revolutionize those masses even in victory, however.

It seems a near certainty that the next successful socialist revolution will come from an ideological inspiration of something in the realm of anarcho-syndicalism, Left Communism, and Trotskyism. That's where you need to be, developing as an organizer and proletarian fighter, if you want to make a revolutionary impact going forward.

[Who?]

No.

[Weezer]

No.

Oh.

[Who?]

Oh.

I'm just answering OP's question honestly.

The Russian Revolution certainly doesn't count because there were a number of leaders with different politics and "Trotskyism" hadn't even been developed yet.

[KC]

Has any Trotskyist party, organisation or individual ever led a succesful (or even ultimately unsuccessful) proletarian revolution ?

Are revolutions solely the result of ideological conflicts and no longer the result of historical forces? Are we now jettisoning Marxism for an idealist, liberal interpretation of history?

[HEAD ICE]

another good question to ask is: has a stalinist party ever lead a revolution? no

literally only people who talk about 'stalinist' or 'trotskyist' revolutions are stalinists that should be enough right there

[Ismail]

another good question to ask is: has a stalinist party ever lead a revolution? noCommunist Party of Albania, 1941-1944 anti-fascist struggle without Soviet assistance. Not to mention the People's Democracies in the rest of Eastern Europe.

[28350]

Communist Party of Albania, 1941-1944 anti-fascist struggle without Soviet assistance. Not to mention the People's Democracies in the rest of Eastern Europe.

some revolution

[Ismail]

some revolutionIndeed, by 1947 literally about 90% of the industries of Albania were state-owned and the feudal elements in agriculture were quickly done away with. Unlike other East European parties, there was no coalition with other parties at first either. The Democratic Front only had one party: the CPA (later renamed the Party of Labour of Albania at Stalin's suggestion.) Albanian economists into the 1980's actually used Stalin's book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. as the main economic work on socialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"...Communists know only too well ... that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes." - Engels

[Ismail]

"...Communists know only too well ... that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes." - Engels"... had I not been present in 1917 in St. Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place—on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring—of this I have not the slightest doubt." (Trotsky's Diary in Exile, p. 46.)

Engels meant that the objective material conditions for revolutions are what allows them to happen, not the will of mere leaders. It doesn't mean that a conscious revolution just suddenly spurts out of nowhere.

[thesadmafioso]

Communist Party of Albania, 1941-1944 anti-fascist struggle without Soviet assistance. Not to mention the People's Democracies in the rest of Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe was more or less primed for entry into the Soviet sphere of influence by Stalinist lines by the geopolitical reality of the situation, that really don't say much given the circumstances which made any other route of development more or less impossible.

And Albania isn't exactly much of an accomplishment for Stalinism, if we can be honest for just a moment here. It is not as if this battle really had any sort of impact of the advancement of the movement of socialism itself, but then again I suppose they were just focused on Albanian socialism.

[Ismail]

Eastern Europe was more or less primed for entry into the Soviet sphere of influence by Stalinist lines by the geopolitical reality of the situation, that really don't say much given the circumstances which made any other route of development more or less impossible.It doesn't make them non-revolutions.


And Albania isn't exactly much of an accomplishment for Stalinism, if we can be honest for just a moment here. It is not as if this battle really had any sort of impact of the advancement of the movement of socialism itself, but then again I suppose they were just focused on Albanian socialism.Albania saw itself as the center of the international communist movement after 1978, just like the USSR was from 1917-1953, so yeah.

[thesadmafioso]

It doesn't make them non-revolutions.

Albania saw itself as the center of the international communist movement after 1978, just like the USSR was from 1917-1953, so yeah.

Well, yeah, but there outcome was more or less determined by factors well beyond their control. It is not as if any revolution with sympathies towards Trotsky would of been allowed to originate in the recently liberated nations of Eastern Europe, given their proximity to Stalin and his conception of 'socialism'.

I think that is enough to lessen their impact and relevance in this discussion.


As for the matter of internationalism, the USSR did certainly do quite the wonderful job with leading the international communist movement from 1927 and beyond. Who could forget their brilliant approach to the question of China in that year, allowing Chiang Kai Shek into the Comintern and supporting them and their aspirations, aspirations which led to the wholesale destruction of the urban communist movement in China to an extent which impacted the entire course of the nations revolution.

And who could forget Stalin's valiant fight against fascism and its rise in Germany, when he choose to align the 'international communist movement' with the fascists over the Social Democrats.

Then there is Spain, where Stalin and his international communist movement tore apart a popular leftist front which was succeeding in defending its government from a fascist military coup, once more in the name of communism.

Honestly I'm not in a position to really access the position of Albania in relation to the international communist movement in that particular time, but if it's really comparable to the Soviet Union under Stalin then I can't imagine it to of been anything to marvel at.

[Weezer]

Honestly I'm not in a position to really access the position of Albania in relation to the international communist movement in that particular time, but if it's really comparable to the Soviet Union under Stalin then I can't imagine it to of been anything to marvel at.


Hell, Albania was better than Stalin's USSR. By the 1980's, there were no taxes and no inflation.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9xNVEyNgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlMkgyfqUo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYvDFXE71g&feature=related

[thesadmafioso]

Hell, Albania was better than Stalin's USSR. By the 1980's, there were no taxes and no inflation.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9xNVEyNgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlMkgyfqUo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYvDFXE71g&feature=related

It's really a question of scale and political matters more so than anything else, I don't have any issues with the economic course of Albania. Then again, I'm not too well read on it, but I can't imagine how I would given that it was largely a command economy so far as I am aware.

Also, that quote was in reference to this international role in the socialist movement anyway, so I don't see how economic elements really are relevant to the selected point.

[Ismail]

Honestly I'm not in a position to really access the position of Albania in relation to the international communist movement in that particular time, but if it's really comparable to the Soviet Union under Stalin then I can't imagine it to of been anything to marvel at.It had various sympathetic parties.

To give one instance of Hoxha having high hopes for the PLA's international role, there was a letter Hoxha sent to Hysni Kapo, a close collaborator of Hoxha, in 1978. In 1980 it was publicly released. This was the concluding part:

"Terrible storms have and will pass over the Chinese people, but the day will come when, even there the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin will triumph. The present and coming generations of China will understand and will say: 'The Party of Labour of Albania opened our eyes, it acted correctly, it exposed Mao Zedong thought because it loved the Chinese proletarian revolution, because it wanted to dispel the destructive myths created in China, which hindered the happiness of this great people, who wants to live in genuine socialism.'"
("There Is No Communist Party in China, But Clans and Factions Striving for Power," AU041521 Tirana ATA in English 0900 GMT 4 Dec 80.)

Reading Hoxha's works makes it fairly clear that he saw things with an international outlook in the 1960's and 70's.

[A Marxist Historian]

Eastern Europe was more or less primed for entry into the Soviet sphere of influence by Stalinist lines by the geopolitical reality of the situation, that really don't say much given the circumstances which made any other route of development more or less impossible.

And Albania isn't exactly much of an accomplishment for Stalinism, if we can be honest for just a moment here. It is not as if this battle really had any sort of impact of the advancement of the movement of socialism itself, but then again I suppose they were just focused on Albanian socialism.

Albania is an odd choice as the Great Stalinist Revolution, being as Tito chasing out the Nazis from Yugoslavia, without a whole lot of help from the USSR really, is what made the overthrow of that powerful tyrant, Mussolini's Italy on its very last legs, possible.

And of course the Italian Revolution vs. Mussolini, which ended with him and his mistress hung up by Italian Partisans by their heels.

So an exceedingly derivative affair.

I suppose one would have to say that the Chinese Revolution was indeed led by Mao. Soviet help was very significant but hardly decisive.

Though it was really more a case of the Chiang Kai Shek regime collapsing like the utterly paper tiger it was, and Mao's guerillas sucked into the vacuum created, than a real mass popular revolution.

Quite similar to Cuba actually, though on a much larger scale.

For a true Stalinist Revolution, Tito in Yugoslavia is about as close as you get. With all the ironies that implies.

-M.H.-

[thesadmafioso]

It had various sympathetic parties.

To give one instance of Hoxha having high hopes for the PLA's international role, there was a letter Hoxha sent to a friend of his in 1978. In 1980 it was publicly released. This was the concluding part:

"Terrible storms have and will pass over the Chinese people, but the day will come when, even there the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin will triumph. The present and coming generations of China will understand and will say: 'The Party of Labour of Albania opened our eyes, it acted correctly, it exposed Mao Zedong thought because it loved the Chinese proletarian revolution, because it wanted to dispel the destructive myths created in China, which hindered the happiness of this great people, who wants to live in genuine socialism.'"
("There Is No Communist Party in China, But Clans and Factions Striving for Power," AU041521 Tirana ATA in English 0900 GMT 4 Dec 80.)

Reading Hoxha's works makes it fairly clear that he saw things with an international outlook in the 1960's and 70's.

A day when the theories of Stalin will triumph across the world? Such as the theory of socialism in one country and the theories which allowed popular leftist fronts across the world to falter in order to promote a nationalistic approach to foreign policy?

I mean, it's one thing to write on foreign matters, obviously any leader is going to engage in such commentary, but that is not to say that said individual can be seen as someone fully in support of a proper worldwide revolution just on the grounds that they are also a leftist.

[A Marxist Historian]

Hell, Albania was better than Stalin's USSR. By the 1980's, there were no taxes and no inflation.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9xNVEyNgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlMkgyfqUo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYvDFXE71g&feature=related

And that, no doubt, is why the entire population of Albania struggled so hard to defend their Revolution to the death, and are in the forefront of the world struggle for socialism these days.

NOT!

-M.H.-

[thesadmafioso]

Albania is an odd choice as the Great Stalinist Revolution, being as Tito chasing out the Nazis from Yugoslavia, without a whole lot of help from the USSR really, is what made the overthrow of that powerful tyrant, Mussolini's Italy on its very last legs, possible.

And of course the Italian Revolution vs. Mussolini, which ended with him and his mistress hung up by Italian Partisans by their heels.

So an exceedingly derivative affair.

I suppose one would have to say that the Chinese Revolution was indeed led by Mao. Soviet help was very significant but hardly decisive.

Though it was really more a case of the Chiang Kai Shek regime collapsing like the utterly paper tiger it was, and Mao's guerillas sucked into the vacuum created, than a real mass popular revolution.

Quite similar to Cuba actually, though on a much larger scale.

For a true Stalinist Revolution, Tito in Yugoslavia is about as close as you get. With all the ironies that implies.

-M.H.-

Perhaps it would of been more fitting to direct this point towards Ismail, I was only dealing with his reference to Albania as an exemplary Stalinist revolution.

Anyway, with the Chinese Revolution, you need to keep in mind that Stalin destroyed what should of been the grounds for a proletarian revolution there in 1927 by allying the Third International with a front comprised of both communists and Chiang Kai Shek's band of nationalists. That was the decisive point in determining the future of any revolution in China, and Stalin tainted it with exceeding skill.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Engels meant that the objective material conditions for revolutions are what allows them to happen, not the will of mere leaders. It doesn't mean that a conscious revolution just suddenly spurts out of nowhere.

Oh yea? Is that what he meant by "everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes?"

Thanks for the translation.

Of course, it's already in English and you've totally changed the meaning.

I could sit here for hours and pull quotes like this from Marx and Engels.

"These benevolent patronizers, profoundly ignorant of the real aspirations and the real movement of the working classes, forget one thing. All the socialist founders of sects belong to a period in which the working class themselves were neither sufficiently trained and organized by the march of capitalist society itself to enter as historical agents upon the world’s stage, nor were the material conditions of their emancipation sufficiently matured in the old world itself. Their misery existed, but the conditions of their own movement did not yet exist." - Marx

[Philosopher Jay]

The answer is no. The terrible contradictions of capitalism still continue to ravage our lives across the planet. Still socialism continues to evolve and grow in new and different forms.

[Ismail]

Oh yea? Is that what he meant by "everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes?"Yes, the internal contradictions of capitalism create the conditions for revolution. I don't see how that negates what I said.


"These benevolent patronizers, profoundly ignorant of the real aspirations and the real movement of the working classes, forget one thing. All the socialist founders of sects belong to a period in which the working class themselves were neither sufficiently trained and organized by the march of capitalist society itself to enter as historical agents upon the world’s stage, nor were the material conditions of their emancipation sufficiently matured in the old world itself. Their misery existed, but the conditions of their own movement did not yet exist." - MarxYes, again, I don't see the issue.

Allow me to quote (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13.htm) Stalin:

Ludwig: Marxism denies that the individual plays an outstanding role in history. Do you not see a contradiction between the materialist conception of history and the fact that, after all, you admit the outstanding role played by historical personages?

Stalin: No, there is no contradiction here. Marxism does not at all deny the role played by outstanding individuals or that history is made by people. In Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy and in other works of his you will find it stated that it is people who make history. But, of course, people do not make history according to the promptings of their imagination or as some fancy strikes them. Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made when that generation was born. And great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and want to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will land themselves in the situation of Don Quixote. Thus it is precisely Marx's view that people must not be counterposed to conditions. It is people who make history, but they do so only to the extent that they correctly understand the conditions that they have found ready-made, and only to the extent that they understand how to change those conditions. That, at least, is how we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for a good many years.

Ludwig: Some thirty years ago, when I was at the university, many German professors who considered themselves adherents of the materialist conception of history taught us that Marxism denies the role of heroes, the role of heroic personalities in history.

Stalin: They were vulgarizers of Marxism. Marxism has never denied the role of heroes. On the contrary, it admits that they play a considerable role, hut with the reservations I have just made.Engels himself had to later defend against those (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm) who were mechanistically using historical materialism to deny the role of persons in historical affairs.

Lenin understood the historical conditions that made the October Revolution possible. It didn't mean Lenin woke up one day and said there would be a revolutionary situation and it was so. So again, I don't see where I (or, I suppose, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin) are in error.

[DaringMehring]

"... had I not been present in 1917 in St. Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place—on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring—of this I have not the slightest doubt." (Trotsky's Diary in Exile, p. 46.)


This is a famous blunder of Trotsky's. Deutscher roundly debunks it in his biography.

Basically, it is an optical illusion of history that this appeared to be the case, because Lenin-Trotsky were indispensable, -- BUT, if they hadn't have existed, some other "Lenin" and "Trotsky" would have emerged. The fact is, Lenin and Trotsky, by their emergence and brilliance, prevented the emergence of other would-be Lenins and Trotskys.

That doesn't mean they weren't there.

No Great Man is indispensable. Class forces are indispensable.

[Ismail]

Basically, it is an optical illusion of history that this appeared to be the case, because Lenin-Trotsky were indispensable, -- BUT, if they hadn't have existed, some other "Lenin" and "Trotsky" would have emerged. The fact is, Lenin and Trotsky, by their emergence and brilliance, prevented the emergence of other would-be Lenins and Trotskys.

That doesn't mean they weren't there.There's a difference, though, between the material conditions that give rise to would-be Lenins and Lenin in action. If Lenin was shot dead or arrested shortly before October, and if Trotsky also suffered similar fates in the same period, then on one hand the Bolsheviks would have suffered a serious morale loss, and on the other the Petrograd Soviet would have possibly not gone over to their side, not to mention the attitude of much of the Bolshevik leadership towards the Provisional Government pre-April. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Bolsheviks wouldn't have taken power, but it certainly would have been less likely.

So Trotsky saying that he had "not the slightest doubt" was clearly mistaken, but in certain situations the deaths of leaders can make a difference in situations of war or revolution.

[eastwood]

The Russian Revolution certainly doesn't count because there were a number of leaders with different politics and "Trotskyism" hadn't even been developed yet.

I agree with this.


Are revolutions solely the result of ideological conflicts and no longer the result of historical forces? Are we now jettisoning Marxism for an idealist, liberal interpretation of history?

No, revolutions are the result of historical forces but revolutions do have leaders and leading organizations.

[Tomhet]

I think it's kind of lame that People are so anti "trotskyist" they'd probably condemn a "trotskying movement".. I don't really agree much with Trotsky but I can't see them not working towards, yknow, working class power...

[Tower of Bebel]

What has happened to the old moderator conduct? In a case like this any caring moderator should post a small list of links to similar threads, point to the search button and close the thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ No kidding!


another good question to ask is: has a stalinist party ever lead a revolution? no

literally only people who talk about 'stalinist' or 'trotskyist' revolutions are stalinists that should be enough right there


Eastern Europe was more or less primed for entry into the Soviet sphere of influence by Stalinist lines by the geopolitical reality of the situation, that really don't say much given the circumstances which made any other route of development more or less impossible.

Yugoslavia and Albania definitely count for something, regardless of our numerous political differences. This is because there were no Soviet tanks rolling in.

I know this thread was started as flame bait, which is why I acknowledged the role of Vietnamese Trotskyists as well.


I suppose one would have to say that the Chinese Revolution was indeed led by Mao. Soviet help was very significant but hardly decisive.

Though it was really more a case of the Chiang Kai Shek regime collapsing like the utterly paper tiger it was, and Mao's guerillas sucked into the vacuum created, than a real mass popular revolution.

The same can be said of the Russian Provisional Government, the situation of which combined collapse and vacuum with revolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In the hypothetical situation that I were to call the OP a fucking moron for making such a blatantly flame-baiting sort of post, would that get me another warning?

I just want to check, because this is exactly the sort of thread that this entire board does NOT need.

[Kiev Communard]

Even the October Revolution of 1917 cannot be defined as a "Bolshevik" revolution in the full sense of the word, because there were a lot of ideological currents supporting the Soviet bloc at that time (ranging from Left SRs to anarcho-syndicalists), and the masses on the ground had an understanding of "Bolshevism" that was rather different from a Leninist one.

With respect to Yugoslavia, I believe that the 'Titoist' revolution had initially exhibited all the traits of a standard 'Stalinist' model, but due to the relatively mass-based character of the Resistance movement during WWII, it avoided the completion of the formation of a Stalinist ideology as such. This allowed later the transformation of Yugoslavian economy and the state towards a more 'Bukharinite' formation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even the October Revolution of 1917 cannot be defined as a "Bolshevik" revolution in the full sense of the word, because there were a lot of ideological currents supporting the Soviet bloc at that time (ranging from Left SRs to anarcho-syndicalists), and the masses on the ground had an understanding of "Bolshevism" that was rather different from a Leninist one.

Comrade, was that the reason why elections during the Stalin era had the slogan of "Party and non-Party Bolsheviks" (which today's Russian liberal commentators have used to criticize Putin's recent front scheme (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russia-s-putin-t154386/index.html))?

[Tim Cornelis]

Hell, Albania was better than Stalin's USSR. By the 1980's, there were no taxes and no inflation.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9xNVEyNgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlMkgyfqUo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYvDFXE71g&feature=related

That documentary describes Albania's people--ruled by a totalitarian government--as "free and happy people". Seeing how the people and workers brought down the 'communist' government through a general strike I cannot consider this a credible documentary.

However, if you have some credible sources about taxation, education, inflation in Albania I would appreciate it if you could post them.

[Tim Cornelis]

In the hypothetical situation that I were to call the OP a fucking moron for making such a blatantly flame-baiting sort of post, would that get me another warning?

I just want to check, because this is exactly the sort of thread that this entire board does NOT need.

Well, you do deserve a warning for this post IMO. OP just wanted to know the answer to said question, how is it his fault that sectarian comments ensue? It's an interesting question that he/she apparently wanted to know.

[Ismail]

That documentary describes Albania's people--ruled by a totalitarian government--as "free and happy people". Seeing how the people and workers brought down the 'communist' government through a general strike I cannot consider this a credible documentary.The general strike was orchestrated by the Democratic Party of Albania, which received funding from the CIA or CIA-backed trade union strikes against the Allende Government. The trade unions which were pro-DPA were little different from Poland's Solidarity trade union. A good description of the events is The Albanians: A Modern History by Miranda Vickers.


However, if you have some credible sources about taxation, education, inflation in Albania I would appreciate it if you could post them.The main introductory book is A Coming of Age: Albania Under Enver Hoxha, which was written in 1999. Here's a place you can download it: http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/a-coming-of-age.pdf

A year back a user named Lenin II wrote a good post on Albanian economic progress:

To Jolly Red Giant:

Historical context is important for dialectical materialism.

The sacrifices of our people were very great. Out of a population of one million, 28,000 were killed, 12,600 wounded, 10,000 were made political prisoners in Italy and Germany, and 35,000 made to do forced labour, of ground; all the communications, all the ports, mines and electric power installations were destroyed, our agriculture and livestock were plundered, and our entire national economy was wrecked.
Enver Hoxha, Selected Works, 1941–1948, vol. I (Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House, 1974, 599-600.

Look up the bourgeois figures and they are almost exactly the same.
From Communism, Health, and Lifestyle: The Paradox of Mortality Transition in Albania, 1950-1990.

p. 9 – “Figures for 1927…show that 92.4% of the population was illiterate. Among the literate population only 446 had a university degree, and 1,773 had secondary schooling.”

“a figure on life expectancy at birth [was] given for 1938 as 38 years” Although this number is heavily disputed due to lack of tracking deaths, the fact remains that life expectancy was very low. The author also admits that the “majority of villagers died without any medical intervention.”

p. 9-10 – “Until 1922, when the first public health service was established, there was no health institution in the country.”

p. 15-16 - “in 1949 there were 238,266 malaria cases reported, which means that 20.1% of the population was infected.”
“”tuberculosis was widespread and in 1950 accounted for more than 15% of all deaths.”

From a bourgeois book: A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha by O’Donnell

p. 186. "Enver Hoxha's plan to mobilize all of Albania's resources under the regimentation of a central plan was effective and quite successful […] Albania was a tribal society, not necessarily primitive but certainly less developed than most. It had no industrial or working class tradition and no experience using modern production techniques. Thus, the results achieved, especially during the phases of initial planning and construction of the economic base were both impressive and positive."

From Communism, Health, and Lifestyle: The Paradox of Mortality Transition in Albania, 1950-1990.

p. 20 – The growth of the net material product from one five-year-plan to the next was, on average, nearly 44%, with industry recording the fastest growth rates during this period [the Marxist period of 1945-1975].”

“The average growth of industry from 1951 to 1975 was 82.5%”

“The country’s highway system was greatly expanded and by 1985 consisted of 6,900 kilometres”

“Because of the large number of rivers and their mountainous nature, Albania developed its hydroelectric potential (HEP), estimated at 2,500 MW, second to Norway within Europe.”

From Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: The Case of Albania – Adi Schnytzer

Growth indices for the Albanian economy (1938=1)

Gross domestic material product
1950 – 1.7
1960 – 4.0
1970 – 8.3
1973 – 10.7

Global agricultural production
1950 – 1.2
1960 – 1.7
1970 – 3.1
1973 – 3.5

Global industrial production
1950 – 4
1960 – 25
1970 – 64
1973 – 86

Retail trade turnover
1950 – 1.4
1960 – 6
1970 – 10
1973 – 13

Population (millions)
1950 – 1.20
1960 – 1.60
1970 – 2.14
1973 – 2.30

“From the table [presented above] it is clear that the Albanian economy has sustained rapid economic growth since 1950.” The author adds it is surprising that the successes of the Albanian economy have not been more thoroughly catalogued by Western scholars.

In 1945 alone, one year after the socialist revolution, half of the arable land in Albania was already redistributed.

US government sources speak of it right here:
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-165.html

From Communism, Health, and Lifestyle: The Paradox of Mortality Transition in Albania, 1950-1990 one more time:

p. 17 – “the Agrarian Land Reform, which was sanctioned by law in August 1945, based on the principle that ‘the land belong to the tiller.’ So, based on this law, the Albanian government confiscated the large landed estates without making any compensation to the owners. The land was then redistributed to the peasants, with the condition that it could not be sold, bought or rented.”

Official -statistics (the objectivity of which has been attested to by eminent British economists) show that between 1951 and 1985

Agricultural production increased by 4.5 times;
Retail sales per head of population: 5.5 times;
Industrial production increased by 16.2 times;
Chrome production increased by 30.9 times;
Electric power prduction increased by 217.1 times;
Chemical production increased by 585.8 times;
('Statistical Yearbook of the PSR of Albania1988'; Tirana; 1988; p.: 81, 87, 122).And a post I made in the same topic at the time:

From Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People (1974), p. 159: "During the two year plan [1949-1950] large projects were begun... Of the total investment in this period 47% was devoted to the development of industry with 20% going to the improvement and expansion of mining Albania's rich sub-soil resources. By 1950 general industrial output had been raised to over four times the output in 1958.

With the first five year plan (1952-1955) the development of industry gathered such momentum that by the end of the period Albania had been transformed from a backward agricultural into an agrarian industrial country."

p. 160: "In the third five year plan (1961-1965)... In spite of the fact that it was during this period that Khrushchev not only broke off unilaterally all economic agreements... industrial production rose to 35 times that of 1938 with 11 days sufficing to turn out the goods which had then required a whole year to produce. Industry represented 57% of total output as opposed to 8% in 1938. National income as a whole was 536% as compared with 1938 and per capital income 300%."

From A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha, p. 186: "The prioritization of heavy industry [emphasis added] which enabled Albania to take advantage of the large number of natural resources it possessed was extremely logical."

... By the 1980's the economy had stagnated due to a lack of foreign trade, and in Hoxha's works there's plenty of anticipation for an expected economic collapse of capitalism (and revisionism) in the 1980's which never came. At this same time, despite efforts by Hoxha (which mirrored Stalin in the early 1950's) to have young cadre enter the party, bureaucracy remained. By 1989 the post-Hoxha leadership had begun to move away from socialism, and adopted Khrushchev-esque reforms in 1990 which caused the economy to sag. Then a student movement started based upon an idealization of capitalism. Meanwhile, Ramiz Alia began praising East Germany as a "socialist" state and began opening up to the US and UK. He began "destalinization" measures (removing Stalin monuments, stressing "peace" over "dogmatic" class war, etc.), began purging "hardliners" from the party and Central Committee, and agreed to market capitalist reforms in 1991 and 1992 which caused the economy to tank.

At this same time the newly-formed Democratic Party under Sali Berisha was very anti-communist and began forming pro-capitalist trade unions. In the 1991 election the Party of Labour still won quite a significant victory, and remained quite popular in the countryside. However, "This was followed immediately by two months of widespread unrest, including street demonstrations and a general strike lasting three weeks, which finally led to the collapse of the new regime by June. The National Endowment for Democracy had been there also, providing $80,000 to the labor movement and $23,000 'to support training and civic education programs'." (Killing Hope, p. 320. The NED being often described as a CIA front)

The Democrats had demanded that the government resign simply because it was "Communist." "In December [1991], DPA Party Chairman Sali Berisha charged the SPA [Socialist Party of Albania – social-democratic name change of the PLA] with deliberately obstructing the reform process in the countryside... He called for DPA members to resign from the coalition government... This occurred whilst Gramoz Pashko [Democrat, economics minister] was having talks in London with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)... Pashko criticized Berisha for breaking up the government, saying that the move would lead the country into even further anarchy and chaos. The same week saw the arrest of 71-year-old Nexhmije Hoxha, who had been expelled from the party in June... And so began the series of witch-hunts, mixing corruption with politics, that would so preoccupy the country's leaders over the next few years... Albania's immediate future could not have appeared bleaker." (The Albanians: A Modern History, p. 230.)

After disrupting the economy due to the trade union strikes (which were similar to those of the CIA-backed anti-Allende strikes in Chile in the early 1970's), the DPA won the 1992 elections. On April 4, 1992, Alia resigned as President. "The rapid dismantling of the one-party state had brought about the almost total breakdown of state authority, resulting not only in the collapse of the economy, but also in an escalation of serious crime....

By the Democrats' own admission, the rebuilding of the country's devastated economy would be a long, slow process....

Gloom and despair now typified Albanian rural life, as most peasants had a little milk or cheese to sell but were otherwise jobless and without income. The young wanted to get out at any cost... At the beginning of July... around 6,000 Albanians tried to commander ships in Durres... The attempted exodus was triggered by the discontinuation of unemployment benefits for state workers, thus effectively cutting off the income of around 20 per cent of Albania's workforce. A general air of unrest soon prevailed throughout the country... Although Operation Pelican, the Italian-organized food aid programme, had successfully prevented mass starvation, it could hardly be seen as a permanent solution to the country's food shortages." (pp. 232-234.)

"On 12 September, former president Ramiz Alia was put under house arrest... The cause of his sudden arrest could be traced to his outspoken articles in the socialist newspaper, 24 Hours, in which he criticized the government for having lowered the standard of living... five former Communist Party and police officials were jailed up to 20 years... By then virtually the entire former Politburo was under arrest.. many saw the purges of former leaders as directing attention away from real and acute problems facing the country." (pp. 235-236.)

The situation degenerated from there. The country began one of the most corrupt in the world, Berisha attempted to centralize power in his own hands throughout the 1993-1996 period as political opponents were harassed, arrested, or assassinated, etc. Corruption and capitalism went together to cause the economy to spiral into a crisis, and the year 1997 saw a civil war erupt. "Berisha now became subject to serious public and international criticism of his actions, with western governments condemning violent attacks on the press... The Berisha government... attempted to regain control of the south by bombing the rebel-held Greek minority village of Delvina. This was a feeble and ineffective attempt to terrorise the local population, which led directly to the rebel takeover of the nearby town of Saranda. There followed the wholesale looting of army and navy depots by protestors... the important town of Gjirokaster [Hoxha's birthplace] fell to the rebels....

Berisha, arguing that he was facing a communist insurgency, had made a formal appeal for military assistance... the restoration of order was a priority for the West. Thus, in a damage limitation exercise, a multinational task force was duly assembled and landed at Durres on 15 April... Berisha's administration was forced to face political reality and cave in to opposition and international demands for an all-party government and new parliamentary elections." (pp. 246-247.)

With NATO assistance the revolt was quelled and Berisha was kicked out in elections that year, only to return some years later. Albania remains corrupt and Berisha remains a reactionary.

A short 2007 Christian Science Monitor article contrasting the Albania of Hoxha's time to modern-day Albania: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html?page=1

[Kiev Communard]

Comrade, was that the reason why elections during the Stalin era had the slogan of "Party and non-Party Bolsheviks" (which today's Russian liberal commentators have used to criticize Putin's recent front scheme (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russia-s-putin-t154386/index.html))?

I do not think so. The "non-party" list was not described as "Bolshevik", it was merely intended to get a semblance of "non-partisan" popular support to the government.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, you do deserve a warning for this post IMO. OP just wanted to know the answer to said question, how is it his fault that sectarian comments ensue? It's an interesting question that he/she apparently wanted to know.

Well, i've decided not to call the OP a fucking moron after all. Despite, IMO, this thread being an obvious attempt at flame-baiting, there has actually been some meaningful and useful discourse in this thread.

Note to any lurking BA: I explicitly stated in the previous post that I had not yet called the OP a fucking moron, and in this post have confirmed that i've decided not to call him a fucking moron, despite the intent of the thread being quite dubious.

Call it thinking out loud.;)

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah, coming age is a good book on Albania, but it mentions taxation once and not in context of its absence in Albania.

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh yea? Is that what he meant by "everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes?"

Thanks for the translation.

Of course, it's already in English and you've totally changed the meaning.

I could sit here for hours and pull quotes like this from Marx and Engels.

"These benevolent patronizers, profoundly ignorant of the real aspirations and the real movement of the working classes, forget one thing. All the socialist founders of sects belong to a period in which the working class themselves were neither sufficiently trained and organized by the march of capitalist society itself to enter as historical agents upon the world’s stage, nor were the material conditions of their emancipation sufficiently matured in the old world itself. Their misery existed, but the conditions of their own movement did not yet exist." - Marx

It is unwise to quote things from Marx in the same way as one might from the New Testament. Context, context, context!

Your quote #1 was, I think, about the circumstances of revolutions. Reminds one in fact of Lenin's famous line in Switzerland about how we might not live to see the Revolution--in a speech made in January 1917. So Lenin hadn't the foggiest idea of when the Russian Revolution was going to happen, and it happened spontaneously, to everybody's surprise. But when it did, he and his Bolshevik Party were ready and knew what to do, which is why it won and so many others have failed.

As for quote #2, the point he was making was that Fourier and Owen and all those early 19th century thinkers trying to suck a socialist society out of their thumbs and forming semi-religious groups of worshippers of their ideas had become irrelevant once the working masses had started to actually organize themselves.

Reading that as a critique of "socialist sects" today is grossly out of context, very much like a fundamentalist quoting from the Bible.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

This is a famous blunder of Trotsky's. Deutscher roundly debunks it in his biography.

Basically, it is an optical illusion of history that this appeared to be the case, because Lenin-Trotsky were indispensable, -- BUT, if they hadn't have existed, some other "Lenin" and "Trotsky" would have emerged. The fact is, Lenin and Trotsky, by their emergence and brilliance, prevented the emergence of other would-be Lenins and Trotskys.

That doesn't mean they weren't there.

No Great Man is indispensable. Class forces are indispensable.

Then Deutscher was wrong.

If Lenin and Trotsky had not been around, the Bolsheviks would have been led by Kamenev and Stalin, who were in charge till Lenin got there. They were for supporting Kerensky's Provisional government, "insofar as," as Stalin put it, it continued the Revolution. And the Russian Revolution would have gone the way of, say, the Italian Revolution a year or two later, which the Italian Socialists and Communists missed the boat on, resulting in Mussolini and fascism.

Or the German Revolution, which failed because all the best leaders -- Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Jogiches, Levine, and for that matter Mehring -- died within three-four months of it brreaking out. Only with Mehring was it natural causes. So instead you got Hitler.

That is what actually happened, as opposed to what theorists might speculated.

Why is this? Is this a denial of Marxism? No, not at all. Leaders of revolutionary movements are formed by the movements they lead in the last analysis. But it usually takes years and decades for them to be formed and trained.

Being a professional revolutionary is in one way like any other profession. It requires education, training, and indeed apprenticeship, to go from apprentice to journeyman to master.

Decapitate a revolutionary movement and you -- decapitate it.

-M.H.-

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, it's nothing like that since the point here is the method being applied, which of course modern "Marxists" claim to wield.

"With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society develop as luxuriantly as is at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk of a real revolution. Such a revolution is only possible in the periods when both these factors, the modern productive forces and the bourgeois productive forms, come in collision with each other." *

I don't see anything in there about the revolution only being possible when the "correct leadership" appears (which is what "Trotskyists" have been claiming for many decades, despite having never actually been that fabled "correct leadership" anywhere).

* Engels later remarked: "Suffice it to say that the reserve maintained by us was not to the mind of these people; one was to enter into the game of making revolutions. We most decidedly refused to do so."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Being a professional revolutionary is in one way like any other profession. It requires education, training, and indeed apprenticeship, to go from apprentice to journeyman to master.

Oh boy! And if we're lucky our new revolutionary "masters" -- educated and trained and all! -- will even allow us to construct some block houses for ourselves. Sounds like liberation to me. Where do I sign?

[A Marxist Historian]

The general strike was orchestrated by the Democratic Party of Albania, which received funding from the CIA or CIA-backed trade union strikes against the Allende Government. The trade unions which were pro-DPA were little different from Poland's Solidarity trade union. A good description of the events is The Albanians: A Modern History by Miranda Vickers.


Except that there is a huge difference between Poland and Albania.

In Poland, the regime was essentially imposed on Poland from the outside by the Soviet Union. There was no country in Eastern Europe, indeed no country in Europe period, where the Soviet Union was, and indeed is, less popular than Poland. Poland is the traditional Russian national enemy, and the once strong Polish Communist Party had been nearly wiped out by Stalin and had to be revived from the grave.

I think arguments can be made for justifying Stalin's decision not to try to cross the Vistula in the face of fierce German opposition and come to the rescue of the Warsaw Uprising. But be that as it may, Poles deeply resented it. And then you have Katyn...

In Albania, by contrast, you have what was allegedly at least an indigenous Albanian Revolution.

So the fact that it was overthrown by a popular uprising counts very heavily indeed against Hoxha and the state he led.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh boy! And if we're lucky our new revolutionary "masters" -- educated and trained and all! -- will even allow us to construct some block houses for ourselves. Sounds like liberation to me. Where do I sign?

Except that a revolutionary is a leader not a master, and only gets to be a leader if the people decide he or she should be followed. If what you are looking for is perks and an easy life, lording it over other people, then go in for something else.

But any career requires education and training and apprenticeships. Indeed, if you are a member of a craft union, even these days you may have to go thru an apprenticeship before you get that journeyman card. Such is life. You don't become a revolutionary by posting to Revleft.

-M.H.-

[Tim Cornelis]

If found this very interesting fact. To answer OP's question: yes, there has been a "successful" "revolution" (both are highly questionable) lead by a Trotskyist: The Bolivarian Revolution.

Chavez is a Trotskyist

At least he said so himself,
In the same address, Mr Chavez also announced he would nationalise key businesses, declared himself a Trotskyist and cited the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm

[Ismail]

If found this very interesting fact. To answer OP's question: yes, there has been a "successful" "revolution" (both are highly questionable) lead by a Trotskyist: The Bolivarian Revolution.

Chavez is a Trotskyist"I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so." (Source: http://ml-review.ca/aml/PAPER/2004/DECEMBER/Chavez.htm)

And for a more recent example of him not being a Marxist: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/07/201173014318619360.html

[Tim Cornelis]

He's an opportunist above all.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Except that a revolutionary is a leader not a master

"Being a professional revolutionary is in one way like any other profession. It requires education, training, and indeed apprenticeship, to go from apprentice to journeyman to master." - you.


and only gets to be a leader if the people decide he or she should be followed.

http://reconstitution.us/rcnew/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/polpot.jpg


If what you are looking for is perks and an easy life, lording it over other people, then go in for something else.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/3/5/1267790538064/Kim-Il-sung-001.jpg


But any career requires education and training and apprenticeships. Indeed, if you are a member of a craft union, even these days you may have to go thru an apprenticeship before you get that journeyman card. Such is life. You don't become a revolutionary by posting to Revleft.

Right, you sign up at the Spartacist office to become an apprentice and work your way up. That's straight out of the Communist Manifesto. :rolleyes:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Chavez is a Trotskyist

At least he said so himself,At various times, he's claimed to be:

- A Christian
- A democratic socialist
- A Trotskyist
- A Maoist
- A Castroist
- A socialist
- A "Quixoteist"

What is he actually? The chief executive of the capitalist state in Venezuela.

[Ismail]

So NHIA, what is your take on Cuba these days? I remember back in 2009 you were attacking me for daring to insinuate that Cuba was both a neo-colony of the USSR and a state-capitalist country.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That has nothing to do with this thread, but Cuba was never a "neo-colony of the USSR" or a "state-capitalist country."

[electro_fan]

If found this very interesting fact. To answer OP's question: yes, there has been a "successful" "revolution" (both are highly questionable) lead by a Trotskyist: The Bolivarian Revolution.

Chavez is a Trotskyist

At least he said so himself,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm

No he isn't.

[Ismail]

That has nothing to do with this thread, but Cuba was never a "neo-colony of the USSR" or a "state-capitalist country."So Cuba (and, apparently, the USSR post-Stalin) found the Marxist magic again or... what?

I say this because it's fairly obvious that the original topic isn't really worth talking about and others have moved on to more interesting subjects.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So Cuba (and, apparently, the USSR post-Stalin) found the Marxist magic again or... what?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about.... and I don't, haven't and won't claim to be a "Marxist."

[A Marxist Historian]

No, it's nothing like that since the point here is the method being applied, which of course modern "Marxists" claim to wield.

"With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society develop as luxuriantly as is at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk of a real revolution. Such a revolution is only possible in the periods when both these factors, the modern productive forces and the bourgeois productive forms, come in collision with each other." *

I don't see anything in there about the revolution only being possible when the "correct leadership" appears (which is what "Trotskyists" have been claiming for many decades, despite having never actually been that fabled "correct leadership" anywhere).

* Engels later remarked: "Suffice it to say that the reserve maintained by us was not to the mind of these people; one was to enter into the game of making revolutions. We most decidedly refused to do so."

You really do treat every pearl from the lips of M & E just like fundamentalists treat the New Testament, don't you?

Marx was talking about when a revolution was possible objectively, not about what is required for one to succeed. He would be turning over in his grave at people rummaging through his writings looking for copybook recipes for all human wisdom. But don't feel bad, you're not the first to go this route. Stalin in particular was real big on it and set the trend.

BTW, Lenin & Trotsky were never into "the game of making revolutions" either. They happen when they happen, not when one wants them to happen. Even the best Marxists usually err when they try to get into the prediction game. Marx sure did, on numerous occasions. And they can never be induced artificially when the time isn't ripe.

Is it possible for a revolution to happen without a revolutionary organization and a revolutionary program? Of course.

Is it possible for one to succeed? Of course not. That's not some peculiar Leninist notion, it is an obvious historical fact.

If there was any doubt about this in anybody's minds, Tunisia, Egypt, Greece and now England have proven this all over again, just in the last six-seven months.

Wake up and smell the coffee, and pay attention to what goes on in the real world.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Stalin in particular was real big on it and set the trend.I don't see how.

"Dissenting from a proposal that revolution was possible 'on condition of a proletarian revolution in the West,' he [Stalin] said [at the Sixth Party Congress of August 1917] that 'the possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the country that blazes the trail to socialism.... It is necessary to give up the outworn idea that Europe alone can show us the way. There is a dogmatic Marxism and a creative Marxism. I stand on the ground of the latter.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 95-96.)

Not to mention his report to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(b) in 1939 in which he questions the relevance of Engels' words on the socialist state in the conditions of the world of that time. See: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html (part III, section 4.)

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't see how.

"Dissenting from a proposal that revolution was possible 'on condition of a proletarian revolution in the West,' he [Stalin] said [at the Sixth Party Congress of August 1917] that 'the possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the country that blazes the trail to socialism.... It is necessary to give up the outworn idea that Europe alone can show us the way. There is a dogmatic Marxism and a creative Marxism. I stand on the ground of the latter.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 95-96.)

Not to mention his report to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(b) in 1939 in which he questions the relevance of Engels' words on the socialist state in the conditions of the world of that time. See: http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html (part III, section 4.)

Staqlin said whatever was convenient to him from one day to the next. He was very talented at finding quotes from Marx or Lenin to every purpose, though by the '30s he had professors to do the work for him.

And, as with Engels talking about the withering away of the state, he was willing to outrightly disagree with Marx and Engels when he had no choice about it. Circa 1939, the Soviet state definitely was showing no signs of withering away. Au contraire.

Circa 1917, he could easily have found a better way of defending Lenin's path than mumbling about dogmatic vs. creative Marxism. But, since he was basically going along with Lenin in order to be the Party Leader, being as he had been advocating reuniting the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks just a few months previously, he wasn't too sure of his ground.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Staqlin said whatever was convenient to him from one day to the next. He was very talented at finding quotes from Marx or Lenin to every purpose, though by the '30s he had professors to do the work for him.For what it's worth I do recall Terry Martin in The Affirmative Action Empire noting how once Stalin asked his secretary to compile everything Lenin ever wrote on the nationalities question for him to read. Both Erik Van Ree and the Medvedev brothers have noted that Stalin read Marx, Engels and Lenin with devotion. You have to admit that Lenin was also "very talented at finding quotes from Marx" for every purpose, from using Marx to attack the liberalism of Kautsky, to discussing the subject of compromise and Engels' views on it, etc. Most every prominent Leninist figure has done the same thing since then, whether pro-Stalin or pro-Trotsky.


And, as with Engels talking about the withering away of the state, he was willing to outrightly disagree with Marx and Engels when he had no choice about it. Circa 1939, the Soviet state definitely was showing no signs of withering away. Au contraire.Evidently the state couldn't wither away at that point. Capitalist encirclement was pretty obviously still in effect, and the international revolution had obviously not occurred yet. As Stalin said in that speech, "[Engels words are] correct, but only on one of two conditions: a) if we study the socialist state only from the angle of the internal development of a country, abstracting ourselves in advance from the international factor, isolating, for the convenience of investigation, the country and the state from the international situation; or b) if we assume that socialism is already victorious in all countries, or in the majority of countries, that a socialist encirclement exists instead of a capitalist encirclement, that there is no more danger of foreign attack, and that there is no more need to strengthen the army and the state. Well, but what if socialism has been victorious only in one separate country, and if, in view of this, it is quite impossible to abstract oneself from international conditions -- what then? Engels' formula does not furnish an answer to this question. As a matter of fact, Engels did not set himself this question, and therefore could not have given an answer to it."


Circa 1917, he could easily have found a better way of defending Lenin's path than mumbling about dogmatic vs. creative Marxism. But, since he was basically going along with Lenin in order to be the Party Leader, being as he had been advocating reuniting the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks just a few months previously, he wasn't too sure of his ground.There's no evidence he ever held a cynical attitude towards Lenin, and Stalin was in no way the only Bolshevik to advocate unity with the Mensheviks at that point.

[KC]

For what it's worth I do recall Terry Martin in The Affirmative Action Empire noting how once Stalin asked his secretary to compile everything Lenin ever wrote on the nationalities question for him to read. Both Erik Van Ree and the Medvedev brothers have noted that Stalin read Marx, Engels and Lenin with devotion. You have to admit that Lenin was also "very talented at finding quotes from Marx" for every purpose, from using Marx to attack the liberalism of Kautsky, to discussing the subject of compromise and Engels' views on it, etc. Most every prominent Leninist figure has done the same thing since then, whether pro-Stalin or pro-Trotsky.

This is more a condemnation of dogmatism - including yourself - than it is a justification for anything.

[DaringMehring]

Then Deutscher was wrong.

If Lenin and Trotsky had not been around, the Bolsheviks would have been led by Kamenev and Stalin, who were in charge till Lenin got there. They were for supporting Kerensky's Provisional government, "insofar as," as Stalin put it, it continued the Revolution. And the Russian Revolution would have gone the way of, say, the Italian Revolution a year or two later, which the Italian Socialists and Communists missed the boat on, resulting in Mussolini and fascism.

Or the German Revolution, which failed because all the best leaders -- Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Jogiches, Levine, and for that matter Mehring -- died within three-four months of it brreaking out. Only with Mehring was it natural causes. So instead you got Hitler.

That is what actually happened, as opposed to what theorists might speculated.

Why is this? Is this a denial of Marxism? No, not at all. Leaders of revolutionary movements are formed by the movements they lead in the last analysis. But it usually takes years and decades for them to be formed and trained.

Being a professional revolutionary is in one way like any other profession. It requires education, training, and indeed apprenticeship, to go from apprentice to journeyman to master.

Decapitate a revolutionary movement and you -- decapitate it.

-M.H.-

Sorry, but I've been busy and couldn't reply til now.

I think your view springs from the Spartacist obsession with being some kind of messenger of holy revolutionary writ to the masses, without which they are doomed -- a sort of Trotskyist Bob Avakianism.

You say "the Bolsheviks would have been led by Stalin - Kamenev." Well then, the Bolsheviks would have gone, and some other Party would have come up. The Bolsheviks came up from about 10k people after all -- almost nothing. Who was going to come up, was who had the line the masses needed, wanted, were pushing for. If Stalin-Kamenev Bolsheviks didn't have it, then either Stalin-Kamenev or whoever would have gone and Smilga-Unknown would have led, or the Bolsheviks themselvs would have faded, and another Party would have come.

Granted, there is not infinite time for such a Party to develop **if you look at the crisis moment alone** but you have to remember, Russia was revolutionary since 1870 and doubly since 1905... so there were experienced revolutionaries around. You say "years and decades" well yes, there had been years and decades and lifetimes in which revolutionaries were hardened in Russia. It wasn't just Lenin & Trotsky and 149,999,998 incompetents.

Your German example --- why did they all die, because of the correlation of class forces. Not because of the failure of their leadership. Did their deaths defeat the revolution in and of themselves? That is the realm of historical counterfactuals, but... Ben M'Hidi was killed and Algeria still got free from France, right? I mean, you're saying that because Luxemburg et al were killed, all the fight of the revolutionary masses, the hundreds of thousands and millions, was from that point on futile, and the result was pre-determined as Hitler. Warped and condescending and un-Marxist to me.

[A Marxist Historian]

Sorry, but I've been busy and couldn't reply til now.

I think your view springs from the Spartacist obsession with being some kind of messenger of holy revolutionary writ to the masses, without which they are doomed -- a sort of Trotskyist Bob Avakianism.

You say "the Bolsheviks would have been led by Stalin - Kamenev." Well then, the Bolsheviks would have gone, and some other Party would have come up. The Bolsheviks came up from about 10k people after all -- almost nothing. Who was going to come up, was who had the line the masses needed, wanted, were pushing for. If Stalin-Kamenev Bolsheviks didn't have it, then either Stalin-Kamenev or whoever would have gone and Smilga-Unknown would have led, or the Bolsheviks themselvs would have faded, and another Party would have come.

Granted, there is not infinite time for such a Party to develop **if you look at the crisis moment alone** but you have to remember, Russia was revolutionary since 1870 and doubly since 1905... so there were experienced revolutionaries around. You say "years and decades" well yes, there had been years and decades and lifetimes in which revolutionaries were hardened in Russia. It wasn't just Lenin & Trotsky and 149,999,998 incompetents.

Your idea that some other party would have just hopped up and played the same role as the Bolsheviks is absurd. The Bolsheviks had been the party of the revolutionary workers since 1905, when they led the Moscow uprising. And the party of the majority of the working class since 1911 at the latest. Really, by 1907 as the lessons of 1905 had settled in.

The Bolsheviks were a helluvalot more than Lenin. But they had a political understanding that was adequate for the revolutionary tasks in 1905, but no longer good enough by 1917, when it was no longer a question of a revolution against Tsarism, which was already overthrown in February. They had to *change* their politics and, basically, accept Trotsky's ideas which they had disagreed with in the past.

No Lenin, this would not have happened, or at least not happened in time. And no other party could have suddenly filled the gap, as the Bolshevik Party had *established itself* as the revolutionary party of the working class. Sure they may have been down to 10k members during WWI due to repression and the wave of war-patriotism, but that really didn't matter. Before WWI, they elected the majority of the workers representatives in the Duma.

So things would have just petered out into chaos, as they did all over the rest of Europe after WWI, and the right wing would have triumphed. Fantasizng about any other possible course of events is, quite simply, ridiculously stupid.

Workers revolutions succssfully overthrowing the capitalist class and establishing their own regime are *hard.* They don't come easily, and most of the time they don't come at all.

Wihout a revolutionary party you can have a revolution alright, you can have a Mubaraq out on his ass, but you can never have a really successful revolution that puts the working class in power.


Your German example --- why did they all die, because of the correlation of class forces. Not because of the failure of their leadership. Did their deaths defeat the revolution in and of themselves? That is the realm of historical counterfactuals, but... Ben M'Hidi was killed and Algeria still got free from France, right? I mean, you're saying that because Luxemburg et al were killed, all the fight of the revolutionary masses, the hundreds of thousands and millions, was from that point on futile, and the result was pre-determined as Hitler. Warped and condescending and un-Marxist to me.

As for Algeria, well, look at Algeria now is all I got to say. Still a French neo-colony basically, and the military dictatorship there is vicious. Killed tens of thousands of people in the 1990s duirng their civil war with the Islamics, who were even worse than they were, though their body count was lower as they weren't as well armed.

And no, Rosa and Karl and Leo and Eugen *did not* die because of the correlation of class forces, which was quite excellent in the fall of 1918 in fact. In purely objective terms, rather better than it was in Russia in the year 1917. The problem was the subjective factor.

They died because Rosa, like you, was a spontaneist, and she thought making a noble sacrifice and not fleeing for Switzerland or something to prove what a true revolutionary she was was more important than preserving herself from being murdered. Karl, always more of a romantic than a scientific revolutionary, felt similarly, and Leo followed his ex-lover Rosa's example. And Mehring had his heart attack and died because of all this.

Eugen "communists are only dead men on leave" Levine did the same in Bavaria, not because he was a spontaneist, indeed he had a better conception of the role of the revolutionary vanguard than any of the others, but because he was somewhat of an ultra-leftist.

So the German CP was decapitated, and floundered around for the next few years making all sorts of mistakes, even as it grew to a mass party.

Could it have won anyway in 1923, the next big revolutionary moment? Yes, it could have. But it didn't because Brandler was just an awful poor substitute. The German CP had a whole lot of problems, and didn't listen well enough to advice from the Russians. And after 1923, advice from the Russians became part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

For a more detailed account, I refer you indeed to the Spartacist analysis, which IMHO is a fundamental contribution to understanding the failure of the German Revolution, as Trotsky's own critique in "Lessons of October", though very valuable, is incomplete. He made certain errors with respect to Germany in 1923, which is why German Trotskyism never really got off the ground.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/esp/56/germany1923.html

-M.H.-

[DaringMehring]

First of all, far be it from me to criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviks for their activities in 1917, which is what you're trying to twist this into somehow.

It was absolutely correct for Lenin to escape to Finland rather than turn himself in to the Provisional Goverment when they demanded his arrest and trial and the Mensheviks "guaranteed" his safety.

And of course, as to the revolution itself, we know that the first Bolshevik CC vote was something like 12 against, 2 for, with a few abstentions. The two for, being Lenin and Trotsky.

We also know, they were instrumental in planning nuts and bolts, and rallying the workers.

So yes, they had important personal agency.

But that doesn't prove your hypothesis and disprove mine. My hypothesis is that, had those two individuals not been there, others would have stepped up to fill their historical role, not that they themselves weren't important or that such a role was historically unnecessary.


Your idea that some other party would have just hopped up and played the same role as the Bolsheviks is absurd. The Bolsheviks had been the party of the revolutionary workers since 1905, when they led the Moscow uprising. And the party of the majority of the working class since 1911 at the latest. Really, by 1907 as the lessons of 1905 had settled in.

No other party could have suddenly filled the gap, as the Bolshevik Party had *established itself* as the revolutionary party of the working class. Sure they may have been down to 10k members during WWI due to repression and the wave of war-patriotism, but that really didn't matter. Before WWI, they elected the majority of the workers representatives in the Duma.


This is somewhat delusional. The Bolsheviks were a small grouping, a split from the RSDLP, which itself was a break-out from the larger Narodnik/SR tradition. Were they even numerically bigger than the Mensheviks?

The 10,000 figure after February, is actually an increase. I think they mucked along at 2,000-5,000 for most of their pre-revolution existence.

I don't think any such grouping can be called "the Party of the working class," in a material sense.

How many Duma deputies did they elect? You could count them on one hand. And are you really judging "the Party of the working class" by the number of people they got into bourgeois parliament?


A long discourse on revolutionary leadership comparing Germany to Russia

Your comparison here is really a huge blunder that proves my side more than yours.

You compare the leadership of German and Russian revolutions and attempt to use this to prove that the differences in these leaderships were the decisive element in the respective failure and success.

Where you utterly fail, is in disregarding the social conditions that led to the development of those revolutions, that shaped the working class, and indeed those leaders.

In Germany, the social democracy had taken a parliamentary road, and due to Germany's long period of military successes, economic expansion, and steady socialist advance, the proletariat and their leadership developed illusions in gradualism and socialist inevitability, and remained "soft."

In Russia, the country was revolutionary for a long time, well before the Bolsheviks ever existed. People organized, terrorized, and were hung for the revolution. The proletariat and their leadership were "hard." And then, there were the outbursts of 1905. Trotsky himself said:

"New generations of workers go through it. They absorb in their flesh and blood its experience, its initial semi-victories, its blows and its stern lessons. The inner fabric of the people is transformed. Only by going through the lessons of 1905 could our country, twelve years later, write into history the greatest of all years – 1917!"

This experience was totally unparalleled for the German working class and its leaders.

And you want to put 1917 in Russia versus 1919 in Germany down to difference in individual ideology of leaders?

In Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution," he makes it clear, that in revolutionary Petrograd, a huge number of revolutionary agitators and orators came out of the woodworks. Combine them with the developed and militant state of the proletariat, the demoralization and anger of the land-starved, cannon-fodder peasantry, and how would there not be anyone else, besides Lenin and Trotsky, who would lead the fight for the massive popular demands of "peace, land, and bread?"

And --- if you still insist on the absolute necessity of the particular personages involved -- then, how explain that in Russia they existed but not in Germany, if not by the conditions of social and economic history that shaped the revolutionary proletariat? And once you accept that, how can you say that these conditions miraculously only produced two people worthy of the revolutionary tasks?

[Ismail]

And of course, as to the revolution itself, we know that the first Bolshevik CC vote was something like 12 against, 2 for, with a few abstentions. The two for, being Lenin and Trotsky.You seemingly forgot Stalin. E.g. Stalin on October 16, "The day for the uprising must be properly chosen... Objectively, what Kamenev and Zinoviev propose would enable the counter-revolution to prepare and organize. We would be retreating without end and would lose the revolution. Why should we not ensure for ourselves the possibility of choosing the day and the conditions for the uprising, so as to deprive the counter-revolution of the possibility of organizing? ... The Petrograd Soviet has already taken the path of insurrection by refusing to sanction the withdrawal of the troops. The navy has already risen, in so far as it has gone against Kerensky. Hence, we must firmly and irrevocably take the path of insurrection." (J.V. Stalin, Works Vol. III, pp. 407-408.)

And, "By a majority of ten votes (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Dzerzhinsky, Kollontai, Bubnov, Sokolnikov, Lomov) to two (Kamenev and Zinoviev, now for the first time united in an inglorious partnership) the committee decided to prepare for an armed insurrection and to appoint a 'political bureau' to carry out the decision." (E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution: 1917-23 Vol. I, p. 105.)

[DaringMehring]

You seemingly forgot Stalin. E.g. Stalin on October 16, "The day for the uprising must be properly chosen... Objectively, what Kamenev and Zinoviev propose would enable the counter-revolution to prepare and organize. We would be retreating without end and would lose the revolution. Why should we not ensure for ourselves the possibility of choosing the day and the conditions for the uprising, so as to deprive the counter-revolution of the possibility of organizing? ... The Petrograd Soviet has already taken the path of insurrection by refusing to sanction the withdrawal of the troops. The navy has already risen, in so far as it has gone against Kerensky. Hence, we must firmly and irrevocably take the path of insurrection." (J.V. Stalin, Works Vol. III, pp. 407-408.)

And, "By a majority of ten votes (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Dzerzhinsky, Kollontai, Bubnov, Sokolnikov, Lomov) to two (Kamenev and Zinoviev, now for the first time united in an inglorious partnership) the committee decided to prepare for an armed insurrection and to appoint a 'political bureau' to carry out the decision." (E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution: 1917-23 Vol. I, p. 105.)

I referred to an earlier vote, I believe it happened in July, where the CC refused to aim for armed rebellion. That I believe is what prompted Lenin to write "on slogans." As I recall, Stalin was not present or abstained.

[A Marxist Historian]

First of all, far be it from me to criticize Lenin and the Bolsheviks for their activities in 1917, which is what you're trying to twist this into somehow.

It was absolutely correct for Lenin to escape to Finland rather than turn himself in to the Provisional Goverment when they demanded his arrest and trial and the Mensheviks "guaranteed" his safety.

OK fine. I'm not sure where you are going with the above, I'm not trying to criticize the Bolsheviks as to 1917, and I didn't think you were either.


And of course, as to the revolution itself, we know that the first Bolshevik CC vote was something like 12 against, 2 for, with a few abstentions. The two for, being Lenin and Trotsky.

We also know, they were instrumental in planning nuts and bolts, and rallying the workers.

So yes, they had important personal agency.

But that doesn't prove your hypothesis and disprove mine. My hypothesis is that, had those two individuals not been there, others would have stepped up to fill their historical role, not that they themselves weren't important or that such a role was historically unnecessary.

Others could have popped up to do the nuts and bolts. But for the Bolshevik Party to seriously set its course strategically for world revolution, the only context in which a Bolshevik seizure of power made any sense, required Trotsky's theoretical ideas and Lenin, the long-established leader of Bolshevism, to accept them.

If the Bolshevik Party had trundled along in 1917 with the old concept of the "revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants" to get rid of Tsarism, after the overthrow of the Tsar it would have continued floundering along somewhere to the left of Kerensky and the Mensheviks. Or maybe even reunited with the Mensheviks, which Kamenev and Stalin were in favor of till Lenin arrived.

And the revolution would have gradually sputtered out, and probably given way to a military dictatorship of some Kornilov or other when the economy collapsed.




This is somewhat delusional. The Bolsheviks were a small grouping, a split from the RSDLP, which itself was a break-out from the larger Narodnik/SR tradition. Were they even numerically bigger than the Mensheviks?

The 10,000 figure after February, is actually an increase. I think they mucked along at 2,000-5,000 for most of their pre-revolution existence.

I don't think any such grouping can be called "the Party of the working class," in a material sense.

How many Duma deputies did they elect? You could count them on one hand. And are you really judging "the Party of the working class" by the number of people they got into bourgeois parliament?

Yes, you could count them on one hand, because under the weird Tsarist electoral rules, the workers curia only got to elect about 10 to a dozen representatives from the entire country.

The Bolsheviks got, if I remember the exact numbers right, seven, and the Menshevik six. Three were from Georgia, where the Mensheviks were the national movement, not all from the workers curia.

So the majority of the workers voted for the Bolsheviks in 1913. In the entire country. The weird Tsarist system allowed one, for once, to see a breakdown of votes by social class. Pretty impressive I should think.

Why was this? Because the Bolsheviks led the December 1905 Moscow uprising of the working class to overthrow the Tsar, the highpoint of the 1905 Revolution. So after that, most workers recognized them as their party.

In 1907, just before the ax of Tsarist repression fell and all parties were driven underground, you had aCongress of Russian Social Democracy in London, at which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The official party membership at the time was around 60-70,000 I think.

As for 10,000 after February, this reflects the period of isolation during WWI, when war patriotism initially overwhelmed the Russian working class, briefly giving the Mensheviks the majority among the workers for the first time since 1905--well, ever actually, as before 1905 both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were underground organizations with little actual support in the working class.

But it's not numbers that matter, it is whether the working class considers a party to be its party or not. As the Bolsheviks did have that status, they grew like wildfire after Tsarism was overthrown and you had political freedom, whereas the Mensheviks and the SR's and so forth did not. (Except in Georgia, where the Mensheviks had mass support and took power.)

The SR's got lots of votes in the elections, as they had established themselves as the peasant party, as the Bolsheviks had established themselves as the workers party. And there were far more peasants than workers in Russia.

But this support was largely passive and electoral, so in numbers they never became a very big party. Plus of course they discredited themselves with their peasant following by opposing land seizures, resulting in the Left SR split away from them. Which also never became a mass party.




Your comparison here is really a huge blunder that proves my side more than yours.

You compare the leadership of German and Russian revolutions and attempt to use this to prove that the differences in these leaderships were the decisive element in the respective failure and success.

Where you utterly fail, is in disregarding the social conditions that led to the development of those revolutions, that shaped the working class, and indeed those leaders.

In Germany, the social democracy had taken a parliamentary road, and due to Germany's long period of military successes, economic expansion, and steady socialist advance, the proletariat and their leadership developed illusions in gradualism and socialist inevitability, and remained "soft."

In Russia, the country was revolutionary for a long time, well before the Bolsheviks ever existed. People organized, terrorized, and were hung for the revolution. The proletariat and their leadership were "hard." And then, there were the outbursts of 1905. Trotsky himself said:

"New generations of workers go through it. They absorb in their flesh and blood its experience, its initial semi-victories, its blows and its stern lessons. The inner fabric of the people is transformed. Only by going through the lessons of 1905 could our country, twelve years later, write into history the greatest of all years – 1917!"

This experience was totally unparalleled for the German working class and its leaders.

And you want to put 1917 in Russia versus 1919 in Germany down to difference in individual ideology of leaders?

I don't ignore that history at all. Lenin and Trotsky did not drop from some Marxist heaven, they were created by all that history as the revolutionary leaders of the Russian working class.

The same goes for Germany. All that German history is what explains why German Social Democracy went so bad, and why even the very best leaders, like Rosa, had their flaws.

The decapitation of the revolutionary workers in Germany was definitely a key factor in the failure of the German Revolution. With time and proper Comintern policies, new adequate leaders to replace them could have certainly been developed on the basis of the experience of the continual experience of class confrontation in Germany by 1933 in time to stop Hitler--which would have almost certainly meant a Communist victory, under the circumstances of the collapse of the Weimar Republic.

But that takes time. 1923, it turned out, was not quite enough time, so that revolutionary opportunity was missed also. And after '23, the Comintern became the problem not the solution.


In Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution," he makes it clear, that in revolutionary Petrograd, a huge number of revolutionary agitators and orators came out of the woodworks. Combine them with the developed and militant state of the proletariat, the demoralization and anger of the land-starved, cannon-fodder peasantry, and how would there not be anyone else, besides Lenin and Trotsky, who would lead the fight for the massive popular demands of "peace, land, and bread?"

Of course there are people who would have tried. But they would not have had the experience, the recognition, and the organizational backing to suceed.

The Bolshevik Party had been historically formed as the vanguard of the Russian working class. Without Lenin, it would have collapsed into internal factional squabbles, and Trotsky's "Mezhraiontsy" would not have been able to take its place.

If his group had managed to merge with the Bolsheviks anyway, Trotsky without Lenin's backing would have been a distrusted non-Bolshevik whom the Zinovievs, Kamenevs and Stalins would have been unlikely to listen to on fundamental questions like what to do and when.


And --- if you still insist on the absolute necessity of the particular personages involved -- then, how explain that in Russia they existed but not in Germany, if not by the conditions of social and economic history that shaped the revolutionary proletariat? And once you accept that, how can you say that these conditions miraculously only produced two people worthy of the revolutionary tasks?

They produced a lot of people as prominent leaders with lots of authority, but only Lenin and Trotsky out of the myriad of famous leaders running around Russia really understood that a Russian workers revolution could be a spark for a world revolution.

And without that perspective, the Mensheviks would be right, a second revolution after overthrowing the Tsar would be an unwise adventure, liable to degenerate in unforeseen fashion.

And it did indeed act as a spark for world revolution, and the overthrow of the Kaiser in Germany, the Habsburgs in Austria-Hungary etc. Unfortunately those revolutions stopped there.

As the Russian Revolution would have stopped with the quite spontaneous overthrow of Tsarism, had it not been for Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Party.

Have you read, by the way, Trotsky's "Lessons of October"? That's where he really goes into all this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lessons/index.htm

-M.H.-