Can a Trotskyist/Left-Com summarize what made Lenin awesome and Stalin bad?

[CynicalIdealist]

Thanks.

Also, I heard that Stalin ordered some nationalizations/collectivizations that Lenin didn't? How do left-coms/Trots typically view this? I'm under the impression that Stalin is generally disliked for this economic policy of his, but why exactly?

[StoneFrog]

Doubt your going to get left comms saying Lenin is awesome.

Trots might use points such as Lenin seeked international revolution over socialism in on country.

Under Stalin laws banned homosexuality, after the laws were removed banning homosexuality under the tsar after the revolution.

TBH i don't see much point in arguing either way who was better, since they're both dead; and its mostly ends up in interpretation of events and texts.

[S.Artesian]

Thanks.

Also, I heard that Stalin ordered some nationalizations/collectivizations that Lenin didn't? How do left-coms/Trots typically view this? I'm under the impression that Stalin is generally disliked for this economic policy of his, but why exactly?


How about the critical fact:

One was committed, despite his errors, mistakes, to the triumph of international proletarian revolution. The other actively imposed policies that invariably led to the defeat of international proletarian revolution.

Not that I think Lenin is "awesome."

"Left communists" are not "Trotskyists." Trotskyists mos def consider themselves Leninists, embracing the warts most of all.

[thesadmafioso]

Thanks.

Also, I heard that Stalin ordered some nationalizations/collectivizations that Lenin didn't? How do left-coms/Trots typically view this? I'm under the impression that Stalin is generally disliked for this economic policy of his, but why exactly?

Well, so far as the basis for Stalin's economic policy of industrialization went, he was just working off of the blueprints designed by Trotsky and the left opposition. Though he blundered significantly in the implementation of this plan, as he allowed it to become bogged down in a mess of bureaucratic ineptitude. Stalin was known for merely coming up with figures for industrialization literally off of the top of his head, often times crafting goals which would be impossible to attain. And of course, no one wanted to actually tell the power crazed egomaniac Stalin that his personal goals for economic growth were not attained, so often times the results of his policy were fabricated as well, only adding to the incredible disorder of the program.

And then you have the incredible reliance upon slave labor which his program of rapid industrialization was based heavily upon, wherein prisoners which were often times accused of political crimes they were not guilty of were forced to work to death in the completion of projects marked by there dangerous conditions. This is another element of his economic policy which I can't see any Trotskyist or Left Com really supporting, for reasons obvious enough.

On the matter of his collectivization, I view Stalin's approach to the question as exceedingly premature and crude. Trotsky can be quoted in the mid 1920's as saying that the Soviet agrarian economy is in no shape to be collectivized, and he was largely right in this analysis. Stalin's approach to collective farms only bred chaos in the country side and it sabotaged the economic development of the CCCP.

In short, most everything Stalin did economically was marked by an over reliance upon the bureaucracy and a reckless abuse of centralized economic planning. The only positive advancements made under this regime were either the result of the value in the original plan of industrialization which he was working off of which was penned primarily by Trotsky or through the capabilities of the workers of the Soviet Union to work under adverse political conditions.

[Rafiq]

I don't think Left coms care too much about Stalin, not in the way trotskyists do.

Personally I don't appreciate moralist criticisms of Stalin, as such are idealist and counter productive.

He was the leader of a bourgeois state and worked against the interests of the proletariat... Not much more too it really...

[thesadmafioso]

I don't think Left coms care too much about Stalin, not in the way trotskyists do.

Personally I don't appreciate moralist criticisms of Stalin, as such are idealist and counter productive.

He was the leader of a bourgeois state and worked against the interests of the proletariat... Not much more too it really...

I think you would be hard pressed to term the concept of placing value on the lives of workers as being 'moralistic'. There is nothing idealistic about offering a condemnation of the mass political murders undertaken by this deplorable autocrat.

Not only did Stalin put into motion a methodical structure of sprawling paranoia and political violence which caused a tremendous loss of human life, but he destroyed the very spirit of the Bolshevik revolution itself. By subjecting most all of the original Bolsheviks to assassinations, executions, exiles, and imprisonments, he dismantled every last vestige of the Leninist party and of the democratic centralism which was so vital to its success.

I would say that qualifies as something slightly stronger than merely 'working against the interests of the proletariat'.

[Rafiq]

Such accusations are debatable. Never the less, all of those things existed in practically all capitalist countries so I fail to see why Russia was a special case. It is as if you EXPECT the stalinist regime wouldn't do those kind of things... As if you had higher standards..

[Agent Equality]

Lenin? awesome? :laugh:

[Jose Gracchus]

I think Trotskyists are really deluded when they think that top-down industrialization in a single-party-state, isolated from the world market with only domestic savings to finance it, in preparation for another round of inter-imperialist slaughter, went down like it did only because Stalin won the maneuvers within the party elite after 1921.

I think something like what happened was fixed to a relative level of certainty once the workers' revolution failed by 1921, but then Trotskyists are obliged to forget that the soviets had become shuttered and empty institutions long before their idol was banished from political influence in the USSR. The Russian Revolution was deformed as early as shortly after October, and became hopelessly derailed by 1918, and its fate was sealed by the delay of revolutionary upheavals to the West and their failure to successfully breakthrough the bourgeois regimes.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

went down like it did only because Stalin won the maneuvers within the party elite after 1921.

This is not our position. The degeneration of the Russian revolution was caused primarily by the failure of the revolutionary wave internationally, particularly in Germany. Arguably Trotsky and others might have tried to resist bureaucratisation more effectively than Stalin, who wholeheartedly embraced the process - but to simply throw up our hands and say 'if it weren't for that meddling Stalin' would be an abandonment of Marxism + internationalism in my opinion.

[thesadmafioso]

I think Trotskyists are really deluded when they think that top-down industrialization in a single-party-state, isolated from the world market with only domestic savings to finance it, in preparation for another round of inter-imperialist slaughter, went down like it did only because Stalin won the maneuvers within the party elite after 1921.

I think something like what happened was fixed to a relative level of certainty once the workers' revolution failed by 1921, but then Trotskyists are obliged to forget that the soviets had become shuttered and empty institutions long before their idol was banished from political influence in the USSR. The Russian Revolution was deformed as early as shortly after October, and became hopelessly derailed by 1918, and its fate was sealed by the delay of revolutionary upheavals to the West and their failure to successfully breakthrough the bourgeois regimes.

The point of the supposed derailment of the October revolution at the date which you have provided is quite contestable. The RSFSR was embroiled in not only a massive civil war against veteran WWI units revolting across the nation and against White armies which were growing quickly in strength, but they were fighting against every major power of capitalist imperialism for the survival of their revolution. The British deployed over 10,000 marines to the norther port towns of Murmansk and Archangel where a bourgeois government was put into place, the French mounted operations through outposts in Turkey, and the Japanese and Americans landed marines in Vladivostok. This obviously demanded some rather dramatic measures to counter.

Naturally, war communism was not going to be perfect as it was born of far from imperfect circumstances. That is not to say that the revolution was derailed so much to saw that it was confronted with incredible threats to its existence which needed to be vanquished before the work of creating socialism throughout the world could be focused upon. The fight for the maintenance of the proletarian state formed by the Bolshevik Revolution was by its very nature an international one, as it represented the most progressive dialectical advancement history had ever known; it embodied the spirit of proletarian revolution.

As for the international question, the Russian Revolution did indeed depend upon the prospect of international socialism if it was to succeed. But this does not need to occur in a simultaneous and immediate manner, though such would certainly be preferable. It is not as if the Russian Revolution failed the moment that the rest of Europe did not fall to revolution, it is that it collapsed once it lost its ability to promote internationalist policy to help encourage the emergence of such a situation. Had Trotsky managed to preserve the democratic centralism which was the fundamental basis of the Bolshevik Party, he surely would of been able to isolate the influence of the nationalistic policy of Stalin and he very well may of been able to turn some potent situations in the west revolutionary.

[S.Artesian]

The point of the supposed derailment of the October revolution at the date which you have provided is quite contestable. The RSFSR was embroiled in not only a massive civil war against veteran WWI units revolting across the nation and against White armies which were growing quickly in strength, but they were fighting against every major power of capitalist imperialism for the survival of their revolution. The British deployed over 10,000 marines to the norther port towns of Murmansk and Archangel where a bourgeois government was put into place, the French mounted operations through outposts in Turkey, and the Japanese and Americans landed marines in Vladivostok. This obviously demanded some rather dramatic measures to counter.

Naturally, war communism was not going to be perfect as it was born of far from imperfect circumstances. That is not to say that the revolution was derailed so much to saw that it was confronted with incredible threats to its existence which needed to be vanquished before the work of creating socialism throughout the world could be focused upon. The fight for the maintenance of the proletarian state formed by the Bolshevik Revolution was by its very nature an international one, as it represented the most progressive dialectical advancement history had ever known; it embodied the spirit of proletarian revolution.

As for the international question, the Russian Revolution did indeed depend upon the prospect of international socialism if it was to succeed. But this does not need to occur in a simultaneous and immediate manner, though such would certainly be preferable. It is not as if the Russian Revolution failed the moment that the rest of Europe did not fall to revolution, it is that it collapsed once it lost its ability to promote internationalist policy to help encourage the emergence of such a situation. Had Trotsky managed to preserve the democratic centralism which was the fundamental basis of the Bolshevik Party, he surely would of been able to isolate the influence of the nationalistic policy of Stalin and he very well may of been able to turn some potent situations in the west revolutionary.

The displacement of the soviets by the party apparatus, the dictatorship of the party, precedes the organization of the civil war, although certainly the threat existed, and for the most part, was undertaken against revolutionary elements.

Let's get our history straight here, comrade.

This:

Had Trotsky managed to preserve the democratic centralism which was the fundamental basis of the Bolshevik Party, ....


is such anti-materialist baloney, I don't know whether its more hilarious than pathetic, or vice-versa.

First, "democratic centralism" in the Bolshevik party was a myth. Look at the critical issues of the 1917-1918 period-- the taking of power, the peace with Germany-- the differing views were expressed openly and publicly, in and out of party organizations. That was the Bolsheviks at their best... up to the taking of power.

Secondly, the whole point is that "democratic centralism" was an impossibility. The issue wasn't the internal life of the Bolshevik party, but of the class. Not a mere technicality.

[thesadmafioso]

The displacement of the soviets by the party apparatus, the dictatorship of the party, precedes the organization of the civil war, although certainly the threat existed, and for the most part, was undertaken against revolutionary elements.

Let's get our history straight here, comrade.

This:


is such anti-materialist baloney, I don't know whether its more hilarious than pathetic, or vice-versa.

First, "democratic centralism" in the Bolshevik party was a myth. Look at the critical issues of the 1917-1918 period-- the taking of power, the peace with Germany-- the differing views were expressed openly and publicly, in and out of party organizations. That was the Bolsheviks at their best... up to the taking of power.

Secondly, the whole point is that "democratic centralism" was an impossibility. The issue wasn't the internal life of the Bolshevik party, but of the class. Not a mere technicality.

The soviets were still perfectly represented in the proletarian state as it existed in the immediate period following the Bolshevik revolution. The placement which the Bolshevik vanguard assumed in this time was one which was fully justified by the material conditions of the time; the state of the revolution demanded a consolidation of party rule so as to see to its preservation and its advancement.

There is nothing which is anti-materialist about promoting the concept of democratic centralism in the vanguard party of the proletarian.

It was also a very real concept which served as the lifeblood for open debate and productiveness in the internal affairs of the party, how you can simply write it off as a myth is well beyond me. You are essentially arguing against historical fact at this point.

The peace with Germany was subject to a very heated debate over political approach and strategy, as was the implementation of the NEP, the handling of the labor opposition and the independent trade union movement, the rail crisis, war communism and its exact specifications, and many other issues which I do not think require specific mention for the weight of this point to be carried. Free and open discourse when combined with the absolute rule of the democratic vote made this a system well worth defending and one which was certainly not a 'myth' as you so crudely term it.

[S.Artesian]

Sure, right, suppression of strikes, expulsion and arrest of the Left-SRs from the Petrograd and Moscow soviets-- Left SRs who had no knowledge much less participation in the assassination of the German ambassador-- are perfectly representative of the working class.

I've always thought that modern "Trotskyists" were more than just a bit jealous of Stalin-- they wanted to have a "deformed workers state" of their own so they could have their own Cheka, their own "special powers," their own arrests and executions.

[thesadmafioso]

Sure, right, suppression of strikes, expulsion and arrest of the Left-SRs from the Petrograd and Moscow soviets-- Left SRs who had no knowledge much less participation in the assassination of the German ambassador-- are perfectly representative of the working class.

I've always thought that modern "Trotskyists" were more than just a bit jealous of Stalin-- they wanted to have a "deformed workers state" of their own so they could have their own Cheka, their own "special powers," their own arrests and executions.

The Left SR's were fermenting unrest and disorder in the midst of a revolutionary situation, hardly a time for actively protesting against the vanguard of the proletariat. Supporters of this group were actively attempting to subvert the peace process which Lenin and the Bolshevik party had promised to the workers, peasants, soldiers, and sailors of Russia, of course they were removed from political power upon this blatant subversion of the peoples interests.

But we don't need to actually debate these matters, you can just say that I'm a quasi Stalinist who is not actually a Trotskyist and this conversation can be over. That's a fair and productive way to conduct political discourse, surely.

[Iron Felix]

Why do you group Left-communists and Trotskyists? Anyways, was it not Lenin who wrote Детская болезнь "левизны" в коммунизме? It can be translated as "Infantile Illness "Leftism" in Communism", but I checked wikipedia and apparently it is commonly translated as "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder". I don't know why left-coms would summarize Lenin as "awesome", Lenin despised them as much as mensheviks.

[Blackscare]

Never the less, all of those things existed in practically all capitalist countries so I fail to see why Russia was a special case.[/QUOTE]
Well, other countries at the time weren't considered lode stars of the international revolution, so I think the USSR could described as something of a "special case". It's worth looking into the reasons why, in the span of about two decades, the most progressive and dynamic state/party apparatus ever to exist became so abhorrently warped. I mean, that might just be a question that the Left should look at. Call me crazy.

[QUOTE]
It is as if you EXPECT the stalinist regime wouldn't do those kind of things... As if you had higher standards.


This is a pretty meaningless statement. I think that you're trying to pose as a left-com and doing it a little, well, badly. Now, if you think that what happened under Stalin was inevitable because of inherent faults in vanguardism, you could have said that. And if you're talking specifically about Stalinism and it's faults, you don't make much sense either. Maybe if you were talking about more modern "Stalinist" states it would make sense, since Stalin's Russia serves as a cogent example of the results of Stalinist policy.... being the origin of the term. But it seems that you're just saying "how could you be surprised at the horrors of Stalinism in Russia, that's what Stalinism is!", which is a little stupid. I mean, you have to go to the root of an ideology to understand it. It's easier to write off in-depth analysis of later regimes because they were based on an earlier schematic, but you should look to the original case study to understand what the whole concept is and how it came about. Just sighing and saying "well that's Stalinism for ya!" is a useless exercise for people too lazy to actually bother with real analysis.

[S.Artesian]

The Left SR's were fermenting unrest and disorder in the midst of a revolutionary situation, hardly a time for actively protesting against the vanguard of the proletariat. Supporters of this group were actively attempting to subvert the peace process which Lenin and the Bolshevik party had promised to the workers, peasants, soldiers, and sailors of Russia, of course they were removed from political power upon this blatant subversion of the peoples interests.

But we don't need to actually debate these matters, you can just say that I'm a quasi Stalinist who is not actually a Trotskyist and this conversation can be over. That's a fair and productive way to conduct political discourse, surely.


"Disorder" and "subversion"?? Perfect. Exactly the language used by Kerensky against the Bolsheviks, exactly the reason for mobilizing Kornilov against the soviets.

See all we have to say is "disorder" "unrest" "subversion" ["outside agitators" optional] and then we don't have to discuss exactly what the content of that disorder, that unrest, that subversion is.

"The Bolsheviks said it. Therefore it must be true." Wasn't it Trotsky who said it is impossible to be correct against the party?

No... I don't think you're a quasi-Stalinist at all. I think you're a true blue Trotskyist.

Cue the line how the Whites were actually behind the Kronstadt revolt, how the British fleet was looking for an opportunity to sail up the Neva.

EDIT: you mean fomenting unrest and disorder in a revolutionary situation. Fermenting refers to the organic process by which sugars are converted into alcohol-- almost as good as fomenting unrest and disorder, but not quite. In addition, that's a fucking hoot, complaining that the Left SRs were fomenting unrest and disorder during a revolutionary situation. WTF? WTF do you think a revolutionary situation is but unrest and disorder on a conscious scale?

The problem here is that you, like too many Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, thought they were proletarian equivalents of the Jacobins, the Robespierrists, opposing the "disorder" of the commune, of the enrages. In reality in that opposition they were preparing the way for counterrevolution. The strength of the revolution wasn't with the Jacobins, but with the commune, and the Club Corderlier.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why do you group Left-communists and Trotskyists? Anyways, was it not Lenin who wrote Детская болезнь "левизны" в коммунизме? It can be translated as "Infantile Illness "Leftism" in Communism", but I checked wikipedia and apparently it is commonly translated as "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder". I don't know why left-coms would summarize Lenin as "awesome", Lenin despised them as much as mensheviks.
I'm sure that others can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think part of the confusion is the fact that Left-communism evolved as two separate tendencies which were later integrated, the Italian Left emerging within Leninism and the Dutch-German Left evolving outside of it, so there is no standard, "received" position on Lenin as you might find in other tendencies. (I can't think of any left-coms, contemporary or historical, who would regard him quite as grandly as to call him "awesome", but you can see what I'm getting at.)

[thesadmafioso]

"Disorder" and "subversion"?? Perfect. Exactly the language used by Kerensky against the Bolsheviks, exactly the reason for mobilizing Kornilov against the soviets.

See all we have to say is "disorder" "unrest" "subversion" ["outside agitators" optional] and then we don't have to discuss exactly what the content of that disorder, that unrest, that subversion is.

"The Bolsheviks said it. Therefore it must be true." Wasn't it Trotsky who said it is impossible to be correct against the party?

No... I don't think you're a quasi-Stalinist at all. I think you're a true blue Trotskyist.

Cue the line how the Whites were actually behind the Kronstadt revolt, how the British fleet was looking for an opportunity to sail up the Neva.

EDIT: you mean fomenting unrest and disorder in a revolutionary situation. Fermenting refers to the organic process by which sugars are converted into alcohol-- almost as good as fomenting unrest and disorder, but not quite. In addition, that's a fucking hoot, complaining that the Left SRs were fomenting unrest and disorder during a revolutionary situation. WTF? WTF do you think a revolutionary situation is but unrest and disorder on a conscious scale?

The problem here is that you, like too many Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, thought they were proletarian equivalents of the Jacobins, the Robespierrists, opposing the "disorder" of the commune, of the enrages. In reality in that opposition they were preparing the way for counterrevolution. The strength of the revolution wasn't with the Jacobins, but with the commune, and the Club Corderlier.

It is possible for people of opposed ideology to use the same words to say very different things, you know. Opposition to the proletariat state is quite different from revolutionary insurrection against a bourgeois state. By impeding the process of socialism in Russia by taking a stance in open rebellion against its leading organ, these groups forced action on the behalf of the Bolsheviks.

A revolutionary situation is one where political class consciousness manifests itself into organs of class interest which work to sew disciplined rebellion under the guidance of the philosophy of Marxism. It is carefully ordered disorder, as it needs to be. Class consciousness in and of itself is not enough to overturn a capitalistic society, it needs to be coupled with the proper revolutionary theory to be met with success.

And yes, I did indeed mean to write foment in that last post. I am somewhat sloppy in my editing of posts on an internet forum, go figure.

Fermenting could almost work as a sort of metaphor in this case though, so close enough. They were attempting to take the sugar of counter revolution and turn it into a full blown drink of alcoholic reaction. The Left SR's sought to enter an inebriated state of historical regression while the Bolsheviks were intent on moving towards a sober future of socialism. There. I'm satisfied with that use of the term now.

[Tim Finnegan]

It is possible for people of opposed ideology to use the same words to say very different things, you know. Opposition to the proletariat state is quite different from revolutionary insurrection against a bourgeois state. By impeding the process of socialism in Russia by taking a stance in open rebellion against its leading organ, these groups forced action on the behalf of the Bolsheviks.
Wait, I thought that the working class were supposed to control Russia, not any particular institution. Am I missing something? :huh:


A revolutionary situation is one where political class consciousness manifests itself into organs of class interest which work to sew disciplined rebellion under the guidance of the philosophy of Marxism. It is carefully ordered disorder, as it needs to be. Class consciousness in and of itself is not enough to overturn a capitalistic society, it needs to be coupled with the proper revolutionary theory to be met with success.
That sounds a tad idealistic. Surely effective organisation is a more pressing concern than correct theory?

[thesadmafioso]

Wait, I thought that the working class were supposed to control Russia, not any particular institution. Am I missing something? :huh:

The working class did control Russia for some time through the institutions of the proletarian state and through the vanguard party of the Bolsheviks. The Dictatorship of the Proletarian naturally requires the use of institutions for it to be carried out in full. Lenin touched on this theme quite extensively in "The State and Revolution" when he spoke to the temporary need for proletarian institutions to replace those of the capitalists.



That sounds a tad idealistic. Surely effective organisation is a more pressing concern than correct theory?

There is nothing idealistic about the proper theory being necessary to a successful socialist revolution. An organization is nothing without theory, as theory and its role in the class struggle is of indispensable significance.

[Tim Finnegan]

The working class did control Russia for some time through the institutions of the proletarian state and through the vanguard party of the Bolsheviks. The Dictatorship of the Proletarian naturally requires the use of institutions for it to be carried out in full. Lenin touched on this theme quite extensively in "The State and Revolution" when he spoke to the temporary need for proletarian institutions to replace those of the capitalists.
Surely, though, it's for the working class to choose which institutions and organisations they act through? Yet you seem to be suggesting that the "correct" institutions emerge as such, and that a failure to abide by them is intolerable counter-revolution, regardless of the actual content of the rebellion. How is the working class ever supposed to recover from corruption or stagnation in these organs- which as Trotskyist you are rather obliged to acknowledge as a possibility- if they can't jettison them as necessary?


There is nothing idealistic about the proper theory being necessary to a successful socialist revolution. An organization is nothing without theory, as theory and its role in the class struggle is of indispensable significance.
It wasn't the suggestion of the importance of sound theory that I objected to, but the proclamation of the crucial role of "correct" theory, as if the success or failure of revolution hinges not on the achievement and perpetuation of working class power, but on the institution of certain theories as a movement's canon. Class struggle is a material process, after all, something that occurs with or without theory, and from which all decent theory must stem; you almost seem to be suggesting the opposite, that theory emerges outside of class struggle, is injected into it and thus enables it to be waged, which, as I said, seems to me to border on idealism.

[thesadmafioso]

Surely, though, it's for the working class to choose which institutions and organisations they act through? Yet you seem to be suggesting that the "correct" institutions emerge as such, and that a failure to abide by them is intolerable counter-revolution, regardless of the actual content of the rebellion. How is the working class ever supposed to recover from corruption or stagnation in these organs- which as Trotskyist you are rather obliged to acknowledge as a possibility- if they can't jettison them as necessary?

Yes, the role of the working class should not be undermined by the vanguard party and by the institutions of the proletarian state. The working class should reserve the right to overturn any deviations from Marxist theory which a corrupt party may adopt, as was seen in in the bureaucratic party of the Soviet Union under Stalin and to a lesser yet certainly notable extent the party of his predecessors. The proletarian should obviously be obligated to oppose a revolutionary part fall into improper and counter revolutionary theory.



It wasn't the suggestion of the importance of sound theory that I objected to, but the proclamation of the crucial role of "correct" theory, as if the success or failure of revolution hinges not on the achievement and perpetuation of working class power, but on the institution of certain theories as a movement's canon. Class struggle is a material process, after all, something that occurs with or without theory, and from which all decent theory must stem; you almost seem to be suggesting the opposite, that theory emerges outside of class struggle, is injected into it and thus enables it to be waged, which, as I said, seems to me to border on idealism.

I am certainly not refuting the significance of material conditions and their role in the class struggle, I only look to assert the role of theory in this process and to point out the reliance which each has on the other presuming a successful proletarian revolution is to be considered the end goal.

For supplemental detail to this point, I would direct you to this excerpt of a piece penned by Ted Grant on the matter of theory and its role in the revolutionary struggle of the working class.


A honest party leadership which remained true to the principles of Marxism would have made a thorough going analysis of the history of their own party and of the great international events of the past, in order to educate the membership and make certain that never again should such mistakes be repeated. Apart from a flexible and democratic organisation, apart from the questions of programme and policy, there is the question—an indispensable necessity for a revolutionary party—of raising the theoretical level and understanding of the membership. That would be some sort of safeguard against “mistakes” of such a character occurring again.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1957/04/communism.htm

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Trotskyists and Left-Coms should not be put in the same bracket at all.

Trots are Leninists, Left-coms are not.

I don't view Lenin with a huge amount of positivity at all. IMO the Russian Revolution of 1917 was an inevitable development post-1905, helped largely by the excellent organisation of the very small urban working class in Russia from the early part of the 20th century, the idiocy of the Tsar and his advisers, and the peculiar situation in Russia that saw a mix of a post-feudal economy with absolutist political characteristics.

Lenin was an emigre during much of the revolution, returning only at the latter moments of the struggle. Rosa Luxembourg (1906) importantly identifies barricade fighting and the final expropriation of political and economic elements as identifiable singular acts, revolutionary certainly but not comprising anything like the entire mass of the revolution. Writing in 1906 in the Mass Strike, this was certainly a prescient observation, looking forward to 1917.

[Devrim]

I'm sure that others can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think part of the confusion is the fact that Left-communism evolved as two separate tendencies which were later integrated, the Italian Left emerging within Leninism and the Dutch-German Left evolving outside of it, so there is no standard, "received" position on Lenin as you might find in other tendencies. (I can't think of any left-coms, contemporary or historical, who would regard him quite as grandly as to call him "awesome", but you can see what I'm getting at.)

This is not actually quite true. The Italian left didn't really emerge within Leninism. In fact, I think it is fair to say that 'Leninism' didn't exist at the time. The Italian left too was in opposition to Comintern policy, particularly on the parlimentarianism question.

They did think that Lenin was 'awsome' though.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thanks.
Can a Trotskyist/Left-Com summarize what made Lenin awesome and Stalin bad?
Putting aside the whole awesome/bad thing which is just moral judgements that I'm not really concerned with...

A) Lenin was effective in helping to organize people for socialist revolution and to promote and fight for working class self-emancipation, their efforts ultimately failed. The problem is the failure and then internal counter-revolution continued to call itself a socialist revolution even when the idea of worker's power and rule through soviets wasn't even given lip-service anymore.

B) Stalin was effective in organizing a nation to build up a national economy and forcing modernization of industry and agricultural production and military operations, his efforts were more or less successful. The problem is that this was done on the backs of workers which meant actively preventing worker's power through repression.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think Trotskyists are really deluded when they think that top-down industrialization in a single-party-state, isolated from the world market with only domestic savings to finance it, in preparation for another round of inter-imperialist slaughter, went down like it did only because Stalin won the maneuvers within the party elite after 1921.

I think something like what happened was fixed to a relative level of certainty once the workers' revolution failed by 1921, but then Trotskyists are obliged to forget that the soviets had become shuttered and empty institutions long before their idol was banished from political influence in the USSR. The Russian Revolution was deformed as early as shortly after October, and became hopelessly derailed by 1918, and its fate was sealed by the delay of revolutionary upheavals to the West and their failure to successfully breakthrough the bourgeois regimes.


I think Trotskyists are really deluded when they think that top-down industrialization in a single-party-state, isolated from the world market with only domestic savings to finance it, in preparation for another round of inter-imperialist slaughter, went down like it did only because Stalin won the maneuvers within the party elite after 1921.Yes there may be some Trotskyists who make an argument somewhat like that caricature, but on the whole, I think you are deluded as to what trotskyists argue:lol:.

Lenin, Trotsky and many of the Bolsheviks believed that it was the material circumstances of the revolution that were the main problem. The maneuvering and debate was only about how to deal with that situation. I agree that by at the latest 1921 there was no going back in the short-term because the working class just wouldn't have been able to defend their power and the worker-peasant coalition was breaking apart etc. Everything else inevitable... you'll have to dig deeper to prove that because you've only got hindsight to back that up as far as I could tell from your post.

If the left opposition had won out would it have become a socialist society - not likely in the short term, but it may have been better in the long run for the Spanish Civil War and other revolutionary situations later. It could have been better for the Comintern because it wouldn't have become a tool of Russian policies and might have remained dedicated to supporting international revolution rather than promoting Russia's interests. These are all what ifs though, the main thing is that Trotsky represents the people who upheld the principles of proletarian democracy against the ideas of Socialism in one country and socialism being just nationalization of the economy and some reforms (or not).

[Thirsty Crow]

It is possible for people of opposed ideology to use the same words to say very different things, you know. Opposition to the proletariat state is quite different from revolutionary insurrection against a bourgeois state. By impeding the process of socialism in Russia by taking a stance in open rebellion against its leading organ, these groups forced action on the behalf of the Bolsheviks.

Its leading organ should not amount to a sole political force, a monopoly on political power. That's the crux of the issue, first the identification of the party with the proletarian state, and then the identification of class rule with specifics of the party-state rule.
Here you can see that defending such historical events, underpinned by such political methodology, equals to a defense of the very beginning, the cementing of the process of counter-revolution which you personify in Stalin and his center.

[thesadmafioso]

Its leading organ should not amount to a sole political force, a monopoly on political power. That's the crux of the issue, first the identification of the party with the proletarian state, and then the identification of class rule with specifics of the party-state rule.
Here you can see that defending such historical events, underpinned by such political methodology, equals to a defense of the very beginning, the cementing of the process of counter-revolution which you personify in Stalin and his center.

Why should the proletariat not have a monopoly on political power in the period of the democratic dictatorship of the proletarian? Is that not what this stage of historical development calls for?

The party of this era was one governed by open debate and democratic centralism, it was one guided strictly by the spirit of the revolution. The Bolshevik party structure itself can hardly be blamed as the result for Stalin's sprawling political counter revolution, this was more the result of stagnant revolutionary conditions and a failing of the party to maintain its initial form of democratic centralism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why should the proletariat not have a monopoly on political power in the period of the democratic dictatorship of the proletarian? Is that not what this stage of historical development calls for? Yet again, you don't seem to be able to understand that political monopoly of one small section of the class as a whole, incorporated into the party, does not amount to the political rule of the working class as a class.
The class monopoly on political power only refers to the struggle against counter-revolution and the elimination of organized bourgeois forces, be they political-ideological or para-military ones, from public life. This does not, in any imaginable way, amount to the formation of a party-state, a single party rule.


The party of this era was one governed by open debate and democratic centralism, it was one guided strictly by the spirit of the revolution. The Bolshevik party structure itself can hardly be blamed as the result for Stalin's sprawling political counter revolution, this was more the result of stagnant revolutionary conditions and a failing of the party to maintain its initial form of democratic centralism.
I didn't blame the Bolshevik party structure. I blamed the merging of the party and the state apparatus, predicated upon the practical dismantling of the soviets as the loci and institutions of working class political rule.

[thesadmafioso]

Yet again, you don't seem to be able to understand that political monopoly of one small section of the class as a whole, incorporated into the party, does not amount to the political rule of the working class as a class.
The class monopoly on political power only refers to the struggle against counter-revolution and the elimination of organized bourgeois forces, be they political-ideological or para-military ones, from public life. This does not, in any imaginable way, amount to the formation of a party-state, a single party rule.

The Bolshevik party acted as the political vanguard for the proletariat in this era, by effectively guiding and utilizing their efforts throughout the course of the revolution. The entire class was not incorporated into the party, it just assumed the role of the proletarians primary organ of instituting class rule.


I didn't blame the Bolshevik party structure. I blamed the merging of the party and the state apparatus, predicated upon the practical dismantling of the soviets as the loci and institutions of working class political rule.

The proletarian state apparatus which emerged out of the revolution was one entirely new to history, and the formative stages of its implementation obviously required some oversight from individuals also active in the Bolshevik Party. Though as both the proletarian state and the original Bolshevik party served the same class interests, I hardly see how this is an issue.

The soviets would not actually of been capable of governing in and of themselves, hence Bolshevik involvement in their actual political activity.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Bolshevik party acted as the political vanguard for the proletariat in this era, by effectively guiding and utilizing their efforts throughout the course of the revolution. The entire class was not incorporated into the party, it just assumed the role of the proletarians primary organ of instituting class rule.
There's an unarticulated assumption here: that the working class must have only one vanguard organized as a political organization.
I don't think it's necessary to demonstrate the utter lack of validity when it comes to this assumption. Suffice it to say, this lays ground for what you Trots would call bureaucratic degeneration.



The proletarian state apparatus which emerged out of the revolution was one entirely new to history, and the formative stages of its implementation obviously required some oversight from individuals also active in the Bolshevik Party. Though as both the proletarian state and the original Bolshevik party served the same class interests, I hardly see how this is an issue.That's nice rhetoric you got there, especially the euphemism of "some oversight from idndividuals active in the Bolshevik Party".
Too bad I'm not referring to any such thing, but rather to a systematic limitation of the functioning of workers' soviets and factory assemblies in favour of the establishment of the party-state. It's hard to see how these institutions served a class who would later on in Trotskyist discourse be described as being oppressed by the bureaucratic dictatorship since there is clear institutional continuity (the continuity of social relations of power) stretching from the beginning of the Civil War to the first five year plan.

But I would not categorically disagree with a statement claiming that workers' and territorial councils should be guided by the activity of workers' political organizations. Keyword here being "organizations", as opposed to the singular form of the nounn.


The soviets would not actually of been capable of governing in and of themselves, hence Bolshevik involvement in their actual political activity.
Well, that's an assertion that cannot be invalidated, and it serves as a justification of the establishemnt of the bureaucratic dictatorship.
But yet again, this does not touch upon the issue of proletarian political organizations directly, the issue being that one organized group of militants crushed their opposition and instituted an effective monopoly on political power.

[S.Artesian]

The proletarian state apparatus which emerged out of the revolution was one entirely new to history, and the formative stages of its implementation obviously required some oversight from individuals also active in the Bolshevik Party. Though as both the proletarian state and the original Bolshevik party served the same class interests, I hardly see how this is an issue.

Classic. Distilled "Trotskyism" and "Leninism"-- you call the Bolsheviks the proletarian vanguard, and how do we know it's acting as a proletarian vanguard? Because we have defined its actions as actions of the proletarian vanguard.

We say the interests of the Bolsheviks are identical to the interests of the proletariat, therefore there are no conflicts between the organization of the proletariat as its own class power, and the organization of the Bolsheviks as a power acting "on behalf" of the proletariat.

We say the state and the party are organs of proletarian power, therefore there is no need to distinguish one from the other.

First stop on this train wreck in motion? Militarization of labor.

Next stop? The first 5 year plan.

This collapse, identifying the party as the class, is magical thinking, not historical materialism.

[thesadmafioso]

There's an unarticulated assumption here: that the working class must have only one vanguard organized as a political organization.
I don't think it's necessary to demonstrate the utter lack of validity when it comes to this assumption. Suffice it to say, this lays ground for what you Trots would call bureaucratic degeneration.

There is not need for one absolute vanguard to guide the course of revolution; there is certainly room for a plurality of proletarian minded organizations to enter into this equation. It just becomes an issue when they come into conflict with the leading theoretical organ of such a vanguard, in this case that being the Bolshevik Party.

To quote Trotsky on the role of free discourse within the party "Marxist cadres capable of leading the proletarian revolution are trained only by the continual and successive working out of problems and disputes.".

So long as this party is governed along the lines of democratic centralism and it continues along such a route, there really isn't much of a framework for bureaucratic centralism to be found in such a structure.


That's nice rhetoric you got there, especially the euphemism of "some oversight from idndividuals active in the Bolshevik Party".
Too bad I'm not referring to any such thing, but rather to a systematic limitation of the functioning of workers' soviets and factory assemblies in favour of the establishment of the party-state. It's hard to see how these institutions served a class who would later on in Trotskyist discourse be described as being oppressed by the bureaucratic dictatorship since there is clear institutional continuity (the continuity of social relations of power) stretching from the beginning of the Civil War to the first five year plan.

But I would not categorically disagree with a statement claiming that workers' and territorial councils should be guided by the activity of workers' political organizations. Keyword here being "organizations", as opposed to the singular form of the nounn.

There is room within a leading political vanguard for disagreement and for different elements of thought to emerge, when it is guided by the principles of democratic centralism. It is important not to confuse the initial framework of the Bolshevik party with that of its devolved and skewered manifestation as existed under Stalin.

Lively debate and fresh discourse are the lifeblood upon which revolutionary zeal depends on for its survival, continuation, and expansion. This was more than present in the Bolshevik vanguard pre Stalin, and it depicts the proper functional workings of this party as well as the results which can be achieved by such a true organ of class rule.


Well, that's an assertion that cannot be invalidated, and it serves as a justification of the establishemnt of the bureaucratic dictatorship.
But yet again, this does not touch upon the issue of proletarian political organizations directly, the issue being that one organized group of militants crushed their opposition and instituted an effective monopoly on political power.

These proletarian political organizations still existed, it was just a matter of restructuring their role. In the post revolutionary era, they obviously could not of been expected to retain the same qualities of a group which stood in opposition to the old order. Just as the revolution thrust upon the Bolshevik party a slew of new responsibilities and challenges, the same was true of the Soviets. Some evolution and advancement was demanded of their organizational framework for the purpose of furthering the revolutionary cause in a new stage of historical development.

It was not a matter of the Bolsheviks crushing a political organ of the proletariat, but rather one of them adapting it to be relevant to a rapidly changing situation.

[thesadmafioso]

Classic. Distilled "Trotskyism" and "Leninism"-- you call the Bolsheviks the proletarian vanguard, and how do we know it's acting as a proletarian vanguard? Because we have defined its actions as actions of the proletarian vanguard.

We say the interests of the Bolsheviks are identical to the interests of the proletariat, therefore there are no conflicts between the organization of the proletariat as its own class power, and the organization of the Bolsheviks as a power acting "on behalf" of the proletariat.

We say the state and the party are organs of proletarian power, therefore there is no need to distinguish one from the other.

First stop on this train wreck in motion? Militarization of labor.

Next stop? The first 5 year plan.

This collapse, identifying the party as the class, is magical thinking, not historical materialism.

This is a vulgar interpretation of historical materialism, wherein you have falsely equated the revolutionary course of the original Bolshevik party with Stalin's crude deviation into political reaction.

It is incorrect to analyze this situation without making the necessary distinctions between the ideology of nationalistic and bureaucratic regression of Stalin and the true internationalism and democratic centralist thought of Trotsky. You are ignoring the role of theory and its role in the party entirely in your assertions on this matter, and because of such your conclusion is riddled with fault.

[S.Artesian]

This is a vulgar interpretation of historical materialism, wherein you have falsely equated the revolutionary course of the original Bolshevik party with Stalin's crude deviation into political reaction.

It is incorrect to analyze this situation without making the necessary distinctions between the ideology of nationalistic and bureaucratic regression of Stalin and the true internationalism and democratic centralist thought of Trotsky. You are ignoring the role of theory and its role in the party entirely in your assertions on this matter, and because of such your conclusion is riddled with fault.

I'm not ignoring anything-- you're the one abstracting the "vanguard party"-- making it a thing unto itself; a necessity for "guiding" the proletariat. This isn't about ideology, it's about historical circumstances dictating that ideology. So the very uneven and combined development dictated both your ossfication of "democratic centralism" which you label as "true democratic centralism" of Trotsky, and Stalin's wielding of the ideological of democratic centralism that you provide, to slaughter militants within and outside the fSU.

[chegitz guevara]

First, "democratic centralism" in the Bolshevik party was a myth. Look at the critical issues of the 1917-1918 period-- the taking of power, the peace with Germany-- the differing views were expressed openly and publicly, in and out of party organizations. That was the Bolsheviks at their best... up to the taking of power.

That was democratic centralism. That shit Zinoviev made up after Lenin died was never practiced by the Bolsheviks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm sure that others can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think part of the confusion is the fact that Left-communism evolved as two separate tendencies which were later integrated, the Italian Left emerging within Leninism and the Dutch-German Left evolving outside of it, so there is no standard, "received" position on Lenin as you might find in other tendencies. (I can't think of any left-coms, contemporary or historical, who would regard him quite as grandly as to call him "awesome", but you can see what I'm getting at.)

The Dutch-German Left was, ironically, more exposed to the really ultra-left ideas of Sorel than the Italian Left.


Surely, though, it's for the working class to choose which institutions and organisations they act through? Yet you seem to be suggesting that the "correct" institutions emerge as such, and that a failure to abide by them is intolerable counter-revolution, regardless of the actual content of the rebellion. How is the working class ever supposed to recover from corruption or stagnation in these organs- which as Trotskyist you are rather obliged to acknowledge as a possibility- if they can't jettison them as necessary?

I would say that the working class must utilize all institutions and other organizations on offer. The councilism here suggests that non-party councils are the "correct" institutions. As for the corruption and stagnation, while they're certain possible, they're not inevitable.


It wasn't the suggestion of the importance of sound theory that I objected to, but the proclamation of the crucial role of "correct" theory, as if the success or failure of revolution hinges not on the achievement and perpetuation of working class power, but on the institution of certain theories as a movement's canon. Class struggle is a material process, after all, something that occurs with or without theory, and from which all decent theory must stem; you almost seem to be suggesting the opposite, that theory emerges outside of class struggle, is injected into it and thus enables it to be waged, which, as I said, seems to me to border on idealism.

Define "class struggle." Anyway, the poster you quoted has confused theory with program, the core of political organizations.


This collapse, identifying the party as the class, is magical thinking, not historical materialism.

Define "party," and consider class movements. :glare:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, the role of the working class should not be undermined by the vanguard party and by the institutions of the proletarian state. The working class should reserve the right to overturn any deviations from Marxist theory which a corrupt party may adopt, as was seen in in the bureaucratic party of the Soviet Union under Stalin and to a lesser yet certainly notable extent the party of his predecessors. The proletarian should obviously be obligated to oppose a revolutionary part fall into improper and counter revolutionary theory.




I am certainly not refuting the significance of material conditions and their role in the class struggle, I only look to assert the role of theory in this process and to point out the reliance which each has on the other presuming a successful proletarian revolution is to be considered the end goal.

For supplemental detail to this point, I would direct you to this excerpt of a piece penned by Ted Grant on the matter of theory and its role in the revolutionary struggle of the working class.



Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1957/04/communism.htm

1. What is a 'proletarian state'? Can a state, in the national form, ever be 'proletarian'? Is it not the job of the working class (whether or not you believe in the vanguard party!) to expropriate the bourgeoisie politically and economically and begin to dismantle the state (in terms of the national parliament, the national treasury, national judiciary, bureaucracy etc.), rather than take over and manage the state itself?

2. Is Marxist theory:

a) not always correct, and
b) in laymen's terms, essentially the expropriation of the ruling class and the unabashed takeover of political and economic power directly by the working class, for the working class?

If we accept the above two conditions, then are you not abhorrently wrong in suggesting that, "The working class should reserve the right to overturn any deviations from Marxist theory which a corrupt party may adopt, as was seen in in the bureaucratic party of the Soviet Union under Stalin." Whilst the entirety of the USSR certainly represents a deviation (and in some cases a total breakaway) from Marxist theory, you are essentially arriving at this correct conclusion from the wrong assumption. We should work from the basis that a communist society can be advanced upon two points:

a) that power is vested in the working class alone and absolutely, and
b) that Marxist theory is not imprinted upon the working class by overbearing, discriminatory state propaganda (of the proletarian state, as you say), but by genuine, solid education/propaganda that both stands up to logical scrutiny and is open to improvement, interpretation and updating.

Working from such a base, and with a materialist conception of the class struggle in mind, we can see that the future characterisation of the working class will not be as of the 'sword and shield' of hitherto existing Marxist theory, but that actually, proletarian democracy will in itself represent a deviation (in the sense of updating, improving etc.) from current Marxism in its philosophical and academic forms, being bound to Marxist economics only by the materialist laws which, having studied history, Marx proved to largely hold.

In short, the working class will not in the future be bound to hold any vanguard party (should it unfortunately exist in power) to the standards of currently existing Marxist theory, but will make its own spontaneous additions and improvements - and in some cases breaks from - Marxist theory based on material conditions at the time.

Marxism may be a scientific method, but it's certainly an imperfect one, something we would do well to remember.