Molotov

[Cassius Clay]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with Vyacheslav Molotov.

If not then basically he was as the west so simply describes him, 'Stalin's right hand man' (ofcourse it wasn't quite like that but that aint the issue). After 1956 he and other Communists fought against Khruschev, for their trouble they were eexpelled from the party, etc, etc. Between the period of the late 1960's and basically until he died Molotov gave a number of interviews with the Soviet journalist Felix Chuvev.

The Progressive Labor Party recently had a little segement on Molotov. The PLP being a group who favor a 'Straight to Communism' theory were both critical and full of parise for Molotov on a issue of importance when it comes to Socialism and Communism.

Given that the 'Straight to Communism' theory fails to in my opinion take into account a number of issues namely materialism and geopolitics and that also on the other hand the task of us Communists in the stage after the revolution is to weaken the State beforre it becomes a heaven of bourgesie and revisionist ideas it would seem that what Comrade Molotov proposed is a 'happy medium'.

Molotov proposed that it was the task under Socialism to abolish inequalities, wages, money and social classes. Where Molotov differed from the PLP today is that he still correctly regonised that there is a 'transition stage' before Communism. So what Molotov suggested be put in place of 'material incentives' was 'substitutes'.

These were and I quote ''(1) competent and scientific planning of production; (2) socialist competition of different organizations and workplaces with each other; (3) selection of personnel; (4) a social orientation, so that all organizations work toward a common goal; (5) international socialist economic integration; and (6) the party’s ideological education, covering all internal and external policies (pp. 371, 381). He proposed elimination of material incentives for workers and that government officials not be paid more than the average worker (p. 380).''

Quite what Molotov means with the above is open to all soughts of intepreations (or maybe I just haven't got it). But I think it's clear the general issues he was raising.

So what zsay the masses?

[redstar2000]

So what zsay the masses?

"Zis" mass say Molotov was weaseling. :lol:

It does no long-term good, for example, to propose that party/government officials receive an average worker's salary...because there are numerous opportunities to gather state-financed "perks".

As soon as the government of the USSR was moved from Petrograd to Moscow (1919?), the party took over several luxury hotels there. Officials got the rooms and exclusive access to the dining areas and room service and an ample supply of whatever food goodies were available and, supposedly, even waiters who were trained to address the party bosses as "Comrade Master".

All this in the period of "war communism".

There's no getting around the fundamental problem. If a political party is given state power "on behalf of the working class", it will settle down to exploiting that class almost at once.

Good intentions don't count.

And let's clarify what the Progressive Labor Party actually means by "straight to communism" while we're at it. They don't mean anything like what I and others have talked about on this board.

The PLP intends to abolish the state and replace it with a party that includes every member of society...and run things by "democratic" centralism.

In other words, they just want to set up a new class society with them in charge. People at the bottom make "suggestions"; people at the top make decisions.

It's a wretched idea!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bradyman]

redstar, I agree with you that it does no long term good and that prehaps some of Molotov's ideas were not quite perfect, but I think his overall message is the right one.

I don't believe that there is a "straight to communism path," it takes time for the people to change their values. This is why a transitional phase is required so that it could ease the switch. People are not likely going to give up their materialistic viewpoints in a day, alas, a system that gradually changes the people's views is necessary. Molotov's ideas might not be perfect, but they are on the right path.

[redstar2000]

...it takes time for the people to change their values. This is why a transitional phase is required so that it could ease the switch. People are not likely going to give up their materialistic viewpoints in a day, alas, a system that gradually changes the people's views is necessary.

That assumes that people's "values" will be the same on the morrow of proletarian revolution as they are now.

I think that assumption overlooks how much people change when they begin to seriously entertain the real possibility of proletarian revolution and liberation from wage-slavery.

The "transitionists" always assume that if the working class runs things directly, they'll run straight back to capitalism.

But what we have actually seen thus far is that it is precisely the same people who said that a transition phase was "necessary" who "transitioned" everything back to capitalism.

Putting theoretical considerations aside, sheer pragmatism would suggest that we give the working class a chance to see what it can do.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

the transition is that of who the party is fighting, their enemies for top job as oppressor at first, the Capitalists, then later their enemies who see through the lies and fight them (the real revolutionaries).

the only transition there should be is the cushioning of the major changes we make, not because people aren't ready, but because we need to assure that every change doesn't just reduce Capitalist power, but it also reduces government power.

It might take some time for example, to setup elections at every factory, create cooperative factories, etc... because the government will need to suggest how to do htings, but in the end it must be the people who do it. from the ground up. That's the only transition that there should be, and I really don't think the major things will take that long.

Maybe a year for the biggest things to be completely in place (while still being perfected), and the smaller things we pick up along the way. Just as Che worked along the way to get them to make better socialist produced cola :P

[Cassius Clay]

Redstar2000 you've done a great job at going on about what you think Leninism is but you've rarely addressed the issue at hand.


As soon as the government of the USSR was moved from Petrograd to Moscow (1919?), the party took over several luxury hotels there. Officials got the rooms and exclusive access to the dining areas and room service and an ample supply of whatever food goodies were available and, supposedly, even waiters who were trained to address the party bosses as "Comrade Master".

All this in the period of "war communism".

And what western history book did you get that out of?

I believe there were accounts of such things. The trouble is that they revolve around non-Leninists such as Trotsky (and dont try and claim he was, infact he wrote the precise same things on 'Leninism' as you do). These 'perks' etc were fought against and taken away, notably in the Trade Unions dispute in 1921.

Also all sources confirm that people such as Stalin, Dzerinsky and Lenin lived in 'simple' conditions.

What 'War Communism' has to do with the matter I dont know. Molotov claims that he tried to press for these steps first in 1936 and later on in 1952, it's also very likely that the 'material incentives' were to be worked towards being abolished if it had not been for the damage inflicted in the 2nd World War.

You are right that it is not the same thing to abolish wages and 'perks'. I dont think anybody claims it is. A definition of 'privalages' could be working from behind a office desk compared to manual labor, how do you propose to get rid of that 'inequality' redstar? What the elimination of wages does is to help very much towards reducing the remaining inequalities in society.

In Albania they never did abolish wages, but they did have Hoxha's sons building the railways along with others. The 'perks' have allways been there, and given some people's interpretations they could be deemed to allways be there even under Communism. Say you did have a revolution without your Leninist nightmare, you still gonna be keeping your nice computer with the internet? Might be deemed a 'perk' by some people.

Socialism has abolished huge inequalities in society so far, aswell as giving the people primarily the workers the say in society. No one claims it of been a Communist paradise, but what Molotov proposes is a step towards that.

Your very good at pointing out the problem redstar but so far you never want to become part of the solution.

[crazy comie]

Trotsky was a leninist unlike stalin.

[Cassius Clay]

Do you actually have anything to say on the issue raised or not?

But since this is still theory although not on the actual specific topic and also because I'm such a nice guy I'll happily refute your statement.

“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

Leon Trotsky.

[redstar2000]

And what western history book did you get that out of?

From A People's Tragedy; the Russian Revolution 1891-1924 recommended to me by you in a post on this board.

It is, like much modern history, a "mixed bag"--historical materialism, "great man" theory, "great ideas" theory, plenty of contingency, and a huge pile of sheer gossip...mostly from anti-communist exiles.

It's relatively "pro-Stalin" by western standards and quite harsh on Trotsky...who, if it is to be believed, behaved almost like an SS Oberfuhrer in his Red Army commands...and dressed like one as well. (!)

So it needs to be read in a critical frame of mind and you should probably just skip the dish...there's no way to verify any of that crap.

But there's a good deal of detail that a lot of historians just pass over...for example, the fact that the armed resistance to the February 1917 revolution came almost entirely from the police.


A definition of 'privileges' could be working from behind a office desk compared to manual labor, how do you propose to get rid of that 'inequality' redstar?

Well, actually Marx proposed that everyone should do both...perhaps another example of his "utopianism".

What actually seems to be happening in late capitalism is the abolition of manual labor. How far this will proceed prior to proletarian revolution is problematical. But we know that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall acts as a constant spur to the capitalist class to decrease the "burden" of wage-costs and increase investment in high-tech machinery to replace human labor.

In the long run, I expect pretty much all types of manual labor will be replaced by technology...though people will still do some kinds of manual labor for its intrinsic enjoyment.


In Albania they never did abolish wages, but they did have Hoxha's sons building the railways along with others.

Ah yes, "the boss's son" model. It's frequently observed in the west, especially in small and medium-sized corporations. The boss's son has to "start at the bottom" like everybody else; the difference is that the boss's son knows preferment and advancement will come...no matter how much of a fuckup he may be. Everyone else knows it too...so they start sucking up to him while he's still a "clerk" in the mailroom.

It's a kind of ritual.


Say you did have a revolution without your Leninist nightmare, you still gonna be keeping your nice computer with the internet? Might be deemed a 'perk' by some people.

Well, my "nice" computer is a 1998 Gateway with a Pentium II processor at 266 mhz; the monitor is even older, built in 1996. My dial-up connection is rated at 56kps, but usually operates at 49.3 kps and sometimes as slow as 33.6 kps.

Not very "perky".

I think you're just "reaching" on this one. By contemporary standards, I live just as "simply" as Stalin...except that I have no servants or country cottage.

And I've never killed anybody.


No one claims it [to have] been a Communist paradise, but what Molotov proposes is a step towards that.

Who did coin the phrase "workers' paradise"?

But no, Molotov's proposals, had they been adopted, might well have slowed the transition back to capitalism. We'll never know. What we do know--what has actually been shown to happen--is that when Leninists get in power, they sooner or later restore capitalism.

The Maoists, by the way, try to "finesse" the problem by wailing about the "bourgeoisie within the party"...as if their record is any better in stopping that from happening. It isn't!


You're very good at pointing out the problem redstar but so far you never want to become part of the solution.

The solution is a simple one: trash the Leninist paradigm and return to Marx and Engels!

That doesn't mean that there are not useful things to be learned, here and there, from the insights of the Leninists. But they are mostly trivial in nature; any real discoveries they made were minor because their fundamental paradigm was wrong.

The real lessons of the Leninist paradigm are negative...if you want to waste your life fighting for a system that will only devolve into the same old shit, Leninism is the way to go.

If you want a real change, then try communism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Cassius Clay]

Right despite the fact your still stuck with your crusade against what you think Leninism is I sense there could be some progress in this discussion.


I seem to remember recomedning that book, although not as some sought of correct account of Lenin and Leninism. I dont deny either that the 'roots' of the problems of beuracracy, privaleges and such go back to 1918.

Using examples of non-Leninists such as Trotsky, or accounts of the USSR in it's first decade or so as some sought of claim that Leninism is thus a system with 'new bosses' is however so flawed to reality that if you didn't keep repeating it there would be no need to address it.

But since you do.

Lenin indeed regonised that the USSR was far from a perfect workers democracy in 1921, and highlighted that there were huge problems with 'perks' and party officials acting like 'bosses'. Infact if you quoted him (which I have before) around this time it wouldn't be clear if you said it or Lenin did.

You allways say 'why should we trust the Leninists'. Apart from the fact this gives the appearence of a lack of faith in anything I would point out to you that the workers dont have to trust the Leninists. If they think we or anyone in the party be doing wrong they criticise shortcomings, suggest alternatives and if need be replace those who have become 'bosses' or such with their own candidates.

This happened in the Leninist USSR.


In September 1936 the worker M. A. Panov wrote an angry letter to I. P. Rumiantsev, then first secretary of Smolensk oblast. Panov had been "without a party card" for two years and had lately been out of work, too. After complaining to the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, he had learned that his case had been referred to by Rumiantsev. Ten days had gone by, but "you are still fooling around," Panov wrote to this local chieftain; "it’s time to end this red tape and get down to work." Declaring, "You speak beautifully, but in fact it must be said that that’s hot air", the worker announced that he would give Rumiantsev three days to act or he would complain to the party Central Committee. He was sure to add that he was not an "opportunist, Trotskyite or Zinovievite, but one of our own". Panov, like many other workers, thought that he had a right to criticise a high party official, then a member of the Central Committee, and to demand attention from him. Stalin had said, "Listen to the voice of the people," and his regime favoured such positive elements in the system, for they encouraged productivity, satisfaction, and commitment to the state".

For a bourgeois historian, hostile to communism from the beginning, to write such a thing, implying that popular democracy was prevalent in the Soviet Union, says a great deal.


According to that Richard Pipes book (which is hardly pro-Stalin, it's just the west dont need Trotsky so much anymore) Zinoviev when Chairman of the Leningrad Soviet was one the worst when it came to acting like a boss. You know who replaced him as Chariman of the Soviet in Leningrad? It was a metalworker.


You may 'live' simply by contemporary standards. Then again I'm sure you've got more clothes than a military suit, some boots and a bank account with more than a 100 roubles worth of money. Also given that your able to post on the net alot of the time and presumably aint relying on your parents I would assume 'you have it easy' by alot of peoples standards. I could be wrong though.

Oh yes and Stalin never killed anyone. Not unless your in favor the 'great man' theory of history.

And if you would like to tell me what 'perks' Hoxha's sons got then go ahead. They had the honour of being thrown into prison, that's what Capitalists usually do to Communists. Oh yes and your comparision with western or other sons of the 'boss' is flawed. First Hoxha's sons didn't get any of these rewards supposedly waiting for them, second of all when was it you saw Saddam's sons or Bush's daughters doing the 'shit' jobs?


Now back to the orginal issue, if you would like to quote Marx then that would greatly help. Engels wrote in articles about the Trade Unions in Britain that the Capitalist machinery (he was pecifcly referring ot the Trade Unions as part of that machinery but I think the point is the same) had

''acknowledged institutions and their action as one of the regulators of wages is regonised quite as much as the action of the Factories and Workshops Acts as regulators of the hours of work''

Now clearly while in the USSR there was great progress made in the workplace for workers democracy there were similar 'institutions' which acted as 'regulators'.

Molotov proposed getting rid of these 'institutions' and the wages and material incentives. In the same work Engels said refering to British workers.

''Or is the working class of this country at last to attempt breaking through this vicious cycle, and to find an issue of it in a movement for the ABOLITION of the WAGE SYSTEM ALTOGETHER''

In the Richard Pipes book the author suggests that there were a large number of Communists who proposed getting rid of money all together there and then . Quite how they proposed doing this succesfully without mass discontent and when basically stuck in Moscow and it's outskirts I dont know.

Socialism is a system which will have characteristics of both Capitalism and Communism to it. The question is in what direction it's going. Molotov proposed similar steps to Engels. That's what the topic is about redstar and I would appreciate if you could use your obvious intelliegence in addressing that issue rather than a crusade against something you can do in any other thread.

Oh yes and Mao was not a Leninist, Marxist or even 'Stalinist'. At best he was a mixture of revolutionary nationalism, at worst he was a Capitalist. That's why it is such a contradiction for the Maoists to go about shouting the 'Bourgesie comes up in the Party' while the very same bourgesie was aloud in the party and societty in the first place.

[Cassius Clay]

The solution is a simple one: trash the Leninist paradigm and return to Marx and Engels!

That doesn't mean that there are not useful things to be learned, here and there, from the insights of the Leninists. But they are mostly trivial in nature; any real discoveries they made were minor because their fundamental paradigm was wrong.

The real lessons of the Leninist paradigm are negative...if you want to waste your life fighting for a system that will only devolve into the same old shit, Leninism is the way to go.

If you want a real change, then try communism.


Indeed by going back to Marx and Engels we find that same old terrible Leninist nightmare.

''Now in a political struggle of class against class, organisation is the most important weapon. And in the same measure as the merely political or Charist Organisation fell to pieces, in the same measure the Truades Union Organistation grew strong and stronger.... According to the traditions of their origin and development in this country, these same organisation hitherto limited themselves almost strictly to their function of sharing in the regulation of wages and working hours.... the Trades Union forgot their duty as the advanced guard of the working class... They cannot continue to hold the position they now occupy unless they really march in the van of the working clas... They will no longer enjoy privilege of being the only organisation of the working class. At the side of, or above the Unions of special trades there must spring up a general Union, a political organisation of the working class. . . the sooner this is done the better. There is no power in the works which could for a day resist the British working class organised as a body.''
Engels Frederick: ''Trades Unions''; In ''Marx and Engels; Articles On Britain''; Moscow; 1971; pp. 378-379.


There is a reason why Marx and Engels fought against Bakunin you know.

[redstar2000]

Lenin indeed recognized that the USSR was far from a perfect workers democracy in 1921, and highlighted that there were huge problems with 'perks' and party officials acting like 'bosses'.

Here is what "Comrade" Lenin said...


...there is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons.

So you can choose which quotes you like...Lenin came down on different sides of various questions depending on his perceptions of "political necessity".

But it is a matter of record that the factory committees were dissolved (or rendered impotent) and replaced by "one-man management" under Lenin.

"New bosses" seems a reasonable short phrase to describe this situation.


You always say 'why should we trust the Leninists'. Apart from the fact this gives the appearance of a lack of faith in anything, I would point out to you that the workers don't have to trust the Leninists. If they think we or anyone in the party be doing wrong they criticise shortcomings, suggest alternatives and if need be replace those who have become 'bosses' or such with their own candidates.

I don't, as it happens, have "faith" in anything...except things like rational thought, evidence, logic, stuff like that.

It's certainly true that many Leninist officials were replaced at one time or another...with other Leninist officials.

The same thing happens in capitalist "democracies" all the time...no one would be so foolish to suggest that changes in ruling personnel have any real significance.


Socialism is a system which will have characteristics of both Capitalism and Communism to it. The question is in what direction it's going. Molotov proposed similar steps to Engels. That's what the topic is about, redstar, and I would appreciate if you could use your obvious intelligence in addressing that issue rather than a crusade against something you can do in any other thread.

But I am disputing your central thesis. You assert that Molotov's proposals would have "made a difference", would have "moved towards communism".

And I argue that even if fully implemented, his proposals would have, at most, delayed the restoration of capitalism.

It's a speculative debate, of course, a "what if" question that is always ultimately unanswerable. We can't "re-run" the experiment and see the results.

What we know from history thus far is that all efforts (except Cuba's) to implement a "transition stage"--socialism--between capitalism and communism have resulted in the restoration of capitalism.

And in Cuba, of course, things don't look too good.


'Now in a political struggle of class against class, organisation is the most important weapon...There is no power in the works which could for a day resist the British working class organised as a body.

Engels appears to be suggesting here a unified organization that would combine political and economic goals and would consist of the entire working class.

This obviously contradicts the Leninist thesis of a "vanguard party" that "leads" the working class to "power"--actually seizes power for the party itself.

Probably the closest actual example of this strategy in history are...(gulp! choke!) the mass anarcho-syndicalist unions in Spain and northern Italy.

That is, they were very large unions that functioned both as trade-unions and as a mass political opposition to the capitalist class.

Whether such formations will arise again remains to be seen. The working class is just as capable of innovating new forms of class struggle as our class enemies are of innovating new forms of exploitation and repression.

But I see no comfort for the Leninists in Engels' words; they point in the opposite direction.

And I think it's rather sectarian of you to constantly denigrate the Trotskyists and the Maoists as being "non-Leninists". For better or worse, they both pay dutiful homage to Lenin's main ideas...however poorly, in your eyes, they may carry those ideas out.

After all, their opinions of you and your comrades are equally unfavorable.

Finally, if you are going to continue to imply that I live more "luxuriously" than Stalin, where is my country dacha? :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

who did lenin call to aragent to lead the party
oh yes and could you give me the source from wich that qute was taken and the context.

[redstar2000]

how did lenin call to aragent to lead the party

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.


oh yes and could you give me the source from wich that qute was taken and the context.

No, I borrowed it from another collection of "nasty sayings of Lenin". But as to context, there are two obvious possibilities: his writings dealing with one-man management and his writings dealing with the 10th party congress in 1921. The quote is quite in line with his general opinions expressed then.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

sorry typo

yes i admit lenin and trotsky had a few rows but so did stalin and lenin.