Battle of Che-Lives

[Kez]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I believe that the only way we can get out of the petty squabbles we fall into is to have an almighty ruckus and fight it out....typing like, not physically....yet.

So first, if we decide the issues that are to be discussed we can smack the fuck out of this debate and sort out this bullshit once and for all, and can refer people to here if we get into differences on other threads etc.

Here are my suggestions for topics to be discussed:

The theory of permanent revolution
Socialism in one country
Lenins struggle against the bureaucracy
Trotsky and his time with the mensheviks

please add more issues to discuss, then we get onto discussion

if we dont sort this out now, we can meet up and have a fuck off fight, stalinos with pick axes, trots with pens

comrade kamo

[Saint-Just]

I believe this quote is a criticism of Lenin's theory of the party in 'What Is To Be Done?' Seemingly Trotsky changed his views later, but this quote stands as an total contradiction of what Lenin said at the time a,d Trotskies change of mind seems a radical turn-around. What do you think of this Trotsky quote.

'the organisation of the party takes the place of the party itself. The Central Committee takes the place of the organisation, the dictator takes the place of the Central Committee.'

And, since you are a Trotskyist, so therefore you believe yourself to be a Leninist, why do you seek to influence the Labour Party in Britain through the Trade Unions. I think you would agree that Lenin would have said such movements are so influenced by the bourgeois that it would be undesirable to follow such a process to bring about revolution.

[Kez]

I will start off with the idea of the idea of "Socialism in one country": Ive used quote from books, and from other sites and i hope it will be interesting to read, it will take time, so dont expect any 3 line posts :)

Aight, lets roll with Lenin's position at a conference held in May 1905, the following position was approved:

"Only in one event would social-democracy on its own initiative direct its exertions towards acquiring power and holding it for as long as possible - namely in the event of revolution spreading to the advanced countries of Western Europe, where conditions for the realisation of socialism have already reached a certain ripeness. In this event the restricted historical limits of the Russian revolution can be considerably widened, and the possibility will occur of advancing on the path of socialist transformation."

The conference mentioned was that of the Russian Mensheviks, the tendency that stood furthest of all from the theory of permanent revolution!

Thus the reader can see, irrespective of differences on other questions, every single one of the tendencies of Russian Marxism agreed on one thing: the impossibility of effecting a socialist transformation in Russia without a socialist revolution in the West. On this question, Lenin was more emphatic than Trotsky. Whereas Trotsky in 1905 foresaw the prospect of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the workers' revolution in the West, Lenin based his perspective on the socialist revolution in Russia following the revolution in Western Europe.

In reality, the attitude of Trotsky, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks towards the impossibility of building socialism in Russia alone (no-one even dared to raise the question until 1924) flowed, not from the theory of the permanent revolution alone, but from the fundamental ideas of Marxism itself.

Marx and Engels explained that the most fundamental factor of capitalist development was the ever-increasing concentration of the means of production, which outstrips the narrow confines of capitalism; on the one hand the private ownership of the means of production, on the other, the national boundaries were transformed from progressive features, encouraging economic growth, to reactionary fetters on the productive forces. Today, those processes, already worked out theoretically in the Communist Manifesto, have become the dominant factor of modern life. On the other hand, capitalism has united the entire globe into a single, interconnected. interdependent whole. The bankruptcy of "national capitalism" is strikingly revealed by the situation where one US company, General Motors, has at its disposal capital in excess of the state budget of Belgium, where the capitalist classes of Western Europe have been forced to cling together in a Common Market, in a desperate effort to survive. Thus, even the bourgeoisie, however inadequately, tries to overcome the limitations of the national market.

Stalinists (booo hisssss) triy to portray the struggle of the Left Opposition against the Stalinist platform of "Socialism in One Country" as a scholastic debate, of no practical importance.

The differences between the Left Opposition and the Stalinist bureaucracy were not at all about the need to develop the economy of the Soviet Union on socialist lines. In fact, insofar as that question was raised, it was the Opposition that fought for a programme of planning and industrialisation, and the advocates of "Socialism in One Country" who rejected it, up until 1929, preferring to lean for support on the kulaks and "Nepmen". It was the Opposition which was implacable in its support for the internationalist perspectives of Bolshevism, which also stood firmly in favour of socialist construction in Russia. And this was no accident.

The conflicts which arose in Russia at this time, bore not the slightest resemblance to academic "debates", but were concerned with the vital issues affecting the life and welfare of the Russian working class, the future of the Russian and international revolution. We have already outlined the processes which were taking place in Russia at the time. We have shown that the idea of "Socialism in Russia alone" expressed the mood of reaction and cynicism of that social stratum which had done well out of the revolution, and which now wished to apply the brakes to the process set in motion in October, to re-establish "equilibrium". The struggle of the Left Opposition against this "theory" was part and parcel of the struggle of Bolshevism-Leninism for survival in the teeth of petty-bourgeois and bureaucratic reaction against October.

so as a summary to this tiny section on the issue of SIOC (Socialism in One Country) i believe that it can be said that both lenin and trotsky saw it as vitally important to have a internationally binded revolution, or set of revolutions. However, what is important is the spirit of revolutionary optimism with which the writings of Lenin and Trotsky are saturated was a reflection of their implicit faith in the ability of the working class to change society. The creation of the Third (Communist) International, after the seizure of power in Russia, was the supreme expression of the Bolshevik conception of the revolution, not as a national phenomenon, valid within the borders of the former Tsarist Empire alone, but as an international event. From the very outset, Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw October as the start of the world revolution. Without that perspective, the socialist revolution in Russia would have been an adventure, as the Mensheviks accused it of being.

In November 1918, Lenin said
"Anglo-French and American imperialism. will inevitably strangle the independence and freedom of Russia unless the world-wide socialist revolution, world-wide Bolshevism, triumphs."

Lenin and Trotsky were always honest and realistic in their appraisal of the prospects of the revolution in Russia and internationally. They understood that the only real guarantee for the future of the Soviet Republic lay in the socialist revolution in the West. They did not lull the working class with sugary illusions about "peaceful co-existence" but mercilessly hammered home the fact that without a socialist transformation on a world scale, new imperialist world wars - a second, a third, a tenth world war - would be inevitable

COME ON CASS, i iz waitin :)

[Kez]

Mao, sorry i was postin while u already posted so im not ignoring you, on the subject of LP i open a new thread so this doesnt go off on a tangent ok mate?

[Kez]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=ST&f=6&t=18985 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=18985) for you chairman mao

[redstar2000]

Kamo, the substance of your post is clearly historical in nature and turns on the question of who was "right" in the USSR in the 1920s.

That is a matter for the History Forum and I am going to move this thread there again.

And I will keep moving "Stalin vs. Trotsky" threads to the History Forum until the administrators tell me to stop doing it.

Understand?

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

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

[Kez]

so whether we choose to take a international postiion or a socialism in one country position today is a historical discussion?
what the fuck?

so when we discussin the validity of lets say the stance of the CP of Britain today, were talking in the historical way???

and no, i dont want a 4 page thread on whether the thread is historical or theoretical, i just love the way for the 2nd time youve disrupted quite possible a discussion on THE most important differences on the left just to satisfy yourself as doing your shitty little job.

well done

[Urban Rubble]

I don't really want to get into this bullshit. Kamo, I've only been here for a little over half a year, you've been here for alot longer. I have seen these issues discussed countless times, why do we need to keep debating this shit ?

I'll put in my 2 cents on Trotsky's time with the Mensheviks: As much as I hate to defend Trotsky (or Stalin for that matter) I will say this, Lenin clearly didn't intend this to be held against him. I won't take the time to find quotes, I'm sure we've all read them, Lenin stated at least once, if not more, that this should not be an issue with Trotsky. It seems as though most hardline Leninists take his word as the gospel, so there you go, Lenin said it himself, let the issue die.

Politics is based on oppurtunism in almost every case.

[Ian]

This is all I have to say:

Click me (http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/sounds/boring.wav)

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm okay I'm 'up for this' although I've done it a million times before and really should be doing work in the real world. The below is mostly something I allready wrote on the issue of of 'Socialism in One Country'.

Among the many accusations thrown at Stalin is that he did not remain faithful to a key theory of Marxism-Leninism, that of 'World Revolution'. It's usually alledged by the Trots that after 1924 a 'Beuracracy' took over the USSR and that beuracracy headed by Josef Stalin not only was not interested in spreading and aiding revolution to the worlds workers and their allies but even that Stalin worked to 'destroy' any prospect of revolution.

As with most Trotskyite writings their isn't much truth behind this. The pacific criticism that Stalin 'betrayed' the idea or any prospect of Revolution on a world wide scale is backed up by nothing more that empty rhectoric (mostly quoting Trotsky from 70 years ago) and whenever their is perhaps a genuine and correct criticism to be made the Trotskyites end up later contradicting themselves simply because if it meant slandering their own grandparents to get one over on Stalin they would do it.


The Issue of Socialism in One Country!

It's said that Stalin's first step to betraying the world revolution was that he supported the idea of Socialism in One Country. It's claimed by the Trots that this is 'Anti-Marxist' and 'Anti-Leninist', and not only that but it is impossible. What is the truth here? Did Marx, Engels and Lenin deny the possibility of Socialism in One Country? Or even the possibility of building socialism in a less developed Capitalist nation like Russia?

Judge for yourselfs.

[/I]"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world - the capitalist world - attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."(5)

Vladmir Lenin 1915.

In a letter to Kaul Kautsky in 1882 Engels wrote.

You ask me what the English workers think of colonial policy. Well exactly what they think of any policy - the same as what the middle classes think. There is, after all, no labour party here, only conservatives and liberal radicals, and the workers cheerfully go snacks in England's monopoly in the world market and colonies. As I see it, the actual colonies, i.e, the countries occupied by European settlers, such as Canada, The Cape, Austrialia will all become indepedent; on the other hand, countries that are merely ruled and are inhabited by natives, such as India, Algeria and the Dutch, Portugues and Spanish possessions, will have to be temporarily taken over by the proletariat and guided as rapidly as possible towards independence. How this process will develop is difficult to say. India may, indeed very probably will, start a revolution, and since a proletariat that is effecting it's own emancipation cannot wage a colonial war, it would have to be given it's head, which would obviously ential a great deal of destruction, but afterall that sought of thing is inseparable from any revolution. The same thing could also happen elsewhere, say in Algeria or Egypt, and would certainly suit us best. We shall have enough on our hands at home. Once Europe has been reorganised, and North America, the resulting power will be so colossal and the example set will be such that the semi-civilised countries will follow suit quite of their own accord; their economic needs alone will see to that. What social and political phases those countries will then have to traverse before they likewise qcquire a socialist organisation is something about which I do not believe we can profitably speculate at present. Only one thing is certain, namely that a victorious proletariat cannot forcibly confer any boon whatever on another country without undermining it's own victory in the process. Which does not, of course, in any way preclude defensive wars of various kinds.


Apart from Germany and Austria the country on which we should focus our attention remains Russia., The government there just as in this country is the cheif ally of the movement. But a much better one than our Bismarch, Stieber and Tessendorf. The Russian court party,which is now firmly in the saddle, tries to take back all its concessions made during the years of the ''new era'' that was ushered in 1861, and with genuinely Russian methods at that. So now again, only ''sons of the upper classes'' are to be allowed to study, and in order to carry this policy out all others are made to fail in the graduation examinations. In 1873 alone this was the fate that awaited 24,000 young people whose enitre careers were blocked, as they were expressly forbidded to become even elementary school-teachers. And yet people are surprised at the spread of ''nihilism'' in Russia. ... It almost looks like the next dance is going to start in Russia. And if this happens while the inevitable war between the German-Prussian Empire and Russia is in progress- which is very likely - repercussions in Germany are also inevitable.''

Karl Marx.

Engels also wrote in a correspondence with Vera Zasulich.

I am proud to know that there is a party among the youth of Russia which frankly and without equivocation accepts the great economic and historical theories of Marx amd has definitely broken with all the anarchist and also the few exisitng Slavophil tendencies of it's predecessors.... What I know or believe I know about the situation in Russia makes me think that the Russians are fast approaching their 1789. The revolution must break out any day. In these circumstances the country is like a charged mine which only needs a single match to be applied to it. Especially since March 13 This is one of the exceptional cases where it is possible for handful of people to make a revolution, i.e., by giving a small impetus to cause a whole system (to use a metaphor of Plekhanov's) which is in more than labile equilibrium, to come crashing down, and by an action insignificant of itself to release explosive forces that afterwards becomes uncontrollable. Well, if ever Blanquism - the fantastic idea of overturning an entire society by the action of a small group of conspirators - had a certain raison d'etre, that is certainly so now in St.Petersburg. Once the spark has been put to the power... the people who laid the spark to the mine will be swept along by the explosion .... Suppose these people imagine they can seize power, what harm does it do? .. To me the important thing is the impulse in Russia should be given, that the revolution should break out. Whether this or that faction gives the signal, whether it happens under this flag or that is matter of complete indifference to me. If it were a palace conspiracy it would be swept away tommorrow. In a country where the situation is so strained, where the revolutionary elements have accumulated to such a dgree, where the economic conditions of the people become daily more impossible, where every stage of social development is represented, from the primitive commune to the modern large scale industry and high finance, where all these contradictions are arbitrarily held in check by an unexampled despotism, a despotism which is becoming more and more unberable to the a youth in whom the dignity and intelligence of such a nation are united-when 1789 has once been launched in such a country, 1793 will not be far way.''


Lenin in his ''The Russian Translation of Letters By Johanne Becker, Joseph Dietzgen, Frederick Engels, Karl Marn and other to Friedrich Sorge and Others'' quoted Marx to support the belief that a revolution was not only possible in Russia but the conditions right in it.

Or take Marx's letter of November 5th 1880.. He was delighted with the sucess of Capital in Russia, and took the parts of the members of the Narodnaya Volya organisation against the newly arisen General Redistribution Group. Marx correctly percieved the anarchistic elements in their view. Not knowing the future evolution of the General-Redistribution Narodniks into Social-Democrats, Marx attacked them with all his trenchant sarcasm:
''These gentlemen are against all political revolutionary action. Russia is to make a somersault into the anarchist-communist-athiest millenium! Meanwhile, they are preparing for this leap with the most tedious doctrinarism, whose so-called ''principes cournat la rue depuis le feu Bakounine''.

We can gather from this how Marx would have appreciated the significance for Russia of 1905 and the succeeding years of Social-Democracy's ''political-revolutionary'' action''.


So is it not clear that Marx, Engels and Lenin were all clear on these points.

That it was not only possible for a sucessful revolution to occur in Russia, but the conditions in Russia were precisly those which were 'revolutionary'. And also that revolution was possible in the Colonial world aswell.

That Socialism is possible in a few nations or one.

That it is NOT the bussiness of one newly formed revolutionary state to 'Export' revolution to other nations through military means.

No where ofcourse do wither Lenin, Marx or Engels give up on the idea/theory of World Revolution. It's clear that the theory of Socialism in One Country is NOT a 'Anti-Marxist-Leninist' theory. No one denys that a successful revolution in Germany or England in 1919 would of greatly aided both the Russian Revolution and the cause of a International Revolution but when this didn't happen the USSR adapted to the situation.

Quoting Lenin from 1918 and 1919 on how important a revolution in Germany was to aid the Russian prolertariat is being dogmatic and not accepting reality. Never mind that in all those quotes Lenin speaks of 'The final victory of Socialism'. By the 1920's Lenin realised that a revolution would not occur in the west and as such set about the tasks of building Socialism in the USSR.

QUOTE
`(I)ndustry cannot be developed without electrification. This is a long-term task which will take at least ten years to accomplish .... Economic success, however, can be assured only when the Russian proletarian state effectively controls a huge industrial machine built on up-to-day technology .... This is an enormous task, to accomplish which will require a far longer period than was needed to defend our right to existence against invasion. However we are not afraid of such a period.'


`(T)he power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. --- is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of co-operatives '



Ofcourse all this would be irrelavent if Marx, Lenin and Engels were proved wrong, as it would be irrelavent if they had never said any of this. But who has History proved right? Did not the workers ally with the peasants in building socialism? Has it not been proved that 'Exporting revolution' leads to reaction at home and Imperialism? A Maoist once said 'How can the Soviet people be free when they oppress the Czech people'. He was right and Engels said the same thing.

In this situation Stalin and the Bolsheviks set about the task of confronting the geopolitics of the time and that was that the USSR was surrounded by a hostile Capitalist world. The USSR set about the task of building socialism, but at the same time neither the hope for or the enourmous rescourses and energy put into spreading Socialism through revolution were 'betrayed' or forgotten. The opposite infact, Stalin and the Comintern aided revolutionarys and the cause of Socialism in a correct Marxist-Leninist way which had to take into account the geopolitics and circumstances of the day.


Right I would just like to add a point on here. Why is it that Trotsky and his followers take the stand that it has to be 'one or the other' i.e. World Revolution or Socialism in One Country. Lenin didn't. And niehter did Stalin, here is a perfect example.

In 1938, in the course of discussion on the final victory of Socialism in the Soviet Union, a Young Communist League member got into hot water for insisting that while Socialism was victorious in the Soviet Union, the final victory of Socialism was possible only on a world scale. For this correct position, Ivanov was rewarded by being branded a Trotskyite (during the very period of the Trotskyite trials), removed from propaganda work and threatened with expulsion from the League. Ivanov stuck by his convictions - and also wrote to Stalin.

Stalin's answer is typical. He told Ivanov that he was right, that his persecutor's

"assertion can be explained only by his failure to understand the surrounding reality and his ignorance of the elementary propositions of Leninism, or by the empty boastfulness of a conceited young bureaucrat."

Reassuring the young man, Stalin said:

"As for the fact that it appears that you, Comrade Ivanov, have been 'removed from propaganda work and the question has been raised of your fitness to remain in the regional committee of the Y.C.L,' you have nothing to fear. If the people in the regional committee of the Y.C.L. really want to imitate Chekhov's Sergeant Prishibeyev,(6) you can be sure that they will lose in this game. Prishibeyevs are not liked in our country." (Communist International of March 1938.)

[crazy comie]

may i remined you that at the time of the russian revoulotion the country was exedingly week compared to the other capitalist countrys and had had a populaition explosion meaning that it had less land to cultivate per person in the black soil area. That clearly shows a loarge weekness in the econamy at the time of the revoulotion. If there had been revoulotions in germany and england russia would have had far more chance to develop industry.

[Kez]

thanks cass, good to know not everyone is a twat, and if people dont have anything to add to the discusion fuck off

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world - the capitalist world - attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."
Vladmir Lenin 1915.

Contrast this with the idea of socialism in one country, which propheses that instead of " attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists" Stalin built the USSR up from within ie the industrialization plans etc. Surely if it followeed leninism then we would have had attempted revolutions in Germany eastern Europe, western europe etc. Instead we had Stalin and Hitler talking together, and Stalin even pulling out his Berlin spies to satisfy Hitler!

[crazy comie]

good point tavershemo
If stalin was an in ternationalist why did he mack a pact with hitler.

[Saint-Just]

attempted revolutions in Germany eastern Europe, western europe etc.

How would this have been done?

Stalin said it was possible to build socialism in one country. Surely he was correct since Russia became a powerful socialist country, it became the only rival of the U.S.

[Kez]

" Only one thing is certain, namely that a victorious proletariat cannot forcibly confer any boon whatever on another country without undermining it's own victory in the process. Which does not, of course, in any way preclude defensive wars of various kinds."

what does this mean exactly? im not trying to fuck u about, but i dont understand what "confer any boon whatever " means.

i dont see the relevance of the marx quote, sorry cud u explain mate?

The engels quote is a nice quote, however, it does not suggest revolution in one country is sustainable as is argued by the idea of SIOC

"That it was not only possible for a sucessful revolution to occur in Russia, but the conditions in Russia were precisly those which were 'revolutionary'. And also that revolution was possible in the Colonial world aswell. "
-yes we all knew this , but the issue is of sustainability and for the oppressed workers of the world


i'll tackle the rest of ur post later, im off for some fodder, hopefullt some other will join in

[YKTMX]

'the organisation of the party takes the place of the party itself. The Central Committee takes the place of the organisation, the dictator takes the place of the Central Committee

Interesting, that seems to be exactly what happened.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 07:57 PM

'the organisation of the party takes the place of the party itself. The Central Committee takes the place of the organisation, the dictator takes the place of the Central Committee

Interesting, that seems to be exactly what happened.
He was saying that about Lenin, if you subscribe the least bit to that theory you are anti-Leninist and believe Stalin was precisely the same as Lenin in how he conducted his leadership. People who subscribe to it nowadays say that had Lenin lived on the USSR would of become 'Stalinist' regardless. Anyway, Trostky changed his mind later.

[crazy comie]

I thought he was talking about stalin.

"That it was not only possible for a sucessful revolution to occur in Russia, but the conditions in Russia were precisly those which were 'revolutionary'. And also that revolution was possible in the Colonial world aswell. "[/QUOTE]
This quote doesn't talk about russia having a revoulotion on it's own though.
Although russia became so powerfull it also had a quite small econmy considering it's millitary spending and size and was quite inefichent in some areas becuse of the many beuracrates.

[Cassius Clay]

Okay I would like to make a few points clear right now. Although I wont be addressing these points specificly in this post I would hope to if this debate goes well.

First of all Leon Trotsky was NOT a Leninist. On practically every issue of relavance Trotsky contradicts Lenin, thus Trotskyism contradcits Leninism. There is a reason Lenin fought Trotsky's line for twenty years. As a side note on this you can see the above Trotsky quote, there are many others like this from Trotsky. He uses the precise same language he later used against Stalin only replacing 'Leninism' with 'Stalinism'.

Please do not waste my time folkes with ludicrous claims about how many Stalin 'killed'. Not only is it off topic but not one of these 'claims' has any sense of reality to it. On the other hand a discussion on the trials of the Trotskyites and so called 'Left opposition' aswell as the Rightist Bloc led by Bakhurin is fully on topic and valid.

Although it should rather be on Bakhurin and or Trotsky's theory's and positions rather than their specific 'purging', i.e the Trials. Their guilt has been proven enough times, if anyone whish to dispute that then they can go to ISF in the history forum and go and check CR's thread.

The nature of Soviet society during this time is important and I will use examples if I feel I need to in response to various arguments. However it's not what we are here to discuss. Trotsky's line vs Lenin and Stalin's line, i. e theory.

Discussion of practice and theory of the Comintern would be more practical I belive. Since Trotsky's criticisms and that of his followers are important examples of theory, as are how the Comintern acted in practice. E.g. I say it remained loyal to Marxism-Leninism by siting examples, Trots dont through doing the same.

[Cassius Clay]

The relavence of Marx's quote is obvious.

It's true that during Marx and Engles early 'period', e.g. the 1840's, 50's they bleived that Revolution had and was most likely to occur in the west, like the allready Industrialised societys of England, Germany etc. Later on Marx and Engles came to to view that Russian Empire was a plac3e with 'revolutionary' potential. What is clear from Marx in the 1880's is that he regonised that the material conditions existed in Russia for Socialism. This was in the 1880's, what does that make Russia by 1917? Read Lenin's 'On the devlopment of Capitalism in Russia', the stats in there show that Capitalism was growing rapidly and while not close to say England or Germany shows that Russia was far from the popular assumption of 'Feudal society'.

Once again no one is denying that revolutions in Germany or Britain would of greatly aided the fledgling USSR. It didn't happen though. The dogmatics say, oh well guess we should give up now. The Bolsheviks said let's build Socialism in the USSR with a alliance of the workers with the peasants (something Lenin not only regonised in the 1920's but had spoken of way before then) and support fellow revolutionarys around the wrold. Once again it's not a question of one or the other, Lenin and Stalin didn't make a difference between Socialism in One Country and International Revolution. It was Trotsky who did.

Regarding the 'Alliance with Bakhurin', this is a lie. The truth is that Stalin had to fight against two opposing but equally anti-Socialist lines reflected by the Right in Bakhruin and the Left in Trotsky. Stalin sent a letter to Bakhurin during this period declaring 'That the slogan ''Enrich Yourselfs'' is not ours'. Trotsky was taking a ultra-leftist line, revolution comes from below, not above. Through persasion, not force. Trotsky's ultra-leftism and favor of 'War Communism' continuing resulted in mutiny at Krodstadt and the famous Trade Unions dispute in 1921.

Regarding the theory of 'Permanet Revolution' specificly. I dont suppose any of you are familiar with what Lenin actually thought of it? As I've explined before Stalin and us 'Stalinists' today fight against Bakhruin's rightist line and Maoist theory on 'New Democratic Stage' but that doesn't mean that the ultra leftsit line should be forgotten. As Lenin explained Trotsky refused to regonise a key theory of Marxism, that of Stages in revolution. Trotsky thought that revolutionary process could avoid the bourgesie democratic stage, Lenin fought against this in 1917 and rightly so.

PS sorry for dreadful spelling.

[crazy comie]

Trotsky coldn't have been that far from leninism as he was kept in high position in the party.
Stalin's policys where for industrialisation and speeding up of things far more than the pace trotsky sugested and far more than the speed possible to maintain with out large loss of life.
Stalin also went parst the bourgeosie democratic stage.
Stalin also turend the soviets into pupets of his party with efectivly no control over the top from the ordenary pepole. Stalin also made beuracrates the boses reciving higher wages. The highest members of the party got duches how equal is that?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Nov 12 2003, 11:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Nov 12 2003, 11:03 AM)
[email protected] 11 2003, 07:57 PM

&#39;the organisation of the party takes the place of the party itself. The Central Committee takes the place of the organisation, the dictator takes the place of the Central Committee

Interesting, that seems to be exactly what happened.
He was saying that about Lenin, if you subscribe the least bit to that theory you are anti-Leninist and believe Stalin was precisely the same as Lenin in how he conducted his leadership. [/b]

Yes, I realise that. It was just an observation. Maybe he was right.

I have no interest in dogma and saying one person was always or was always wrong. That particuarly quote seems to quite adequately explain the rise of the counter revolutionary Stalinists. Stalinism is ofcourse a obscure, highly revised form of Leninism, so even if Trotsky distanced himself from his earlier Polemics against orthodox Leninism, they can be useful in understanding why Russia failed and the revolution was betrayed from within.

[Cassius Clay]

Trotsky coldn&#39;t have been that far from leninism as he was kept in high position in the party.
Stalin&#39;s policys where for industrialisation and speeding up of things far more than the pace trotsky sugested and far more than the speed possible to maintain with out large loss of life.
Stalin also went parst the bourgeosie democratic stage.
Stalin also turend the soviets into pupets of his party with efectivly no control over the top from the ordenary pepole. Stalin also made beuracrates the boses reciving higher wages. The highest members of the party got duches how equal is that?

Sigh. Here we have the perfect example of wasting people&#39;s time.

First of all Trotsky spent years condemming Leninism, everywhere his line directly contradicts Lenin&#39;s. Lenin fought against Trotsky&#39;s line for two decades. Namely the theory on stages. Is Trotsky in favor of stages or does he regonise them? No. Stalin did not go past the bourgeseie democratic stage. Lenin said in 1917 he was in favor of &#39;continious revolution&#39; this meant that during the bourgesie-democratic revolution the workers and Soviets should continue to work for the Socialist revolution through the stage of joint Democratic-Soviet (not precise wording) dictatorship.

This was something even in 1917 that Trotsky directly contradicted. Lenin condemmed Trotsky because Trot thought everyone could just skip Bourgesie revolution.

THe rest of your post has so much ignorance to it it shouldn&#39;t be taken seriously. Want to carry on spouting black propaganda do it somewhere else. Or you could stop being naive and do some research.

See yeah&#33;

[crazy comie]

Stalin went strate to the five year plans. Stalin befor he got in power spent his time siding with first the right oposition to destroy the left the he destroyed the majorty of the party.
Trotsky was in favour of giving the soviets power unlike stalin and no mater what you say the soviets became pupets of stalin. If lenin belived in doing it in stages why did he revolt against the bourgeosie democratic stage. Lenin only really returned to that stage at the N.E.P.

[Cassius Clay]

This is Chairman Mao, as we speak I am at Cassius Clay&#39;s Stalinist Castle. I don&#39;t have any idea what you are talking about in regard to Lenin&#39;s revolt etc. I have to go, CC is waking from his coffin.

[Ian]

Stalinist Castle? :lol: How much have you two had to drink?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 14 2003, 09:30 PM
Stalinist Castle? :lol: How much have you two had to drink?
:lol: Actually, I think we had only had one pint then. But later I got fairly slaughtered. I am renouncing my Stalinism. Crazy Comie is right, Cassius Clay is a bourgeoisie and bureaucrat. I stress bureaucrat, his house is full of papers and he insisted I list all activites undertaken in his bathroom and I had to annul him of any responsibility if his mum attacked me.

[crazy comie]

by revolt i ment revoulotion against the bourgeoise democratic goverment of russia.
sorry i wasn&#39;t clear.