Why is there no fifth international? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why is there no fifth international?

Deicide

27th January 2012, 17:43

Simple question, but I doubt there's a simple answer. Regardless.. lets hear it comrades.

feral bro

27th January 2012, 19:21

4 was to many as it was.

Tim Cornelis

27th January 2012, 19:35

Trotskyists claiming to be the Fifth International (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/trotskyist-international)

Catma

27th January 2012, 19:37

They're not claiming to be the fifth international; they say they're working towards one, want there to be one, etc. Similar to Committee for a Workers International.

Omsk

27th January 2012, 19:41

The Informbiro { Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties}. was the last real shot,and after it was dissolved,no real international organisations of that type were really needed in the extent of the 1918-1943 time period when the CP really needed international support and guidance.

Deicide

27th January 2012, 19:43

4 was to many as it was.

Surely, an organization, similar in size and influence, to previous internationals is needed, if communists/socialists want to be a real player in the world?

I personally think so, considering the excessive ideological attacks by the bourgeoisie since the collapse of the old USSR. Communists/Socialists are too scattered and conflicted as it is, and without a mass, globally unified organization, internal ideological conflicts are perpetuated and deepened.. And then there's the bourgeoisie ideological offensive, which is spewed out almost daily by the corporate run media and the bourgeois intellectuals.

Lenina Rosenweg

27th January 2012, 19:51

Why should there be a Fifth International? There are already a number of Internationals. The Fourth Intl is still very much around. The organisation I'm in, the CWI is an international. As I understand there seems to be some sort of Intl based around the CPGB. The British SWP has a tendency based around it. There are leftcom groups like the ICC who see themselves as an In tl.

Micjheal Albert of Z magazine has proposed (or is creating) a "Fifth Int'l" which seems to be a vague liberal/left grouping and Chavez has also called for some sort of Fifth Intl.

Lyn Marcus/Lyndon LaRouche, when he was Trotskyist, tried to create a Fifth Int'l but it didn't get much "traction"

el_chavista

27th January 2012, 20:43

Why is there no fifth international? May be there are not enough Trots out there. In the case of Chávez's "5th international" is the opposite situation: too many reformists out here.

Deicide

27th January 2012, 20:52

May be there are not enough Trots out there. In the case of Chávez's "5th international" is the opposite situation: too many reformists out here.

I see you're from Venezuela.. What's the situation there like? Is Chavez still widely supported by the masses? And how much general improvement has there been since Chavez came to power?

PM me, I'd like to know about the current situation in Venezuela from a Venezuelan. :)

Prometeo liberado

27th January 2012, 21:07

There is so much frustration involved when a collective leadership of like minded ideologies come together. Any movement or group not invited to membership automatically takes issue with the legitimacy of this body. Making the International a multi-tendency body would be an invitation for disaster. So what happens all to often is multiple parties from each country send their reps to the furthest corners of the earth to plead their cases as to which is the "true" representative of the workers. Would it be the SP-USA, PSL, Workers World, RCP, CPUSA(chuckle), APL, ISO or Freedom Road? Doesn't really matter because so much time and resources that could be spent on building the movement at home go wasted. If organizing at a higher level is needed, and it is, then the thought of a North American congress of Socialist Parties and Movements may be a better first step. Internationalist cooperation is better served when the national situation of its prospective members are more coordinated.

Firebrand

28th January 2012, 00:27

Basically because everyone lost count and is now far too busy arguing about which international we are on to actually start a new one. :D
Plus I imagine trying to start one would be like trying to do a family reuinion where Aunty Beryl won't talk to Uncle Frank since the incident with the curtains and the banoffie pie and Great Aunt Mary never approved of that young man Sharon married and will therefore be icily polite to him and their children for the entire event. Not to mention the fact that someone will have to physically restrain the Twins from terrorising all the other kids, and who invited Cousin Mike anyway I thought he was still in Afganistan, please don't let him talk to Cousin Frieda she's recently decided to be a millitant pacifist. In other words a logistical nightmare than no-one wants to clean up after. :D

NoOneIsIllegal

28th January 2012, 01:04

Why should there be a Fifth International? There are already a number of Internationals. The Fourth Intl is still very much around. The organisation I'm in, the CWI is an international. As I understand there seems to be some sort of Intl based around the CPGB. The British SWP has a tendency based around it. There are leftcom groups like the ICC who see themselves as an In tl.
You forgot the IWA/AIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Association

Prominent groups include but not limited to: CNT (Spain), Sol-Fed (UK), USI (Italy), CNT (France), and many others.

28th January 2012, 01:09

And you forgot the... Oh, screw it (http://www.broadleft.org/abbr.htm).

The irony is that there are so many internationals, yet we still need the international, capable of organising our class.

Искра

28th January 2012, 01:11

Prometeo liberado

28th January 2012, 01:17

Deicide

28th January 2012, 01:23

All todays "Internationals" are jokes. International is an organisation of proeltariat, or better to say Party of proletariat, on Worlds level. It is not just a book club by some nerds, subculture idiots or old people who just don't feel like dying - it should be an organisation of working class preparing revolution. Since there's no working class movement there can not be International. Last one was Comitern and it's died in 1921 when it adopted reformist politics.

Why isn't there a world scale working class movement/organization?

One would think, considering modern day technology(the internet, etc.), there's no better time in human history for such a movement to exist! Pragmatically speaking..

Искра

28th January 2012, 01:38

Why isn't there a world scale working class movement/organization?
Because class struggle is not on that level. What you have is numerous shit organisations who are actually gravediggers of class struggle and independent action of proletariat. All they do is try to take struggles to promote themsleves.

One would think, considering modern day technology(the internet, etc.), there's no better time in human history for such a movement to exist! Pragmatically speaking..
Well Internet is usefull, but remember that it wasn't existance of telephone which caused October revolution but class struggle of proletariat.

ijrjrnz

28th January 2012, 02:20

The Fourth International was an opportunist and ill-timed formation which did not coincide with the world-wide revolutionary movement of the proletariat. The Comintern was formed in a revolutionary period on the initiative of international militant led by Lenin, while the Fourth International was formed opportunistically in a time of defeat by a group of misguided revolutionaries led by Trotsky. It was a failure from the beginning. Unless a revolutionary period comes about in the future there are no prospects for forming a new international on the lines of the Comintern or the IWMA.

Lev Bronsteinovich

28th January 2012, 03:22

Yeah, opportunists. I guess being hunted down and slaughtered by Stalinist agents like Mercader also hindered their development. Geez.

Die Neue Zeit

28th January 2012, 05:11

As I understand there seems to be some sort of Intl based around the CPGB.

Really? Why wasn't I informed of this? :ohmy:

4 was to many as it was.

May be there are not enough Trots out there. In the case of Chávez's "5th international" is the opposite situation: too many reformists out here.

And you forgot the... Oh, screw it (http://www.broadleft.org/abbr.htm).

The irony is that there are so many internationals, yet we still need the international, capable of organising our class.

All todays "Internationals" are jokes. International is an organisation of the proletariat, or better to say Party of proletariat, on Worlds level. It is not just a book club by some nerds, subculture idiots or old people who just don't feel like dying - it should be an organisation of working class preparing revolution. Since there's no working class movement there can not be International. Last one was Comitern and it's died in 1921 when it adopted reformist politics.

The Fourth International was an opportunist and ill-timed formation which did not coincide with the world-wide revolutionary movement of the proletariat. The Comintern was formed in a revolutionary period on the initiative of international militant led by Lenin, while the Fourth International was formed opportunistically in a time of defeat by a group of misguided revolutionaries led by Trotsky. It was a failure from the beginning. Unless a revolutionary period comes about in the future there are no prospects for forming a new international on the lines of the Comintern or the IWMA.

Everyone on the left needs to swallow their pride about even the Russian fan club that was the Comintern, as it wasn't really a worker-class International. The last one was the original Socialist International:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/needed-revived-second-t128934/index.html

A new International must emulate the IWMA, the original Socialist International, and finish the work barely started by the International Working Union of Socialist Parties.

dodger

28th January 2012, 09:28

Yeah, opportunists. I guess being hunted down and slaughtered by Stalinist agents like Mercader also hindered their development. Geez.

THAT DOES SOUND EXCITING, Lev, are you sure? Was the story a little more banal? Cue music ""the MERCADER CONNECTION"" In my own mind they did not need Stalin to foul things, sweet Jesus, they had Gerry Healy. Sure you can add a whole host of fakirs, gurus, odd balls and occasional fantasist. Read your polemics with others and amongst yourselves to see why ordinary people just ran from meetings screaming. What possible bearing did it have on anyone's lives, beyond hysterical lecturing and hectoring. Especially telling other countries how to conduct themselves, do we invite instruction? If we had wanted a revolution we would have attempted one. The truth as plain as the nose on your face is we did not.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 10:35

I work with some militant unions here, who network with other militant unions internationally, and take solidarity actions to support each other. It's a rather small network, comprised of unions in Japan, Korea, the US, Brazil and perhaps Germany(?), but representatives from each union attend each others rallies and the unions have international solidarity committees for this purpose. Many of them are Marxists, one of the unions runs a labor school that teaches Marx. They sing the internationale at the end of all the big rallies I've been to. It's interesting. I'd like to see more cooperation like this between militant unions abroad and see the network grow into something larger.

Искра

28th January 2012, 11:50

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 12:28

TBH anarcho-syndicalist IWA does the same. Cooperation on international level is important, but there's more "stuff" you need for International.

Indeed, but taken from the union perspective, even though many of these unionists belong to revolutionary parties of various stripes in various countries, there are a bunch of internationals and a bunch of parties, but establishing a tight network of militant, international unions is more effective by comparison. There are several dozens of revolutionary mini-sects here that study Marx and hawk a paper. But the union network can mobilize thousands of revolutionaries for demonstrations and directly support each others workplace struggles. It's a small minority of the labor movement, but more effective than any party I've thus seen. As someone else said in this thread, you have to have a militant labor movement before an international can gain any traction. And the benefit of a network is that it doesn't exclude militant rank-and-file unionists who belong to conservative unions/federations.

And it's an easy base for various tendencies to start from. We may disagree on various programmatic subtleties, but I'm quite sure we all agree fighting unions are a good thing.

Plus, I've noticed a trend of standing outside the union movement and criticizing it's reformist leadership for being reformist, rather than joining the union movement and taking the leadership.

Искра

28th January 2012, 12:49

Union struggles are reformists and limited. Solidarty expressed is of a short term - until the end of labour dispute. I don't see that they have greater potential and we could see that for example in Spain during square occupations where members of "radical unions" such as CNT or CGT didn't participated in great numbers, even that was spontanious movement of working class... Unions are shortsighted. Basically, only thing that "radical unions" promote is workers self-managment of Capital instead of distruction of Capital. Working class should find new forms of struggle and leave those who serve no purpose but to discipline workers and to get few votes for some obscure Stalinist/Trotskyite shit party.

Искра

28th January 2012, 12:53

Plus, I've noticed a trend of standing outside the union movement and criticizing it's reformist leadership for being reformist, rather than joining the union movement and taking the leadership.
Joining a union to change it can be my personal decision, but politicaly, as a Marxist who's aware of present day conditions, I'm against them. Personally, I would rather establish good connection with workers from union then try to reform union. That could be the only reason to join a union, at least from my perspective...

black magick hustla

28th January 2012, 12:57

the 4th international wasnt a "real" international, it was a political group of militants and intellectuals. the comintern had the loyalty of millions of workers, including its more militant layers. i am all for the world party yo but something tells me it will look different than the comintern...

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 12:58

black magick hustla

28th January 2012, 12:59

Plus, I've noticed a trend of standing outside the union movement and criticizing it's reformist leadership for being reformist, rather than joining the union movement and taking the leadership.

why should we. there is already a whole lost generation of college trotskyists slumming in the unions. although they did leave some sort of legacy (in the US teamsters and labor notes), it didn't do so without turning yellow.

Искра

28th January 2012, 13:02

i am all for the world party yo but something tells me it will look different than the comintern...
Of course it will be different. We should learn from mistakes and repeating same shit that someone did 100 years before is like fucking stupid... :)

But again, here you say they promote "self management of capital" instead of the destrction of capital. This is a result of lack of union democracy and reformist leadership. The results are quite different when revolutionaries seize the leadership.
Revolutionary leadership is the problem. Take a look for example on Spain in 1936 and where did all those revolutionaries from CNT lead working class - into counter-revolution! Or take a look on every "reformist union" whit Trots and anarchists in its leadership, or for example Greek PAME... Unions serve only to defend capital, discipline workers and make some shit party get more votes. Working class does more damage to capital in one day riot or with spontanious asseblies then union struggle did from 1914th to today.

We don't need more democracy. We need dictatorship of proletariat.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 13:05

Joining a union to change it can be my personal decision, but politicaly, as a Marxist who's aware of present day conditions, I'm against them. Personally, I would rather establish good connection with workers from union then try to reform union. That could be the only reason to join a union, at least from my perspective...

Its odd you see that task as more difficult than building a mass party, when the structure is already in existence and easy to access, the rank and file is critical of the leadership, and you can jump into struggle immediately.

black magick hustla

28th January 2012, 13:06

Искра

28th January 2012, 13:09

Its odd you see that task as more difficult than building a mass party, when the structure is already in existence and easy to access, the rank and file is critical of the leadership, and you can jump into struggle immediately.
I don't see it as "more difficult" but I reject it. You can use structures of capital to fight against it. It's like fucking for virginity. The Party, on the other hand, is something completly different then politicals parties of capital (or left wing of Capital). People are critical to everything. I'm critical of how do women dress, because they have no taste these days. The fact that people are critical of the leadership doesn't mean that they reject reformism etc. It just mean that they are upset, from moralist perspective, on their corrupted leaders and they want new ones who would be more moral etc.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 13:16

Of course it will be different. We should learn from mistakes and repeating same shit that someone did 100 years before is like fucking stupid... :)

Revolutionary leadership is the problem. Take a look for example on Spain in 1936 and where did all those revolutionaries from CNT lead working class - into counter-revolution! Or take a look on every "reformist union" whit Trots and anarchists in its leadership, or for example Greek PAME... Unions serve only to defend capital, discipline workers and make some shit party get more votes.

We don't need more democracy. We need dictatorship of proletariat.

I didn't say party democracy, I said union democracy, a lack of which allows reformist leadership to become entrenched. Personally, I think democratic centralism is more appropriate for a party and direct democracy for a union. It's purely political opinion, based on a desire for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Do tell how you see us getting there spontaneously without organizational structures like parties and unions, aka the labor movement.

Искра

28th January 2012, 13:24

I didn't say party democracy, I said union democracy, a lack of which allows reformist leadership to become entrenched. Personally, I think democratic centralism is more appropriate for a party and direct democracy for a union. It's purely political opinion, based on a desire for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Do tell how you see us getting there spontaneously without organizational structures like parties and unions, aka the labor movement.
Direct democracy is anarcho-prudhonist bullshit. Unions are not "reformist" because of lack of democracy, but because of lack of politics, class analysis and because we live in capitalism.

I think that "labour" movement should be destroyed. It's reformist movement who only aims to manage Capital and keep workers sit.

I believe that proeltariat will create its own organisations trough class struggle and that has nothing to do with leftists and their nerd crap and opportunist quasi-organisations aiming only for self-promotion.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 13:28

I don't see it as "more difficult" but I reject it. You can use structures of capital to fight against it. It's like fucking for virginity. The Party, on the other hand, is something completly different then politicals parties of capital (or left wing of Capital). People are critical to everything. I'm critical of how do women dress, because they have no taste these days. The fact that people are critical of the leadership doesn't mean that they reject reformism etc. It just mean that they are upset, from moralist perspective, on their corrupted leaders and they want new ones who would be more moral etc.

The result of that here is thousands of unionized Marxists and youth pushing class struggle, fighting fascists and riot polite, the US military, striking left and right and organizing internationally while two or three people with a sectarian paper tell them how wrong they are based on some vague position from history. Go to where the sound of the fight is, it's not with "The Party" of you and your two friends. Show me "The Party" and we'll talk.

Искра

28th January 2012, 13:33

The result of that here is thousands of unionized Marxists and youth pushing class struggle, fighting fascists and riot polite, the US military, striking left and right and organizing internationally while two or three people with a sectarian paper tell them how wrong they are based on some vague position from history. Go to where the sound of the fight is, it's not with "The Party" of you and your two friends. Show me "The Party" and we'll talk.
The Party doesn't exist. It's term I used in my first post here to describe proletariat's International.

Numbers mean nothing. If they did then Kurdish PKK would be a revolutionary movement (or any other nationalist group with red flag and AK-47's).

Only thing which means something is how do and what do certain actions/positions do for development of class struggle and proletariat counciounse. Reformism do no good.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 13:34

Direct democracy is anarcho-prudhonist bullshit. Unions are not "reformist" because of lack of democracy, but because of lack of politics, class analysis and because we live in capitalism.

I think that "labour" movement should be destroyed. It's reformist movement who only aims to manage Capital and keep workers sit.

I believe that proeltariat will create its own organisations trough class struggle and that has nothing to do with leftists and their nerd crap and opportunist quasi-organisations aiming only for self-promotion.

Get in line with the reactionaries for destroying the labor movement. You probably have a lot to offer the capitalists. You and the fascists can get together and plan that one out. What will your hypithetical proletarian organizations look like , if parties and unions of workers are out of the question, I'm curious.

Искра

28th January 2012, 13:39

Get in line with the reactionaries for destroying the labor movement. You probably have a lot to offer the capitalists. You and the fascists can get together and plan that one out. What will your hypithetical proletarian organizations look like , if parties and unions of workers are out of the question, I'm curious.
Well labour movement works for Capital. Fascist and anti-fascists also.

I'm not talking about hypithetical organisations of proletariat. I'm makind distinction between "leftists" and class struggle and between shit organisations and independent action of proletariat (like you could see in Spain, Greece etc.). I value second while I reject first.

Lev Bronsteinovich

28th January 2012, 13:47

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 13:55

black magick hustla

28th January 2012, 14:01

And I despise reformists but at least they are honest about supporting capitalism. I despise more people who claim to be revolutionaries and don't take part in class struggle. That position is not Marxist.

what does it mean to "not take part" of the class struggle. kontrra works in a liquor factory lol. just cuz' u and your buddies chill in decrepit labor union caucases and partake in sterile protest rituals doesn't mean what u do amounts to "class struggle" fuck

Искра

28th January 2012, 14:05

Class struggle =/= unions, parties, leftist groups, nerd book clubs etc.

Class struggle is a struggle of one class, of proletariat and it aims to destroy capitalism not to reform it, make it better, make it more democratic etc. It doesn't take forms of what do Marxist nerds want it to be. As I said in one of my posts recent events in Greece, Spain and all over the world, when proletariat occupied squares, streets and somewhere even workplaces, ment much more than any union action since 1921st. Of course, those actions were filled with shit politics, but still they provided good framework for new struggles etc.

You can call me a reformist as long as you want. That won't change a thing. Especially, when it comes to fact that unions are just right arm of Capital, no matter how "radical" they are/were. And I'm pretty much honest in despising capitalism, which is a reason I despise left wing of Capital ;)

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 14:07

Искра

28th January 2012, 14:09

I listen to Skrewdriver all day with my workmates.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 14:12

Искра

28th January 2012, 14:15

Don't get into semntics, tell me how. You reject unions, you reject parties, you don't try to organize your coworkers in your workplace. You despise capitalism, sure, like everyone. So what do you do? Tell me what you do.
I take drugs with black magick hustla and listen to black metal.

citizen of industry

28th January 2012, 14:18

I drink every night and exclusively listen to ska and punk.

Lev Bronsteinovich

28th January 2012, 14:49

Well labour movement works for Capital. Fascist and anti-fascists also.

I'm not talking about hypithetical organisations of proletariat. I'm makind distinction between "leftists" and class struggle and between shit organisations and independent action of proletariat (like you could see in Spain, Greece etc.). I value second while I reject first.

Yours is not a new sentiment. There were discussions along these lines in the CI in the 1920s, and followers of the IWW also express some of these inclinations (that is forget the old unions, form new ones).

However, this neglects a number of important facts on the ground. First, where unions exist, it is highly problematic to form parallel organizations of just the most class conscious workers -- this can actually weaken the position of the workers/union vis a vis the capitalists. Second it has been possible to wrest control of some unions or union locals, to take revolutionary action, such as the Minneapolis General Strike in 1934, where the Teamsters local, led by SWP led and won a general strike. Giving up on the largest organized groups of workers is not a good idea. The CP in the Twenties did some work forming their own unions esp under William Foster. It did not go well.

zimmerwald1915

28th January 2012, 16:28

Yours is not a new sentiment. There were discussions along these lines in the CI in the 1920s, and followers of the IWW also express some of these inclinations (that is forget the old unions, form new ones).

However, this neglects a number of important facts on the ground. First, where unions exist, it is highly problematic to form parallel organizations of just the most class conscious workers -- this can actually weaken the position of the workers/union vis a vis the capitalists. Second it has been possible to wrest control of some unions or union locals, to take revolutionary action, such as the Minneapolis General Strike in 1934, where the Teamsters local, led by SWP led and won a general strike. Giving up on the largest organized groups of workers is not a good idea. The CP in the Twenties did some work forming their own unions esp under William Foster. It did not go well.
Let's be honest here. Left communists are not the ones who want to form new mass organizations, new unions. This is precisely because we look at the "facts on the ground" and see the harm these formations do to real struggles. The left communist analysis of unions does not extend to blaming a rotten leadership; that analysis would indeed recommend starting over from scratch. Nor does it recommend siding with one part of the bougeoisie over another and demanding the destruction of unions by the state. We call for, as you put it, "taking revolutionary action." Only the way we see things, "wresting control of some locals" in order to wage struggle is essentially the same as the workers beginning to reject the union as a whole and beginning to self-organize outside it. That doing so leads to victorious or at least hard-fought (as opposed to smothered) struggles is proof of our point, not yours.

Die Neue Zeit

28th January 2012, 17:20

Why anyone in their right mind would want to emulate the second international, after it's epochal betrayal of the working class in 1914 and its descent into anticommunism after that, completely escapes me. I don't know enough about the first international to say a lot about it. I would ask however, besides having a working class composition, which is great, what did they achieve?

Please. The "epochal betrayal" is a bit overrated. Before that, the original Socialist International went somewhere. The Comintern petered out quickly, and the World Party of Socialist Revolution went nowhere.

Class struggle =/= unions, parties, leftist groups, nerd book clubs etc.

Class struggle is a struggle of one class, of proletariat and it aims to destroy capitalism not to reform it, make it better, make it more democratic etc. It doesn't take forms of what do Marxist nerds want it to be. As I said in one of my posts recent events in Greece, Spain and all over the world, when proletariat occupied squares, streets and somewhere even workplaces, ment much more than any union action since 1921st. Of course, those actions were filled with shit politics, but still they provided good framework for new struggles etc.

You can call me a reformist as long as you want. That won't change a thing. Especially, when it comes to fact that unions are just right arm of Capital, no matter how "radical" they are/were. And I'm pretty much honest in despising capitalism, which is a reason I despise left wing of Capital ;)

Except for one key word there ("parties"), I agree with you.

kuros

28th January 2012, 21:18

because of lack of class consciousness.

Lev Bronsteinovich

28th January 2012, 21:44

Please. The "epochal betrayal" is a bit overrated. Before that, the original Socialist International went somewhere. The Comintern petered out quickly, and the World Party of Socialist Revolution went nowhere.

I don't know how to overrate that one. That could be the single most obvious nodal point where socialists could clearly have completely changed the course of human history (like preventing WWI) and maybe leading the German Revolution. And if by "somewhere," you mean "hell in a hand basket," I heartily agree.

Aleenik

28th January 2012, 23:11

How can we have an international when the views between tendencies vary so greatly? Which international are we even on? Who even gets to decide when a new international has come into existance?

I hereby proclaim the 1337th international! Follow me to victory comrades! We shall unite the working class the world round then betray them like is common within communistic organizations! /sarcasm off

F communist political parties. F the idea of an international. The people are way too easily and very often betrayed in such things. We don't need them.

Искра

28th January 2012, 23:27

Die Neue Zeit

28th January 2012, 23:54

I don't know how to overrate that one. That could be the single most obvious nodal point where socialists could clearly have completely changed the course of human history (like preventing WWI) and maybe leading the German Revolution. And if by "somewhere," you mean "hell in a hand basket," I heartily agree.

No, I meant organizing the working class, in cultural societies, in recreational clubs, in party branches, and so on.

Ravachol

29th January 2012, 00:15

Wait, wait, he works in a liqour factory? Well, that changes everything then! Does he organize it or just take what the boss dishes out? I've worked in a bunch of shit factories, what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Yes, because class struggle only exists as a byproduct of leftist organizing, no? Pfft. Because the proletariat is incapable of, say, taking cash from the registers, working slowly, assaulting their bosses or organizing wildcat strikes, no? Something that happens on a regular basis throughout the world without the intervention of leftist sects. Whether class struggle as a reflex-reaction to the capital-labour antagonism is sufficient to produce communism is a secondary matter. But don't confuse activism and class struggle.

No, I meant organizing the working class, in cultural societies, in recreational clubs, in party branches, and so on.

These organisations will more likely than not be incapable of transcending the limits imposed on them by the capitalist social relations that animate them in non-revolutionary periods. The biggest anti-capitalist 'cultural societies' in the contemporary western world is probably the autonomous scene and it's associated galaxy of cafes, social venues, art spaces, lecture halls,etc. While this serves a multitude of purposes, they are not free from interaction with the social relations of capitalism and thus adjust their structures accordingly. As such, their reproduction will carry within them these limits which can only be transcended in a massive break with class society in general. The idea of progressively building 'working class insitutions' within capitalism without an offensive is a still-born baby.

Aleenik

29th January 2012, 00:22

As I said. International is organisation of Worlds proletariat. It's a product of class struggle and therefore it has nothing to do with "tendencies" and other nerd club bollocks. International, as Party on Worlds level, is necessary for establishing proletarian dictatorship on Worlds level.How do you propose this united proletariat body to effectively work towards a communist world when they all have different ideas about how to achieve it? The notion that tendencies wouldn't play into an international is ridiculous at best.

I won't stop you from dreaming though.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 00:27

As I said. International is organisation of Worlds proletariat. It's a product of class struggle and therefore it has nothing to do with "tendencies" and other nerd club bollocks. International, as Party on Worlds level, is necessary for establishing proletarian dictatorship on Worlds level.

It's a product of class struggle, and class struggle is fought by workers who organize themselves and use their organizations to bring in otherr workers, create consciousness and bring the struggle to the ruling class. It doesn't come about spontaneously one fine day, nor through lame ass cultural and recreational clubs. It comes about through fighting organizations. Something neither you or DNZ would know anything about apprently, because you have no praxis.

29th January 2012, 00:28

These organisations will more likely than not be incapable of transcending the limits imposed on them by the capitalist social relations that animate them in non-revolutionary periods. The biggest anti-capitalist 'cultural societies' in the contemporary western world is probably the autonomous scene and it's associated galaxy of cafes, social venues, art spaces, lecture halls,etc. While this serves a multitude of purposes, they are not free from interaction with the social relations of capitalism and thus adjust their structures accordingly. As such, their reproduction will carry within them these limits which can only be transcended in a massive break with class society in general. The idea of progressively building 'working class insitutions' within capitalism without an offensive is a still-born baby.

I don't think that is the point DNZ is arguing either. Such institutions (and yes, the autonomist scene should serve as a positive, but limited, example) should be part of a wider framework of a politicised movement of workers self-organisations where the working class has the space to form itself into a class, has the room to educate itself and become a potential ruling class. Economic struggle in itself is important and natural within capitalism, but enough to transcend the system. In order to do that we need a class-collective that is aware of its strength and wants a different society. This in turn implies a long term patient vision of education, agitation and organisation towards such a politicised movement that tries to reach out to the whole working class.

So yes, offensives are certainly implied in this strategic vision. But the point is to ready the working class for this offensive against capital and make the chances of victory as high as possible.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 00:37

Искра

29th January 2012, 00:41

It's a product of class struggle, and class struggle is fought by workers who organize themselves and use their organizations to bring in otherr workers, create consciousness and bring the struggle to the ruling class. It doesn't come about spontaneously one fine day, nor through lame ass cultural and recreational clubs. It comes about through fighting organizations. Something neither you or DNZ would know anything about apprently, because you have no praxis.
I hate Christians and I hate moralists, so I'm happy when I see someone using such arguments because I know I kicked their ass in discussion.

No praxis argument is like most stupid thing you could use. You know shit about me, so if you have no real arguments please shut up.

Then again, I don't argue that communism will "come about spontaneously one fine day"... I believe that working class should form its own organisations, but, as I'm not liberal, I don't believe that present day organisations, such as unions and leftist parties, respresent movement of working class nor do they represent "fighting organisations". They are reformist, they are counter-revolutionary and they are sectarian bollocks whoes only purpose is self-promotion. But I doubt that you get that part, so continue with your cry baby attitude and support of reformism.

Искра

29th January 2012, 00:47

So tell me about some of your experiences in wildcat strikes and work-to-rule actions. Work to rule is actually more difficult than strike. Show me some examples of modern and successful wildcats and work to rule actions by non-unionized workers.
Do you want a fucking medal or what?

All hail sailorjay, only one who faced real workers struggle...

In the name of international proletariat and by powers of Karl Marx I gave you red star medal...

Get a grip mate.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 00:47

I hate Christians and I hate moralists, so I'm happy when I see someone using such arguments because I know I kicked their ass in discussion.

No praxis argument is like most stupid thing you could use. You know shit about me, so if you have no real arguments please shut up.

Then again, I don't argue that communism will "come about spontaneously one fine day"... I believe that working class should form its own organisations, but, as I'm not liberal, I don't believe that present day organisations, such as unions and leftist parties, respresent movement of working class nor do they represent "fighting organisations". They are reformist, they are counter-revolutionary and they are sectarian bollocks whoes only purpose is self-promotion. But I doubt that you get that part, so continue with your cry baby attitude and support of reformism.

So stop dodging the quetion I've been asking repeatedly and tell me what these magical proletarian institutions look like , and how they are different from a trade union or political party.

Die Neue Zeit

29th January 2012, 00:48

Yes, because class struggle only exists as a byproduct of leftist organizing, no? Pfft. Because the proletariat is incapable of, say, taking cash from the registers, working slowly, assaulting their bosses or organizing wildcat strikes, no? Something that happens on a regular basis throughout the world without the intervention of leftist sects. Whether class struggle as a reflex-reaction to the capital-labour antagonism is sufficient to produce communism is a secondary matter. But don't confuse activism and class struggle.

That's not really class struggle, either, though. It is something political. Taking cash from registers, assaulting immediate bosses, and organizing most wildcat strikes isn't really class struggle.

These organisations will more likely than not be incapable of transcending the limits imposed on them by the capitalist social relations that animate them in non-revolutionary periods. The biggest anti-capitalist 'cultural societies' in the contemporary western world is probably the autonomous scene and it's associated galaxy of cafes, social venues, art spaces, lecture halls,etc. While this serves a multitude of purposes, they are not free from interaction with the social relations of capitalism and thus adjust their structures accordingly. As such, their reproduction will carry within them these limits which can only be transcended in a massive break with class society in general. The idea of progressively building 'working class insitutions' within capitalism without an offensive is a still-born baby.

As comrade Q said, such cultural organizing should go hand in hand with actual politicization. Ignorance of cultural organizing reduces the potential for actual politicization, and cultural organizing alone doesn't lead to actual politicization.

It's a product of class struggle, and class struggle is fought by workers who organize themselves and use their organizations to bring in otherr workers, create consciousness and bring the struggle to the ruling class. It doesn't come about spontaneously one fine day, nor through lame ass cultural and recreational clubs. It comes about through fighting organizations. Something neither you or DNZ would know anything about apprently, because you have no praxis.

You should cool down. The pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD organized those same "lame ass cultural and recreational clubs," something that most "parties" don't organize today.

Искра

29th January 2012, 00:51

So stop dodging the quetion I've been asking repeatedly and tell me what these magical proletarian institutions look like , and how they are different from a trade union or political party.
You are demanding an answer from me like I hold all truths of this World. I don't know what kind of organisations will working class struggle create. No one knows that. Nobody could predict Soviets in 1900 and jet they appeared in 1905. I believe that working class struggle will create such bodies when times come.

Political party doesn't mean anything.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 00:52

Do you want a fucking medal or what?

All hail sailorjay, only one who faced real workers struggle...

In the name of international proletariat and by powers of Karl Marx I gave you red star medal...

Get a grip mate.

Dont dodge, answer the question. You are holding wildcats and work to rules by non unionnized workers, shiw cite me some examples. I can cite you hundreds from last year by unionized workers.

Die Neue Zeit

29th January 2012, 00:53

Political party doesn't mean anything.

Party-movements mean everything. The working class in itself cannot become the worker class for itself without organizing into a concrete party-movement (and no, I don't mean "historical party" or "party in the broad sense").

Искра

29th January 2012, 00:58

Dont dodge, answer the question. You are holding wildcats and work to rules by non unionnized workers, shiw cite me some examples. I can cite you hundreds from last year by unionized workers.
Yes we have wildcats strikes and we burn shit and smash bank windows! ACTIVISM!!!!

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 01:06

You are demanding an answer from me like I hold all truths of this World. I don't know what kind of organisations will working class struggle create. No one knows that. Nobody could predict Soviets in 1900 and jet they appeared in 1905. I believe that working class struggle will create such bodies when times come.

Political party doesn't mean anything.

So you have nothing new organizationally to offer, just criticism of existing organizational structures. So while waiting for future, hypothetical organizations to generate your grand organizational theory is just to wait around for other people to strike for you and to just not organize?

black magick hustla

29th January 2012, 01:10

So you have nothing new organizationally to offer, just criticism of existing organizational structures.

yep.

So while waiting for future, hypothetical organizations to generate your grand organizational theory is just to wait around for other people to strike for you and to just not organize?

no organizational theory. however, "waiting" around seems more pleasing than doing the same shit, that has been tried, tested, and failed in the last century.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 01:13

yep.

no organizational theory. however, "waiting" around seems more pleasing than doing the same shit, that has been tried, tested, and failed in the last century.

Tell that to the rank-and-file of ILWU 21

Искра

29th January 2012, 01:14

Tell that to the rank-and-file of ILWU 21
Tell that to Kronstadt sailors :rolleyes:

Die Neue Zeit

29th January 2012, 01:15

Tell that to the rank-and-file of ILWU 21

Political nihilism is not meant to do that kind of thing. ;)

black magick hustla

29th January 2012, 01:21

Tell that to the rank-and-file of ILWU 21

i dont wanna tell them anything

Die Neue Zeit

29th January 2012, 01:24

yep.

no organizational theory. however, "waiting" around seems more pleasing than doing the same shit, that has been tried, tested, and failed in the last century.

By your standards, councilism, riot committees, "consensus," etc. have all been tried, tested, and failed again and again in the last century and in this one, and yet you still reject the one model that has the best chance of class success.

Искра

29th January 2012, 01:25

By your standards, councilism, riot committees, "consensus," etc. have all been tried, tested, and failed in the last century and in this one, and yet you still reject the one model that has the best chance of class success.
Says the guy who's mastrubating on SPD....

Consensus is lame. Long live organic centralism!

Os Cangaceiros

29th January 2012, 01:27

Show me some examples of modern and successful wildcats and work to rule actions by non-unionized workers.

May Day 2006, USA.

Die Neue Zeit

29th January 2012, 01:28

Consensus is lame. Long live organic centralism!

Like I implied, compare "failed again and again" vs. isolated failures and partial success.

soviechetnik

29th January 2012, 01:28

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 05:51

Tell that to Kronstadt sailors :rolleyes:

You mean the unionized kronstadt sailors who wanted other political parties to be represented in the Soviet union? Okay, I'll go ask them. Wait, its 2012 and they don't exist anymore. Perhaps you would be able to produce a modern example if you were part of the labor movement instead of standing outside of it.

Welshy

29th January 2012, 06:55

You mean the unionized kronstadt sailors who wanted other political parties to be represented in the Soviet union?
Ignoring that this was a long time ago, it shouldn't really matter if the workers are unionized since they are working outside the realm of the union.

Perhaps you would be able to produce a modern example if you were part of the labor movement instead of standing outside of it.

Kontrrazvedka can answer for himself later but I just wanted to bring up that it isn't too difficult to find out about modern wildcat strikes by doing a little googling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_strike_action#Notable_wildcat_strikes
http://tinyurl.com/7dygset

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 08:47

Ignoring that this was a long time ago, it shouldn't really matter if the workers are unionized since they are working outside the realm of the union.

Kontrrazvedka can answer for himself later but I just wanted to bring up that it isn't too difficult to find out about modern wildcat strikes by doing a little googling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_strike_action#Notable_wildcat_strikes
http://tinyurl.com/7dygset

Kontrazvedka was speaking of strikes by non-union workers. Those links are strikes by union workers. Without organiization, it is hard to have the solidarity required to organize and sustain a strike. You need meetings, funds, organization for pickets, in other words, a union of workers. Not to mention all the organizing work needed to get that level of solidarity. From the links you provided:

On April 2, 2007, the Strike Committee of United Auto Workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Auto_Workers) (UAW) Local 3520 called for a strike at the Freightliner Trucks' assembly plant in Cleveland, North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland,_North_Carolina). This strike lasted only one day, but because the UAW declared the strike unofficial, it was considered a wildcat strike action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_strike_action), resulting the firing of 700 employees. Nearly all these were at length allowed back to work, six remained terminated for about a week, but five (known as the "Cleveland Five" or "Freightliner Five") remain terminated.

The 2006 Toronto Transit Commission wildcat strike was an illegal strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action) in Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto), Ontario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario), Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), on May 29, 2006. It was initiated by 800 Toronto Transit Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Transit_Commission) mechanical and janitorial workers who were protesting proposed changes in work schedules, including permanent re-assignment of 100 workers to night shifts.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_Transit_Commission_wildcat_strike#cit e_note-0) The strike[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_Transit_Commission_wildcat_strike#cit e_note-1) began between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. EDT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Daylight_Time), and quickly resulted in a large scale disruption of service when transit drivers honoured the picket line, effectively shutting down the Toronto transit system. The shutdown left over a million commuters searching for alternative means of transport.
By 7 a.m. the Ontario Labour Relations Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Labour_Relations_Board) (OLRB) issued a cease-and-desist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease-and-desist) order to pickets; this order was ignored. A further back-to-work directive was forwarded by the OLRB, and eventually Amalgamated Transit Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamated_Transit_Union) officials requested the workers to comply, the call coming just before 3 p.m. EDT.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_Transit_Commission_wildcat_strike#cit e_note-2) Given the logistical difficulties, limited service slowly increased, with full service later in the evening.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_Transit_Commission_wildcat_strike#cit e_note-3)
At the time, the union disputed management's claim to an illegal job action, stating that workers had instead been locked out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_out).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] There has also been considerable discussion about the reasons and details behind the strike.[

Bangladeshi law does not allow the right to strike, so all strikes there are considered wildcat.

In 2001, a wildcat strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_strike) took place, as the workers felt that their union sold them out to the company.
A union decertification petition was circulated in the fall of 2006. The petition required 30% of bargaining unit employees to sign to schedule a decertification election. The election was held on Dec. 7, 2006, and the employees voted overwhelmingly (NLRB certified results 649 to 190) to retain Teamsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamsters) Local 89 as their union.

The "Winter of Discontent" is an expression, popularised by the British media, referring to the winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), during which there were widespread strikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action) by local authority trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) demanding larger pay rises for their members, because the Labour government of James Callaghan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Callaghan) sought to hold a pay freeze to control inflation.

Taxi unions said they wanted to meet the government to make their point and have called a national strike for January 23 in a preventive move.

Etc., etc., etc.

Искра

29th January 2012, 11:44

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 12:46

Regarding Kronstandt sailors comment, look at here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm). Your comment on that is too bizzare. Who needs unions when you have Soviets?

I was talking about class struggle, not wild cat strikes. But anyhow you have a lot of wild cat strikes in Greece which have nothing to do with unions. Also, there was a strike in Babylon cinema in Berlin where workers were not union members. Of course that people need some kind of an organisation to fight, nobody denies that, but the issue is what is the nature of that organisation: is it just another shit union controled by some shit party (like we had in PAME and KKE case in Greece) or is it organisation of workers which fights for their interests. In my oppinion for development of class concieunse its the best that workers with problem create their own organisation instead of waiting for salvation from some union shitheads.

You can write 2000 pages of union actions if you want, but still that would mean anything. I still claim that what recent movements in Spain, Greece etc. created is more important than milion union actions.

And for your information I was a member of anarcho-syndicalist organisation. I know a quite a lot about unions and their activism and how much does that influence class struggle. That's pretty much a reason why I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist anymore ;)

Your own experience is not a model that can be applied to every union as a whole. Sounds like defeatism to me. You explicitly mentioned wildcats, go back and read your posts. So what do you define as class struggle if not strikes, work to rule actions, demonstrations and organized working class organizations? Throwing a rock through a window once in awhile? Perhaps some of the recent events in Greece can be explained by the fact unionization rates there are among the highest in the world. You cant even brainstorm some sort of image of what a workers organization might look like if not a union or party.

Also, I hope you are very consistent in all the posts you've made here. If you want to link to othe issues and other threads that aren't relevant to the discussion I'll have to spend some time exploring yours.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 12:53

Please do provide some evidence of your claims about strike actions in Greece and Germany by non-union workers, don't expect me to take your word for it. Pretty cool though how Babylon theater is on Rosa Luxemburg street. You should spend an hour or so reading her Mass Strike

Rodrigo

29th January 2012, 13:11

There isn't even a Fourth International, why people talk about the Fifth? "IV International" = a lot of Trotskyist/Morenist/etc political mini-organizations fighting each other for the title of true section of the IV International. :lol:

Искра

29th January 2012, 13:12

I'm not using my experience for a model. You are the one who's doing that demanding some kind of an activist medal or something. I'm using a critique of communist left. Experience is just a cherry on the top.

You should read argument is also fucking stupid. Get a grip, really.

Also, unions in Greece undermine class struggle.

Ravachol

29th January 2012, 13:20

So tell me about some of your experiences in wildcat strikes and work-to-rule actions.

I couldn't hold a candle to such a big internet leftist such as you, obviously :rolleyes: Don't play that card, it makes you look like a total tool.

Work to rule is actually more difficult than strike. Show me some examples of modern and successful wildcats and work to rule actions by non-unionized workers.

Well there's this little thing called May '68 or the 2006 Dhaka strikes or this (http://libcom.org/tags/kamunist-kranti) or well just take a look (http://libcom.org/tags/wildcat-strikes). Honestly...

I also hope you're aware of something called the spartacist uprising, where the only role played by unions was one of recuperation (at best) or counter-revolutionary reaction.

That's not really class struggle, either, though. It is something political. Taking cash from registers, assaulting immediate bosses, and organizing most wildcat strikes isn't really class struggle.

And why is that? Because it isn't done with 'the right consciousness'? Class struggle is something different than the struggle for communism. Pro-revolutionaries hope to spring the latter from the former, but there isn't necessarily a linear connection. When workers strike in order to demand a pay-rise it's class struggle but when they bypass the stage of negotiation and take from the registers it suddenly isn't? Class struggle flows forward from the antagonism between capital and labour and the conditions it gives rise to, it doesn't necessarily mean the class forms itself 'as-a-class' either, there are plenty of strikes which have been sectorial and sectarian and not at all that helpfull to class-unity.

By your standards, councilism, riot committees, "consensus," etc.

I don't wanna get into the discussion of what has failed and what has not but I'm really curious as to what a riot committee is and where I can apply for a seat? I'd love to be on one.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 14:02

I couldn't hold a candle to such a big internet leftist such as you, obviously :rolleyes: Don't play that card, it makes you look like a total tool.

Well there's this little thing called May '68 or the 2006 Dhaka strikes or this (http://libcom.org/tags/kamunist-kranti) or well just take a look (http://libcom.org/tags/wildcat-strikes). Honestly...

I also hope you're aware of something called the spartacist uprising, where the only role played by unions was one of recuperation (at best) or counter-revolutionary reaction.

And why is that? Because it isn't done with 'the right consciousness'? Class struggle is something different than the struggle for communism. Pro-revolutionaries hope to spring the latter from the former, but there isn't necessarily a linear connection. When workers strike in order to demand a pay-rise it's class struggle but when they bypass the stage of negotiation and take from the registers it suddenly isn't? Class struggle flows forward from the antagonism between capital and labour and the conditions it gives rise to, it doesn't necessarily mean the class forms itself 'as-a-class' either, there are plenty of strikes which have been sectorial and sectarian and not at all that helpfull to class-unity.

I don't wanna get into the discussion of what has failed and what has not but I'm really curious as to what a riot committee is and where I can apply for a seat? I'd love to be on one.

Wow. One is a link to 40agricultural workers who walked off the job and the others are a lot of complaints about working conditions. One thing to keep in mind is labor law limitations in countries. If unionizing lands you in jail or gets you a bullet in the head you can't parade a wildcat strike as anti-union.

Also, I'm not parading my own activism. But if someone is claiming that union organizing is innefective, that wildcats are the way to go, that international union cooperation is worthless, that parties are pointless. That all union ists are reformists and all party members are reformist and reactionary, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask such a person what their experience is in unions and parties. If you want to bash something and promote another, when both things involve organized groups of people, it is normal to ask your personal knowledge of each. So I played the card. If you bash unions, tell me about your union experience. If you bash parties, tell me about your party experience. If you have an alternative to either, enlighten me. Dont try to make it sound like I'm promoting myself. It makes you look like a tool when you critcize something, can'tt offer up an alternative, get defensive and then resort to ad hominum attacks because you nothing better to offer.

feral bro

29th January 2012, 14:16

dude, if you just read the stuff i have read, then you'd understand that what you think is rubbish.

citizen of industry

29th January 2012, 14:23

29th January 2012, 15:11

dude, if you just read the stuff i have read, then you'd understand that what you think is rubbish.

I nominate this to be the Revleft Post of the Day.

Please post something of substance or refrain from commenting.

feral bro

29th January 2012, 15:20

I nominate this to be the Revleft Post of the Day.

Please post something of substance or refrain from commenting.
it was sarcasm, if that escaped you.

Die Neue Zeit

29th January 2012, 16:41

Who needs unions when you have Soviets?

I was talking about class struggle, not wild cat strikes.

Ad hoc "workers councils" have failed time and time again. You keep pointing to the Great/Big Failure, but how many failures time and again by "workers councils" must class-conscious workers have to go through? :glare:

Your own experience is not a model that can be applied to every union as a whole. Sounds like defeatism to me. You explicitly mentioned wildcats, go back and read your posts. So what do you define as class struggle if not strikes, work to rule actions, demonstrations and organized working class organizations?

To be fair, comrade, most strikes and other aspects of mere labour disputes aren't really part of genuine class struggle. Demonstrations, political Occupations, party-based political action, etc. by the working class - those count as genuine class struggle.

Also, I'm aware that May 68 was sparked by student UNIONS, and that France is another country with high unionization rates. If you ever organize abroad, you'll find that French people, regardless of their politics, are much more aware of class and far more receptive to unionizing. And if you read my previous post on Bangladesh, you might have worded your post on Dhaka differently, but you were probably too busy doing Wiki searches to bother matching a region with a country.

I have a rather low opinion of May 1968, actually:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/middle-ground-may-t165270/index.html

French workers today are actually less unionized than American workers!

And why is that? Because it isn't done with 'the right consciousness'? Class struggle is something different than the struggle for communism. Pro-revolutionaries hope to spring the latter from the former, but there isn't necessarily a linear connection. When workers strike in order to demand a pay-rise it's class struggle but when they bypass the stage of negotiation and take from the registers it suddenly isn't? Class struggle flows forward from the antagonism between capital and labour and the conditions it gives rise to, it doesn't necessarily mean the class forms itself 'as-a-class' either, there are plenty of strikes which have been sectorial and sectarian and not at all that helpfull to class-unity.

No, because by their nature they aren't political at a very basic level. Again, Occupy hasn't been done with the "right consciousness," but genuine class struggle emerges much more from the likes of Occupy than wildcat strikes, taking cash from registers, assaulting immediate bosses, etc.

Every genuine class struggle is a (subset of basic) political struggle.

daft punk

29th January 2012, 18:28

I am personally scared and disgusted by Trotskysms as well as Stalinism.
Trotsky was very ruthless and killed hundreds of innocent peasants and Christians during the Civil War,not to mention the Stalinist atrocities of collectivization...
I think that the Socialist movement should move on and leave these figures behind...open new paths for freedom against imperialism,justice and aggression...

Rubbish. In the first half of 1918, while still fighting Germany, the Bolsheviks executed just 22 people, less than in Texas under George Bush. In the revolution itself in October, led by Trotsky, 2 people died. The Bolsheviks were very clear about not persecuting people for religion. Trotsky built and led the Red Army because the White generals started a civil war.

Support or retract.

29th January 2012, 19:54

Support or retract.

He is restricted, so he can't reply. You can ask him in the Opposing Ideologies subforum, if you want to know.

Omsk

29th January 2012, 20:05

Although i,of course,dont support soviechetnik,i have to jump in,because this is aggresive revision of history.

In the revolution itself in October, led by Trotsky

This is nonsense.Even the biggest Trotskyists admit the great October revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin,[and,a lot of other Bolsheviks,Trotsky was among them]
but the main factor was the party,the people,the soldiers and the rank and file Bolsheviks who carried out the orders.

And,to counter the Trotskyite lies that Stalin was a minor figure,and an unsuccessful revolutionary,:

During the years of reaction following upon 1905, Stalin may be said to have won for himself a universally recognized reputation and to have laid the foundations of his later rise to a leading position in the Party. In one of his many embittered polemics against Stalin, Trotsky has since sought to prove that his rival's name was unknown to the Russian masses until long after the successful 1917 revolution. Trotsky's purpose in this slander is to infer that Stalin owed his advance to wire-pulling and backstage tactics, rather than to proven ability. Detailed study of the period 1906 to 1914 effectively gives the lie to this accusation, which could never have been made at all but for the fact that from 1913 to 1917 Stalin was prevented from adding to his fame because he was imprisoned and under the strictest possible surveillance.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 31

Not to mention that he had a lot of activities in prison:

Simon Vereshtchak, a Revolutionary Socialist and a fierce political enemy of his [Stalin] informs us that in 1903 he was in the same prison as Stalin, in Baku--a prison, made to hold 400 prisoners, into which 1500 were crowded. "One day a new face appeared in the cell containing the Bolsheviks. Someone said: 'It's Koba.'" What did Koba do in prison? He educated people. "Educational circles were formed, and the Marxist Koba stood out prominently among the professors. Marxism was his subject and he was undefeatable on it...." And Vereshtchak describes this young man, "wearing a blue, open-necked, satinet blouse, no belt or hat, a cloak thrown over his shoulder, and always carrying a book in his hand." Arranging big organized debates. (Koba always preferred these to individual discussions.)...
A little later, when he occupied cell No. 3 in the Bailoff prison, Koba again organized courses of study. Imprisonment only succeeded in altering his activities in a relative way.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 22

Not to mentioned how many times he was arrested and exiled,and how many times he escaped:

1902, April 5: Stalin is arrested in Batum (first arrest).
1903, April 19: Stalin is transferred to the Kutais Provincial prison.
1903, Nov.: Stalin is exiled for three years to the Province of Irkutsk, East Siberia, via Batum and Novorossisk (first exile).
1904, Jan. 5: Stalin escapes from exile (from Balagansk, Irkutsk province) and goes first to Batum and later to Tiflis (first escape).
1908, March 25: Stalin is arrested in Baku under the name of Gaioza Nizharadze. Stalin is sent to the Bailov prison (Second arrest).
1908, Sept. 20: Stalin is exiled for two years to the city of Solvychegodsk in the Vologda province (second exile).
1909, June 24: Stalin escapes from the Vologda Province (2d escape).
1910, March 23: Stalin is arrested in Baku (3d arrest).
1910, August 27: By order of the Vice-Regent of the Caucasus, Stalin is forbidden to reside within the limits of the Caucasian region for a period of five years.
1910, Sept. 23: Stalin is exiled to the city of Solvychegodsk in the Vologda Province (3d exile).
1911, July 6: Stalin escapes from exile (3d escape).
1911, Sept. 9: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (4th arrest)
1911, Dec. 14: a Stalin is exiled to the city of Solvychegodsk and the Vologda Province (4th exile)
1912, Feb. 29: Stalin escapes from exile (4th escape)
1912, April 22: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (5th arrest)
1912, Beginning of summer: Stalin is exiled for four years to the Narym Territory (5th exile)
1912, Summer: Stalin escapes from exiled (from Narym) and returns to St. Petersburg (5th escape)
1913, Spring: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (6th arrest)
1913, June: Stalin is exiled for four years under police surveillance to the Turukhan Territory (6th exile)
1913, June to Feb. 1917: Stalin is in exile in the Turukhan Territory.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 353

He was also a good underground worker [in contrast to Trotskyites who call him a raving maniac]

He knew how to make himself inconspicuous. Cautious, taciturn, observant, and possessing great presence of mind, he was already, in many ways, the ideal underground worker.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 35

From now on [1901] his whole existence would be screened by false passports and nicknames, of which he was to use nearly 20 in the next 15 years. Hitherto he had existed on the borderline between clandestinity and legality. Now he was descending into the actual underground from which he was to emerge finally only in 1917, shortly before he became a member of the first Soviet Cabinet. For his living he would depend entirely on such assistance as the organization, rich in ambition and enthusiasm but poor in money, could give him, and on his comrades' private help. The decision to take this course was an informal vow of poverty, which in a sense terminated his novitiate to socialism. The ex-seminarist was now becoming one of that godless order of knight-errants and pilgrims of the revolution, to whom life offered little or no interest and attraction outside their service.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 37

A confidential report of the secret police stated: 'In the autumn of 1901 the Social Democratic Committee of Tiflis sent one of its members, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, formerly a pupil in the sixth form of the Tiflis Seminary, to Batum for the purpose of carrying on propaganda among the factory workers. As a result of Djugashvili's activities... Social Democratic organizations began to spring up in all the factories of Batum. The results of the Social Democratic propaganda could already be seen in 1902, in the prolonged strike in the Rothschild factory and in street demonstrations.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 47

For 17 years he was forced to live anonymously under a series of names as the police were constantly on his track. This illegal life has always been the fate and at the same time the secret delight of subterranean agitators, even in the ancient world. The insecurity of his daily life implants in a young soul distrust of every acquaintance, caution before every friend, and above all, suspicion.
Ludwig, Emil. Three portraits: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. New York Toronto: Longmans, Green and Company, c1940, p. 94

Stalin was also loyal to the party.
Unlike Trotsky,who before the revolution,led many anti-bolshevik troops:

In the preceding splits he [Lenin] parted company with his ablest colleagues. His latest decision to burn all boats behind him left him with few outstanding associates. Trotsky now headed a motley coalition of right-wing Mensheviks, radical Bolsheviks, anti-Mensheviks and anti-Bolsheviks, liquidators, boycotters, God-seekers, and simply Trotskyists in a ferocious journalistic onslaught on Leninism.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 109
{coming from "anti-stalinist" authors.}

Trotsky built and led the Red Army because the White generals started a civil war.

What?You completely left out Lenin out of the Red Army.

In September 1917 V. I.Lenin wrote "There is only one way to prevent the restoration of the police, and that is to create a people's militia and to fuse it with the army.

This is typical Trotskyite nonsense,you give all credit to Trotsky,and ignore Lenin,while you attack Marxist-Leninists when they give credit to Stalins role in WW2 [Which was much bigger than Trotskys role in the Civil War]

citizen of industry

30th January 2012, 01:51

Although i,of course,dont support soviechetnik,i have to jump in,because this is aggresive revision of history.

This is nonsense.Even the biggest Trotskyists admit the great October revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin,[and,a lot of other Bolsheviks,Trotsky was among them]
but the main factor was the party,the people,the soldiers and the rank and file Bolsheviks who carried out the orders.

And,to counter the Trotskyite lies that Stalin was a minor figure,and an unsuccessful revolutionary,:

During the years of reaction following upon 1905, Stalin may be said to have won for himself a universally recognized reputation and to have laid the foundations of his later rise to a leading position in the Party. In one of his many embittered polemics against Stalin, Trotsky has since sought to prove that his rival's name was unknown to the Russian masses until long after the successful 1917 revolution. Trotsky's purpose in this slander is to infer that Stalin owed his advance to wire-pulling and backstage tactics, rather than to proven ability. Detailed study of the period 1906 to 1914 effectively gives the lie to this accusation, which could never have been made at all but for the fact that from 1913 to 1917 Stalin was prevented from adding to his fame because he was imprisoned and under the strictest possible surveillance.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 31

Not to mention that he had a lot of activities in prison:

Simon Vereshtchak, a Revolutionary Socialist and a fierce political enemy of his [Stalin] informs us that in 1903 he was in the same prison as Stalin, in Baku--a prison, made to hold 400 prisoners, into which 1500 were crowded. "One day a new face appeared in the cell containing the Bolsheviks. Someone said: 'It's Koba.'" What did Koba do in prison? He educated people. "Educational circles were formed, and the Marxist Koba stood out prominently among the professors. Marxism was his subject and he was undefeatable on it...." And Vereshtchak describes this young man, "wearing a blue, open-necked, satinet blouse, no belt or hat, a cloak thrown over his shoulder, and always carrying a book in his hand." Arranging big organized debates. (Koba always preferred these to individual discussions.)...
A little later, when he occupied cell No. 3 in the Bailoff prison, Koba again organized courses of study. Imprisonment only succeeded in altering his activities in a relative way.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 22

Not to mentioned how many times he was arrested and exiled,and how many times he escaped:

1902, April 5: Stalin is arrested in Batum (first arrest).
1903, April 19: Stalin is transferred to the Kutais Provincial prison.
1903, Nov.: Stalin is exiled for three years to the Province of Irkutsk, East Siberia, via Batum and Novorossisk (first exile).
1904, Jan. 5: Stalin escapes from exile (from Balagansk, Irkutsk province) and goes first to Batum and later to Tiflis (first escape).
1908, March 25: Stalin is arrested in Baku under the name of Gaioza Nizharadze. Stalin is sent to the Bailov prison (Second arrest).
1908, Sept. 20: Stalin is exiled for two years to the city of Solvychegodsk in the Vologda province (second exile).
1909, June 24: Stalin escapes from the Vologda Province (2d escape).
1910, March 23: Stalin is arrested in Baku (3d arrest).
1910, August 27: By order of the Vice-Regent of the Caucasus, Stalin is forbidden to reside within the limits of the Caucasian region for a period of five years.
1910, Sept. 23: Stalin is exiled to the city of Solvychegodsk in the Vologda Province (3d exile).
1911, July 6: Stalin escapes from exile (3d escape).
1911, Sept. 9: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (4th arrest)
1911, Dec. 14: a Stalin is exiled to the city of Solvychegodsk and the Vologda Province (4th exile)
1912, Feb. 29: Stalin escapes from exile (4th escape)
1912, April 22: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (5th arrest)
1912, Beginning of summer: Stalin is exiled for four years to the Narym Territory (5th exile)
1912, Summer: Stalin escapes from exiled (from Narym) and returns to St. Petersburg (5th escape)
1913, Spring: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (6th arrest)
1913, June: Stalin is exiled for four years under police surveillance to the Turukhan Territory (6th exile)
1913, June to Feb. 1917: Stalin is in exile in the Turukhan Territory.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 353

He was also a good underground worker [in contrast to Trotskyites who call him a raving maniac]

He knew how to make himself inconspicuous. Cautious, taciturn, observant, and possessing great presence of mind, he was already, in many ways, the ideal underground worker.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 35

From now on [1901] his whole existence would be screened by false passports and nicknames, of which he was to use nearly 20 in the next 15 years. Hitherto he had existed on the borderline between clandestinity and legality. Now he was descending into the actual underground from which he was to emerge finally only in 1917, shortly before he became a member of the first Soviet Cabinet. For his living he would depend entirely on such assistance as the organization, rich in ambition and enthusiasm but poor in money, could give him, and on his comrades' private help. The decision to take this course was an informal vow of poverty, which in a sense terminated his novitiate to socialism. The ex-seminarist was now becoming one of that godless order of knight-errants and pilgrims of the revolution, to whom life offered little or no interest and attraction outside their service.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 37

A confidential report of the secret police stated: 'In the autumn of 1901 the Social Democratic Committee of Tiflis sent one of its members, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, formerly a pupil in the sixth form of the Tiflis Seminary, to Batum for the purpose of carrying on propaganda among the factory workers. As a result of Djugashvili's activities... Social Democratic organizations began to spring up in all the factories of Batum. The results of the Social Democratic propaganda could already be seen in 1902, in the prolonged strike in the Rothschild factory and in street demonstrations.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 47

For 17 years he was forced to live anonymously under a series of names as the police were constantly on his track. This illegal life has always been the fate and at the same time the secret delight of subterranean agitators, even in the ancient world. The insecurity of his daily life implants in a young soul distrust of every acquaintance, caution before every friend, and above all, suspicion.
Ludwig, Emil. Three portraits: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. New York Toronto: Longmans, Green and Company, c1940, p. 94

Stalin was also loyal to the party.
Unlike Trotsky,who before the revolution,led many anti-bolshevik troops:

In the preceding splits he [Lenin] parted company with his ablest colleagues. His latest decision to burn all boats behind him left him with few outstanding associates. Trotsky now headed a motley coalition of right-wing Mensheviks, radical Bolsheviks, anti-Mensheviks and anti-Bolsheviks, liquidators, boycotters, God-seekers, and simply Trotskyists in a ferocious journalistic onslaught on Leninism.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 109
{coming from "anti-stalinist" authors.}

What?You completely left out Lenin out of the Red Army.

In September 1917 V. I.Lenin wrote "There is only one way to prevent the restoration of the police, and that is to create a people's militia and to fuse it with the army.

This is typical Trotskyite nonsense,you give all credit to Trotsky,and ignore Lenin,while you attack Marxist-Leninists when they give credit to Stalins role in WW2 [Which was much bigger than Trotskys role in the Civil War]

And the man with a Stalin avatar jumps in to praise Stalin! To your credit, it is a thoughtful post. But everyone escaped from exile then, including Trotsky, so you can't really use that as ammo. Security wasn't exactly tight under the Tsar.

You praise his "underground ability" and how "He knew how to make himself inconspicuous." But then go on to praise how many times he was caught and imprisoned. Methinks he wasn't such a great underground organizer afterall. I would like to hear about his actual organizing successes though.

As for his Marxian analysis, fortunately we don't have to take Simon Vereshtchak's word for it, because we can read all of Stalin's writings on marxists.org to see how shitty and class-collaborationist they are.

Geiseric

30th January 2012, 01:57

I think it speaks volumes that there has never been a Stalinist or Marxist-Leninist international, and that there has been no effort since Stalin dissolved the Comintern to create one. But I guess a Menshevik/Social Patriot International would be self contradicting. There is a substantial amount of materialism missing from this thread, so much that I couldn't find a good comment to reply to. I don't ever think i've tried to compare "the importance" of two historical personalities, especially ones with the gravity that Lenin, trotsky, and certainly in Georgia, Stalin. But whereas Trotsky got his support from the workers organisations that he did ground work in organising, Stalin recieved his support from the appointments to State positions that he made with many of his political allies.

But there's alot you're missing when you make the childish assumption that "Stalin was better (lol) than trotsky because of some quotes we got saying that he worked really hard during WW2," especially in his role in appeasing the Nazi war machine in its embryo, and aiding in its growth. Don't say that he was trying to buy time by being instrumental in the construction of the Nazi army, which he apparently thought would invade at some point, because that doesn't make any sense. If the U.S.S.R. did so much as refuse to help the fascists (which had made their intentions clear many years before the molotov ribbentrop pact) very much would be different today.

citizen of industry

30th January 2012, 02:18

Direct democracy is anarcho-prudhonist bullshit. Unions are not "reformist" because of lack of democracy, but because of lack of politics, class analysis and because we live in capitalism.

I think that "labour" movement should be destroyed. It's reformist movement who only aims to manage Capital and keep workers sit.

I believe that proeltariat will create its own organisations trough class struggle and that has nothing to do with leftists and their nerd crap and opportunist quasi-organisations aiming only for self-promotion.

Then why did you just like this post http://www.revleft.com/vb/india-factory-workers-t167245/index.html?t=167245 about union workers in India? If it were up to your philosophy they would never have organized themselves in the first place. By your definition, nothing in this post could be considered class-struggle, because it was done by a union. You should retract your "thanks."

Omsk

30th January 2012, 13:18

I think it speaks volumes that there has never been a Stalinist or Marxist-Leninist international, and that there has been no effort since Stalin dissolved the Comintern to create one.

Have you even heard about the Informbiro?No?Learn about it.

I don't ever think i've tried to compare "the importance" of two historical personalities

Yes you did,numereous times,while arguing that Trotsky was so much better than Stalin.But that is not the point,you probably didnt even read my post,i was answering to lies and to a revision of history,and the user i replied to,started the whole comparing.

But whereas Trotsky got his support from the workers organisations that he did ground work in organising

Are you aware that Stalin was more popular than Trotsky by the time they clashed,and before that?

Stalin recieved his support from the appointments to State positions that he made with many of his political allies.

Stalin had "many political allies" when he joined the revolution,early on?What are you talking about.He respected Lenin and Lenin admired him.But he got his positions because of his work.

But there's alot you're missing when you make the childish assumption that "Stalin was better (lol) than trotsky because of some quotes we got saying that he worked really hard during WW2,"

I never maid that assumption.I never suggested something like that.Nice strawmen.

If the U.S.S.R. did so much as refuse to help the fascists

It didnt help them.And all which you said is destroyed by a simple fact - the USSR was mainly responsible for the victory against Hitler.

Next time when you want to reply to a post,take a minute,get some facts,check something,this way your just proving how little you know on the subject.

Lev Bronsteinovich

30th January 2012, 14:04

Are you aware that Stalin was more popular than Trotsky by the time they clashed,and before that?

Omsk, are you aware that before 1921 or so, Stalin was almost unknown outside of the party? I know that he was editor of Pravda for a time, but he did very little public speaking and very little writing. His best work, as far as I know, was organizing in the Baku oilfields well before the revolution. If you read Jack Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World, Stalin is not even mentioned. Given that Reed died in 1920, it would be a bit difficult to tar him as a "Trotskyite."

And Stalin, by very carefully using the developing system of appointed party secretaries, did place people loyal to him in important party posts beginning in the early 20s. That is how he managed to ultimately grab power in the party against the much more prominent Bolsheviks - who, by the way, were superior in almost every aspect except political infighting. Initially, Stalin needed support from others -- first the Triumvierate and then Bukharin. by 1929 -- he stood alone.

dodger

30th January 2012, 14:33

Die Neue Zeit

30th January 2012, 14:40

And Stalin, by very carefully using the developing system of appointed party secretaries, did place people loyal to him in important party posts beginning in the early 20s. That is how he managed to ultimately grab power in the party against the much more prominent Bolsheviks - who, by the way, were superior in almost every aspect except political infighting. Initially, Stalin needed support from others -- first the Triumvierate and then Bukharin. by 1929 -- he stood alone.

All the other political "candidates" ignored institutional and other organizational developments in the party. Stalin borrowed a lot from Sverdlov:

Reconstructing the state: personal networks and elite identity in Soviet Russia (http://books.google.ca/books?id=qTRvcrPQ--IC) by Gerald Easter might have something different to say about that. One person's "personal networks" can be another's "nepotism."

P. 68 and onwards contrast the personnel styles of Sverdlov and Krestinsky, and how Stalin's use of the former's personal networks style was crucial.

The party structures were a total mess and the regional party secretaries weren't stable in their positions.

citizen of industry

30th January 2012, 14:55

Is it staring me in the face, what might we need an International for. I strongly suspect it would become a talking shop. Another talking shop, people with plenty of time on their hands and scope for more mischief. A vehicle for policemen. I can hear the term 'rootless cosmopolitan' ringing in my ears. What would it do? I already have a sense of foreboding even asking. Just point me in the right direction with a few lines. Thanks. What sort of power would it have.? How might it operate? What are the costs involved?

Coordinated actions by parties and unions on an international level. A weapon to use against international maneuvers by globalized companies. Outsourcing of jobs in country A results in strikes and demonstrations at the same company's offices and plants in countries B, C, D, E, etc. Costs relatively low, as affiliation fees come from dues. Even small things, like organizing a leafleting of a company's recruiting event in country D when there is a labor dispute in B. Ability to include the unions in political struggles with consistency and connect their economic struggles with political struggles. A big talking shop with lots of factions, opportunists, etc. but maybe we wouldn't fuck it up this time around.

Lev Bronsteinovich

30th January 2012, 15:48

Right. If we are discussing the need for an international instrument for worker's revolution, how could you sensibly be against it? The bourgeoisie and imperialists are very well organized, with armies, trade associations, etc. We need an organization that will support proletarian revolution everywhere. I think Lenin called the CI leadership the General Staff of the world revolution. It is a tool, comrade -- a necessary tool. As I said in an earlier post, you could do worse than read some of the material from the 1st four CI congresses. Fascinating and inspiring stuff. To some degree, I think, whether we call the new international #4 or #5 or Irving, doesn't really matter so much, these are about old fights that are not so important anymore. Which is not to say that the degeneration of the CI wasn't VERY IMPORTANT. It was. The Stalinization of the CI was a huge defeat for world revolution.

Omsk

30th January 2012, 20:39

Hello,Lev.

Omsk, are you aware that before 1921 or so, Stalin was almost unknown outside of the party? I know that he was editor of Pravda for a time, but he did very little public speaking and very little writing. His best work, as far as I know, was organizing in the Baku oilfields well before the revolution. If you read Jack Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World, Stalin is not even mentioned. Given that Reed died in 1920, it would be a bit difficult to tar him as a "Trotskyite."

And Stalin, by very carefully using the developing system of appointed party secretaries, did place people loyal to him in important party posts beginning in the early 20s. That is how he managed to ultimately grab power in the party against the much more prominent Bolsheviks - who, by the way, were superior in almost every aspect except political infighting. Initially, Stalin needed support from others -- first the Triumvierate and then Bukharin. by 1929 -- he stood alone.

I will answer step by step:

Omsk, are you aware that before 1921 or so, Stalin was almost unknown outside of the party?

I will repeat:

During the years of reaction following upon 1905, Stalin may be said to have won for himself a universally recognized reputation and to have laid the foundations of his later rise to a leading position in the Party. In one of his many embittered polemics against Stalin, Trotsky has since sought to prove that his rival's name was unknown to the Russian masses until long after the successful 1917 revolution. Trotsky's purpose in this slander is to infer that Stalin owed his advance to wire-pulling and backstage tactics, rather than to proven ability. Detailed study of the period 1906 to 1914 effectively gives the lie to this accusation, which could never have been made at all but for the fact that from 1913 to 1917 Stalin was prevented from adding to his fame because he was imprisoned and under the strictest possible surveillance.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 31

To further go into detail,he was known in Georgia and in Russia,
Especially after the event after 1905,unlike the many other figures of the revolutionary movement,he stayed in Russia,he was caught,arrested,exiled,he escaped,he worked,and met many hidden revolutionaries.

He was also an important figure in Leningrad,:

Early in August 1917, the Sixth Party Congress met secretly in Petrograd. In the absence of Lenin, Stalin delivered the Central Committee's report to the 267 delegates, displaying great skill and persuasiveness...
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 95

Also,have you comrades forgot about;

After the ending of the Civil War a party Congress assembled.... Stalin was also one of the eight members of the actual government of the Soviet state... The Politburo.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 87

Stalin's growing importance in the Party was shown when at its April 1917 Conference he was elected to the Central Committee by the highest number of votes after Lenin and Zinoviev.
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 29

For an example,he also delivered the main report at the Bolshevik Sixth congress,[July 28, 1917] .

He was also one of the first Russian [Soviet] delegates to the Comintern.

And if i may add,the Tzarists were very strict and brutal in their combat with revolutionaries,and were not lenient,as some users suggested.

The contrast between what I witnessed under the rule of Tsar Nicholas II in 1916 and what I saw nearly 30 years later was as that between total darkness and sunlight. The Empire was rightly called the prisonhouse of nations. Everywhere was illiteracy, abject poverty, disease, and exploitation. It was illegal for the various nationalities to have schools in their own language. The wealth of the land was sucked away while industry was kept in a primitive state. The richest agricultural lands were taken over by the Russian nobility. The dissolute rulers lived in great pomp and luxury, protected by Tsarist troops. National enmities and prejudices were deliberately fostered by Tsarist officials as a weapon against movements for freedom. One national group was sent to police another, and boundary lines were often arranged to cut nations in two.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 71

Between 1905 and 1914 the numbers sentenced to hard labor (katorga) rose fivefold as the political authority of the Tsarist regime began to crumble.
Overy, R. J. Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow. New York: TV Books, c1997, p. 16

That is how he managed to ultimately grab power in the party against the much more prominent Bolsheviks - who, by the way, were superior in almost every aspect except political infighting. Initially, Stalin needed support from others -- first the Triumvierate and then Bukharin.

Stalins main support were the people,his many contacts [during the revolutionary times] and generally members of the party,while it can be said that he is the most responsible for his success.

His rich military career was also important in his party progress.

Stalin had given entire satisfaction, carrying out the orders and directives with care and accuracy and without any attempt to push himself forward. This record stood in his favor in connection with the post of secretary of the party.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 90

Lev Bronsteinovich

30th January 2012, 23:03

Give me a quote from one contemporary source from 1917 that Stalin was known to the masses or was seen by the masses as a key leader of the October Revolution. Not all this crap from Stalinist hacks written well after the fact. I know he was on the Politburo and the CC, this is not news. But his influence, such as it was, was primarily within the party. He was extremely careful in picking his fights -- if he had tried to fight Lenin, obviously he would have lost. If he had tried to fight Trotsky on his own, first without Zinoviev and Kamenev, and later without Bukharin, he would have been obliterated. He never took the most extreme position against the Left Opposition -- he let others do the dirty work. His genius was for intraparty fighting.

To say that he was a military genius is astounding! Maybe in his own mind and propaganda. His bungling of the German invasion was epic. Oh, and his having purged and killed all of the best Soviet leaders in the late 30s did not help.

Omsk

30th January 2012, 23:10

Since when do you dictate the rules of an argument?
Dont be rude and ignorant.Answer or comment on the information i posted,which pretty much proves that he was well known by 1917 and regarded as an important leader.

Stalin was known to the masses or was seen by the masses as a key leader of the October Revolution

Too bad i actually didnt say he was seen by the masses as a "key leader of the October Revolution".

He was at that point,an important Bolshevik,who worked his way up to the highest positions.

Lev Bronsteinovich

31st January 2012, 14:31

Sorry about the tone comrade, it is just that the sources you use are dubious, in my opinion. What Trotsky said about Stalin has also been repeated by knowledgeable academics like Tucker with no partisan axe to grind. In Alexander Rabinowitch's excellent book, The Bolsheviks Come to Power, Stalin emerges as an important player within the Bolshevik Party (esp. early on when he was conciliating with the provisional government before Lenin's return), certainly, but not more important than any number, like Rykov, Sverdlov, Sokolnikov, or Antonov-Ovseenko (each of these comrades were mentioned about twenty times). The next level up, in terms of cites by the author are Zinoviev and Kamenev (about fifty mentions), and then Lenin and Trotsky with over Eighty mentions each. I know this is a crude way to determine the centrality of a participant in the revolution, but it also flows from the text. As the cult of personality grew around Stalin, history was later rewritten to show that he had a central role in the revolution and that he was a loved public figure. But yes, he was an important Bolshevik who almost betrayed the revolution by supporting the provisional government in March. And he sure as hell did "work" his way up to the highest position, can't argue with that. Sadly a lot of the work that he did was working over his opponents and killing them and their families and everyone who knew them.

Omsk

31st January 2012, 15:24

Do you foget that he had a big role in the process sourounding Lenin back in 1917?

The Congress discussed whether Lenin should appear for trial. Kamenev, Rykov, Trotsky and others had held even before the Congress that Lenin ought to appear before the counter-revolutionary court. Comrade Stalin was vigorously opposed to Lenin's appearing for trial.
Commission of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B.), Ed. History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks): Short Course. Moscow: FLPH, 1939, p. 198

In reagrds to you line describing how the Soviets rewrote history: Trotsky did the same thing.On every turn,he tried to denigrate the revolutionary past of Stalin.

I can give you tons of examples where Trotsky lied about Stalin.

had a central role in the revolution and that he was a loved public figure.

He was popular,and he had an important part in the revolution,but his moment was the Civil War in Russia,when he acted as a serious commander,and led the army to many victories.

And he sure as hell did "work" his way of the highest position, can't argue with that

Yes he worker hard,and recieved Lenin's support.

Sadly a lot of the work that he did was working over his opponents and killing them

His political enemies were known for being quite agresive themselves,and openly called for the assassination of Stalin. [Trotsky especially]

Lev Bronsteinovich

31st January 2012, 15:47

Do you foget that he had a big role in the process sourounding Lenin back in 1917?

The Congress discussed whether Lenin should appear for trial. Kamenev, Rykov, Trotsky and others had held even before the Congress that Lenin ought to appear before the counter-revolutionary court. Comrade Stalin was vigorously opposed to Lenin's appearing for trial.
Commission of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B.), Ed. History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks): Short Course. Moscow: FLPH, 1939, p. 198

In reagrds to you line describing how the Soviets rewrote history: Trotsky did the same thing.On every turn,he tried to denigrate the revolutionary past of Stalin.

I can give you tons of examples where Trotsky lied about Stalin.

He was popular,and he had an important part in the revolution,but his moment was the Civil War in Russia,when he acted as a serious commander,and led the army to many victories.

Yes he worker hard,and recieved Lenin's support.

His political enemies were known for being quite agresive themselves,and openly called for the assassination of Stalin. [Trotsky especially]
Okay, Comrade Omsk, knock my socks off. Give me four quotes from Trotsky that are lies about Stalin (pref. primary sources). And get me one quote where Trotsky calls for the assassination of Stalin - and please, from a credible source. Also, I am not sure what trial you are speaking of or the controversy in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik Party, please clarify. Thanks.

Omsk

31st January 2012, 16:29

Give me four quotes from Trotsky that are lies about Stalin (pref. primary sources

I mentioned the popular slander a number of times,some on Stalin being unknown in Russia,some on Stalin being a Menshevik.

I can add up that he also advocated the theory that Stalin poisoned Lenin.

And get me one quote where Trotsky calls for the assassination of Stalin

Here,[not Trotsky {although his words are quoted} but very relevant]

Trotsky also precisely pointed out that Stalin "is my enemy".

No one can know the precise time at which Trotsky made up his mind that Stalin's leadership of the party must be destroyed by violence.
Footnote: but in the Bulletin of the Opposition, October 1933, Trotsky wrote: "the Stalin bureaucracy... Can be compelled to hand over power to the proletarian vanguard only by FORCE" He later told the New York American (Hearst), January 26, 1937: "Stalin has put himself above all criticism and the state. It is impossible to displace him except by assassination."
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 264

Moral revulsion at assassination as a political weapon was a sentiment unknown to Trotsky, for all his initial Marxist objections to individual terrorism.
"We were never concerned," wrote Trotsky, "with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the sacredness of human life. We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can be solved only by blood and iron.”
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 267

...Trotsky made his papers available to an international commission that investigated and disproved the charge that he had supported the policy of assassination, and Sedov also answered the false charge in Livre sur Le Proces de Moscou. His assistant while writing a book, which was published in 1937, was Mark Zborowsky, a penetration agent whose code name on his NKVD file was TULIP.
Zborowsky had so successfully ingratiated himself into Sedov's circle by 1937 that he was regarded as totally loyal in Trotskyist circles. The TULIP file reveals that it was from Zborowsky that Stalin, in January 1937, obtained material that was claimed to be evidence to renew his charges against Trotsky. But TULIP, who can hardly have been unaware of Sedov's real views, appears simply to have relayed to Moscow information that he believed "The Boss" wanted to hear. For example he wrote to the Center: "On Jan. 22 Sedov, during our conversation in his apartment on the subject of the second Moscow trial and the role of the different defendants, declared, 'Now we shouldn't hesitate. Stalin should be murdered.' "
"Stalin's deep fear of assassination would, therefore, have been inflamed by a more detailed report of the intentions revealed by Sonny--as Sedov was known by the NKVD--which Zborowsky dispatched to Moscow on Feb. 11:
"Not since 1936 had SONNY initiated any conversation with me about terrorism. Only about two or three weeks ago, after a meeting of the group, SONNY began speaking on this subject again. On this occasion he only tried to prove that terrorism is not contrary to Marxism. "Marxism", according to SONNY's words, "denies terrorism only to the extent that the conditions of class struggle don't favor terrorism. But there are certain situations where terrorism is necessary." The next time SONNY began talking about terrorism was when I came to his apartment to work. While we were reading newspapers, SONNY said that the whole regime in the USSR was propped up by Stalin; it was enough to kill Stalin for everything to fall to pieces."
Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly illusions. New York: Crown, c1993, p. 282

The evidence showed that for a long while there existed in the Soviet Union the two groups of Oppositionists, that led by Trotsky from abroad, and the Zinoviev-Kamenev group. They had hated each other almost as much as they had hated Stalin and the other leaders of the Soviet government. With the success of Socialistic construction, however, both groups began to realize that what little mass support they might have had in the beginning had completely fallen away from them. In desperation emissaries from Zinoviev and Kamenev went abroad to meet Trotsky's agents and Trotsky himself. They hoped by joining forces to make up some of the ground they had lost.
But Trotsky had no such illusions. He knew that mass support could never be won again in the face of the triumphant success recorded by the Soviet Government. Therefore he suggested, and insisted, that only the murder of the present leaders could pave the way to the return of the Trotsky-Zinoviev group to influence in the Soviet Union.
Shepherd, W. G. The Moscow Trial. London: Communist Party of Great Britain, 1936, p. 7

And then--this was a truly fascist touch--all those tools that they had used in the various Commissariats to help them carry through their plans were to be assassinated too, so that none would be left alive who could tell the world of their crimes.
On one point all the accused men spoke with one voice: Every communication received from Trotsky harped on the theme: Kill Stalin.
One of the defendants described a meeting in Kamenev's flat, with both Zinoviev and Kamenev present. This defendant, Lurie, had expressed his qualms at working with the "Gestapo." Zinoviev had brushed the objection aside. "The ends justify the means," he declared.
Shepherd, W. G. The Moscow Trial. London: Communist Party of Great Britain, 1936, p. 8

Also, I am not sure what trial you are speaking of or the controversy in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik Party, please clarify. Thanks.

I think a segment of your post is missing here.

Lev Bronsteinovich

31st January 2012, 20:11

Comrade, one of the quotes you use actually shows that Sedov never talked about killing Stalin. It says that the information from zborowoski was falsified to mesh with Stalin's paranoia.

..Trotsky made his papers available to an international commission that investigated and disproved the charge that he had supported the policy of assassination, and Sedov also answered the false charge in Livre sur Le Proces de Moscou. His assistant while writing a book, which was published in 1937, was Mark Zborowsky, a penetration agent whose code name on his NKVD file was TULIP.
Zborowsky had so successfully ingratiated himself into Sedov's circle by 1937 that he was regarded as totally loyal in Trotskyist circles. The TULIP file reveals that it was from Zborowsky that Stalin, in January 1937, obtained material that was claimed to be evidence to renew his charges against Trotsky. But TULIP, who can hardly have been unaware of Sedov's real views, appears simply to have relayed to Moscow information that he believed "The Boss" wanted to hear. For example he wrote to the Center: "On Jan. 22 Sedov, during our conversation in his apartment on the subject of the second Moscow trial and the role of the different defendants, declared, 'Now we shouldn't hesitate. Stalin should be murdered.' "
"Stalin's deep fear of assassination would, therefore, have been inflamed by a more detailed report of the intentions revealed by Sonny--as Sedov was known by the NKVD--which Zborowsky dispatched to Moscow on Feb. 11:
"Not since 1936 had SONNY initiated any conversation with me about terrorism. Only about two or three weeks ago, after a meeting of the group, SONNY began speaking on this subject again. On this occasion he only tried to prove that terrorism is not contrary to Marxism. "Marxism", according to SONNY's words, "denies terrorism only to the extent that the conditions of class struggle don't favor terrorism. But there are certain situations where terrorism is necessary." The next time SONNY began talking about terrorism was when I came to his apartment to work. While we were reading newspapers, SONNY said that the whole regime in the USSR was propped up by Stalin; it was enough to kill Stalin for everything to fall to pieces."
Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly illusions. New York: Crown, c1993, p. 282

All of the other stuff seems to be from your copious library of works by Stalinist hacks who actually took Stalinist propaganda at face value. I certainly give you credit for your erudition about this stuff, and I suppose that I might track down some of the actual sources. Trotsky wrote volumes about political revolution he felt was needed in the USSR. He was clear and made no bones about it. He was not Stalin, though, and did not seek to kill Stalin -- remove him from power, no doubt. Stalin was the man who liberally used murder as part of his political methodology.

And really, comrade, if Stalin was so joyously loved, so popular, how come he had to imprison and murder so many people, including EVERY SINGLE living member of the CC from the time of the Revolution and all the Soviet Generals? You'd think he could have rested a little easier.

Gosh, Trotsky referred to Stalin as "my enemy." The man who was key in engineering his party expulsion, his exile, the murder of his son, the murder of thousands of left oppositionists, and ultimately his own murderer? Why that was downright uncomradely of him.:lol:

Seriously though, I will take a look at your sources as I am not familiar with them, and even though I think that they are fairly ludicrous.

Lev Bronsteinovich

31st January 2012, 20:55

Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946. Okay, I read some of it. Simply atrocious. Did he actually edit the press releases from the Soviet Politburo, or did he actually write some of this himself? I mean this shit is absurd. This is a puff piece on Stalin. Sorry comrade, but you will have to do better if you want any credibility here. This guy had to be involved in the CPUSA, right? Either that or he was a complete idiot. As for the quote from the New York American, I could not track that down, if you find it, let me know. If it was actually printed, It was a lie, but it would be interesting to see.

I have to tend to other things, but thanks for shedding some light on some obscure historical literature. I will see if I can find more of this stuff online later.

Omsk

31st January 2012, 22:01

Comrade, one of the quotes you use actually shows that Sedov never talked about killing Stalin. It says that the information from zborowoski was falsified to mesh with Stalin's paranoia.

Because he was an opportunist.Although i am pretty sure every more important Trotskyist had the view that Stalin had to be killed.

All of the other stuff seems to be from your copious library of works by Stalinist hacks who actually took Stalinist propaganda at face value. I certainly give you credit for your erudition about this stuff, and I suppose that I might track down some of the actual sources. Trotsky wrote volumes about political revolution he felt was needed in the USSR. He was clear and made no bones about it. He was not Stalin, though, and did not seek to kill Stalin -- remove him from power, no doubt. Stalin was the man who liberally used murder as part of his political methodology.

This is very,very naive.{Or you are posing like that} .You know that Bronstein was no soft man,he would have killed Stalin and all asociated with him.

And really, comrade, if Stalin was so joyously loved, so popular, how come he had to imprison and murder so many people, including EVERY SINGLE living member of the CC from the time of the Revolution and all the Soviet Generals? You'd think he could have rested a little easier.

All the Soviet generals?You are again,doing that on purpose.You very well know that a lot of officers,high ranking military personel remained.

Not to mention that many were re-admitted into the military,and many of those people,in WWII,performed really good.

In late 1939 and early 1940 several thousand Red Army commanders were rehabilitated because of the extreme shortage of officers and the incompetence demonstrated during the Soviet-Finnish war. Generally officers up to the level of divisional commanders were rehabilitated. The rehabilitated included many future heroes of the Great Patriotic War, such as: Rokossovsky, future marshall; Meretskov, future marshall; Gorbatov, future army general; Bogdanov, future commander of the Second Tank Army; Kholostyakov, future vice-admiral; Rudnev, future commissar of partisan units in Ukraine--all of whom were later named Heroes of the Soviet Union. Also, 0zeryansky, hero of the defense of Leningrad, awarded two Orders of Lenin and three Orders of the Red Banner;...
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 466

{Is Roy Medvedev a "Stalinist hack" to you?No?Good.}

Lev Bronsteinovich

1st February 2012, 13:59

All the Soviet generals?You are again,doing that on purpose.You very well know that a lot of officers,high ranking military personel remained.

Not to mention that many were re-admitted into the military,and many of those people,in WWII,performed really good.

In late 1939 and early 1940 several thousand Red Army commanders were rehabilitated because of the extreme shortage of officers and the incompetence demonstrated during the Soviet-Finnish war. Generally officers up to the level of divisional commanders were rehabilitated. The rehabilitated included many future heroes of the Great Patriotic War, such as: Rokossovsky, future marshall; Meretskov, future marshall; Gorbatov, future army general; Bogdanov, future commander of the Second Tank Army; Kholostyakov, future vice-admiral; Rudnev, future commissar of partisan units in Ukraine--all of whom were later named Heroes of the Soviet Union. Also, 0zeryansky, hero of the defense of Leningrad, awarded two Orders of Lenin and three Orders of the Red Banner;...
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 466

{Is Roy Medvedev a "Stalinist hack" to you?No?Good.}

Without getting into my personal opinion about Medvedev let's take a look at this info. I concede that the military purge was not complete -- it did include most of the experienced and best generals from the Civil War -- that Stalin saw as possible political foes. But really comrade, your quote, again shows how capricious and reactive Stalin was. All those people who were reinstated, why where they removed in the first place? For being spies? Trotskyite agents? Nazi agents? If the charges actually meant anything, it would be suicidal to reinstate them simply because of bad results in Finland. However, since almost all the charges in the purges were complete fabrications, Stalin knew that these men could be reinstated and would most likely serve reliably.

I've had this experience sparring with Stalinists in this forum before, where you simply cannot imagine someone being politically principled as Trotsky was. It is all about intrigue and personal power. The idea that Trotsky was some kind of putschist is absurd to anyone familiar with his life and his writings. Any Leninist, would have thought that Stalin ultimately would need to brought to justice. That would take the form of a workers tribunal and a real accounting for his crimes. Would it have been appropriate to execute him? Who cares? As long as he was removed from power, and out of politics, that would have been enough. But there were probably millions of Soviets who would have liked to see Comrade Stalin in front of a firing squad.

Ultimately arguing about the details of Stalin's crimes against the world revolution and socialism becomes silly. Not so different than arguing about the details of how the SS dealt with Jews and Slavs. He wiped out two generations of the best and the brightest. He killed ALLLLLLLL of the Bolshevik leaders from the time of the Revolution (and please, don't tell me that some of them died of natural causes -- I'm sure had they lived, they would have somehow become Nazi spies or some such absurd shit). The idea that all of these great leaders became agents of imperialism is beyond credulity. The little details some Stalinist marshaled about someone talking to someone else that insinuated something are silly. It would be tantamount to all the leaders of the French Revolution becoming agents of the Pope. About as plausible as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Stalin's accomplishments? He massively bungled collectivization and industrialization (which, in spite of his leadership, still happened and ultimately showed that these were superior methods). His destruction of the CI, his fostering of nationalism may have cost our best chances at world revolution. And comrade, the idea of Stalin as a great military leader is also quite a reach. The Soviets had an amazing espionage network at the outset of WWII. In fact, they had people who were part of the German General Staff. These agents gave Stalin clear warning before Germany invaded. Stalin refused to believe it. The cost? Hard to calculate -- perhaps we can split the difference and say that only ten million soviet lives would have been lost rather than twenty? Whatever the case, Stalin's inaction around this invasion was maybe his very worst moment as a military commander.

Omsk

1st February 2012, 16:04

Without getting into my personal opinion about Medvedev let's take a look at this info. I concede that the military purge was not complete -- it did include most of the experienced and best generals from the Civil War -- that Stalin saw as possible political foes. But really comrade, your quote, again shows how capricious and reactive Stalin was. All those people who were reinstated, why where they removed in the first place? For being spies? Trotskyite agents? Nazi agents? If the charges actually meant anything, it would be suicidal to reinstate them simply because of bad results in Finland. However, since almost all the charges in the purges were complete fabrications, Stalin knew that these men could be reinstated and would most likely serve reliably.

Wrong.

There were many mistakes in the rush in 1941,and many of the commanders accused of being spies and German allied agents,in the end,sided with the Nazis.That is a well known fact.

And since you say that "the best generals were gone" i will answer:

Though the purge had deprived the Red Army of many capable soldiers, Stalin had retained the services of the best known. They were eventually to justify his faith by their devotion to the USSR in its war against Hitlerite Germany.
Prominent among them are: Voroshilov,... Budenny,…Yegorov,... and Shaposhnikov,... To this core of tried and reliable soldiers, the post revolutionary military academies have added many younger figures whose worth was proved for the first time in action against the Nazis. Best known of these is the 46 year old Timoshenko.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 107

Although,i must say that Voroshilov and Budenny were not commander skilled in the tactics of the newer age.

You must also remember that many "anti-Stalinists" and "non-Stalinists" notice that an military coup was possible,and that the Red Army may have contained various anti-Soviet cells.

But quite a few non-Stalinist sources maintain that the generals did indeed plan a coup d'etat and did this from their own motives, and on their own initiative, not in contact with any foreign power. The main part of the coup was to be a palace revolt, following an assault on the headquarters of the GPU and culminating in Stalin's assassination. Tukhachevsky was regarded as the leader of the conspiracy. A man of military genius, the real modernizer of the Red Army, surrounded by the glory of his feats in the civil war, he was the army's favorite, and was indeed the only man among all the military leaders of that time who showed a resemblance to the original Bonaparte and could have played the Russian First Consul. Generals Yakir, commander of Leningrad, Uborevitch, commander of the western military district, Kork, commander of Moscow's Military Academy, Primakov, Budienny's deputy in the command of the cavalry, Gamarnik, the chief Political Commissar of the army who presently committed suicide, and other officers were supposed to have been in the plot. On May 1, 1937, Tukhachevsky stood at Stalin's side at the Lenin Mausoleum, reviewing the May Day parade. Eleven days later he was demoted. On June 12 the execution of Tukhachevsky and his friends was announced.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 379

{Noted by Deutscher,another anti-Stalinist}

I've had this experience sparring with Stalinists in this forum before, where you simply cannot imagine someone being politically principled as Trotsky was. It is all about intrigue and personal power. The idea that Trotsky was some kind of putschist is absurd to anyone familiar with his life and his writings. Any Leninist, would have thought that Stalin ultimately would need to brought to justice. That would take the form of a workers tribunal and a real accounting for his crimes. Would it have been appropriate to execute him? Who cares? As long as he was removed from power, and out of politics, that would have been enough. But there were probably millions of Soviets who would have liked to see Comrade Stalin in front of a firing squad.

And tens of millions of Soviet citizens probably had a positive view on Stalin,or they would at least see the "revolutionaries" as their enemies.

All right,lets asume that Trotsky killed Stalin,and took power,and than what?How could he ignore the masses that would be against him?It would be a brutal Civil War,and he would probably eliminate all who supported Stalin,like he did before.

His destruction of the CI

There were good reasons to disband the CI.

And comrade, the idea of Stalin as a great military leader is also quite a reach. The Soviets had an amazing espionage network at the outset of WWII. In fact, they had people who were part of the German General Staff. These agents gave Stalin clear warning before Germany invaded. Stalin refused to believe it. The cost? Hard to calculate -- perhaps we can split the difference and say that only ten million soviet lives would have been lost rather than twenty? Whatever the case, Stalin's inaction around this invasion was maybe his very worst moment as a military commander.

Ah,well known misconceptions and lies,Stalin was not surprised by the attack,he was surprised by the precise timing,but not with the attack itself.

Was Stalin taken by surprise with the turn of events? In the broader sense, no. All his actions from the day Hitler rose to power provide a complete proof of this. But there still remained in the situation an element of surprise in the sense that it was not possible to know the precise moment at which the blow would fall.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 221

And lets not mention that the USSR prepared for the war,and much effort was put into organization,[the vital process of industralisation,which made the changed possible]

Molotov notes that also:

CHUEV: For the day of the attack, for the hour of the attack--that's what we weren't prepared for.
MOLOTOV: 0h, but no one could have been ready for the hour of the attack, even God itself! We'd been expecting the attack and we had a main goal--not to give Hitler a pretext for it. He would have said, "Soviet troops are assembling at the border. They are forcing me to take action!"
Of course that was a slip up, a shortcoming. And of course there were other slip-ups. You just try to find a way to avoid mistakes on such a question. But if you focus on them, it casts a shadow on the main point, on what decided the matter. Stalin was still irreplaceable. I am a critic of Stalin; on certain questions I did not agree with him, and I think he made some major, fundamental mistakes. But no one talks about these mistakes; instead they keep criticizing things on which Stalin was right….
In essence we were largely ready for war. The five-year plans, the industrial capacity we had created--that's what helped us to endure, otherwise we wouldn't have won out. The growth of our military industry in the years before the war could not have been greater!
The people went through a colossal strain before the war.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 25

Russian factories and collective farms worked furiously in the fall and winter of 1940-41, aware that the breathing-space which Stalin's agreement with Hitler had won for them in 1939 was nearly at an end. At this critical moment the Soviet state gained strength from its arbitrary system of centralization. It was able to drive its workers and peasants to the limit of their effort because the idea of greater reward for greater service had been adopted, because they had the incentive of personal profit in addition to the no less powerful incentive of patriotic service. By this time they all knew, the whole Soviet Union knew, that Germany was their enemy and that a clash with Germany could not long be averted.
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 259

Deutscher also notes that:
Despite all his miscalculations, Stalin was not unprepared to meet the emergency. He had solidly armed his country and reorganized its military forces. His practical mind had not been wedded to any one-sided strategic dogma. He had not lulled the Red Army into a false sense of security behind any Russian variety of the Maginot Line, that static defense system that had been the undoing of the French army in 1940. He could rely on Russia's vast spaces and severe climate. No body of men could now dispute his leadership. He had achieved absolute unity of command, the dream of the modern strategist.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 461

Even Zhukov,notes that:

What conclusions, then, follow from the facts sighted? How is one to assess what was done before the war, what we intended to do in the near future and what we did not have time to do or were unable to do in strengthening our country's defensive capacity? How is one to make that appraisal today after everything has been gone through, critically interpreting the past and at the same time putting oneself once more on the threshold of the Great Patriotic War?
I have thought long over this and here is the conclusion to which I came.
It seems to me that the country's defense was managed correctly in its basic and principal features and orientations. For many years everything possible or almost everything was done in the economic and social aspects. As to the period between 1939 and the middle of 1941, the people and Party exerted particular effort to strengthen defense.
... The fact that in spite of enormous difficulties and losses during the four years of the war, Soviet industry turned out a colossal amount of armaments --almost 490,000 guns and mortars, over 102,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, over 137,000 military aircraft--shows that the foundations of the economy from the military, the defense standpoint, were laid correctly and firmly.
Following once more in my mind's eye the development of the Soviet Armed Forces all the way from the days of the Civil War, I should say that here too we followed the right road in the main. There was constant improvement along the right lines in Soviet military doctrine, the principles of educating and training the troops, the weapons of the army and navy, the training of commanding cadres and the structure and organization of the armed forces. The morale and fighting spirit of the troops and their political consciousness and maturity were always exceptionally high.
Of course, if it were possible to go over the whole road once more there are some things it would be better not to do. But today I cannot name a single major trend in the development of our armed forces that should have been abolished, abandoned, and disclaimed. The period between 1939 and the middle of 1941 was marked on the whole by transformations which in two or three years would have given the Soviet people a brilliant army, perhaps the best in the world.
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 226

And my opinion is that he was an good commander, {In the Civil War,for an example} but in the GPW too:

After dinner, before taking his leave, Rokossovsky shook my uncle's hand, and said, "You have thanked us for what we did. Let me say that without your constant support, the victory would have been impossible. I will never forget the phone call you put through to me at my command post that night in November when the Germans were entering Istra and threatening to encircle Moscow. After I put down the phone, I ordered an attack and our troops re-occupied Istra."
Svanidze, Budu. My Uncle, Joseph Stalin. New York: Putnam, c1953, p. 179

In all, the State Committee for Defense adopted some 10,000 resolutions on military and economic matters during the war. Those resolutions were carried out accurately and with enthusiasm....
Stalin himself was strong-willed and no coward. It was only once I saw him somewhat depressed. That was at the dawn of June 22, 1941, when his belief that the war could be avoided, was shattered.
After June 22, 1941, and throughout the war Stalin firmly governed the country, led the armed struggle and international affairs together with the Central Committee and the Soviet Government.
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 268

He [Stalin] spent whole days, and often nights as well, at headquarters. Zhukov wrote: "In discussion he made a powerful impression.... His ability to summarize an idea precisely, his native intelligence, is unusual memory.... his staggering capacity for work, his ability to grasp the essential point instantly, enabled him to study and digest quantities of material which would have been too much for any ordinary person.... I can say without hesitation that he was master of the basic principles of the organization of front-line operations and the deployment of front-line forces.... He controlled them completely and had a good understanding of major strategic problems. He was a worthy Supreme Commander."
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 486

Not to mention that he had many jobs;

During the war, Stalin had five official posts. He was Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Secretary of the Party's Central Committee, Chairman of the USSR Council of People's Commissars, Chairman of the State Defense Committee, and People's Commissar for Defense. He worked on a tight schedule, 15 to 16 hours a day.
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 349

He was also an important commander in the Civil War.

In the fall of 1919 Trotsky drew up a plan for a campaign against Denikin. This plan called for a march through the Don Steppes, an almost roadless region filled with bands of counter revolutionary Cossacks. Stalin, who had been sent to the Southern Front by the Central Committee, rejected Trotsky's plan and proposed instead that the Red Army advance across the Donetz Basin with its dense railroad network, coal supplies, and sympathetic working-class population. Stalin's plan was accepted by the Central Committee. Trotsky was removed from the Southern Front, ordered not to interfere in with operations in the South, and "advised" not to cross the line of demarcation of the Southern Front. Denikin was defeated according to Stalin's plan.
Sayers and Kahn. The Great Conspiracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1946, p. 191

It is proved by his organizational role in the defence of Perm,the South,Petrograd,Stalingrad,and other places.

He was definitely not an bad commander.

A Marxist Historian

1st February 2012, 20:14

Simple question, but I doubt there's a simple answer. Regardless.. lets hear it comrades.

Well, there is a Fifth International, or at any rate a League for one.

Which raises the question, why not a Sixth? There was a really funny underground comic back in the Sixties, whose hero was an "agent of the Sixth International."

I'll always remember the famous strip that got made into a poster, of our hero leaping into a frat, AK-47 blazing, shouting

EAT LEADEN DEATH REACTIONARY IMPERIALIST BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MAJORS!

More seriously, the reason is that the Fourth International didn't sell out to the capitalists, like the Second and Third did, making their names mud. It is not associated in anyone's minds except those of sectarians like the League for a Fifth International with class betrayal or Stalinist terror.

Nor is it a totally different movement appropriate to a totally different time, like the First, which Marx dissolved when he decided that it was an idea not working anymore.

It just collapsed. So it needs to be recreated, no need for another. Its original founding principles are fine, they just need to be brought back and modernized.

-M.H.-

Lev Bronsteinovich

1st February 2012, 20:31

In the fall of 1919 Trotsky drew up a plan for a campaign against Denikin. This plan called for a march through the Don Steppes, an almost roadless region filled with bands of counter revolutionary Cossacks. Stalin, who had been sent to the Southern Front by the Central Committee, rejected Trotsky's plan and proposed instead that the Red Army advance across the Donetz Basin with its dense railroad network, coal supplies, and sympathetic working-class population. Stalin's plan was accepted by the Central Committee. Trotsky was removed from the Southern Front, ordered not to interfere in with operations in the South, and "advised" not to cross the line of demarcation of the Southern Front. Denikin was defeated according to Stalin's plan.
Sayers and Kahn. The Great Conspiracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1946, p. 191

Damn, Comrade -- how do you slog through the muck, ooze and fairy tales of these horrible books? You must be made of stern stuff! This book is a hatchet job on Trotsky and the left opposition. A quick look at the section on Trotsky's history shows yawning omissions about LT's history of working with Lenin. It also somehow completely skips from July 1917 to 1919. Oooooops! We forgot to mention his leading role in the October Revolution. It also omits the close collaboration between Trotsky and Lenin, with a few notable disagreements, from 1917 on.

Your cites are mostly from obscure and absolutely embarrassingly bad books. There is no attempt to adhere to the most modest scholarly rigor -- I mean if the chapter I read had been handed in for a college paper, it would have received an F. My favorite part is when the author kindly tells us that all of the quotes about Trotsky's "treasonous" activities from the early 20s on are taken from the Purge Trials!!!!!!!!!:lol:

You love Stalin in your heart. Your brain, it would seem, is smarter than that.

GoddessCleoLover

1st February 2012, 20:44

Omsk

1st February 2012, 21:58

Damn, Comrade -- how do you slog through the muck, ooze and fairy tales of these horrible books? You must be made of stern stuff! This book is a hatchet job on Trotsky and the left opposition. A quick look at the section on Trotsky's history shows yawning omissions about LT's history of working with Lenin. It also somehow completely skips from July 1917 to 1919. Oooooops! We forgot to mention his leading role in the October Revolution. It also omits the close collaboration between Trotsky and Lenin, with a few notable disagreements, from 1917 on.

Your cites are mostly from obscure and absolutely embarrassingly bad books. There is no attempt to adhere to the most modest scholarly rigor -- I mean if the chapter I read had been handed in for a college paper, it would have received an F. My favorite part is when the author kindly tells us that all of the quotes about Trotsky's "treasonous" activities from the early 20s on are taken from the Purge Trials!!!!!!!!!http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-no-t167182/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Well,you just took one of the quotes as an example,and you ignored the others,so while you have the stance that the books i quoted are horrible,garbage,that the authors are idiotic etc etc,i dont hold that view.And i guess that isnt really something debatable.

Frankly, Lenin was closer personally to Bukharin that he was to either Stalin or Trotsky, but whether Lenin would have followed Bukharin's policies had he lived is purely a matter of speculation.

Any sources,to support your claims? {Sory if this sounds aggresive,its not my intention to be hostile or something}

GoddessCleoLover

1st February 2012, 22:19

Lev Bronsteinovich

1st February 2012, 23:18

And the eternal Stalin-Trotsky conflict apparently derails another thread.

Alas it is true. Sorry about that. No intention of derailing the thread. It is hard to resist though.

As for your comment about the inherent difficulties about building an international, why would you want a confederation, vs. an international party that abides by democratic centralism? Wouldn't a federation tend to break down to readily, or work at cross purposes?

Lyev

1st February 2012, 23:30

No, I meant organizing the working class, in cultural societies, in recreational clubs, in party branches, and so on.Your conception in a sense almost seems backward because your overemphasise so much these ideas about culture and "recreational clubs" etc. thereby excluding any concrete consideration of how such expressions of greater working class autonomy would come about
If these institutions were ever to arise they would be as a product of working class struggle itself - they aren't just cultivated in a petri dish out of nowhere

workersadvocate

2nd February 2012, 01:56

Your conception in a sense almost seems backward because your overemphasise so much these ideas about culture and "recreational clubs" etc. thereby excluding any concrete consideration of how such expressions of greater working class autonomy would come about
If these institutions were ever to arise they would be as a product of working class struggle itself - they aren't just cultivated in a petri dish out of nowhere

Okay, right now, let's look at Occupy. Focus on cut off full-time "activism". Working people may sympathize but most aren't involved. Who's expanding it to the working masses, the not-activist proletarians who don't belong to left sects and are unlikely to wanna join one in the near future? Are working people too backwards unless they want to prospectively join a left sect and throw their whole life into full-time "activism"?
Maybe it's that sort of thinking by left activists and sects that's ass-backwards.

When is the level of class struggle sufficient for organizing working masses, including into cultural and recreational groups? How about right now?! How about increasing our class strength right now, during ebbs and during flows...and we totally get rid of retreat mentality and left-sect shopkeeper-activist outlooks?
The working class still goes on, even when middle class left sects and their activists don't care about us because we're not trying to join or be their activist pawns or make them look pretty in front of media cameras.

A Marxist Historian

2nd February 2012, 04:24

And the eternal Stalin-Trotsky conflict apparently derails another thread. With respect to the Fifth International issue, as a Gramscian I see difficulties in coordinating parties from countries with widely disparate national-popular cultures into a federative type of international organization. OTOH some type of international revolutionary confederation would certainly be an advancement from the status quo.

Without seeking to immerse myself completely into the Stalin-Trotsky controversy, I would only note that Lenin clearly sought to remove Stalin from his position as General Secretary and only Lenin's illness saved Stalin from removal from that post. Lenin was also critical of Trotsky with respect to the Trotsky's plan for the militarization of labor and proposal to abolish Soviet trade unions, but did did not seek to remove Trotsky from his position as War Minister. Frankly, Lenin was closer personally to Bukharin that he was to either Stalin or Trotsky, but whether Lenin would have followed Bukharin's policies had he lived is purely a matter of speculation.

That's a Bukharinist myth by the way, spread a bit by Moshe Lewin's otherwise very excellent book, Lenin's Last Struggle. Lewin was/is a Bukharinist, and very enthused therefore about Gorbachev and "market socialism."

There was a huge discussion over economic issues, in particular the monopoly of foreign trade, in Lenin's last year, which Lenin was every bit as exercised over as Stalin's Russian nationalist crap in Georgia. And Bukharin was the guy Lenin was particularly mad at. Lenin's comments about Bukharin in the so called "testament" are pretty unfavorable, if anything more so than about Stalin or Trotsky or Zinoviev or Kamenev.

Lenin and Trotsky won this battle, as Bukharin's ally Stalin capitulated on this point, and the monopoly of foreign trade became a keystone of Soviet economic policy right up till the collapse of the USSR in 1991, which neither Stalin nor any of his successors ever dared to mess with again.

Which is why when China dropped the monopoly of foreign trade in the '90s I think it was, some folk thought that was the final proof China had gone capitalist. Which it isn't, as it isn't a case of the Chinese economy being swamped by the foreign capitalist imperialists, but almost the other way around.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

2nd February 2012, 04:28

I am an older guy who lacks the IT skills to provide the link, but the single best piece of evidence of the closeness between Lenin and Bukharin would be the fact in a personal appeal to the German Reich Chancellor to admit Bukharin for to that country for medical treatment, Lenin wrote that as he had no biological children, his sentiments toward Bukharin were of a fatherly nature.

This piece of historical evidence has been on the record for some time. I recently read Stephen Cohen's biography of Bukharin, so it is possible that Cohen is the actual source. Cohen may be a bourgeois historian, but I would hope that he would be credited with basic honesty and competence, and accepted as an authority on Bukharin, which he certainly is IMO.

Oh yes, personally Lenin liked Bukharin. In fact everybody liked Bukharin, in fact *both* Trotsky *and* Stalin considered Bukharin to be close personal friends.

(And both Trotsky and Stalin later considered themselves to be disappointed in former good friend Bukharin. Stalin murderously so.)

But as Lenin pretty much put it in the "testament," he didn't see Bukharin as a reliable Marxist theoretician, which was his supposed role in the party. Neither he nor anyone else really, including Bukharin himself, saw Bukharin as in any way cut out to be the leader of the USSR.

-M.H.-

Die Neue Zeit

2nd February 2012, 05:40

blake 3:17

2nd February 2012, 06:45

There was a really funny underground comic back in the Sixties, whose hero was an "agent of the Sixth International."

It was by Spain Rodriguez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_Rodriguez and http://www.zcommunications.org/che-guevara-meets-trashman-the-genius-of-spain-rodriguez-by-ron-jacobs

Spain was a regular contributor to Zap comix & other underground publications.

Lev Bronsteinovich

2nd February 2012, 13:48

I am an older guy who lacks the IT skills to provide the link, but the single best piece of evidence of the closeness between Lenin and Bukharin would be the fact in a personal appeal to the German Reich Chancellor to admit Bukharin for to that country for medical treatment, Lenin wrote that as he had no biological children, his sentiments toward Bukharin were of a fatherly nature.

This piece of historical evidence has been on the record for some time. I recently read Stephen Cohen's biography of Bukharin, so it is possible that Cohen is the actual source. Cohen may be a bourgeois historian, but I would hope that he would be credited with basic honesty and competence, and accepted as an authority on Bukharin, which he certainly is IMO.

I see no reason to doubt the quote. But for Lenin, the idea of putting family before party seems dubious. As comrade MH points out, Bukharin was extremely well-liked within the party -- but clearly had major political weaknesses. Cohen's book, which I read when it came out in the late 70's, was decent, although I remember feeling that he was rather too taken with Bukharin. At the time he was writing, there was some idea that Bukharin (in his right-wing days) was the theoretical father of "Eurocommunism" -- which perhaps he was.

Lev Bronsteinovich

2nd February 2012, 14:07

Well,you just took one of the quotes as an example,and you ignored the others,so while you have the stance that the books i quoted are horrible,garbage,that the authors are idiotic etc etc,i dont hold that view.And i guess that isnt really something debatable.

Comrade, I don't respond to every point in your posts because I really don't have time. Besides, I think the way that you use detail sometimes obscures central points (e.g., the stuff about only some of the Soviet General Staff was purged -- true, but not exactly key).

I have gone to the trouble of tracking down and reading some of your sources. I am not trying to be obnoxious or denigrating. Really, they are terrible, old, discredited sources for the most part. They do bolster your arguments. However, if the only way you can back up your points is to quote from tomes of Stalinist hacks that have been out of print for decades, that don't meet minimum standards of scholarship, then you should be called out on it. Clearly you are a thoughtful person that tries to wrestle with these questions. I suggest that you go back and try to look at the actual programmatic differences between Lenin and Stalin -- including the episode when Lenin returned to Russia and excoriated Stalin and the others involved for conciliating with the Provisional Government and the Mensheviks. I also suggest that you read any number of Lenin's writings about internationalism vs. Stalin's nationalism. Learn how Stalin first adopted the rightist policies advocated by Bukharin, then co-opted much of the Left Opposition's program of industrialization and collectivization, to beat in the heads of Bukharin and co. Look at the incredible mistakes of the "third period" -- followed by the equally disasterous policies of the united front that was instated in the panic following the Nazi takeover in Germany. Read sources that are not Stalinist and think about them. Forget about the fucking personalities, and individual character, look at program. If you do this with a clear head and open mind, I think you might find yourself shifting your views.

Omsk

2nd February 2012, 14:12

Bukharin is an interesting figure,but his relationship with other Bolsheviks was strange,he was charismatic,but i must say a bit of a child,{ not in the completely negative way of it} [I am only talking about his personality,not his deeds or ideas]

Lenin also criticized him regarding theory,and it is noted that he[Lenin] said that Bukharin is not very knowledgable in dialectics,and that he,as a man in the party with the interest of theory,has several bad sides.

He was also indecisive,he was irresolute.

Bukharin was extremely well-liked within the party

Well,being liked and being an important figure are two different worlds,yes,he was liked,in fact,he was called: "The golden boy of the party" {He was very young} But in the end,that didnt prove to be much of a bonus.

@Lev:I am not going to argue over the points you mentioned just now,but i am still going to say a few things regarding this whole conversation,i am,in my opinion,a supporter of ideas both coming from Stalin,and Lenin,and i see no reason to "repent" or change my views,and i doubt i will,unlike some people on this forum,i am not shifting with ease,and i generally stick with ideas and words,i was a generic Marxist-Leninist,with a generalised opinion,things have changed and now i have solid politics.

citizen of industry

2nd February 2012, 14:37

Okay, so we've seriously derailed the thread twice now. Once, a disagreement between between left/hipster communists who see no role for party, union, international, or any kind of organizing except for occasional rock throwing and undefineable, hypothetical future organizations that don't require organization, and another disagreement with Stalinists whose argument is essentially, "Stalin was good, according to these people that thought Stalin was good."

Methinks if we are to establish any kind of functional international, there has to be a lowest common denominator. My suggestion is Marxist economics, and affiliation based on some sort of organization; party, union, youth group, cultural organization, etc. Obviously, anything above that results in history lessons and the length of Stalin's moustache according to his alleged barber who was almost executed but then spared after a trial in which he repudiated his earlier claims of Stalin's moustache length based on claims by a barber decades later who is a moustache historian.

Really, any international has to be based on modern class struggle, with affiliation based on very low criteria with a desire to revive the labor movement and restore broad socialist opposition. Then the various tendencies should fight it out, when they have clout.

Thirsty Crow

2nd February 2012, 16:50

Methinks if we are to establish any kind of functional international, there has to be a lowest common denominator. My suggestion is Marxist economics, and affiliation based on some sort of organization; party, union, youth group, cultural organization, etc. Obviously, anything above that results in history lessons and the length of Stalin's moustache according to his alleged barber who was almost executed but then spared after a trial in which he repudiated his earlier claims of Stalin's moustache length based on claims by a barber decades later who is a moustache historian.

Really, any international has to be based on modern class struggle, with affiliation based on very low criteria with a desire to revive the labor movement and restore broad socialist opposition. Then the various tendencies should fight it out, when they have clout.
And this relates to the International of political organizations?
If it does, and I can't see how it wouldn't, then it's a veritable recipe for disaster.
Very low criteria for affiliation practically guarantees federalism in practice, which means there is no International but a conglomerate of national organizations. And some international it would be when political organizations would co-exist within the same framework with cultural clubs. Just ridiculous. And I apologize if I misinterpreted this bit about affiliation based on "some sort" of organization (maybe you didn't mean that organizations so different would become part of the international).

GoddessCleoLover

2nd February 2012, 17:03

Would this Fifth International be a chain of command organization as was the Comintern? Even Stalin came to realize that revolutions must develop according to specific and particular national conditions, and that the Comintern had become counterproductive. What would be the unifying principles of this International and who would determine its programme? Where would this Fifth International be located? Please don't suggest Beijing, Pyongyang or Havana as each would subordinate the International's revolutionary interests to the pragmatic policy interests of the host nation. What did Einstein write about replicating experiments in the expectation of different results? Despite the surface attraction of a new Fifth International, I am afraid that anything more than a rather loose confederation of revolutionary workers' groups of various countries would be unworkable based upon the sad histories of the Comintern and the ineffectuality of the Fourth International.

Lev Bronsteinovich

2nd February 2012, 17:05

Really, any international has to be based on modern class struggle, with affiliation based on very low criteria with a desire to revive the labor movement and restore broad socialist opposition. Then the various tendencies should fight it out, when they have clout.

Mea culpa regarding the derailment. I am not sure about the idea of loosely configured internationals. The Second International, after all, was like that. It's epic failure still reverberates. And many of the formations that favor, or like to see themselves as the fourth international, are actually federated groupings that do not have the same program and that look pretty different on the ground in different countries. Although I find the proposition interesting to build a structure, and let the tendencies fight it out. Still, there is a lot to be said against building structures that will then have to be reinvented or thrown out to further the revolution -- it has happened too many times in the past.

citizen of industry

3rd February 2012, 00:23

And this relates to the International of political organizations?
If it does, and I can't see how it wouldn't, then it's a veritable recipe for disaster.
Very low criteria for affiliation practically guarantees federalism in practice, which means there is no International but a conglomerate of national organizations. And some international it would be when political organizations would co-exist within the same framework with cultural clubs. Just ridiculous. And I apologize if I misinterpreted this bit about affiliation based on "some sort" of organization (maybe you didn't mean that organizations so different would become part of the international).

Mea culpa regarding the derailment. I am not sure about the idea of loosely configured internationals. The Second International, after all, was like that. It's epic failure still reverberates. And many of the formations that favor, or like to see themselves as the fourth international, are actually federated groupings that do not have the same program and that look pretty different on the ground in different countries. Although I find the proposition interesting to build a structure, and let the tendencies fight it out. Still, there is a lot to be said against building structures that will then have to be reinvented or thrown out to further the revolution -- it has happened too many times in the past.

These are both good points, as is Gramsci Guy's point about repeating the same thing and expecting different results, but here's how I see it. What unites us is that we share a common view on economics. This isn't apt to change, because the rules governing capitalism aren't apt to change. But once we go further than that, into politics, we have a problem. The problem is that though adhering to a particular program might help to keep organizational unity, prevent people from degenerating into reformists, and keep a revolutionary line, you can't apply the same political theories to every context. To do so sacrifices tactical flexibility, and prevents mass organization. The economic situation is worsening, the national/international landscape is always changing, as are the actors. What holds for one historical event doesn't necessarily hold for all. If you criticize the 2nd international for capitulating, well you also have to criticize the 1st for disbanding, the 3rd for degenerating, and the 4th for never getting off the ground. You have to reject the international as a concept. But the time and the place are a little different. We are a little different from our predecessors. Do we want flexibility? Can we trust our judgement? Or must we follow a strict political formula to go with our economic formulae?

If there is an international, it would have to be loose. It couldn't be directed like an army. The best judges of national conditions are the people in a particular nation who have the most knowledge. The international would serve to support the local struggles and unite them into a whole, not direct them like a field-marshall. And might even function to get some parties cooperating/joining/growing.

The class struggle is all around us. We are seeing mass strikes in dozens of countries, revolutions, failures and successes. But there is very little socialist content. We had some massive failures in the 20th century and are discredited in many people's eyes. I can cite some examples where Trotskyist parties with a revolutionary program capitulated when material reality smacked them in the face, while unions with no program and no politics stood and fought back when they were smacked with the same reality, and smacked back just as hard. We have to put faith in the workers, and relax it a little bit, and make something attractive to broad layers of workers. I'm sure if there was a sizeable international, adhering to Marxism, I could get my union to affiliate to it, if it meant supporting international struggles and receiving support in return. And it would get people who aren't Marxists thinking about class, class-struggle and politics. But I could never to get my union to support an international based on an "ism" beyond that. People hate their jobs, are tired of being poor, are getting fed up with capitalism, and are ready to fight. They understand solidarity and class struggle. But nobody wants to be forced into a specific political line, a Trotskysim, Leninism, Maoism, etc. when they haven't read these people.

This is what I mean by a lowest common denominator. We have to lay this thing out on the operating table and give it life-support and get it walking and fighting again. After that see if it gets KO'd again. Maybe it would be an exact replica of the second international, I doubt it, but it couldn't be much worse than class struggle with no socialist content, and hundreds or even thousands of parties with no support, arguing about who has the correct line.

Okay, now I'll brace myself for the rebuttal and try not to get angry...

Die Neue Zeit

3rd February 2012, 02:47

The problem is that though adhering to a particular program might help to keep organizational unity, prevent people from degenerating into reformists, and keep a revolutionary line, you can't apply the same political theories to every context. To do so sacrifices tactical flexibility, and prevents mass organization. The economic situation is worsening, the national/international landscape is always changing, as are the actors. What holds for one historical event doesn't necessarily hold for all. If you criticize the 2nd international for capitulating, well you also have to criticize the 1st for disbanding, the 3rd for degenerating, and the 4th for never getting off the ground. You have to reject the international as a concept. But the time and the place are a little different. We are a little different from our predecessors. Do we want flexibility? Can we trust our judgement? Or must we follow a strict political formula to go with our economic formulae?

Are you disappointed that Chavez didn't follow up on the Fifth Socialist International proposal?

If there is an international, it would have to be loose. It couldn't be directed like an army. The best judges of national conditions are the people in a particular nation who have the most knowledge. The international would serve to support the local struggles and unite them into a whole, not direct them like a field-marshall. And might even function to get some parties cooperating/joining/growing.

What do you think of this material?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/participatory-socialist-internationali-t128368/index.html

I'm sure if there was a sizeable international, adhering to Marxism, I could get my union to affiliate to it, if it meant supporting international struggles and receiving support in return. And it would get people who aren't Marxists thinking about class, class-struggle and politics. But I could never to get my union to support an international based on an "ism" beyond that. People hate their jobs, are tired of being poor, are getting fed up with capitalism, and are ready to fight. They understand solidarity and class struggle. But nobody wants to be forced into a specific political line, a Trotskysim, Leninism, Maoism, etc. when they haven't read these people.

Would you be interested in corresponding with the leadership of the World Federation of Trade Unions, so that they can spearhead a new International?

Maybe it would be an exact replica of the second international, I doubt it, but it couldn't be much worse than class struggle with no socialist content, and hundreds or even thousands of parties with no support, arguing about who has the correct line.

Okay, now I'll brace myself for the rebuttal and try not to get angry...

Actually, I'd like an adaptation of the International Working Union of Socialist Parties ("Two-and-a-Half"). Unlike the original Socialist International, it was an explicitly Marxist international, yet not a fan club for some nation-building project.

citizen of industry

3rd February 2012, 06:39

Are you disappointed that Chavez didn't follow up on the Fifth Socialist International proposal?

Chavez, Chavez...To be perfectly honest, I never gave it much thought, because he is a politician, all I hear is criticism of him being a reformist, and unions have risen up in strikes against his leadership. So I did the unscientific thing and just didn't bother reading anything about him or his proposal.

But you know we view things from different sides of the coin. Here is my original post in this thread:

I work with some militant unions here, who network with other militant unions internationally, and take solidarity actions to support each other. It's a rather small network, comprised of unions in Japan, Korea, the US, Brazil and perhaps Germany(?), but representatives from each union attend each others rallies and the unions have international solidarity committees for this purpose. Many of them are Marxists, one of the unions runs a labor school that teaches Marx. They sing the internationale at the end of all the big rallies I've been to. It's interesting. I'd like to see more cooperation like this between militant unions abroad and see the network grow into something larger.

I think the root of class struggle is the production process, the workplace. And unions are the foundation of class struggle. They organize inside the workplace and directly confront capital on a daily basis. The capitalists are well aware of this, which is why so much of their political power is spent on busting unions, intefering with strike actions, and corrupting their leaderhip with bribery, blackmail, threats, and other means. I think we've discussed before my opinion that parties cannot grow without a organized and militant labor movement as a precondition. Look at it from a worker's perpective: I (the worker) am striking, risking my job, fighting capital at the point of production, you (the party member) and several other representatives from various sects are standing outside my picketline trying to sell me a paper, the workers revolution or something, and preaching about the corrupt leadership of my union, how I don't understand revolution like you do, fighting with the other sects, and wondering why I'm not buying your paper and leaping into the arms of your, the one, true party, when you aren't participating in my struggles.

Chavez seems to be promoting a socialist international of parties. Like the first international, I'm more interested in an international of unions and parties. And I'll even throw in your cultural clubs, because I think they can't hurt anything.

Would you be interested in corresponding with the leadership of the World Federation of Trade Unions, so that they can spearhead a new International? ?

Who am I, to talk to them? I do what I can to organize workers in my workplace, be active in my union, use our democratic process to try and affiliate with militant unions who are trying to build national and international networks. I work within my organization. What do you expect me to do, drop them an email that says, "Hey guys, you don't know me, but, don't you think you should be spearheading an international?"

Actually, I'd like an adaptation of the International Working Union of Socialist Parties ("Two-and-a-Half"). Unlike the original Socialist International, it was an explicitly Marxist international, yet not a fan club for some nation-building project.

I love the bold part:)

Here's a brief excerpt from We Live on Railways: Railway Struggle Against Privatization, written by the dude who is in my signature. This is from the introduction to the chapter "Fierce battles leading to the AMPO - Miike Coalminer's Struggle in 1960":

All I experienced from my union activities in my youth under the leadership of Sohyo was "class-oriented labor movement." It made no difference if it was Doro, Kokuro, Jichiro, Zendetsu or Zentai. Marxism was commonly learned in every union's study course. The "1955 system" accepted all these union practices.

Must have been nice...

daft punk

3rd February 2012, 10:20

Although i,of course,dont support soviechetnik,i have to jump in,because this is aggresive revision of history.

Daft Punk: "In the revolution itself in October, led by Trotsky "

This is nonsense.Even the biggest Trotskyists admit the great October revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin,[and,a lot of other Bolsheviks,Trotsky was among them]
but the main factor was the party,the people,the soldiers and the rank and file Bolsheviks who carried out the orders.

Two quotes from Stalin:
"“Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period.” "
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/red-army/1937/wollenberg-red-army/ch06.htm

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

The second one somehow got missed out of later editions of his book.

An almost identical one to the second was published in Pravda by Stalin also.
The first came from a pamphlet he published on Trotsky.

You see how there is a slight contradiction between the second one, which is genuine, a telegram to Lenin in fact, and the first one, which is typical Stalinist lies.

I will also mention that in early 1917 Stalin supported the Provisional Government, Trotsky called for it's overthrow in line with his views since 1906, and Lenin came back to Russia, scolded the Bolsheviks, and called for revolution as Trotsky was doing. In September lenin came round to Trotsky's view that it would be a workers government leading the peasantry, not a workers and peasants government.

Of course Lenin was involved, he was key to mobilising the Bolsheviks, but he was in hiding, while Trotsky actually led the revolution.

And,to counter the Trotskyite lies that Stalin was a minor figure,and an unsuccessful revolutionary,:

During the years of reaction following upon 1905, Stalin may be said to have won for himself a universally recognized reputation and to have laid the foundations of his later rise to a leading position in the Party. In one of his many embittered polemics against Stalin, Trotsky has since sought to prove that his rival's name was unknown to the Russian masses until long after the successful 1917 revolution. Trotsky's purpose in this slander is to infer that Stalin owed his advance to wire-pulling and backstage tactics, rather than to proven ability. Detailed study of the period 1906 to 1914 effectively gives the lie to this accusation, which could never have been made at all but for the fact that from 1913 to 1917 Stalin was prevented from adding to his fame because he was imprisoned and under the strictest possible surveillance.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 31

Not to mention that he had a lot of activities in prison:

Simon Vereshtchak, a Revolutionary Socialist and a fierce political enemy of his [Stalin] informs us that in 1903 he was in the same prison as Stalin, in Baku--a prison, made to hold 400 prisoners, into which 1500 were crowded. "One day a new face appeared in the cell containing the Bolsheviks. Someone said: 'It's Koba.'" What did Koba do in prison? He educated people. "Educational circles were formed, and the Marxist Koba stood out prominently among the professors. Marxism was his subject and he was undefeatable on it...." And Vereshtchak describes this young man, "wearing a blue, open-necked, satinet blouse, no belt or hat, a cloak thrown over his shoulder, and always carrying a book in his hand." Arranging big organized debates. (Koba always preferred these to individual discussions.)...
A little later, when he occupied cell No. 3 in the Bailoff prison, Koba again organized courses of study. Imprisonment only succeeded in altering his activities in a relative way.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 22

Not to mentioned how many times he was arrested and exiled,and how many times he escaped:

1902, April 5: Stalin is arrested in Batum (first arrest).
1903, April 19: Stalin is transferred to the Kutais Provincial prison.
1903, Nov.: Stalin is exiled for three years to the Province of Irkutsk, East Siberia, via Batum and Novorossisk (first exile).
1904, Jan. 5: Stalin escapes from exile (from Balagansk, Irkutsk province) and goes first to Batum and later to Tiflis (first escape).
1908, March 25: Stalin is arrested in Baku under the name of Gaioza Nizharadze. Stalin is sent to the Bailov prison (Second arrest).
1908, Sept. 20: Stalin is exiled for two years to the city of Solvychegodsk in the Vologda province (second exile).
1909, June 24: Stalin escapes from the Vologda Province (2d escape).
1910, March 23: Stalin is arrested in Baku (3d arrest).
1910, August 27: By order of the Vice-Regent of the Caucasus, Stalin is forbidden to reside within the limits of the Caucasian region for a period of five years.
1910, Sept. 23: Stalin is exiled to the city of Solvychegodsk in the Vologda Province (3d exile).
1911, July 6: Stalin escapes from exile (3d escape).
1911, Sept. 9: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (4th arrest)
1911, Dec. 14: a Stalin is exiled to the city of Solvychegodsk and the Vologda Province (4th exile)
1912, Feb. 29: Stalin escapes from exile (4th escape)
1912, April 22: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (5th arrest)
1912, Beginning of summer: Stalin is exiled for four years to the Narym Territory (5th exile)
1912, Summer: Stalin escapes from exiled (from Narym) and returns to St. Petersburg (5th escape)
1913, Spring: Stalin is arrested in St. Petersburg (6th arrest)
1913, June: Stalin is exiled for four years under police surveillance to the Turukhan Territory (6th exile)
1913, June to Feb. 1917: Stalin is in exile in the Turukhan Territory.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 353

He was also a good underground worker [in contrast to Trotskyites who call him a raving maniac]

He knew how to make himself inconspicuous. Cautious, taciturn, observant, and possessing great presence of mind, he was already, in many ways, the ideal underground worker.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 35

From now on [1901] his whole existence would be screened by false passports and nicknames, of which he was to use nearly 20 in the next 15 years. Hitherto he had existed on the borderline between clandestinity and legality. Now he was descending into the actual underground from which he was to emerge finally only in 1917, shortly before he became a member of the first Soviet Cabinet. For his living he would depend entirely on such assistance as the organization, rich in ambition and enthusiasm but poor in money, could give him, and on his comrades' private help. The decision to take this course was an informal vow of poverty, which in a sense terminated his novitiate to socialism. The ex-seminarist was now becoming one of that godless order of knight-errants and pilgrims of the revolution, to whom life offered little or no interest and attraction outside their service.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 37

A confidential report of the secret police stated: 'In the autumn of 1901 the Social Democratic Committee of Tiflis sent one of its members, Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili, formerly a pupil in the sixth form of the Tiflis Seminary, to Batum for the purpose of carrying on propaganda among the factory workers. As a result of Djugashvili's activities... Social Democratic organizations began to spring up in all the factories of Batum. The results of the Social Democratic propaganda could already be seen in 1902, in the prolonged strike in the Rothschild factory and in street demonstrations.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 47

For 17 years he was forced to live anonymously under a series of names as the police were constantly on his track. This illegal life has always been the fate and at the same time the secret delight of subterranean agitators, even in the ancient world. The insecurity of his daily life implants in a young soul distrust of every acquaintance, caution before every friend, and above all, suspicion.
Ludwig, Emil. Three portraits: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. New York Toronto: Longmans, Green and Company, c1940, p. 94

Stalin was also loyal to the party.
Unlike Trotsky,who before the revolution,led many anti-bolshevik troops:

In the preceding splits he [Lenin] parted company with his ablest colleagues. His latest decision to burn all boats behind him left him with few outstanding associates. Trotsky now headed a motley coalition of right-wing Mensheviks, radical Bolsheviks, anti-Mensheviks and anti-Bolsheviks, liquidators, boycotters, God-seekers, and simply Trotskyists in a ferocious journalistic onslaught on Leninism.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 109
{coming from "anti-stalinist" authors.}

Lol! You Stalinists always have this huge pile of quotes, no links, dunno where you get them, mostly from pro-Stalin sources. Yes Deutscher is not a Stalinist. Yes Trotsky and Lenin argued, they were the 2 main theorists. Trotsky was right on two points as I just mentioned, the revolution itself and the peasantry, the Bolsheviks were Stagists prior to 1917. He accepted that Lenin was right on the party, joined it, and immediately became second in command.

What?You completely left out Lenin out of the Red Army.

In September 1917 V. I.Lenin wrote "There is only one way to prevent the restoration of the police, and that is to create a people's militia and to fuse it with the army.

This is typical Trotskyite nonsense,you give all credit to Trotsky,and ignore Lenin,while you attack Marxist-Leninists when they give credit to Stalins role in WW2 [Which was much bigger than Trotskys role in the Civil War]

Lenin was overall leader, Trotsky built and led the Red Army. Trotsky and Trotskyists never underestimate Lenin's importance as being equal to Trotsky's, if anything, if you actually read Trotsky, he almost sounds as if he thinks Lenin is slightly his superior. He certainly looked up to him. Lenin was older than Trotsky and carried enormous weight. This enabled him to switch the Bolsheviks from supporting the Provisional Government in 1917.

In Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution there is a chapter called

Chapter 42
Lenin Summons to Insurrection

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch42.htm

It begins:

"Besides the factories, barracks, villages, the front and, the soviets, the revolution had another laboratory: the brain of Lenin. Driven underground, Lenin was obliged for a hundred and eleven days – from July 6 to October 25 – to cut down his meetings even with members of the Central Committee. Without any immediate intercourse with the masses, and deprived of contacts with any organisations, he concentrated his thought the more resolutely upon the fundamental problems of the revolution, reducing them – as was both his rule and the necessity of his nature – to the key problems of Marxism."

(my emphasis)

You really should give up your folder of nonsense quotes and try reading some real stuff. I did a quick google search of the CWI international site, Socialist World, and Lenin is mentioned 793 times, it's hardly leaving him out.

I merely tried to shift the emphasis a bit for you Stalinists.

So now you know, Trotsky led the revolution from a practical perspective, Stalin said so, then Stalin lied about it. Those are the facts comrade. What are you gonna do with that knowledge, start thinking what it implies, or bury your head in the sand?

His rich military career was also important in his party progress.

Hilarious!

I can give you tons of examples where Trotsky lied about Stalin.
No you cant

The Soviets had an amazing espionage network at the outset of WWII.

From what I can gather, intelligence was about the only place where Trotskyists survived the purges, as they were strong there.

Thirsty Crow

3rd February 2012, 10:32

These are both good points, as is Gramsci Guy's point about repeating the same thing and expecting different results, but here's how I see it. What unites us is that we share a common view on economics.
I don't think it is true apart from the very basics of the Marxist critique of political economy. For instance, take the theory of crisis, and you'll see that there is a rift between the adherents of the underconsumptionist thesis and the falling rate of profit, while both "camps" claim Marxist heritage. And this is not only a matter of pure theory since crisis theory has enormous political implications.

And apart from all that, I would regret it if "economics" was the most important point of unity, disregarding what should be the foundation of any future international - rock solid communist, internationalist class positions. Anyway, I don't even think mass organizations shaped accrding to historical models are possible, nor desirable, nowadays, but that's a matter for another debate (and sorry for not addressing other points you raised, I'll try to catch some time later on).

daft punk

3rd February 2012, 11:35

And tens of millions of Soviet citizens probably had a positive view on Stalin,or they would at least see the "revolutionaries" as their enemies.

All right,lets asume that Trotsky killed Stalin,and took power,and than what?How could he ignore the masses that would be against him?It would be a brutal Civil War,and he would probably eliminate all who supported Stalin,like he did before.
Trotsky did not plan to kill Stalin, he wanted to see a new party organised to lead the masses, to think that he would 'ignore the masses is ludicrous.

Trotsky finally broke with the Comintern after their shameful role in allowing the fascists to take power in Germany. They failed to review their policies or admit the mistake, so that was it.

Trotsky, July 1933:

"The Moscow leadership has not only proclaimed as infallible the policy which guaranteed victory to Hitler, but has also prohibited all discussion of what had occurred. And this shameful interdiction was not violated, nor overthrown. No national congresses; no international congress; no discussions at party meetings; no discussion in the press! An organization which was not roused by the thunder of fascism and which submits docilely to such outrageous acts of the bureaucracy demonstrates thereby that it is dead and that nothing can ever revive it. To say this openly and publicly is our direct duty toward the proletariat and its future. In all our subsequent work it is necessary to take as our point of departure the historical collapse of the official Communist International."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm

There were good reasons to disband the CI.
Well, Stalin's policy was to order CPs to form coalitions with capitalists to build capitalism. Maybe they should have called it the Capitalist International. But then again, with Socialism In One Country (And Only One Country), who needs an international at all?

He was also an important commander in the Civil War.

In the fall of 1919 Trotsky drew up a plan for a campaign against Denikin. This plan called for a march through the Don Steppes, an almost roadless region filled with bands of counter revolutionary Cossacks. Stalin, who had been sent to the Southern Front by the Central Committee, rejected Trotsky's plan and proposed instead that the Red Army advance across the Donetz Basin with its dense railroad network, coal supplies, and sympathetic working-class population. Stalin's plan was accepted by the Central Committee. Trotsky was removed from the Southern Front, ordered not to interfere in with operations in the South, and "advised" not to cross the line of demarcation of the Southern Front. Denikin was defeated according to Stalin's plan.
Sayers and Kahn. The Great Conspiracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1946, p. 191

It is proved by his organizational role in the defence of Perm,the South,Petrograd,Stalingrad,and other places.

He was definitely not an bad commander.

This aint right.

Trotsky had wanted to send extra troops from the East to the South in the first place. Stalin later started making snide comments about Trotsk's leadership, so Trotsky offered his resignation. The CC unanimously refused to accept it (Stalin dared not oppose Trotsky explicitly in public).

Trotsky proposed a plan for the South. His idea was to cut off the Cossacks from their source of volunteers. He wanted to advance through an area where the Reds had local support, from Voronezh toward Kharkoff and the Donyetsk region, and could make fast progress. His plan was rejected, several months were wasted, and then finally his plan was taken up.

Meanwhile in October Trotsky was busy. Lenin wanted to abandon Petrograd and the Reds were in retreat. Trotsky went there, turned the retreating Reds round and got them to attack, and win.

citizen of industry

3rd February 2012, 13:37

citizen of industry

3rd February 2012, 13:51

I don't think it is true apart from the very basics of the Marxist critique of political economy. For instance, take the theory of crisis, and you'll see that there is a rift between the adherents of the underconsumptionist thesis and the falling rate of profit, while both "camps" claim Marxist heritage.

The adherents of the underconsumptionist argument use the falling rate of profit to reinforce their claim, the two are not mutually exclusive. Both are well read on their Capital. And I've seen adherents of both work together productively in the union movement, because regardless of which thesis, their position on class struggle is the same, they both fight. This is because they have the same "heritage." Never have I seen the underconsumptionist/productionist difference turn into the same quagmire as debates over politicalisms. They have all been quite comradely in my experience.

Thirsty Crow

3rd February 2012, 14:01

The adherents of the underconsumptionist argument use the falling rate of profit to reinforce their claim, the two are not mutually exclusive. Both are well read on their Capital. And I've seen adherents of both work together productively in the union movement, because regardless of which thesis, their position on class struggle is the same, they both fight. This is because they have the same "heritage." Never have I seen the underconsumptionist/productionist difference turn into the same quagmire as debates over politicalisms. They have all been quite comradely in my experience.
Well, from what I've read (by Kliman), the best example would be Monthly Review who've "crossed he class line", and the author has, in my opinion, successfully demonstrated that underconsumptionism played no small part in that (as well as Anwar Shaik's demonstration of the incompatibility of the two; I'll post links in the evening).

Omsk

3rd February 2012, 14:14

citizen of industry

3rd February 2012, 14:46

@ Menoccio: Ironically, I debated that argument just today in person with an old timer I greatly respect. We filled half a notebook with formulas from Capital, arguments based on modern examples, etc. and using second languages. He made some good points I hadn't considered and I still have our sloppy notebook to consider. He's an old school revolutionary with quite the history, and I'm just a youngen with practically no experience. Then again, it's 2012 and my show, and the curtains are soon to close on me and open for the next generation.

We talked on this subject for about an hour, its my first reading of volume II, but I have read my Grundrisse and Rosa's Accumulation of Capital, and after that discussed labor history here and abroad and agreed/disagreed on various things like papers. But when it comes to the labor movement, there is no disagreement. The debates about Capital are fun and not so crucial. I mentioned the Miike coalminers in a previous post. In the 1950's they were quite proud of being the only union to study Capital, when all the other unions "merely" studied "basic" Marx. Do a google search for some images of the 1960 Miike strikes - look at the militancy and consider the theoretical knowledge of the strikers, if you thought that kind of thing was only in the realm of the party, you'll know you have seperated yourself from the working class.

citizen of industry

4th February 2012, 05:54

Well, from what I've read (by Kliman), the best example would be Monthly Review who've "crossed he class line", and the author has, in my opinion, successfully demonstrated that underconsumptionism played no small part in that (as well as Anwar Shaik's demonstration of the incompatibility of the two; I'll post links in the evening).

I would like to reead those links, so please post them if you can dig them up.

daft punk

4th February 2012, 20:13

See, this is why we can't have an international, because of incessant debate about Stalin. My whole tirade against kontranezva in this thread, it was all about our positions on modern class struggle, until he brought Kronstadt into it. Goddamn, how is debating historical examples productive? If you are a Stalinist, contribute your thoughts on a new international. Don't defend the third, because it's gone. If you are one of the few remaining Trotskyists who are part of the fourth, defend that. If you are a Stalinist or Trotskyist who isn't part of an international, offer your opinions on the topic at hand. Nobody was there, nobody can do anything except cite stalinist or trotskyist sources defending their own claims and therefore neither can be convinced of either argument. It's distracting and makes me stick my finger between my lips and move it up and down real quick while skimming it. Nobody gives a fuck about personalities from over a century ago. It's not even political theory, it's random facts about random people from random sources. There isn't a Soviet Union to defend anymore. enough. What about Stalin, what does that mean for you about a new international?

I disagree. History happened, the facts can and have been established, and it's important to learn the lessons from it. The Stalinists carried on making the same mistakes long after Stalin died.

Also, it's important to be able to explain to the man in the street why the Russian revolution degenerated into such a shithole. Why Stalin killed socialists and sabotaged revolutions. Why Stalinism is not some continuation of Bolshevism, but it's negeation.

The world will never be ready for socialism until history has been cleaned of the lies told by Stalinists and the bourgeoisie. Russia was not socialist, it did not try to spread socialism, Mao had no intention of attempting socialism in China, he wanted several decades of capitalism after 1948. Castro was different, he wasnt a Stalinist, but he didnt want socialism either.

The Stalinists states represent the failure of the Stalinists to establish capitalist countries.

daft punk

4th February 2012, 20:36

@Daft Punk: I already had this discussion with Lev,and i really wont repeat all what i said to him,to you.Plus,i dont have the time.Not to mention your arguments are quite weak.

And,i dont want to derail the thread (as a member pointed out,two derailing courses are too much)

Oh,and while i am online,let me asnwer the two short parts:

Do you actually know enough about Stalin?His military skils {And victories} during the Civil War were one of the main factors in his career.

Yes i can and i did.

*note* - Please,dont derail the thread even further,there are plenty of threads for these types od dicussions.
i didnt realise responding to points you made constituted derailing the thread. No I dont know much about Stalin's role in the civil war. I did look it up once but there was very little to be found. I know he was fond of burning villages and getting rid of officers appointed by Trotsky. He like to go round saying how bad things were going to get at Trotsky. What you posted about his role was incorrect. You should ditch the dodgy book of Stalinist lies and do some research.

Trotsky:
"The plan that I advocated from the outset was exactly the opposite. I demanded that with our first blow we cut the volunteers off from the Cossacks, and, leaving the Cossacks to themselves, concentrate all our strength against the volunteers. The main direction of the blow, according to this plan, would be not from the Volga toward Kuban, but from Voronezh toward Kharkoff and the Donyetsk region. In this section of the country which divides the northern Caucasus from the Ukraine, the peasants and workers were wholly on the side of the Red army. Advancing in this direction, the Red army would have been moving like a knife through butter. The Cossacks would have remained in their places to guard their borders from strangers, but we would not have touched them. The question of the Cossacks would have been an independent one, more political than military in nature. But it was necessary in the first place to separate this as strategy from the routing of the volunteer army of Denikin. In the end, it was this plan that was eventually adopted, but not before Denikin had begun to threaten Tula, whose loss would have been more dangerous than that of Moscow. We wasted several months, suffered many needless losses and lived through some very menacing weeks."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch37.htm

GoddessCleoLover

4th February 2012, 20:43

I am waiting for one of Stalin's apologists on this board to attempt to justify his order to drown the ex-Tsarist officers who had agreed to serve the Red Army. IMO it was merely an example of incipient cruelty and paranoia, a combination of a desire to undermine Trotsky's military leadership and eliminate a group of people who did not serve Stalin's purposes and were not beholden to him.

Omsk

4th February 2012, 22:34

i didnt realise responding to points you made constituted derailing the thread. No I dont know much about Stalin's role in the civil war. I did look it up once but there was very little to be found. I know he was fond of burning villages and getting rid of officers appointed by Trotsky. He like to go round saying how bad things were going to get at Trotsky. What you posted about his role was incorrect. You should ditch the dodgy book of Stalinist lies and do some research.

Any proof for the two assertions?

If you want,i could get you some information on Stalins role in the Civil War.He was,after all,one of the important figures in the military.

citizen of industry

5th February 2012, 05:55

I disagree. History happened, the facts can and have been established, and it's important to learn the lessons from it. The Stalinists carried on making the same mistakes long after Stalin died.

Also, it's important to be able to explain to the man in the street why the Russian revolution degenerated into such a shithole. Why Stalin killed socialists and sabotaged revolutions. Why Stalinism is not some continuation of Bolshevism, but it's negeation.

The world will never be ready for socialism until history has been cleaned of the lies told by Stalinists and the bourgeoisie. Russia was not socialist, it did not try to spread socialism, Mao had no intention of attempting socialism in China, he wanted several decades of capitalism after 1948. Castro was different, he wasnt a Stalinist, but he didnt want socialism either.

The Stalinists states represent the failure of the Stalinists to establish capitalist countries.

I share your opinion about Stalinism, but the man in the street isn't going to be convinced by your clever arguments to change his views, nor by a heap of literature from Trotsky. He will learn from cold economic reality and workplace struggle. These are what lead him to socialist politics, and from there an analysis of Stalinism. The man on the street is likely not interested in historical facts about the nature of the former Soviet Union and what led to its degeneration. And the same arguments aren't going to convince a Stalinist either. Their minds are made up, they'll just dig for odd sources to counter you.

A Marxist Historian

5th February 2012, 07:41

i dont wanna tell them anything

Well, I kinda agree. I am all in favor of telling things to the rank and file of local 21 if they are the right things. But the stuff you would want to tell them is all wrong, so we are all best happy if you don't. A win win situation.

At least better than those fools up in Seattle OWS who damn near got into a physical confrontation with the longshoremen by insisting that they and not the longshoremen would run the Longview support rally up there.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

5th February 2012, 07:53

Chavez, Chavez...To be perfectly honest, I never gave it much thought, because he is a politician, all I hear is criticism of him being a reformist, and unions have risen up in strikes against his leadership. So I did the unscientific thing and just didn't bother reading anything about him or his proposal.

Bottom line is any workers international, whatever number you come up with, has to be a workers international. What is Chavez? He is a left-talking bourgeois military dictator, whose rhetorical jibes at US imperialism are tolerated as the US is dependent of Venezuelan oil for its military operations in the Middle East and so forth.

For Chavez to call Bush Jr. Satan at the UN must have been annoying. But with all those tanks and airplanes the US is using on people in the Third World, which need fueling, both Bush and now Obama are willing to look the other way as long as the oil is flowing.

Just because he throws some crumbs of Venezuela's oil wealth to poor people doesn't make him pro-working-class, any more than the Salvation Army or Catholic soup kitchens are.

But you know we view things from different sides of the coin. Here is my original post in this thread:

I think the root of class struggle is the production process, the workplace. And unions are the foundation of class struggle. They organize inside the workplace and directly confront capital on a daily basis. The capitalists are well aware of this, which is why so much of their political power is spent on busting unions, intefering with strike actions, and corrupting their leaderhip with bribery, blackmail, threats, and other means. I think we've discussed before my opinion that parties cannot grow without a organized and militant labor movement as a precondition. Look at it from a worker's perpective: I (the worker) am striking, risking my job, fighting capital at the point of production, you (the party member) and several other representatives from various sects are standing outside my picketline trying to sell me a paper, the workers revolution or something, and preaching about the corrupt leadership of my union, how I don't understand revolution like you do, fighting with the other sects, and wondering why I'm not buying your paper and leaping into the arms of your, the one, true party, when you aren't participating in my struggles.

Chavez seems to be promoting a socialist international of parties. Like the first international, I'm more interested in an international of unions and parties. And I'll even throw in your cultural clubs, because I think they can't hurt anything.

Who am I, to talk to them? I do what I can to organize workers in my workplace, be active in my union, use our democratic process to try and affiliate with militant unions who are trying to build national and international networks. I work within my organization. What do you expect me to do, drop them an email that says, "Hey guys, you don't know me, but, don't you think you should be spearheading an international?"

I love the bold part:)

Here's a brief excerpt from We Live on Railways: Railway Struggle Against Privatization, written by the dude who is in my signature. This is from the introduction to the chapter "Fierce battles leading to the AMPO - Miike Coalminer's Struggle in 1960":

Must have been nice...

Participating in the class struggle is a good thing. But this is something that just about all workers find themselves doing sooner or later. Class struggle is simply one of the features of class society. You don't have to "promote" it, it just happens. Always has and always will, till we have a classless society.

However, if the workers want to actually *win* their class struggles, as opposed to just continually getting their asses kicked, they need to organize.

For economic class struggle they need economic class organizations, such as trade unions. No unions, class struggles will of course still happen, the difference being that the workers will *always* lose and the bosses will *always* win.

But ultimately the class struggle is a political struggle not just economic. Or rather, it has to become that if you ever want to *end* the class struggle, with a full workers victory.

And for political struggle you need a political organization. A revolutionary political party of the working class, dedicated to ending capitalism rather than just dealing with immediate day to day issues, such as higher wages.

-M.H.-

citizen of industry

5th February 2012, 14:29

Bottom line is any workers international, whatever number you come up with, has to be a workers international. What is Chavez? He is a left-talking bourgeois military dictator, whose rhetorical jibes at US imperialism are tolerated as the US is dependent of Venezuelan oil for its military operations in the Middle East and so forth.

For Chavez to call Bush Jr. Satan at the UN must have been annoying. But with all those tanks and airplanes the US is using on people in the Third World, which need fueling, both Bush and now Obama are willing to look the other way as long as the oil is flowing.

Just because he throws some crumbs of Venezuela's oil wealth to poor people doesn't make him pro-working-class, any more than the Salvation Army or Catholic soup kitchens are.

T
Participating in the class struggle is a good thing. But this is something that just about all workers find themselves doing sooner or later. Class struggle is simply one of the features of class society. You don't have to "promote" it, it just happens. Always has and always will, till we have a classless society.

However, if the workers want to actually *win* their class struggles, as opposed to just continually getting their asses kicked, they need to organize.

For economic class struggle they need economic class organizations, such as trade unions. No unions, class struggles will of course still happen, the difference being that the workers will *always* lose and the bosses will *always* win.

But ultimately the class struggle is a political struggle not just economic. Or rather, it has to become that if you ever want to *end* the class struggle, with a full workers victory.

And for political struggle you need a political organization. A revolutionary political party of the working class, dedicated to ending capitalism rather than just dealing with immediate day to day issues, such as higher wages.

-M.H.-

Your assumption here though is that unions represent economic struggles and parties represent political struggles. But the two are inseperable. Unions who only fight for "economic" gains are pathetic. This is one result of Stalinism, and also a result of propaganda and a belief in it, that unions are only out to cooperate with management and conclude a favorable deal. But unionism isn't about "day to day issues," it is about organizing workers to fight capitalism, in the workplace and outside of it. There is an underestimation of organized workers in unions. If the union studies Marx, fights militantly in the workplace, organizes political demonstrations, forms united fronts around political issues and circulates anti-capitalist literature, books, papers, etc. and recognizes the need for a mass revolutionary party, but isn't impressed with what they see, what then? Look at AMPO 1960 pics, those are unions surrounding parliament on a purely political agenda. Its up to organized, fighting workers to build the party, not the party to organize workers. The largest, most effective, revolutionary "party" I've seen is actually a union. So the party has to do better than that. The labor movement used to be very socialist, very militant, but now it isn't. It's easy to think of workers as blind supporters of capitalism and the revolutionary sect that needs to preach the truth from the outside, but if we are going to endlessly examine historical facts about historical figures we should recognize those people were dealing with a very class conscious labor movement and owed their positions to it.

A Marxist Historian

10th February 2012, 03:53

I disagree. History happened, the facts can and have been established, and it's important to learn the lessons from it. The Stalinists carried on making the same mistakes long after Stalin died.

Also, it's important to be able to explain to the man in the street why the Russian revolution degenerated into such a shithole. Why Stalin killed socialists and sabotaged revolutions. Why Stalinism is not some continuation of Bolshevism, but it's negeation.

The world will never be ready for socialism until history has been cleaned of the lies told by Stalinists and the bourgeoisie. Russia was not socialist, it did not try to spread socialism, Mao had no intention of attempting socialism in China, he wanted several decades of capitalism after 1948. Castro was different, he wasnt a Stalinist, but he didnt want socialism either.

The Stalinists states represent the failure of the Stalinists to establish capitalist countries.

A good post, except where you say Castro wasn't a Stalinist. Raul Castro, currently running Cuba, was the head of the Cuban CP in the '50s, a Stalinist of the Brezhnev stripe. Fidel?

Fidel believed and still believes more or less in Stalin's idea of socialism in one country, as applied to Cuba, namely socialism in one island. So he is a Stalinist, whether or not he praises Stalin. Or a "Marxist Leninist," to use the euphemism so popular here on Revleft.

And in fact, while Fidel was in charge, quite a few statues to Stalin went up in Cuba.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

10th February 2012, 04:03

Your assumption here though is that unions represent economic struggles and parties represent political struggles. But the two are inseperable. Unions who only fight for "economic" gains are pathetic. This is one result of Stalinism, and also a result of propaganda and a belief in it, that unions are only out to cooperate with management and conclude a favorable deal. But unionism isn't about "day to day issues," it is about organizing workers to fight capitalism, in the workplace and outside of it. There is an underestimation of organized workers in unions. If the union studies Marx, fights militantly in the workplace, organizes political demonstrations, forms united fronts around political issues and circulates anti-capitalist literature, books, papers, etc. and recognizes the need for a mass revolutionary party, but isn't impressed with what they see, what then? Look at AMPO 1960 pics, those are unions surrounding parliament on a purely political agenda. Its up to organized, fighting workers to build the party, not the party to organize workers. The largest, most effective, revolutionary "party" I've seen is actually a union. So the party has to do better than that. The labor movement used to be very socialist, very militant, but now it isn't. It's easy to think of workers as blind supporters of capitalism and the revolutionary sect that needs to preach the truth from the outside, but if we are going to endlessly examine historical facts about historical figures we should recognize those people were dealing with a very class conscious labor movement and owed their positions to it.

I think you are looking too narrowly at your contact with particularly militant unions in Japan. But in fact these unions were and are dominated by and large by left wing parties, such as the role of Chukaku in Doro Chiba. Less familiar with AMPO in 1960, but I assume Zengakuren or somebody had a strong influence in it.

You should go back and reopen Lenin's book, What Is To Be Done, no doubt you read it at one time or another.

Unions are, or at least should be, a united front of all workers in the trade. Therefore it is difficult for them to adopt political positions, as different workers have different ideas, and the whole purpose of unions is to unite all workers regardless of politics, race, creed, color, sex etc. vs. the bosses in the economic struggle.

Since unions do have to focus essentially on the economic struggle, they can't really be revolutionary political parties, and when they try to do that, like the revolutionary syndicalists of the past (anarchists, IWW etc.) they tend to divide the working class weakening the economic struggle.

Unions ought to be democratic, ought to be places for revolutionaries to struggle againsts reformists, class collaborationists, racists, nationalists etc. for leadership of the working class. But for that, the vanguard of the working class needs to be organized into a political force.

That, according to Lenin, is what is to be done.

And what you are arguing sounds a heck of a lot like the "economists" he was arguing against. Not the crude reformist economists, but the revolutionary talking ones, like the Ryabochaya Dyelo group.

-M.H.-

Die Neue Zeit

10th February 2012, 04:08

But for that, the vanguard of the working class needs to be organized into a political force.

That, according to Lenin, is what is to be done.

And what you are arguing sounds a heck of a lot like the "economists" he was arguing against. Not the crude reformist economists, but the revolutionary talking ones, like the Ryabochaya Dyelo group.

What matters is the suggested practice. Based on what the comrade has written re. his acceptance of the SPD model for immediate organizing (unlike your rejection), perhaps his rhetoric is misplaced re. mere labour disputes vs. actual political struggles, but his suggested practice isn't; otherwise, he'd be a raw syndicalist or semi-syndicalist.

citizen of industry

11th February 2012, 04:17

I think you are looking too narrowly at your contact with particularly militant unions in Japan. But in fact these unions were and are dominated by and large by left wing parties, such as the role of Chukaku in Doro Chiba. Less familiar with AMPO in 1960, but I assume Zengakuren or somebody had a strong influence in it.

You should go back and reopen Lenin's book, What Is To Be Done, no doubt you read it at one time or another.

Unions are, or at least should be, a united front of all workers in the trade. Therefore it is difficult for them to adopt political positions, as different workers have different ideas, and the whole purpose of unions is to unite all workers regardless of politics, race, creed, color, sex etc. vs. the bosses in the economic struggle.

Since unions do have to focus essentially on the economic struggle, they can't really be revolutionary political parties, and when they try to do that, like the revolutionary syndicalists of the past (anarchists, IWW etc.) they tend to divide the working class weakening the economic struggle.

Unions ought to be democratic, ought to be places for revolutionaries to struggle againsts reformists, class collaborationists, racists, nationalists etc. for leadership of the working class. But for that, the vanguard of the working class needs to be organized into a political force.

That, according to Lenin, is what is to be done.

And what you are arguing sounds a heck of a lot like the "economists" he was arguing against. Not the crude reformist economists, but the revolutionary talking ones, like the Ryabochaya Dyelo group.

-M.H.-

Zengakuren itself was a democratic organization, open to the entire student body, though leafership was mostly communist. The militant unions here are hardly "dominated" by left wing parties, then or now. There was/is never more than a small percentage of party members in the unions. More than anything, the post war movement was prompted by economic conditions, released communists who had opposed the war, and class based unionism.

I have the book, but I think it was written for a specific set of circumstances and it woyld be a mistake to use it as a textbook. It's a circular movement, militant labor provides the cadres for a party, the party reacts back on the movement and both of then grow. Look at all the mass strikes that occured in the decades prior to Lenin's revolution. If agitation is to be the spark that ignites the inflammible material, there has to be inflammible material, not a docile labor movement with no class perspective that collaborates with the ruling class. That's why there are so many sects. It's not the program, it's that it's falling on deaf ears.

citizen of industry

11th February 2012, 04:23

Die Neue Zeit

11th February 2012, 06:01

And back to the international, if it is only parties, what is it going to do? If unions are networked they can put the brakes on war preparations for example, through strikes all down the global production and supply chain. It's a more internationalist solution than advocating Stalinist countries develop more nuclear weapons. But it takes a very class conscious, militant and internationalist labor movement for that.

Although I myself support retaliatory proletarian deterrence, I would say that only the most politicized as well as militant unions be part of any new International. It's no good having International Trade Union Confederation sellouts trying to hijack the International like the British tred-iunionisty did when they left the IWMA en masse and did other questionable things before then. [It's also a message for IWW types to wake up and be more political.]

citizen of industry

11th February 2012, 06:15

And that's what I think it's all about -politicizing unions. The fact that so many aren't, when economics and politics can't be seperated, is pathetic. The lack of classed based unionism, pathetic. Being politicized is what leads to the militancy. IWW is very political and class-based, and also militant, so why worry about them? They don'bar their members from joining parties, and their little "How to fire your boss" guide is a gem. I think you'd have bigger fish to fry re: unions than IWW, like AFL-CIO or Rengo. We could use a few more unions like IWW, IMO .

Die Neue Zeit

11th February 2012, 06:20

I agree with you, comrade, except on the "economics and politics can't be separated" part, which I think might be an exaggeration (though feel free to call me a "politicist" as a rebuttal, if you wish):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/broad-economism-t97399/index.html

[This was from months before I settled upon the term "mere labour disputes."]

daft punk

11th February 2012, 14:45

I share your opinion about Stalinism, but the man in the street isn't going to be convinced by your clever arguments to change his views, nor by a heap of literature from Trotsky. He will learn from cold economic reality and workplace struggle. These are what lead him to socialist politics, and from there an analysis of Stalinism. The man on the street is likely not interested in historical facts about the nature of the former Soviet Union and what led to its degeneration. And the same arguments aren't going to convince a Stalinist either. Their minds are made up, they'll just dig for odd sources to counter you.

True, but on a forum where there are Stalinists, Trotskyists, anarchists and reformists, plus new people, I think it's important not to beat about the bush but to put the record straight. If there were no Stalinists around and I was talking to a new person I would still explain the history because I think the history of the USSR and other 'communist' countries puts people off. If you ask the man in the street, they tend to think socialist = reformist and communist = the USSR and they dont want those things, especially anything like the USSR. People need to know that Leninism does not have to lead to Stalinism.

I agree that in the main people will only come to socialist conclusions through events, but when they do it's necessary that the active socialists are clued up and have studied history. Just a few key people can make all the difference, eg Lenin and Trotsky in 1917, without them the revolution probably wouldn't have happened.

Plus, in some countries there are still loads of Stalinists, and it's important that young people get clued up so they can counter it.

DudeDorothy

11th February 2012, 15:10

Although I love the Fourth International, it's become too disorganized. A true Fifth International is what we need. I think that the situation in India, with a strike of 100 million workers set to happen on the 28th, could be a big factor in the formation of a new international movement.