What do you do when world revolution failed?

[runequester]

Enough blathering, time for answers.

Its the early to mid 1920's. Revolution was defeated in Germany, Poland has won the russo-polish war, the civil war in russia was won, but defeated in finland.


World revolution is not coming, and you are surrounded by aggressive capitalist countries that actively and aggressively oppose you.


Where do you go from here?

[Comrade Samuel]

Well I imagine that Stalin had enough internal problems in the soviet union to really need to worry about bringing communism to the rest of the world. It was after WWII when thing where somewhat under control is when they tried to bring communism to places like Vietnam,Cuba and Korea.

It's obvious this isn't a full exsplanation, I'm sure I can find an article.

[Rafiq]

Nothing you can do. You're fucked.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You wait and "try again" later.Capitalism generates cycles of "stability" and "chaos." It always gives leftist more chances to agitate and build class consciousness.Remember,history repeats.

[Tim Cornelis]

More power to the people*. The answer is not less democracy, it's more democracy--look at the Zapatistas.

*yes, with the bourgeoisie defeated, we can speak of "the people", it's not populist.


You wait and "try again" later.Capitalism generates cycles of "stability" and "chaos." It always gives leftist more chances to agitate and build class consciousness.Remember,history repeats.

Would you actually do that though? Say there is a revolution, and you actually won political power, are you actually telling me that you would just say "hey, nevermind, we'll try later" and just hand it over to the bourgeoisie?

[GoddessCleoLover]

There were no good alternatives IMO, but disenfranchising the Russian working class in favor of a Party that had banned both the Workers' Opposition and the Democratic Centralists led to the isolation of the Party's ruling elite from the bulk of the working class. We ought not expend too much of our energy lamenting this tragic history, as we face entirely different historical challenges. OTOH I do believe that we have to squarely face the tragic nature of the development of Soviet society in order to move beyond that history.

[Rooster]

Possibly not calling the class society with capitalist relations you've created socialism, thus obfuscating the whole process ever since. That might have been a good start.

[Bostana]

Yes the only reason they're capitalist countries in the first place is because they're are Rich people in the Government.
The Revolution will only end if the Working Class gives up.

[Искра]

You go sit in corner and cry. After that you take Luger and blow your brains out.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Would you actually do that though? Say there is a revolution, and you actually won political power, are you actually telling me that you would just say "hey, nevermind, we'll try later" and just hand it over to the bourgeoisie?

If the working class took power that would be a different story.

[Psy]

You never surrender the ideal of world revolution. You keep aiding workers movements in Japan, China and Europe. For example in the mid 1920's the Japanese peasants were in full revolt and the military coup came from the weakness of the Japanese ruling class yet the USSR did nothing to fuel the peasant revolts in Japan into a full scale revolution.

[runequester]

Possibly not calling the class society with capitalist relations you've created socialism, thus obfuscating the whole process ever since. That might have been a good start.

You are afraid to answer the question?

[Ostrinski]

The bourgeoisie is a pragmatic, versatile, and adaptable class. The proletariat must be equally so if world revolution is to be possible. The bourgeoisie have equipped the proletariat with the necessary means of meeting this requirement, however, and the answers to the various questions of organization should reflective upon the balance of powers as well as other material circumstances.

Socialism is not sustainable in a circumscribed area, and its existence will be shortened even more abruptly depending on on the level of industrialization and the access to key resources.

[Rooster]

You are afraid to answer the question?

I did. Here, I'll post it again.


Possibly not calling the class society with capitalist relations you've created socialism, thus obfuscating the whole process ever since. That might have been a good start.

Incidentally, point out to me on a map where the USSR is currently located.

[gorillafuck]

Nothing you can do. You're fucked.thats it? nothing?

that's ridiculous. are you actually saying that a revolution should just not be defended in the absence of a whole world revolution and every gain should be given up and capitalists should be allowed to retake power (after all, what is to stop then if the proper thing to do is nothing)?

[Grenzer]

More power to the people*. The answer is not less democracy, it's more democracy--look at the Zapatistas.

I'm not sure this is correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the Zapatistas, but I think what they've done is not anything resembling a model for anyone else. Firstly, it's a rural, unindustrialized backwater. The realities and challenges they face there are much different than what we would have in an industrialized society. Secondly, they are afraid of using their power. They seem unwilling to consolidate the gains of their revolution, I mean they let their own supporters in their own territory get slaughtered by counter-revolutionary paramilitaries. They say they are unwilling to fight back is because it is "not the peoples' will."

As admirable as the Zapatistas are, the only reason they haven't been fucking annihilated is because the Mexican government has been in shambles and has their hands full with the Cartels and the related violence. The Zapatista movement seems to be primarily an idealistic one. Hopefully world revolution arrives before the Mexican Government gets its shit together and destroys them. The odds are good, considering how fucked up the situation in Mexico is.

Also, Rooster is dead on with the "theory" of 'Socialism-in-one-country.' It doesn't work, history has proven this.

[Rafiq]

thats it? nothing?

that's ridiculous. are you actually saying that a revolution should just not be defended in the absence of a whole world revolution and every gain should be given up and capitalists should be allowed to retake power (after all, what is to stop then if the proper thing to do is nothing)?

The only way to "defend the revolution" in one country is to open the way for counter revolution to destroy it in the process.

Those harsh authoritarian policies were 100% necessary to save even a tiny fraction of what was gained in 1917.

[Blake's Baby]

thats it? nothing?

that's ridiculous. are you actually saying that a revolution should just not be defended in the absence of a whole world revolution and every gain should be given up and capitalists should be allowed to retake power (after all, what is to stop then if the proper thing to do is nothing)?

But what constitutes a 'gain' if the revolution is isolated? It's not a trick, I really do know what you think the answer might be. How long can an isolated 'proletarian state' last? A week? A month? A year? 70 years?

[gorillafuck]

The only way to "defend the revolution" in one country is to open the way for counter revolution to destroy it in the process.

Those harsh authoritarian policies were 100% necessary to save even a tiny fraction of what was gained in 1917.I do not see how Stalins policies were necessary to save all of what was gained in Russia. can you explain how the purging of the red armies most intelligent military personnel and old bolsheviks were necessary for the preservation of the soviet union? I'm confused by that. and how Stalins attitude towards the Chinese communists was necessary for the preservation of the USSR in the absence of world revolution. explain that.

and I ask, what do you think the right option would be? literally nothing?

[MotherCossack]

am i the only one who gives a shit that it is taking so long?
i have just had cnfirmation [on a current philosophy thread] that we are here only briefly, only once and when its over... it's over!

ok so previous efforts failed.... but so what? we need to go again... as a matter of some urgency... because revolutionaries who are past it are probably worse than useless... and might even, in effect, be judged as counter- revolutionaries .

what i am trying to say is... the obstacle presented by a bunch of decrepid, antiquated and failing comrades, notwithstanding immense commitment, may well contribute to the ultimate failure [again] of any future revolt.
actually... that won't happen! [of course!] it's just that i would like the whole thing to happen in my world. when i am dead... who gives a f**k?
(Is that selfish?)
SO WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?.........WHAT?........OH...POPULAR SUPPORT!!!...HMMMM!

[runequester]

I did. Here, I'll post it again.


So the answer to world revolution failing is "change the name of what you had the revolution to obtain"?

No wonder the left is fucked.



Incidentally, point out to me on a map where the USSR is currently located.

The same place as the left. Destroyed.

[Rafiq]

I do not see how Stalins policies were necessary to save all of what was gained in Russia. can you explain how the purging of the red armies most intelligent military personnel and old bolsheviks were necessary for the preservation of the soviet union? I'm confused by that. and how Stalins attitude towards the Chinese communists was necessary for the preservation of the USSR in the absence of world revolution. explain that.

and I ask, what do you think the right option would be? literally nothing?

By 1927ish the counter revolution began, and preserving the revolution no longer became a priority, as a new capitalist class was developing. By the mid-1930's Russia was a Bourgeois state, like The US, Britian, etc.

There is nothing that can be done. They had no choice. And the counterrevolution as a result gave birth to something entirely different.

[gorillafuck]

that did not answer my questions. you said that the policies that were formulated were necessary to preserve the soviet state. I gave examples of reactionary policies that were taken and asked how they were necessary. please answer.

[Rafiq]

that did not answer my questions. you said that the policies that were formulated were necessary to preserve the soviet state. I gave examples of reactionary policies that were taken and asked how they were necessary. please answer.

/facepalm.

Let me make this quite clear:

The periods of 1917-1926ish all carried policies to preserve the revolution. After words, degeneration became rapid and- because of the very same policies that were estabilished to preserve the revolution against Imperialism, beurocracy became widespread and eventually, a new capitalist class was forming, thus policies were then directed to the interest of the newly formed capitalist beurocracy, even if it meant going back on gains made by the revolution (such as the doing away of institutionalized nationalism).

The examples you gave were policies enacted by the Soviet-Bourgeois state.

I hope that helps.

[Prometeo liberado]

More power to the people*. The answer is not less democracy, it's more democracy--look at the Zapatistas.

*yes, with the bourgeoisie defeated, we can speak of "the people", it's not populist.



Would you actually do that though? Say there is a revolution, and you actually won political power, are you actually telling me that you would just say "hey, nevermind, we'll try later" and just hand it over to the bourgeoisie?

From the ballot booth to the work place, from voting cards to bullets. Ownership.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Possibly not calling the class society with capitalist relations you've created socialism, thus obfuscating the whole process ever since. That might have been a good start.

:rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

/facepalm.obnoxious.


Let me make this quite clear:

The periods of 1917-1926ish all carried policies to preserve the revolution. After words, degeneration became rapid and- because of the very same policies that were estabilished to preserve the revolution against Imperialism, beurocracy became widespread and eventually, a new capitalist class was forming, thus policies were then directed to the interest of the newly formed capitalist beurocracy, even if it meant going back on gains made by the revolution (such as the doing away of institutionalized nationalism).

The examples you gave were policies enacted by the Soviet-Bourgeois state.

I hope that helps.this is a much better answer. I know that the soviet union degenerated obviously because I am against stalin.

I don't buy into the idea of the USSR being capitalist, though.

[Comrade Auldnik]

The periods of 1917-1926ish all carried policies to preserve the revolution. After words, degeneration became rapid and- because of the very same policies that were estabilished to preserve the revolution against Imperialism, beurocracy became widespread and eventually, a new capitalist class was forming, thus policies were then directed to the interest of the newly formed capitalist beurocracy, even if it meant going back on gains made by the revolution (such as the doing away of institutionalized nationalism).


Bureaucracy is just the system by which administrative processes are carried out. A problem only emerges when vestiges of capitalist production persist, and I think this is the issue to which you're referring. The Party entered into a complicated relationship with production as a necessity given the conditions in Eastern Europe at the time of the revolution. I think where we disagree is the point at which a capitalist class interest began to overtake the communists of the Soviet Union. I believe that capitalist tendencies manifested in revisionism, which I believe ultimately led to the restoration of overt capitalism in that part of the world. (And, frankly, I'd rather have communists with capitalistic tendencies than straight-up capitalists.)

[Prometeo liberado]

Enough blathering, time for answers.

Its the early to mid 1920's. Revolution was defeated in Germany, Poland has won the russo-polish war, the civil war in russia was won, but defeated in finland.


World revolution is not coming, and you are surrounded by aggressive capitalist countries that actively and aggressively oppose you.


Where do you go from here?


am i the only one who gives a shit that it is taking so long?
i have just had cnfirmation [on a current philosophy thread] that we are here only briefly, only once and when its over... it's over!

ok so previous efforts failed.... but so what? we need to go again... as a matter of some urgency... because revolutionaries who are past it are probably worse than useless... and might even, in effect, be judged as counter- revolutionaries .

what i am trying to say is... the obstacle presented by a bunch of decrepid, antiquated and failing comrades, notwithstanding immense commitment, may well contribute to the ultimate failure [again] of any future revolt.
actually... that won't happen! [of course!] it's just that i would like the whole thing to happen in my world. when i am dead... who gives a f**k?
(Is that selfish?)
SO WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?.........WHAT?........OH...POPULAR SUPPORT!!!...HMMMM!

The left needs to get off its collective ass and spend less time telling each other that their view of revolution is not the correct one. Years, decades of futile sectarian arguments to only end up in the same place. Any large scale action will happen on different fronts by different tendancies and any attempt to co-opt it will result in failure. Revolution in the most "advanced" country in the world will not be lead in its early stages by the working class(sorry) but by working class activists and the radical middle class. Neo-liberalism is the spark that could ultimately ignite a mass movement of the people. In the meantime be your own best vangaurd.

[Rooster]

So the answer to world revolution failing is "change the name of what you had the revolution to obtain"?

No wonder the left is fucked.



The same place as the left. Destroyed.

I like how you are completely unable to comprehend my post. Secondly, this whole thread of yours seems to be aimed at people who disagree with stalinist policies as you come in and poorly defend them. As such, this is why you cant see where my post is coming from. It's not just a matter of changing names. It's a matter of the stalinist ruling clique completely abandoning a marxist approach to revolution and setting on the revisionist path of reformism and revolution from above. They should have did what lenin said before the revolution and extended democracy, creating a dotp instead of just a dictatorship which lead to the eventual complete restoration of capitalism. it's not so amusing that i had to spell this all out for you.

[Blake's Baby]

am i the only one who gives a shit that it is taking so long?

No, obviously that's not the case.


...
SO WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?.........WHAT?........OH...POPULAR SUPPORT!!!...HMMMM!

No, not exactly, because that implies that the 'people' have to support us making a revolution.

That's false. We ('the vanguard', the revolutionary organisation, the militants of the working class, the Party, 'the left' or whatever) is waiting for 'the people' (read, the proletariat) to make the revolution, so we can support them. We don't make the revolution as 'the left', the working class makes the revolution.

We can't make it on behalf of the rest of the class. We're not like pirates or commandoes, we're not putschists or coup-plotters. Without mass action by the working class there is no revolution... because that's what the revolution is.

[Astarte]

Stalin - You keep propagandizing for 10 years until the Spanish Civil War roles around and then you DON'T play Communists and Anarchists off each other so the Fascists win.

Stalin - During WWII you don't try to control and manipulate the Yugoslavian Partisans - you do not marginalize and alienate them from the World Revolution.

Stalin - You don't oppose the Greek uprising.

Khruschev - You, under no circumstances, allow for the Sino-Soviet split to take place...

Just to name a few...

Seems to me the World Revolution was very much alive after the mid 1920's, its just that the interests of the ruling bureaucracy of the USSR didn't so much want to lose their hegemony over it by allowing for alternate poles of proletarian power to rise outside of their control.

This is not "blame", but criticism and analysis of the class forces involved inside of the revolution itself.

[Omsk]

Stalin - During WWII you don't try to control and manipulate the Yugoslavian Partisans - you do not marginalize and alienate them from the World Revolution.




This line just shows your complete and total lack of knowledge regarding the Yugoslav partisans and the role of J.Stalin.

Marginalize?Are you serious?The Yugoslav partisans were well organized,and by 1944 their numbers were huge.

They had the most success in the partisan style combat against Hitlerites.

And if someone helped them in the struggle,it was J.Stalin.

And Stalin did not try to "control" or "manipulate" the Yugoslav partisans,as they were all hugely supportive of both him,and the USSR.

Only did Tito,in his open alliance with the West,send hostile messages to Stalin and had all Marxists-Leninists arrested.

And that was in 1948,during the Informbiro crisis.

[daft punk]

By 1927ish the counter revolution began, and preserving the revolution no longer became a priority, as a new capitalist class was developing. By the mid-1930's Russia was a Bourgeois state, like The US, Britian, etc.

There is nothing that can be done. They had no choice. And the counterrevolution as a result gave birth to something entirely different.

I don't see how it was a bourgeois state when the economy was publicly owned. To have a bourgeois class you have to have private property. The Russian elite did not own the means of production.

There was a counter-revolution between 1928 and 1938, but is was a political one not a social one.

To answer the OP, what should Stalin have done, he should have done what Lenin and Trotsky proposed:

1. Tax the rich to raise money and keep them down.
2. Use the money to build industry.
3. Use the money to subsidise coops for the peasants, subsidised to entice them in, a sort of backdoor collectivisation.

If this had been done from 1924-28, and the Left Opposition not purged, there would have been less of a grain shortfall and industry would be better developed. This would have meant that requisitioning in 1928 could probably have been avoided. That would have meant avoiding the rapid forced collectivisation and the ensuing famine.

I'm not saying socialism could have definitely been constructed, as it's more or less impossible in a backward country in isolation.

Obviously they should have been more internationalist, Stalin cocked up the first Chinese revolution by accident, but by 1933 he was wanting to deliberately sabotage any revolutions around the world.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure this is correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the Zapatistas, but I think what they've done is not anything resembling a model for anyone else. Firstly, it's a rural, unindustrialized backwater. The realities and challenges they face there are much different than what we would have in an industrialized society. Secondly, they are afraid of using their power. They seem unwilling to consolidate the gains of their revolution, I mean they let their own supporters in their own territory get slaughtered by counter-revolutionary paramilitaries. They say they are unwilling to fight back is because it is "not the peoples' will."

As admirable as the Zapatistas are, the only reason they haven't been fucking annihilated is because the Mexican government has been in shambles and has their hands full with the Cartels and the related violence. The Zapatista movement seems to be primarily an idealistic one. Hopefully world revolution arrives before the Mexican Government gets its shit together and destroys them. The odds are good, considering how fucked up the situation in Mexico is.

Also, Rooster is dead on with the "theory" of 'Socialism-in-one-country.' It doesn't work, history has proven this.

None of what you said touches upon the issue at hand. Participatory democracy within the context of a network of communes has nothing to do with "a rural, unindustrialized backwater."

My point was merely that Leninists often claim that the party dictatorship was necessary or even inevitable because of being encircled by opposing forces, the Zapatistas prove this thesis wrong.


I don't see how it was a bourgeois state when the economy was publicly owned.

That's because you observe the Soviet Union through the prism of academic analysis, not Marxist--which is not wrong an sich, but can lead to conflicting ideas on the nature of capitalism.


To have a bourgeois class you have to have private property. The Russian elite did not own the means of production.

Indeed, that's the academic definition (roughly). But in Marxist analysis we observe the mode of production (commodity production, law of value, etc.) and whether they applied. In the USSR it could be argued only ownership changed, but the mode of production remained as it was.


There was a counter-revolution between 1928 and 1938, but is was a political one not a social one.

I don't know what that means.


To answer the OP, what should Stalin have done, he should have done what Lenin and Trotsky proposed:

1. Tax the rich to raise money and keep them down.

What rich? There were no rich. And there should have been no rich, the "rich", the bourgeoisie should be eliminated (as a class, not as individuals).


2. Use the money to build industry.

Which is what Stalin did.

[runequester]

I like how you are completely unable to comprehend my post. Secondly, this whole thread of yours seems to be aimed at people who disagree with stalinist policies as you come in and poorly defend them. As such, this is why you cant see where my post is coming from. It's not just a matter of changing names. It's a matter of the stalinist ruling clique completely abandoning a marxist approach to revolution and setting on the revisionist path of reformism and revolution from above. They should have did what lenin said before the revolution and extended democracy, creating a dotp instead of just a dictatorship which lead to the eventual complete restoration of capitalism. it's not so amusing that i had to spell this all out for you.

I am not in fact a Stalinist. However, it is quite telling to me that you are unable to view things in any context other than "trotsky and stalin".

Other comrades in this thread have provided concrete suggestions on what to do, if world revolution does not materialise after a revolution occurs, you appear to be stuck in the "Stalin bad, Trotsky jesus" mindset.

So I ask you again: The revolution succeeded, but it is not spreading. What concrete actions do you undertake?
By 1921, it was obviously world revolution was a dead end, and Stalin had not yet seized control.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In 1921 the better course would have been to allow the Democratic Centralists and the Workers' Opposition to struggle for democracy and workers' rights within the RCP (B). Banning factions at the 1921 Party Congress stifled the very voices that would have opposed the development of a Party dictatorship. Once the Party became dictatorial it began to arrogate itself special privileges and powers, process that began in the 1920s and by the 1930s the working class was subjected to a new dictatorship. I agree with the poster who said that more workers' democracy was the missing ingredient that might have saved the Revolution.

[Rooster]

I am not in fact a Stalinist. However, it is quite telling to me that you are unable to view things in any context other than "trotsky and stalin".

Oh no!


Other comrades in this thread have provided concrete suggestions on what to do, if world revolution does not materialise after a revolution occurs, you appear to be stuck in the "Stalin bad, Trotsky jesus" mindset.Such a bummer!


So I ask you again: The revolution succeeded, but it is not spreading. What concrete actions do you undertake?
By 1921, it was obviously world revolution was a dead end, and Stalin had not yet seized control.What would you have done?

Actually, coming back to this, not that it matters as you automatically assume that the revolution succeeded as you have an a poor understanding what revolution means in a marxist sense (just like every other Stalinist). Point to me where the means of production were held in common. Show me the evidence of worker control (and I mean the actual definition of the world control, not the Leninist one), show me where classes had ceased to exist. You probably won't be able to because

A) you don't know what revolution is
B) none of that happened in Russia.

By the way, I'm not a Trotskyist

[Blake's Baby]

... The revolution succeeded, but it is not spreading...

This is the problem. These can't both be true.

If the revolution is not spreading, it is not succeeding. It cannot 'succeed' in one country. It can only begin in one country. Revolution is a process, not an event. Until capitalism has been defeated worldwide the revolution has not 'succeeded'.



...
By 1921, it was obviously world revolution was a dead end, and Stalin had not yet seized control.

By which you can only mean that the revolution, despite an early success in Russia, had failed. It was not a 'dead end', it remains the only way forward; but that way was blocked in the 1920s, due to the failure of the revolution to spread.

So, what do you think the working class should do when their attempt at revolution has failed?

[Rafiq]

Russia had never surpassed the capitalist mode of production. This is something even Lenin understood.

Private property and a Bourgeois class, a market, and foreign buisness existed, even if they were heavily surpressed.

And I thought we were sticking to scientific definitions?

[manic expression]

I love how revelatory this thread is. Even with the advantage of hindsight, those who scream about Soviet policies after 1921 until they run out of breath can't come up with any real alternative to the path that was taken.

From the anti-Soviet posters here, we've gotten "we're fucked", which I guess means you walk outside and tell the workers of Petrograd and Moscow that yeah, they might have just defended the revolution at the cost of their sisters, brothers, cousins and friends...but it's all over, nothing to be done, just go home, go to sleep and wait for the capitalists to come back. :laugh:

And then we have someone suggesting suicide as the oh-so-progressive option. :rolleyes:

It seems many leftists can criticize all day but aren't capable of forming even the foggiest alternative course of action.

[Rafiq]

From the anti-Soviet posters here, we've gotten "we're fucked", which I guess means you walk outside and tell the workers of Petrograd and Moscow that yeah, they might have just defended the revolution at the cost of their sisters, brothers, cousins and friends...but it's all over, nothing to be done, just go home, go to sleep and wait for the capitalists to come back. :laugh:



Oh don't get all emotional, for christ's sake.

I'm not doubting that Lenin "tried his hardest". But managing socialism in one country - especially a country like Russia during the time - Isn't possible. The internal degeneration of socialism was an inevitability though, and not some kind of "Effect due to the irresponsibility and evilness of the Soviet Regime" or whatever the psuedo-menshevites like to say today.

[Rafiq]

I don't buy into the idea of the USSR being capitalist, though.

State capitalism as a label for the USSR, in the sense that (Government are capitalists instead of private capitalists) is absolute rubbish. I'm talking about the capitalist mode of production, something entirely different. The Soviet Union never managed to surpass actual existing capital.

[manic expression]

Oh don't get all emotional, for christ's sake.

I'm not doubting that Lenin "tried his hardest". But managing socialism in one country - especially a country like Russia during the time - Isn't possible. The internal degeneration of socialism was an inevitability though, and not some kind of "Effect due to the irresponsibility and evilness of the Soviet Regime" or whatever the psuedo-menshevites like to say today.
I don't mean to get emotional but it's actually funny what your suggestion would entail.

"OK, folks, good show, thanks for risking life and limb for what we told you was important...but something happened in Germany so it's all over. Yeah, sorry but it was a good run. Now if someone could take the red flags down and turn out the lights that'd be great. Also, I hope one of you has Kerensky's number handy, we'll be needing him back." :laugh:

Managing socialism in one country is possible. To say otherwise would be like saying that abolition of slavery in one country is impossible.

But still, anyone who doesn't think there was an alternative has no right to criticize the actions that were taken. That means no criticizing Stalin, no objections to the Brezhnev Doctrine, no complaints about Krondstadt. That's how it goes when you can't offer up a better plan 90 years later.

[Ostrinski]

To say otherwise would be like saying that abolition of slavery in one country is impossible.This is an irresponsible statement to make. Slavery may have been dependent upon the global market, but the global market was not dependent on slavery (at least during the time of its abolition, when wage labor and industrial production became more practical). And the global market is the superstructure that prevents socialist development from being sustainable in a circumscribed area.

[Astarte]

This line just shows your complete and total lack of knowledge regarding the Yugoslav partisans and the role of J.Stalin.

Marginalize?Are you serious?The Yugoslav partisans were well organized,and by 1944 their numbers were huge.

They had the most success in the partisan style combat against Hitlerites.

And if someone helped them in the struggle,it was J.Stalin.

And Stalin did not try to "control" or "manipulate" the Yugoslav partisans,as they were all hugely supportive of both him,and the USSR.

Only did Tito,in his open alliance with the West,send hostile messages to Stalin and had all Marxists-Leninists arrested.

And that was in 1948,during the Informbiro crisis.

Hi, I'm not referring to the Informbiro crisis, I'm speaking of the contradictions between Yugoslavia and the USSR which lead to it. Here is an example:

"Still another example occured on November 29, 1943, in Jajce, at the Second Session of the Antifascist Council, where resolutions were passed that in fact amounted to the legalization of a new social and political order in Yugoslavia. At the same time there was formed a National Committee to act as the provisional government of Yugoslavia. During the preparation for these resolutions in meetings of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the stand was taken that Moscow should not be informed until after it was all over. We knew from previous experience with Moscow and from its line of propaganda that it would not be capable of understanding. And indeed, Moscow's reactions to these resolutions were negative to such a degree that some parts were not even broadcast by the radio station Free Yugoslavia, which was located in the Soviet Union to serve the needs of the resistance movement in Yugoslavia. Thus the Soviet Government failed to understand the most important act of the Yugoslav revolution - the one that transformed the revolution into a new order and brought it onto the international scene. Only when it became obvious that the West had reacted to the resolution at Jajce with understanding did Moscow alter its stand to conform with the realities". Conversations With Stalin, Djilas

[Omsk]

Hi, I'm not referring to the Informbiro crisis, I'm speaking of the contradictions between Yugoslavia and the USSR which lead to it. Here is an example:

"Still another example occured on November 29, 1943, in Jajce, at the Second Session of the Antifascist Council, where resolutions were passed that in fact amounted to the legalization of a new social and political order in Yugoslavia. At the same time there was formed a National Committee to act as the provisional government of Yugoslavia. During the preparation for these resolutions in meetings of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the stand was taken that Moscow should not be informed until after it was all over. We knew from previous experience with Moscow and from its line of propaganda that it would not be capable of understanding. And indeed, Moscow's reactions to these resolutions were negative to such a degree that some parts were not even broadcast by the radio station Free Yugoslavia, which was located in the Soviet Union to serve the needs of the resistance movement in Yugoslavia. Thus the Soviet Government failed to understand the most important act of the Yugoslav revolution - the one that transformed the revolution into a new order and brought it onto the international scene. Only when it became obvious that the West had reacted to the resolution at Jajce with understanding did Moscow alter its stand to conform with the realities". Conversations With Stalin, Djilas

You missed my point,the USSR didnt "marginalize" the Yugoslav partisans,in fact,it was the single foreign factor that made them into what they were during WW2.As the CPY had all of its specialists,supplies,support and whatnot,from Moscow.

What you pointed out is an example of Tito and the CPY trying to act completely on their own,which was not needed.

[Astarte]

You missed my point,the USSR didnt "marginalize" the Yugoslav partisans,in fact,it was the single foreign factor that made them into what they were during WW2.As the CPY had all of its specialists,supplies,support and whatnot,from Moscow.

What you pointed out is an example of Tito and the CPY trying to act completely on their own,which was not needed.

Actually the excerpt shows that the Yugoslav Partisans, though they recognized the USSR as the "homeland" of Socialism, and co-operated with the Comintern were untrusting of Moscow's propaganda line.

The excerpt shows:


And indeed, Moscow's reactions to these resolutions were negative to such a degree that some parts were not even broadcast by the radio station Free Yugoslavia, which was located in the Soviet Union to serve the needs of the resistance movement in Yugoslavia. Thus the Soviet Government failed to understand the most important act of the Yugoslav revolution - the one that transformed the revolution into a new order and brought it onto the international scene.

When Marxist Partisans took control of Yugoslavia the USSR amended the Yugoslavians' announcements as to fit Moscow's line of propaganda.

I am not sure a World Revolution can be reached by the centralism of a besieged socialist state in a hegemonically capitalist world - it is more likely that realities on the ground must be dealt with at once - constantly asking for approval of a foreign center can be detrimental to the victory of the revolution, especially from a foreign center that is internally wrought with its own contradictions.

And on top of that, the West was first to recognize Yugoslavia... then Moscow followed suit when it was clear the Allies weren't "offended".


Only when it became obvious that the West had reacted to the resolution at Jajce with understanding did Moscow alter its stand to conform with the realities"

[Omsk]

Actually the excerpt shows that the Yugoslav Partisans, though they recognized the USSR as the "homeland" of Socialism, and co-operated with the Comintern were untrusting of Moscow's propaganda line.

The excerpt shows:



The Soviets actually praised Yugoslavia and the liberation of Yugoslavia constantly,[after ww2] and the agitprop work on promoting Yugoslavia was on the level of the agitprop work of promoting the USSR.The Moscow "propaganda" was always freindly toward Yugoslavia.[With the exception of 1948- ]



When Marxist Partisans took control of Yugoslavia the USSR amended the Yugoslavians' announcements as to fit Moscow's line of propaganda.


I am not sure a World Revolution can be reached by the centralism of a besieged socialist state in a hegemonically capitalist world - it is more likely that realities on the ground must be dealt with at once - constantly asking for approval of a foreign center can be detrimental to the victory of the revolution, especially from a foreign center that is internally wrought with its own contradictions.

And on top of that, the West was first to recognize Yugoslavia... then Moscow followed suit when it was clear the Allies weren't "offended".



It was a junior [CPY] party,{although it had expirience} and it was common for a junior party to follow the lead of the far bigger,important and influential party.



And on top of that, the West was first to recognize Yugoslavia... then Moscow followed suit when it was clear the Allies weren't "offended".



A recognition has nothing to do with support,the USSR sent actual support, {Army units} and helped Yugoslavia in a number of ways.Especially in the post war years.

[manic expression]

By the way, I wonder what those who would have declared "we're fucked" would have said to the Jews and non-Russians of the young Soviet Union who would face certain slaughter were the reactionaries to be victorious. "Sorry about this, we suggest you try to hide when the Whites get back"?


This is an irresponsible statement to make. Slavery may have been dependent upon the global market, but the global market was not dependent on slavery (at least during the time of its abolition, when wage labor and industrial production became more practical). And the global market is the superstructure that prevents socialist development from being sustainable in a circumscribed area.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to make that comparison. The global market does not at all prevent socialist development from being accomplished in a liberated country. Why would it? Liberated workers, so long as they control the fruits of their labor, can and should trade with capitalist countries in order to acquire the goods they cannot produce in their own country. Sure, the global market might spark a decrease in tourism or a rise in oil prices, but none of these things are fatal...a working-class government can, given proper leadership and participation, navigate the course of defended liberation. Cuba and the DPRK have done so, through different means, under enormous pressure and severe disadvantage.

I will agree in that I think there are dangers, but there is no path that anyone here can propose that precludes pitfalls. Namely, I do think there is a tendency for production to slacken if proper measures are not taken. We've heard from posters here who have been to Cuba that workers blatantly did a bad job because they knew there was no consequence. This was before the recent reforms, which hopefully will go some way to correcting that.

But aside from those sorts of issues discussed briefly above, I see no decisive reason why socialism cannot be established and sustained in one country.

[Rooster]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to make that comparison. The global market does not at all prevent socialist development from being accomplished in a liberated country. Why would it? Liberated workers, so long as they control the fruits of their labor, can and should trade with capitalist countries in order to acquire the goods they cannot produce in their own country.

How is it possible to trade with capitalists when you're mode of production is towards use-values and not exchange, hence no longer commodity production, hence no longer towards a profit motive? Maybe, what you're suggesting, is that your vision is socialism is one of commodity production and capitalist relations and all that entails? :confused: Would a capitalist even trade with a work force that's highly protected with over inflated costs of production? Oh wait, they wouldn't, hence the exportation of production to places where there's barely any labour laws.

[Rafiq]

I don't mean to get emotional but it's actually funny what your suggestion would entail.

"OK, folks, good show, thanks for risking life and limb for what we told you was important...but something happened in Germany so it's all over. Yeah, sorry but it was a good run. Now if someone could take the red flags down and turn out the lights that'd be great. Also, I hope one of you has Kerensky's number handy, we'll be needing him back." :laugh:

I don't suggest anything remotely close to this. Though, perhaps addressing the population that times of hardship and trouble are ahead, and surpassing the capitalist mode of production is now impossible?


Managing socialism in one country is possible. To say otherwise would be like saying that abolition of slavery in one country is impossible.


"Slavery" can be abolished within the constraints of the capitalist mode of production. One of the reasons the U.S. was able to abolish slavery, though, was because it was being abolished in most parts of the world, anyway.


But still, anyone who doesn't think there was an alternative has no right to criticize the actions that were taken. That means no criticizing Stalin, no objections to the Brezhnev Doctrine, no complaints about Krondstadt. That's how it goes when you can't offer up a better plan 90 years later.


Perhaps, however, that doesn't mean that the proletarian should have supported the Soviet state during those times, as it had nothing to offer them in regards to the interest of their class. To blame Stalin, Bhreznov, or Gorbachev for anything is absurd. But, more absurd to think those individuals represented anything that could help the proletariat achieve state domination.

[Ocean Seal]

Nothing you can do. You're fucked.
Hell no, when you are fucked, you have to think of a way to fuck back harder.

World revolution isn't coming you say? Well I say fuck that shit. There is no predicting when the world revolution will come. If you are surrounded by aggressive capitalist states the first thing you do is protect the gains of the revolution by not sliding back the gains of the revolution into vanguard cretinism. The next thing you do is actively try to incite revolution. The revolution in Finland was lost? The bourgeoisie are still powerful? I call bullshit, the workers in Finland were among the most militant in the world. There was a powerful movement there. If they lost the revolution you as a nation must be prepared to keep the revolutionary airs going. Shit doesn't just disappear overnight. You prepare the workers for a war against their capitalist in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years. It doesn't matter. You keep the people going.

You lose in 1905, come back in 1917

You look for weakspots in capitalism. You put yourself in solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles and you try to weaken capitalism even if you know that you are on your way out. Strike where it is weakest. Form strategic alliances with the peasantry and don't give up.

Now fellow workers here are some inspirational words from Kobe Bryant.

jvW2MAtRgVs

Just remember
THE COMMUNISTS ADAPTED
THE CAPITALISTS REACTED
Communists>Capitalists

[Comrade Jandar]

The Russian Revolution was a bourgeois democratic revolution. The Bolsheviks simply quickened Russia's transition into a more advanced capitalism. Socialism was not even the goal in first place.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh. Good. Monkeys.

I'm sorry Jandar, you can take your Menshevism outside. It's just bullshit. The Bolsheviks, Anarchists and SRs - and ordinary workers - who overthrew the provisional government and pulled Russia out of WWI were both the most committed members of, and representing the interests of, the working class worldwide.

In your supreme disappointment with Stalinism...

No. In Anton Pannekoek's and Paul Mattick's supreme disappointment with Stalinism, in their attempts to work out how a revolution could turn into counter-revolution, they theorised themselves backwards into a Menshevik position. To accept this, you have to believe that
1-it is the national development of the productive forces, not the intrernational situation, which determines the success or otherwise of a revolutionary experiment - in other words, you have to think that Stalin was right;
2-the First World War was not an event of world-historic importance in the decline of capitalism;
3-the revolutionary wave that swept the world from 1916-1927 was either not real, or if it was real, based on a lie (poor stupid workers revolting against capitalism and war, don't they realise they've been conned?);
4-revolutions are made by individuals, such as Evil Doctor Lenin, not by the mass movements of classes in struggle (welcome to a 19th centurey bourgeois account of how history is made, by 'Great Men', good or bad);
5-Lenin was the most devious person who ever lived, who deliberately refused to share power with the Provisional Government (probably even got himself deliberately exiled to Switzerland before it all started?) just so he come along like a cheap baddie in a melodrama to ride in at the time of the last reel to mess things up.

Honestly. It's fucking proposterous. 'Why Past Revolutionary Movements Have Failed' is one of the most flawed political texts it has ever been my misfortune to read. Certainly, Stalinism (and the decline of the revolution in Russia began long, long before Stalin took power) was the culmination of the counter revolution but: the fact that the revolution degenerated was nothing to do with either 1-the nature of development in Russia (unless Stalin and the Mensheviks were right of course); or 2-the Machiavellian nature of the Bolsheviks.

It was the failure of the revoilution to spread that killed the revolution in Russia. An isolated revolution will die. No matter what the state of development in that territory or the 'will' of the actors. And to deny that the revolution was even possible in 1917... it staggers belief, it really does.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I love how revelatory this thread is. Even with the advantage of hindsight, those who scream about Soviet policies after 1921 until they run out of breath can't come up with any real alternative to the path that was taken.

From the anti-Soviet posters here, we've gotten "we're fucked", which I guess means you walk outside and tell the workers of Petrograd and Moscow that yeah, they might have just defended the revolution at the cost of their sisters, brothers, cousins and friends...but it's all over, nothing to be done, just go home, go to sleep and wait for the capitalists to come back. :laugh:

And then we have someone suggesting suicide as the oh-so-progressive option. :rolleyes:

It seems many leftists can criticize all day but aren't capable of forming even the foggiest alternative course of action.


There were alternatives. That is what the huge debates in the 1920s were all about.I am not intending yet another Trotsky/Stalin fight but this is the context of what happened.

The revolution suffered major setbacks. Okay, what should be done? In politics as in every thing else, the best defense is a good offense.

Collectivization of agriculture was nessecary, the whole "scissors crisis" points to this. The way it was carried created a one sided civil war. Agriculture was the traditional Achilles heel of the Soviet economy because of this. If collectivization had been carried out more gradually and humanely things could have turned out differently.

There were contradictions from the need of the Soviet Union to act as a bourgeois state on one hand and to promote revolution on the other. The statist solution won out. We can see this in China, Spain, Germany, Soviet policy towards England, etc.

Internally, the SU could have adopted worker's democracy-legalize worker's parties and turn work places directly to worker's control.

Even after the setbacks of the early 1920s, history could have still turned out vastly different.

The Spanish Civil War was a turning point in world history.Something like the Second World War was probably inevitable given the failures of the revolution and the unsolved contradictions of capitalism. If the left in Spain had done things differently, WWII could have been a class war, rather than a war between bourgeois states.

[manic expression]

How is it possible to trade with capitalists when you're mode of production is towards use-values and not exchange, hence no longer commodity production, hence no longer towards a profit motive? Maybe, what you're suggesting, is that your vision is socialism is one of commodity production and capitalist relations and all that entails? :confused: Would a capitalist even trade with a work force that's highly protected with over inflated costs of production? Oh wait, they wouldn't, hence the exportation of production to places where there's barely any labour laws.
Capitalists trade with protectionist countries all the time, they simply can't invest headlong in them or set up entire swathes of sweatshops. They can still trade.

Cuban cigars sell pretty well, and Cuba gets stuff in exchange for them.

Essentially what I'm suggesting is that the fruits of socialist production can be used as the workers see fit, and one possible use is to sell it abroad for products that can't be readily gotten in one's own country. If you can't grow tons of fruit and you want fruit, then sell some lumber to get money to buy fruit from abroad. That transaction, so long as it is done through a worker state and not through a private enterprise, goes just fine with socialism.


I don't suggest anything remotely close to this. Though, perhaps addressing the population that times of hardship and trouble are ahead, and surpassing the capitalist mode of production is now impossible?
OK, I withdraw the previous comment, but on such an address, with respect, what would that matter? "Surpassing the capitalist mode of production" means nothing to ordinary workers...how they can feed their families and friends and have access to goods they desire is the real issue.


"Slavery" can be abolished within the constraints of the capitalist mode of production. One of the reasons the U.S. was able to abolish slavery, though, was because it was being abolished in most parts of the world, anyway.
Just as capitalist slavery can be abolished within the constraints of the socialist mode of production. What mattered most to the US wasn't as much competition from abroad (King Cotton was still king) but internal conflicts arising from the institution of slavery. Sure, it helped that Britain couldn't support the Confederacy substantially unless its victory was a fait accompli, but at that point we're splitting hairs I fear.


Perhaps, however, that doesn't mean that the proletarian should have supported the Soviet state during those times, as it had nothing to offer them in regards to the interest of their class. To blame Stalin, Bhreznov, or Gorbachev for anything is absurd. But, more absurd to think those individuals represented anything that could help the proletariat achieve state domination.
Well, we can disagree on that point. I argue that Stalin's leadership helped establish proletarian state power throughout Eastern/Central Europe, but that's another discussion for another time.


The revolution suffered major setbacks. Okay, what should be done? In politics as in every thing else, the best defense is a good offense.

Collectivization of agriculture was nessecary, the whole "scissors crisis" points to this. The way it was carried created a one sided civil war. Agriculture was the traditional Achilles heel of the Soviet economy because of this. If collectivization had been carried out more gradually and humanely things could have turned out differently.

There were contradictions from the need of the Soviet Union to act as a bourgeois state on one hand and to promote revolution on the other. The statist solution won out. We can see this in China, Spain, Germany, Soviet policy towards England, etc.

Internally, the SU could have adopted worker's democracy-legalize worker's parties and turn work places directly to worker's control.

Even after the setbacks of the early 1920s, history could have still turned out vastly different.

The Spanish Civil War was a turning point in world history.Something like the Second World War was probably inevitable given the failures of the revolution and the unsolved contradictions of capitalism. If the left in Spain had done things differently, WWII could have been a class war, rather than a war between bourgeois states.
Although I might disagree with some of your arguments (while agreeing with others), I respect them because they're constructive alternatives that would have been feasible proposals at the time. Good points, just what I was hoping to see.

[manic expression]

Hell no, when you are fucked, you have to think of a way to fuck back harder.


World revolution isn't coming you say? Well I say fuck that shit. There is no predicting when the world revolution will come. If you are surrounded by aggressive capitalist states the first thing you do is protect the gains of the revolution by not sliding back the gains of the revolution into vanguard cretinism. The next thing you do is actively try to incite revolution.


You lose in 1905, come back in 1917



Just remember
THE COMMUNISTS ADAPTED
THE CAPITALISTS REACTED
Communists>Capitalists

Now that right there, that's what I'm talking about. RedBrother just smacked that shit out of the park. Let 'em know!

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2354735#post2354735)
"I don't see how it was a bourgeois state when the economy was publicly owned. "
That's because you observe the Soviet Union through the prism of academic analysis, not Marxist--which is not wrong an sich, but can lead to conflicting ideas on the nature of capitalism.

Well you can say that but you have to give reasons.




"To have a bourgeois class you have to have private property. The Russian elite did not own the means of production. "
Indeed, that's the academic definition (roughly). But in Marxist analysis we observe the mode of production (commodity production, law of value, etc.) and whether they applied. In the USSR it could be argued only ownership changed, but the mode of production remained as it was.

I dont see how. Ok, it wasnt actual socialism, but it was trying to go that way, up to 1924. It was a workers government up to 1924.



"There was a counter-revolution between 1928 and 1938, but is was a political one not a social one."
There was a counter-revolution between 1928 and 1938, but is was a political one not a social one"
I don't know what that means.

A political revolution is just regime change, social is the mode of production



"To answer the OP, what should Stalin have done, he should have done what Lenin and Trotsky proposed:

1. Tax the rich to raise money and keep them down. "
What rich? There were no rich. And there should have been no rich, the "rich", the bourgeoisie should be eliminated (as a class, not as individuals).

You are wrong. Half the economy was privatised, most of the agriculture, there were plenty of rich people and they were getting richer at the expense of the poor. Lenin and Trotsk both proposed heavy taxes on the rich, Stalin did not do that so consequently they became a threat to him as they grew.
Read the intro to Platform of the Opposition, I did a thread on it in Learning, you will see.




"2. Use the money to build industry. "
Which is what Stalin did.
Not enough, because he didnt tax the rich. Again see the Platform of the Opposition, all the economic data is presented. He didnt start building industry substantially until he started collectivisation. Then he went too far on concentrating on industry, so millions died of hunger.

Collectivisation, in 1928, was something forced on him by rebellions of rich peasants, something Trotsky predicted.

[daft punk]

The Russian Revolution was a bourgeois democratic revolution. The Bolsheviks simply quickened Russia's transition into a more advanced capitalism. Socialism was not even the goal in first place.
Totally and utterly false! The Bolsheviks were stagist before 1917 but then Lenin abandoned that and adopted a view coinciding with Trotsky.

[Blake's Baby]

Daft Punk...

You don't seem to realise it's Comrade Jandar that's stagist. Shouting 'Lenin wasn't stagist' doesn't matter. Jandar isn't claiming he was, just stupid/a liar. It's Jandar that believes in stages, because he's been convinced that what Pannekoek wrote in the middle of the counter-revolution, having accepted the basic premises of Menshevism (a Menshevism that Stalin was also keen to promote), was accurate.