Stalinism? [Archive]

Omsk

10th February 2012, 11:07

Stalin was not a theoretician

One could argue that he was not on the same theoretical level as {Lenin},but the small number {actually,a quite large number} of his works is understandable,he was,after all,the most important figure in the SU during the GPW.

Some people have asked, "Where are the theoretical works of Stalin in this period?" as if he had been deported to the Reading Rooms of the British Museum instead of a peasant's hut in the Arctic.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 78

Accordingly, Joseph Stalin read a great deal. He read so much that he aroused suspicion in ”the minds of the authorities of the seminary,”... and he was expelled from the seminary.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 22

Trotsky made much of the fact that during those years of continuous exile Stalin did not write a line or attempt any literary work, but for this, too, no blame attaches to Stalin. Not every political captive, even though an intellectual, wrote anything in such exile. Some did, but when a man is living in a small village in a wilderness of snow, the conditions are naturally not encouraging. Even the newspapers took weeks or months to arrive. The exiled intellectuals asked their friends and relations to send them books. Stalin, the shoemaker’s son, had no relations who could do him that service. And his few friends were naturally without the means to send him parcels of books; moreover, the books that interested him would not have reached him, for there was a very severe censorship of the material sent by post to the exiles.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 43

I think everyone is familiar with his role in the GPW,so i wont post information regarding it - just to mention it however,he held 5 positions,and was informed about the every aspect of the defense of the USSR,and also took the role of the main commander.

Stalin as supreme commander of the Russian forces in the Second World War would be a theme for a special work. His great gift of military organization showed itself here again. Without any question, streams of energy proceeded from him throughout the war, and that energy halted the Germans before Leningrad and Moscow. They had to seek the road to victory in another direction-- toward the Volga. Strategically they fell into exactly the same situation as the counter-revolutionary generals of the civil war. As then, Stalingrad had once more to become the battlefield on which the outcome of the war would be decided. Stalin had already won one victory there, at the outset of his career; once already he had prevented the enemy from crossing the Volga. The strategic problem was familiar to him. For the second time in his life he achieved his strategic triumphs on the same spot.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 365

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

This is all noted by Zhukov,who is certainly not a "Stalinist".

Stalin personally directed the defense of Moscow and the operations of the Red Army; he inspired men and commanders, and supervised the building of the defense works at the approaches to the Soviet capital.
Alexandrov, G. F. Joseph Stalin; a Short Biography. Moscow: FLPH, 1947, p. 163

{On the case of his role in the defence of Moscow}

And,i dont think i need to point out that Stalin never liked the word "Stalinism" and he always regarded himself a Marxist-Leninist.

Stalinism,Stalinists,was rarely used in the USSR outside of speeches.

If you have any questions about Marxism-Leninism or Stalin ask away.

daft punk

10th February 2012, 11:29

Zulu

10th February 2012, 12:45

This does not address the point I raised on Stalin's definition of 'final' simply meaning safe from attack or restoration.

What part of "To achieve the final victory of socialism in our country we have to ensure that the bulk of the capitalist countries becomes socialist too" do you not understand?

Rooster

10th February 2012, 14:26

First of all, Stalin himself condemned the term "Stalinism" when it was brought up once in his presence. So the only "Stalinists" out there are those that hold on to an imaginary Stalin, who is pretty much the same character the Trotskyists so much love to hate. And those who advocate the actual Stalin's course are called the Marxist-Leninists, something Stalin used to call himself.

Geez, I wonder why... seeing how you bring up context, let's talk about some context. Perhaps, looking at the history of Stalin, we can see that he tried to show that what he was doing was the correct thing according to the infallible ideology of Leninism, combating deviations left and right. Maybe, just maybe, he disagreed with being called a Stalinist because he tried gain his authority from Lenin and his ism. Maybe in the context of his historical struggles with the deviations within the part and Trotskyism made ol' Stalin unhappy with being called a Stalinist. Possibly just like the way that Trotsky preferred to be called a Bolshevik-Leninist.

Zulu

10th February 2012, 14:57

he tried to show that what he was doing was the correct thing according to the infallible ideology of Leninism, combating deviations left and right. Maybe, just maybe, he disagreed with being called a Stalinist because he tried gain his authority from Lenin and his ism.
Well, maybe, so what?

We, who generally agree that Stalin in essence correctly interpreted Marxism-Leninism and put it in practice to the best of his ability, also think that the term "Stalinism" is redundant. It only makes sense if you think Stalin's views and practices were systematically at odds with Leninism. We do not think so and Stalin did not think so. They had a couple of political disagreements and one personal conflict, but those issues were resolved with Stalin fully accepting Lenin's point of view.

4th supporter

10th February 2012, 15:30

NO i didn't mean trolling although im new to this thread and have already picked up on the "love" between trotskyists and "Stalinist"(or as you made clear before Marxist-Leninist)But thank you for the replys

Rodrigo

10th February 2012, 15:34

Yes he did say socialism could be built in one country.

Don't paint reality to fit your prejudice, please. There's not a socialism in "one" country theory, literally. What we call socialism in "one" country is, for example, the following... The origin of socialism in "one" country is in LENIN. He said that history already in the 20's proved the falseness of the Permanent Revolution theory.Lenin at the Third Congress of the 3rd International, 1921:

When we started the international revolution, we did so not because we were convinced that we could forestall its development, but because a number of circumstances compelled us to start it. We thought: either the international revolution comes to our assistance, and in that case our victory will be fully assured, or we shall do our modest revolutionary work in the conviction that even in the event of defeat we shall have served the cause of the revolution and that our experience will benefit other revolutions. It was clear to us that without the support of the international world revolution the victory of the proletarian revolution was impossible. Before the revolution, and even after it, we thought: either revolution breaks out in the other countries, in the capitalistically more developed countries, immediately, or at least very quickly, or we must perish. In spite of this conviction, we did all we possibly could to preserve the Soviet system under all circumstances, come what may, because we knew that we were not only working for ourselves, but also for the international revolution. We knew this, we repeatedly expressed this conviction before the October Revolution, immediately after it, and at the time we signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. And, generally speaking, this was correct.
Actually, however, events did not proceed along as straight a line as we had expected. In the other big, capitalistically more developed countries the revolution has not broken out to this day. True, we can say with satisfaction that the revolution is developing all over the world, and it is only thanks to this that the international bourgeoisie is unable to strangle us, inspite of the fact that, militarily and economically, it is a hundred times stronger than we are. (Applause.)

Stalin had to revise his book twice in 1924 to reflect his sudden departure from Marxist internationalism on this subject.So you should conclude that also Lenin "departured" from Marxist "internationalism" after reading the above quote? :cool:

Stalin first gave up on world socialist revolution in 1924 and later came to actively oppose it.Prove your point.

He did try to help the Chinese revolution in 1925-7, but he screwed it up, advising communists to join the KMT. The KMT later massacred workers and communists. They were a capitalist party. Later, Mao fought the KMT but Stalin still backed the KMT.Dogmatism.

If it weren't for the alliance between the CCP and the KMT, there would be no success for the CCP. It's true later the KMT massacred workers, peasants and communist militants; the KMT betrayed the joint agreement in the war for national liberation, the conjoined war against the Japanese. If the CCP was, in its majority, leftist (in the sense of dogmatic communist), they couldn't defeat the Kuomintang and, thus, lead the Chinese Revolution.

However neither Mao nor Stalin wanted China to attempt socialism, Mao talked of several decades of capitalism.Prove your point.

Rodrigo

10th February 2012, 15:39

There's no Stalinism. There's only Marxism-Leninism and Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist who offered a few theoretical contribution as well, but didn't try to complement Marxism-Leninism with some complex theory or "theoretical system".

Some people who invented this Stalinism thing: Nikita Khruschev, Karl Radek, Trotsky. Khruschev used to cult Stalin seeking notoriety within the Party, but Stalin didn't use to approve this kind of act. You could read a more deep explanation here: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Rodrigo

10th February 2012, 15:42

About the position of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky on the Chinese Revolution: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/stalin-and-the-chinese-revolution/

thriller

10th February 2012, 16:16

I don't wish to offend anyone but what do you see in Stalinist:blink theory. I cant understand why anyone would support socialism in one state either. please explain:blink:

Not sure, same thing could be argued for Leninism and permanent revolution. I mean Lenin was revising everything at the same time he was writing it, hell a revolution was going on. It's not like Lenin was born with knowing everything, he had to make it up as he went along, same with Stalin.

Rodrigo

10th February 2012, 16:28

The establishment of Cominform is an example of proletarian (and not "Marxist") internationalism and its creation is directly linked to Stalin. What's more, there was the aid to another revolutions throughout the world, and other socialist countries, except those who chose not being linked to the Warsaw Pact.

Rooster

10th February 2012, 16:50

Rodrigo

10th February 2012, 17:30

I'm pretty sure the point of this is thread is to ask whether the doctrine Stalin followed, be it a continuation of Lenin or not (and that's debatable), or whether it's a continuation of Marxist theory (which shouldn't be debatable) is besides the point. The thread is about, from what I gather, is why people still uphold the ideas of said doctrine when history has shown that they catastrophically failed. Evidence? Where is the USSR now? Why aren't we living in a socialist society now? I know that the common Stalinist answer is revisionism (cue Ismail, or some other Stalinist who has copied and pasted their answers from someone else).

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

"This book is an analysis of the economic system which was developed in the USSR after the "economic reforms" of 1965-66 - an analysis made on the basis of a mass of evidence taken almost exclusively from official Soviet economic journals.
Taking into account the virtual abolition of centralised economic planning, the introduction of profit as the regulator of production, the vesting of effective ownership and "hiring and firing" rights in industrial management, and the inequitable distribution of enterprise profit between managerial and shop floor personnel, the author reached the conclusion - as the title indicates - that by the 1970s the soviet economy had become essentially a restored capitalist system masquerading under red flags which are no longer appropriate."

Good reading. ;)

Rodrigo

10th February 2012, 17:48

The accusation:

In fact, neither in 1949 nor in 1956, when Mao Tsetung advocated these things, did the proletariat in China have political power or big industry in its own hands. Moreover, Lenin considered the NEP as a temporary measure which was imposed by the concrete conditions of Russia of that time, devastated by the long civil war, and not as a universal law of socialist construction. And the fact is that one year after the proclamation of the NEP Lenin stressed that the retreat was over, and launched the slogan to prepare for the offensive against private capital in the economy. Whereas in China, the period of the preservation of capitalist production was envisaged to last almost eternally. According to Mao Tsetung’s view, the order established after liberation in China had to be a bourgeois-democratic order, while the Communist Party of China had to appear to be in power. Such is “Mao Tsetung thought.”

The deadly rebuttal:

The typical Hoxhaite mishmash of distortions and lies! First of all, political power, as well as transport and the key sections of big industry, were in the hands of the proletariat immediately following liberation in 1949. The proletariat and the Communist Party played the leading role in the state. As for transport and big industry in particular not being in the hands of the proletariat, apparently Hoxha believes that if he fantasizes something and puts it down on paper, people will accept it uncritically. This may be true of the sorry “international” he is trying to form around himself, but it will never be accepted by genuine Marxist-Leninists.
It is most amusing that Hoxha chose to emphasize the words “temporary measure imposed by the concrete conditions in Russia.” The concrete conditions in China were much less favorable for the immediate expropriation of the entire bourgeoisie. As we have pointed out, China was far more backward than Russia, it had been wrecked by not a few years of civil war, but by three decades of war, and had been ravaged and held in strangulation and stagnation by imperialism and feudalism. These were the concrete conditions that led Mao to adopt the policies that he did.
As for Hoxha’s brilliant observation that Lenin did not see the NEP as a “universal law of socialist construction” (as if Mao did) and his assertion that ”the preservation of capitalist production was envisaged by Mao to last almost eternally,” all we can do is remind him of the words Lenin directed against an equally brilliant polemicist (namely Kautsky), that attributing to an opponent an obviously stupid position and then refuting it is a method used by none too clever people–and none too Marxist, either, it might be added.
(...)
The theory of the new-democratic stage of the revolution in China will be dealt with more fully below, but already we can see that even at the earliest stage of the People’s Republic of China, when the emphasis was and had to be on consolidating the victory over the imperialists, landlords, and the big Chinese capitalists tied directly to the former, Mao was already taking the necessary steps to ensure that China’s future would be socialist and not capitalist. He did this by taking specific socialist measures to ensure that the leading factor of the economy would be the state-owned socialist sector and, more importantly, Mao waged a fierce struggle in the Party to make clear what the direction of the Chinese revolution had to be and to prepare the masses for the struggle to come.
As early as 1952 Mao began to sharply criticize the theory of the “synthesized economic base”–a line promoted by Liu Shao-chi which argued that China’s economy would be an harmonious amalgam of socialist industry, private industry, and a peasant economy. While Mao did, correctly, point out that all of the elements of capitalism in town and country could not be done away with at once, and some features would last a relatively long time, he made very clear that the transition to the socialist society had begun and that to try to “consolidate” the new-democratic order meant to plunge China onto the capitalist road. Theoretically this took expression in Mao’s statement of June 1952 that:
With the overthrow of the landlord class and the bureaucrat-capitalist class, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie has become the principal contradiction in China; therefore the national bourgeoisie should no longer be defined as an intermediate class.[Mao Tsetung, in The contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is the principal contradiction in China, 1952]

Zulu

10th February 2012, 17:52

why people still uphold the ideas of said doctrine when history has shown that they catastrophically failed. Evidence? Where is the USSR now? Why aren't we living in a socialist society now?

On the contrary, the history has shown that Stalin's course was very successful in transforming the Soviet society from agrarian to modern industrialized and urbanized in quite a short historical period, granting relatively high standards of living to the vast majority of its members. The shortcomings of it should be soberly assessed and eliminated in any future attempts at building socialism. A truly Marxist answer, however, would even allow for the opinion that nothing at all was wrong with Stalin's course per se to exist, because it were the material conditions, that weren't ripe for socialism when the Bolsheviks took power (but nobody could tell that for sure at the time).

The same answer may be given to any liberal or fascist claiming that the "communism doesn't work" in general. It most certainly does, it only needs to be fixed and adjusted to account for the current material conditions, which have been getting only more and more favorable over time.

Also, what Comrade Rodrigo said.

daft punk

10th February 2012, 19:00

What part of "To achieve the final victory of socialism in our country we have to ensure that the bulk of the capitalist countries becomes socialist too" do you not understand?

Ok, lets start from scratch.

Stalin, Feb 1924

""...can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible... For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.""

Note the wording

a few months later....

""If we knew in advance that we are not equal to the task [of building socialism in Russia by itself], then why the devil did we have to make the October revolution? If we have managed for eight years, why should we not manage in the ninth, tenth or fortieth year?" "

at some point later he says

"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved. "

In another quote he says final ie free from bourgeois restoration or attack, so the ie means his definition of final is free from attack or restoration.

read the above over a few times.

I couldnt link to marxists.or as it seems to be down

Ocean Seal

10th February 2012, 19:04

I don't wish to offend anyone but what do you see in Stalinist:blink theory. I cant understand why anyone would support socialism in one state either. please explain:blink:
No one supports socialism in one state. Stalin merely thought that the whole world wasn't ready for socialist development and that adventurism would sink the Soviet Union down before world socialism could be achieved.

I'm pretty sure the point of this is thread is to ask whether the doctrine Stalin followed, be it a continuation of Lenin or not (and that's debatable), or whether it's a continuation of Marxist theory (which shouldn't be debatable) is besides the point.

Ironic how we are still debating it.

The thread is about, from what I gather, is why people still uphold the ideas of said doctrine when history has shown that they catastrophically failed. Evidence? Where is the USSR now? Why aren't we living in a socialist society now?
I agree, but the fact that it failed doesn't mean that it was completely wrong and that we should start from scratch. It means we need to identify components that need to be strengthened.

I know that the common Stalinist answer is revisionism (cue Ismail, or some other Stalinist who has copied and pasted their answers from someone else).
I agree that this is a stupid answer which doesn't clear up much as to why the SU failed. But you are being a hypocrite because its virtually indistinguishable from the Trotskyist answer as to why Leninism failed. Because some guy named Stalin came up and started eating babies and revised Leninist doctrine. Its pretty much what the Hoxhaists say about Khrushchev.

daft punk

10th February 2012, 19:43

Rodrigo your post kept crashing my computer so I converted it to text and am doing a new reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daft punk
"Yes he did say socialism could be built in one country."
Don't paint reality to fit your prejudice, please. There's not a socialism in "one" country theory, literally. What we call socialism in "one" country is, for example, the following... The origin of socialism in "one" country is in LENIN. He said that history already in the 20's proved the falseness of the Permanent Revolution theory.Lenin at the Third Congress of the 3rd International, 1921:

When we started the international revolution, we did so not because we were convinced that we could forestall its development, but because a number of circumstances compelled us to start it. We thought: either the international revolution comes to our assistance, and in that case our victory will be fully assured, or we shall do our modest revolutionary work in the conviction that even in the event of defeat we shall have served the cause of the revolution and that our experience will benefit other revolutions. It was clear to us that without the support of the international world revolution the victory of the proletarian revolution was impossible. Before the revolution, and even after it, we thought: either revolution breaks out in the other countries, in the capitalistically more developed countries, immediately, or at least very quickly, or we must perish. In spite of this conviction, we did all we possibly could to preserve the Soviet system under all circumstances, come what may, because we knew that we were not only working for ourselves, but also for the international revolution. We knew this, we repeatedly expressed this conviction before the October Revolution, immediately after it, and at the time we signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. And, generally speaking, this was correct.
Actually, however, events did not proceed along as straight a line as we had expected. In the other big, capitalistically more developed countries the revolution has not broken out to this day. True, we can say with satisfaction that the revolution is developing all over the world, and it is only thanks to this that the international bourgeoisie is unable to strangle us, inspite of the fact that, militarily and economically, it is a hundred times stronger than we are. (Applause.)
In what way do you see the above as being different to what Trotsky said, or in line with socialism in one country?

"Stalin had to revise his book twice in 1924 to reflect his sudden departure from Marxist internationalism on this subject."
So you should conclude that also Lenin "departured" from Marxist "internationalism" after reading the above quote? No, I repeat, explain you reasoning.

"Stalin first gave up on world socialist revolution in 1924 and later came to actively oppose it."
Prove your point.I have done in various threads on here. First you need to read carefully my other post on the socialism in one country thing. It is very clear that Stalin revised his view. Next, if you want, skip forward to the purges and think about that. At the same time look at Spain in 1936-7, France, China etc. Then maybe go to 1945 and see what Stalin was saying and doing.

Here is a bit of stuff to look at

http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-1.htm
http://www.socialismtoday.org/132/china60.html
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201

"He did try to help the Chinese revolution in 1925-7, but he screwed it up, advising communists to join the KMT. The KMT later massacred workers and communists. They were a capitalist party. Later, Mao fought the KMT but Stalin still backed the KMT."
Dogmatism.

If it weren't for the alliance between the CCP and the KMT, there would be no success for the CCP. It's true later the KMT massacred workers, peasants and communist militants; the KMT betrayed the joint agreement in the war for national liberation, the conjoined war against the Japanese. If the CCP was, in its majority, leftist (in the sense of dogmatic communist), they couldn't defeat the Kuomintang and, thus, lead the Chinese Revolution.I cant really understand what you are saying. It is not dogmatism it is fact. Stalin backed the KMT from 1925-1948. Yes the KMT massacred communists, many times. In WW2 the KMT were not a vital element, half the time they spent fighting the CCP and some of them defected to the Japanese! Read the article I just gave you a link on for details.

And why did Stalin support the KMT from 1945 to 1948 when Mao was fighting them and the Japanese were defeated?

"However neither Mao nor Stalin wanted China to attempt socialism, Mao talked of several decades of capitalism."
Prove your point.

google "on coalition government"

marxists seems to be down

the word search it for "too little capitalism"

and "several decades"

and you will have Mao saying he wants several decades of capitalism, in 1945.

Rooster

10th February 2012, 19:54

On the contrary

Where is the USSR now?

, the history has shown that Stalin's course was very successful in transforming the Soviet society from agrarian to modern industrialized and urbanized in quite a short historical period,

Oh, so you're a Trotskyist now?

granting relatively high standards of living to the vast majority of its members.

Keyword here is relatively. Quantify it for me please. Please reference when the quality of life dramatically dropped during collectivisation and never substantially recovered until Kurschev.

The shortcomings of it should be soberly assessed and eliminated in any future attempts at building socialism.

Such as the fact that none of it worked? Is the USSR still here?

A truly Marxist answer, however, would even allow for the opinion that nothing at all was wrong with Stalin's course per se to exist, because it were the material conditions, that weren't ripe for socialism when the Bolsheviks took power (but nobody could tell that for sure at the time).

So, revisionism doesn't mean anything to you either then if you're going to talk about material conditions? So how did the USSR fall then? Was it because it wasn't ripe for revolution or because of revisionism?

The same answer may be given to any liberal or fascist claiming that the "communism doesn't work" in general. It most certainly does, it only needs to be fixed and adjusted to account for the current material conditions, which have been getting only more and more favorable over time.

Oh, what is this thing you call communism? I have never heard of it before! It only needs fixed and adjusted? :O According to what? What needs to be fixed and who by? To account for current material conditions?! I have realised that you don't know what you're talking about. Pretty much like every other Stalinist.

Also, what Comrade Rodrigo said.

Comrade Rodrigo is an admitted market socialist. He just posted quotes from other people because he can't come up with an answer himself. Trust me, I've pressed him several times on different topics but his answers never make any coherent sense. Also, revisionism or material conditions? Which is it?

Rooster

10th February 2012, 19:59

Ironic how we are still debating it.

I'll stop when they stop.

I agree, but the fact that it failed doesn't mean that it was completely wrong and that we should start from scratch. It means we need to identify components that need to be strengthened.

I totally disagree on the way this is being viewed. That it's up to a party to decide how things go forward. I'm also wondering what 1920s Russia has to do with 2012 anywhere. I think this stems from a fundamentally shallow reading of Marx. Revolutions aren't made. Socialism isn't constructed. Classes don't just resolve themselves into nothingness.

I agree that this is a stupid answer which doesn't clear up much as to why the SU failed. But you are being a hypocrite because its virtually indistinguishable from the Trotskyist answer as to why Leninism failed. Because some guy named Stalin came up and started eating babies and revised Leninist doctrine. Its pretty much what the Hoxhaists say about Khrushchev.

I don't seem to recall providing an answer. But thanks for agreeing with me on every single point.

Atsushi

10th February 2012, 20:02

I don't wish to offend anyone but what do you see in Stalinist:blink theory. I cant understand why anyone would support socialism in one state either. please explain:blink:

The world revolution was crushed, therefore the Soviet-Union didn't have much choice. Besides, stalinism doesn't exist: it is Marxism-Leninism.

Omsk

10th February 2012, 20:48

Oh, so you're a Trotskyist now?

Hello comrade rooster.

Just because Trotsky and the Left Opposition [And the Right Opposition led by the deviationist Bukharin] failed so much in their pathetic attempts to take over the USSR,gain some popular support,actually try to combat Stalin in a way that it does not become laughable,gain mass workers support in other countries,combat fascists,support the Soviet war effort,does not give you the right to steal the accomplishments,in such a malicious way.

Rooster

10th February 2012, 20:56

Hello comrade rooster.

Hi.

Just because Trotsky and the Left Opposition [And the Right Opposition led by the deviationist Bukharin] failed so much in their pathetic attempts to take over the USSR,gain some popular support,actually try to combat Stalin in a way that it does not become laughable,gain mass workers support in other countries,combat fascists,support the Soviet war effort,does not give you the right to steal the accomplishments,in such a malicious way.

You are got to be fucking joking. Who do you think came up with the idea of industrialisation (and who do you think was at the time calling it a pipe dream)? Support the soviet war effort? Actually, I'm not sure what the fuck you wrote. Could up possibly re-write it to make at least some sense?

Omsk

10th February 2012, 21:03

A user made this post:

, the history has shown that Stalin's course was very successful in transforming the Soviet society from agrarian to modern industrialized and urbanized in quite a short historical

Oh, so you're a Trotskyist now?

This was your original response.

And i guess,because of your frustration [Because of the complete and total failure of Trotskyism on all grounds,everywhere,and the pathetic actions of its leaders and supporters],you have the urge to connect Marxist-Leninist achievements with some small groups of subversives and people with ulterior motives.

Rooster

10th February 2012, 21:06

A user made this post:

This was your original response.

And i guess,because of your frustration [Because of the complete and total failure of Trotskyism on all grounds,everywhere,and the pathetic actions of its leaders and supporters],you have the urge to connect Marxist-Leninist achievements with some small groups of subversives and people with ulterior motives.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Answer my questions. Who do you think came up with the idea of industrialisation of Russia (also the idea of having a Socialist revolution) and who do you think said that going on a series of five year plans to industrialise was just a utopian dream? Also, could you re-write your previous post so it's not an incomprehensible pile of commas?

Omsk

10th February 2012, 21:26

What the fuck is wrong with you?

No need to be aggresive and insulting.

Answer my questions

Why should i?You remained silent in the thread "reading order" (Or whatever it is called)

Who do you think came up with the idea of industrialisation of Russia (also the idea of having a Socialist revolution) and who do you think said that going on a series of five year plans to industrialise was just a utopian dream?

The Soviet leadership guided the process,and was responsible for the entire thing.

On the other hand,you had Bukharinites,Trotskyists and others who called it "too fast,too aggresive".

If their plans were followed,the SU would have faced Nazi Germany with a bunch of recruits in old type tanks,while the countryside would remain,for the better part,empty.Factories and industry?Maybe a bit.

Zulu

11th February 2012, 02:49

Was it because it wasn't ripe for revolution or because of revisionism?

Both. The planned economy required to expand bureaucracy. These days with all the computers and networks around, planning, control, logistics and so on will not require such a significant expansion of bureacracy.

However, if it wasn't for the revisionism, the Sino-Soviet split and throwing in the towel before the imperialism, it would have been possible to keep the USSR afloat until know, and with modernized economic planning it would have gained a second breath. By the way some projects to make the planning more efficient with the use of computing centers were devised in the 1960s (their main proponent being a guy named Glushkov), but they went down the bin, thanks to Kosygin, who built what is now called the "Pipe" economy in Russia (from the oil and gas pipelines).

4th supporter

11th February 2012, 02:54

I apologize for starting this thread as i no the stalin trotsky subject usually just pisses people off lol

Zulu

11th February 2012, 05:24

In another quote he says final ie free from bourgeois restoration or attack, so the ie means his definition of final is free from attack or restoration.

So, Stalin, like the rest of the Bolsheviks, did hope for the revolution in Germany to follow soon in the wake of the Russian revolution, and that the German proletariat would help the Russian proletariat in build socialism. However, once he realized (after Lenin had realized), that the help of the proletariat of the advanced industrial countries would not be available, he was like "OK, we'll try on our own." His and Lenin's theoretical views did evolve, accounting for the practice, which, in their Marxist opinion was the criterion of truth.

But again I must ask you, what do you not understand about the dangers of foreign intervention and restoration of capitalism, and the implications of these dangers? Both dangers were real, as the history has since demonstrated. So the socialism in the USSR had to account for those dangers, and, under Stalin, it did. That is also the main reason why the "basic socialism" in the USSR cannot be regarded as representative of the Marxist-Leninist or Stalin's personal vision of what the advanced socialism, let alone communism, would look like once those dangers were gone.

Moreover, the implication that the USSR must promote the world revolution is poorly veiled here, as only the wording "world revolution" is omitted, with the essence "solve the problem, achieve final victory" is quite explicit.

That clearly shows that the "socialism in one country" was not some Stalin's un-Marxist fixation, but a mere practical acknowledgement of the fact that the socialist parties in the West have failed to mobilize the proletariat there to seize power, and it's up to the Soviet Union to keep the Red Banner flying high and support the world revolution in deeds, rather than in talks.

Prometeo liberado

11th February 2012, 05:30

I haven't been here long, but I think I know how this thread is going to go.

Young you are learning my little padawon.
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/30/007_yoda_a.jpg (http://en.thinkexist.com/shop/posters/authors.asp?idauthor=4414&idposter=135899)
http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/3star.gif http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsUp.gif http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/ThumbsDwn.gif

daft punk

11th February 2012, 14:31

So, Stalin, like the rest of the Bolsheviks, did hope for the revolution in Germany to follow soon in the wake of the Russian revolution, and that the German proletariat would help the Russian proletariat in build socialism. However, once he realized (after Lenin had realized), that the help of the proletariat of the advanced industrial countries would not be available, he was like "OK, we'll try on our own." His and Lenin's theoretical views did evolve, accounting for the practice, which, in their Marxist opinion was the criterion of truth.

But again I must ask you, what do you not understand about the dangers of foreign intervention and restoration of capitalism, and the implications of these dangers? Both dangers were real, as the history has since demonstrated. So the socialism in the USSR had to account for those dangers, and, under Stalin, it did. That is also the main reason why the "basic socialism" in the USSR cannot be regarded as representative of the Marxist-Leninist or Stalin's personal vision of what the advanced socialism, let alone communism, would look like once those dangers were gone.

Moreover, the implication that the USSR must promote the world revolution is poorly veiled here, as only the wording "world revolution" is omitted, with the essence "solve the problem, achieve final victory" is quite explicit.

That clearly shows that the "socialism in one country" was not some Stalin's un-Marxist fixation, but a mere practical acknowledgement of the fact that the socialist parties in the West have failed to mobilize the proletariat there to seize power, and it's up to the Soviet Union to keep the Red Banner flying high and support the world revolution in deeds, rather than in talks.

In April 1924 Stalin said that a socialist economy could not be built in a backward country like Russia on it's own. This is basic standard Marxism.

"Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm

he defines final victory as the organisation of socialist production.

he revised this later that year and in future years to the point where he said the only thing missing was freedom form the possibility of attack from capitalist countries, and that socialist construction had been accomplished.

"
Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?
Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.
It follows that this question contains two different problems :
1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.
We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

Zulu

11th February 2012, 17:14

In April 1924 Stalin said that a socialist economy could not be built in a backward country like Russia on it's own. This is basic standard Marxism.
Yeah, but Marxism-Leninism is not "basic standard Marxism". That "Leninism" part is there for a reason. First of all, the whole "one country" business originated from this place:

- "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."
Lenin, "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe", 1915.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

And then there is this:

"If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we begin by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

Napoleon, I think, wrote: "On s'engage et puis ... on voit." rendered freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious."
Lenin, "Our Revolution", 1923
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

So the "socialism in one country" (as it goes in full "first in one country, then in all the others") is not Stalin's idea at all. It's Lenin's idea. Stalin was just implementing it, making it happen.

And I really don't see how those two Stalin's quotes you keep shoving at me are contradictory. In both cases he talks about the impossibility of the final victory in one country. If you you're trying to suggest that he reversed his view on the "organization of socialist production", that he first thought it was impossible, and then thought it was possible, then you're wrong. In the latter quotes he never forgot to specify that the socialist construction had been successful "in the main". Again, not final! Because the possibility of the capitalist restoration remained, it required that the production be distorted (basically the "guns vs. butter" thing, but not only it). This definitely was the consideration, or one of the considerations that had prompted his earlier quotes. After all, he had quite the first-hand experience of dealing with the foreign capitalist intervention during the Civil War.

And if you still wish to insist that he firmly believed in the impossibility of not only "final", but of any socialist construction in Russia at the time, that would only mean that he was not sufficiently Leninist early on, but after he reversed himself (as you imply), he brought himself in line with Leninism, not deviated from it.

daft punk

11th February 2012, 19:46

Yeah, but Marxism-Leninism is not "basic standard Marxism". That "Leninism" part is there for a reason. First of all, the whole "one country" business originated from this place:

- "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."
Lenin, "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe", 1915.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

This was when Lenin was a stagist, so he believed the first revolutions would be in advanced countries, not in Russia. At the time, only Trotsky believed it could start in Russia. And the phrase 'victory of socialism' to me implies socialists coming to power and starting the job of building socialism. He is just saying it isn't gonna happen everywhere at the same time, not that Trotsky believed that anyway.

And then there is this:

"If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we begin by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

Napoleon, I think, wrote: "On s'engage et puis ... on voit." rendered freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious."
Lenin, "Our Revolution", 1923
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

well this is about as close as you are gonna get to Lenin ever considering socialism in once country. He is clutching at straws a bit. I think he is seeing the revolution starting to go tits-up, and he is desperately telling everyone not to give up. Of course if he had survived and got Stalin kicked out as he wished, Lenin and Trotsky just might possibly have pulled it off, but the odds were against it. Needless to say, with Stalin at the helm the counter-revolution had no opposition at the top.

So the "socialism in one country" (as it goes in full "first in one country, then in all the others") is not Stalin's idea at all. It's Lenin's idea. Stalin was just implementing it, making it happen.
No, for two reasons.
1. After that, Stalin said

"“Can we succeed and secure the definitive victory of Socialism in one country without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? Most certainly not. The efforts of a single country are enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie: this is what the history of our revolution proves. But for the definite triumph of Socialism, the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country alone are not enough, particularly of an essentially rural country like Russia; the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are needed. So the victorious revolution in one country has for its essential task to develop and support the revolution in others. So it ought not to be considered as of independent value, but as an auxiliary, a means of hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.” (Stalin, Theory and Practice of Leninism, issued by the C.P.G.B., 1925). "

That was the 1924 edition, he changed to Socialism in One Country later that year.

2. Stalin did not build socialism. Not in one country, not anywhere.

And I really don't see how those two Stalin's quotes you keep shoving at me are contradictory. In both cases he talks about the impossibility of the final victory in one country. If you you're trying to suggest that he reversed his view on the "organization of socialist production", that he first thought it was impossible, and then thought it was possible, then you're wrong. In the latter quotes he never forgot to specify that the socialist construction had been successful "in the main". Again, not final! Because the possibility of the capitalist restoration remained, it required that the production be distorted (basically the "guns vs. butter" thing, but not only it). This definitely was the consideration, or one of the considerations that had prompted his earlier quotes. After all, he had quite the first-hand experience of dealing with the foreign capitalist intervention during the Civil War.

And if you still wish to insist that he firmly believed in the impossibility of not only "final", but of any socialist construction in Russia at the time, that would only mean that he was not sufficiently Leninist early on, but after he reversed himself (as you imply), he brought himself in line with Leninism, not deviated from it.

ok I give up, if you cant follow this I cant help you. Just concentrate on the fact that Stalin abandoned being a socialist, killed all the socialists, and tried to stop socialism from happening anywhere in the world.

KrasnayaRossiya

11th February 2012, 19:50

stalin was great,but he was more like a tzar,like ivan grozny or peter velikiy.
there was real "rusianess" in his rule,dont know how to say...

Omsk

11th February 2012, 20:23

I hope the other KPRF members dont share your opinion on that,comrade.

KrasnayaRossiya

11th February 2012, 20:26

many do unfortunately,as you know antisemitism is buring strong,amonth other things because like 90% of oligarchs are jewish

Omsk

11th February 2012, 20:28

many do unfortunately,as you know antisemitism is buring strong,amonth other things because like 90% of oligarchs are jewish

What?I didnt comment on that,but on these lines:

stalin was great,but he was more like a tzar,like ivan grozny or peter velikiy.
there was real "rusianess" in his rule,dont know how to say...

Stalin was by no means a "Tzar".
He was velikiy though.

KrasnayaRossiya

11th February 2012, 20:30

oh sorry,i confused the topics with the other one
yes,stalin was a "velikiy chelovek", ;)
althogh i think he was maybe too cruel

Zulu

12th February 2012, 01:55

Stalin abandoned being a socialist, killed all the socialists, and tried to stop socialism from happening anywhere in the world.

Socialism "in the main" is:

1. Public property on the means of production.
2. Central planning of the economy.
3. De-commercialization or even fully free access to the basic services for the general population, such as health care and education (although true socialists don't regard them as "services" at all, but rather the conditions of production or even means of production)
4. Proletarian internationalism.
5. Dictatorship of the proletariat, executed through the vanguard party for the entire period of the transition to full socialism (aka communism).
6. Measures aimed at forming the "new man", cultural revolution.

All these features were present in the Soviet Union during the Stalin period. Any deviations and excesses of specific campaigns that might have taken place were regrettable and must be studied and addressed in a sober and reasonable manner.

And whenever Stalin might have tried to delay socialist revolutions, that was done out of the best of intentions. Lenin's "let's engage first and then look what we got" maxim was not to be discarded, yet it didn't mean "let's go in naked and without guns". Spain showed that without enough cohesion the communists would not be able to prevent even their own allies such as anarchists from botching the revolution. China showed that when the Soviet support was timely, communists could take and hold on to power relatively easy, and that Lenin had been right in his later years, when he predicted the East would become more revolutionary than the West.

GoddessCleoLover

12th February 2012, 02:03

Zulu

12th February 2012, 03:21

With respect to Number Five, by the mid-1920s the party no longer was merely executing the will of the working class, rather a small number of party leaders had extinguished democracy within the party as well as prevented the Soviets from exercising any real power.

The party is not supposed to execute the will of the working class, it's supposed to BE the will of the working class. Understanding the objective interests of the working class through social science, and elevating the workers to the level of the party through education. That's the "Leninism" part for you.

Lucretia

12th February 2012, 04:06

First of all, Stalin himself condemned the term "Stalinism" when it was brought up once in his presence. So the only "Stalinists" out there are those that hold on to an imaginary Stalin, who is pretty much the same character the Trotskyists so much love to hate. And those who advocate the actual Stalin's course are called the Marxist-Leninists, something Stalin used to call himself.

Secondly, we do not "dig up" that quote, it's pretty much in every Stalin's work on the subject, next to the "one country" phrases, including the Short Course. So the real bad guys here are again the Trotskyists, who permanently take the "one country" quotes out of context to slander Stalin.

Oh, I see. So "Stalinism" is not a useful analytical construct because Stalin did not call himself a Stalinist. Well, thanks for letting me know that the best way to do critical intellectual inquiry is to buy wholeheartedly into the self-interpretation of the people whose works you study. I guess Jesus really was the son of god.

Lucretia

12th February 2012, 04:12

The party is not supposed to execute the will of the working class, it's supposed to BE the will of the working class. Understanding the objective interests of the working class through social science, and elevating the workers to the level of the party through education. That's the "Leninism" part for you.

Show me a single quote from Lenin where he characterizes the vanguard party as representing only the "interests" of the workers, and not their will. As if the party can create socialism by dictating to unwilling and recalcitrant workers their supposed "interests."

Zulu

12th February 2012, 05:54

Oh, I see. So "Stalinism" is not a useful analytical construct because Stalin did not call himself a Stalinist. Well, thanks for letting me know that the best way to do critical intellectual inquiry is to buy wholeheartedly into the self-interpretation of the people whose works you study. I guess Jesus really was the son of god.
We don't really know what Jesus said of himself. We only know what was made canon about him at the Council of Nicaea some three hundred years after he had died. In the meantime, nobody cared to keep accurate notes of what Jesus really had said and done. Instead, everybody was busy making stuff up. And "useful analytical constructs".

Show me a single quote from Lenin where he characterizes the vanguard party as representing only the "interests" of the workers, and not their will. As if the party can create socialism by dictating to unwilling and recalcitrant workers their supposed "interests."
Actually, I've just said that the party does represent the will of the workers as a class, by determining their collective interests through social science and securing them through political practice. Although that does not have anything to do with "representation" as in "sit in a bourgeois parliament and vote for populist legislation".

Under capitalist conditions, the interests of every individual worker are that of working less and being paid more, and that's it. Or to win a lottery and become a bourgeois, to never take the hammer in his hands ever again. That is the subjective interest of a random worker. However, the objective interests of the same worker, him being a part of the working class (which is at this historical stage the progressive part of the human race, according to Marxism) are quite different. Anyway, you wanted a quote? This one is good:

"The immediate objective of the class-conscious vanguard of the international working-class movement, i.e., the Communist parties, groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to lead, not only their own party but also these masses in their advance and transition to the new position. While the first historical objective (that of winning over the class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class) could not have been reached without a complete ideological and political victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, the second and immediate objective, which consists in being able to lead the masses to a new position ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, cannot be reached without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, and without a full elimination of its errors."
Lenin, "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder", 1920.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch10.htm

.

Lucretia

12th February 2012, 07:59

Comrade Hill

12th February 2012, 08:58

I honestly cannot believe people are still throwing around words like "stalinism" and arguing from Trotskyist and "Left" Communist points of views against Stalin.

As leftists, it is best that you all not fall for anti-Communist fairy tales about Stalin, with telephone sized death tolls made up by a bunch of bourgeois freakazoids such as Robert Conquest, even American Historians like J.Arch Getty know these statistics about "50 million people being killed single handedly" and "600 million people dying altogether" is nonsense. The American Historical Review shows how many people ACTUALLY died, and why they died. Look it up online and we can move on from the anti-communist fairy tales.

As for the left-com and anarchist fairy tales, about the working class not having any say or power in the economy, that is also false.

"But if you take the progressive peasants and workers, not more than 15 percent are skeptical of the Soviet power, or are silent from fear or are waiting for the moment when they can undermine the Bolsheviks state. On the other hand, about 85 percent of the more or less active people would urge us further than we want to go. We often have to put on the brakes. They would like to stamp out the last remnants of the intelligentsia. But we would not permit that. In the whole history of the world there never was a power that was supported by nine tenths of the population as the Soviet power is supported.
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 175

These characteristics of a Bolshevik party are far from being fully understood by supporters of the Soviet Union today. The Communist Party is continually being described as a small disciplined elite, ordering the people of the Soviet Union hither and thither for their own good. In short, the Soviet regime is pictured as the dictatorship of a Party.
This is a travesty which is unfortunately accepted by friends, as well as by enemies. In the remarks we have quoted above, Lenin is explaining to the Socialists of Western Europe that the Communist Party could only function on the basis of the confidence of the workers; that this confidence was not created by propaganda, but by people testing from their own experience the quality of the political leadership of the Party; that before any policy could be carried out, the Communist Party had to secure the co-operation of millions of people who were not Party members, who were not under Party discipline, who could not be coerced into co-operation, but who could only be convinced on the basis of their experience; and that further, if in the progress of the struggle a change of direction was necessary, not only the Party, but tens of millions of non-party people had to be convinced of the need for this change of direction and had to understand the methods of carrying it through.
In carrying out its activities, the Party rests on the trade unions and on the Soviets. Without the support of the 20 million trade unionists, without the support of the peasantry, organized in the Soviets and in the collective farms, the Party could not last for a week, for it is not the dictatorship of the Party, but a dictatorship of the working-class, in alliance with the peasantry.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 15-16

It is obvious that in order to get anything done in the Soviet Union, party members and the planning authorities had to have mass support. Albeit there were some sacrifices and excesses, this had nothing to do with Stalin as he himself wanted to establish a new constitution that promoted direct democracy through secret ballots, and Stalin himself called out these excesses by the secret police and the NKVD.

Many American labors recall how much "freedom" they had to move around in the USSR.

April 8, 1932--It is your correspondent's opinion--which recent edicts from the Kremlin would indicate is fully shared by Soviet leaders and which certainly is shared by American engineers who have worked in Russia--that one of the principal reasons for the present difficulties, as an American expressed it, is that "labor here is too darn free and too darn talkative." If other proof were needed, the terrific amount of "floating labor" noticeable here is sufficient. People hear there are better wages, food, or housing at such and such a mine or factory or construction camp, and they chuck their jobs and get there somehow.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 366

daft punk

12th February 2012, 11:19

Socialism "in the main" is:

1. Public property on the means of production.
2. Central planning of the economy.
3. De-commercialization or even fully free access to the basic services for the general population, such as health care and education (although true socialists don't regard them as "services" at all, but rather the conditions of production or even means of production)
4. Proletarian internationalism.
5. Dictatorship of the proletariat, executed through the vanguard party for the entire period of the transition to full socialism (aka communism).
6. Measures aimed at forming the "new man", cultural revolution.

All these features were present in the Soviet Union during the Stalin period. Any deviations and excesses of specific campaigns that might have taken place were regrettable and must be studied and addressed in a sober and reasonable manner.

And whenever Stalin might have tried to delay socialist revolutions, that was done out of the best of intentions. Lenin's "let's engage first and then look what we got" maxim was not to be discarded, yet it didn't mean "let's go in naked and without guns". Spain showed that without enough cohesion the communists would not be able to prevent even their own allies such as anarchists from botching the revolution. China showed that when the Soviet support was timely, communists could take and hold on to power relatively easy, and that Lenin had been right in his later years, when he predicted the East would become more revolutionary than the West.

Sorry but pretty much everything here is wrong. Yes socialism involves the means of production becoming publicly owned. But central planning is not socialism, especially if a privileged bureaucratic elite rules. Obviously you would need some central planning, but socialism is about involving everyone in planning, and the end goal, communism, has no full time professional planners, because the division of labour no longer exists like that, the idea is that everyone is part time worker, part time planner. To move in this direction you need a workers democracy, with decision making done at the lowest possible levels, minimum bureaucracy, maximum initiative. This involvement of the masses in decision making is the oil that allows the machine to work. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky all believed this, that democracy was vital. Lenin said in 1918 that a workers state was a million times more democratic than a capitalist one. Well Stalin's Russia wasnt democratic, it was one-man rule. And it wasnt internationalist, he invented socialism in one country, and after 1933 his aim was to stop revolutions in other countries.

In Spain the workers could easily have taken power. The fault lies in the anarchists leaders, the POUM leaders, and the Stalinists. Above all, the Stalinists who consciously sabotaged it. It was linked to the Great Purge and the Moscow Show Trials, the elimination of the threat of socialism.

In China, Stalin backed Chiang right up to 1948. He had nothing whatsoever to do with Mao taking power. Mao took power because the masses rose up in support, hoping for socialism. Mao wanted several decades of capitalism, not socialism, but events forced him to start nationalising industries. In particular it was the effects of the Korean war, which stiffened the resistance of the gentry, and his fear of being attacked by America.

Stalinist Russia did not lead to communism, it led to capitalism, as Trotsky had predicted if the workers didnt shed the bureaucracy. Killing all the socialists is not an excess, it is political genocide against socialism. 10,000 Trotskyists were sent to Siberia for wanting socialism.

In Russia, there were lots of revolutionaries from other countries, revolutionaries living in exile like Lenin and Trotsky had done before.

Can you guess what happened to these revolutionary exiles? Leopold Trepper, the famous and heroic leader of the Russian underground intelligence organisation under the Nazis, the ‘Red Orchestra’, estimated that 80% of the revolutionary emigrants in Russia were repressed and many, if not most, were shot during Stalin’s Great Purge.

Many of them were tortured and the repression reached such lengths that the Bulgarian émigrés warned the Bulgarian head of Stalin’s Comintern Georgi Dimitrov: “If you don’t do everything necessary to stop the repressions, then we will kill Yezhov [head of the NKVD, who himself was later purged and shot], this counter-revolutionary.” Eight hundred Yugoslav communists were also arrested. Tito, who became head of the Yugoslav Stalinist state after the Second World War, played a role in organising the destruction of his own party in Moscow. When Tito enquired about who was now to lead the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY), Dimitrov was surprised: “You are the only one left… It’s a good thing that at least you are left, otherwise we would have to disband the CPY.” Those Yugoslavs arrested and shot were killed with the benediction of Tito and Milovan Djilas, who himself was later a ‘dissident’ under the Tito regime and was cast out of the magic circle of ‘Titoism’. Thos charged were expelled from the CPY on charges of ‘Trotskyism’. This did not stop some misguided ‘Trotskyists’, the predecessors of the present United Secretariat of the Fourth International, later describing Tito as an “unconscious Trotskyist”. They even organised work brigades of young people in the 1950s to assist the Yugoslav state in its first period in power when Tito came into collision with Stalin.
A similar repression was launched against the Communist Party of Poland, which had committed the unpardonable sin of actually supporting the Left Opposition in 1923-24. The seventy-year old Adolf Warski, one of the founders of the social-democratic and communist parties of Poland, was shot. The same fate was meted out to the leaders of the Communist Party of Germany who had sought refuge in Russia from the horrors of Nazism only to meet with the horrors inflicted by Stalin’s security apparatus. At the Ninth Congress of the Sozialistiche Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED), the governing party of the former German Democratic Republic, in January 1989, it was reported that at least 242 prominent members of the Communist Party of Germany had perished in the Soviet Union. By the beginning of 1937, the majority of Austrian Schutzbundists had already been arrested. They were members of the socialist military organisation which after the defeat of the anti-fascist uprising of 1934 had emigrated to Russia and had been received there as heroes.
The same fate was met by Hungarians, who probably constituted the biggest foreign national group living in the Soviet Union then. Ten of 16 members of the first Central Committee of the Communist Party of Hungary were killed, as well as 11 out of 20 people’s commissars of the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919. One of these victims was Bela Kun, who had led the Soviet Republic. At the end of the 1980s it was revealed in a hitherto secret document that Imre Nagy, who became the prime minister of Hungary in 1956, had played an active role in the 1930s in the decimation of the leaders of his own party. He had been for a long time a secret informer for the NKVD. Ironically, after the 1956 uprising he became prime minister of Hungary but was shot following its repression by the successors of the NKVD, the KGB.
Rogovin comments: “Altogether, more communists from Eastern European countries were killed in the Soviet Union than died at home in their own countries during Hitler’s occupation.” One leading Lithuanian communist commented that because of the decimation of the Lithuanian Communist Party’s Central Committee at the hands of Stalin and his executioners, “I alone remained alive! And I remained alive because I had been carrying out underground work in fascist Lithuania.” The same fate befell the Mongolian, Japanese and many other communist parties. Stalin’s seeming paranoia towards all things non-Russian (ironically, he was himself ‘non-Russian’, a Georgian) was revealed later in the secret archives of the NKVD where there was testimony against Palmiro Togliatti, the leader of the Communist Party of Italy, Harry Pollitt, general secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Jacques Duclos of the French Communist Party, Mao Ze-dong and many others. Latvians, many of them having participated in the underground struggle against tsarism, and in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, were ruthlessly suppressed by Stalin.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3794

How do you feel about that?

Actually, I've just said that the party does represent the will of the workers as a class, by determining their collective interests through social science and securing them through political practice. Although that does not have anything to do with "representation" as in "sit in a bourgeois parliament and vote for populist legislation".

Under capitalist conditions, the interests of every individual worker are that of working less and being paid more, and that's it. Or to win a lottery and become a bourgeois, to never take the hammer in his hands ever again. That is the subjective interest of a random worker. However, the objective interests of the same worker, him being a part of the working class (which is at this historical stage the progressive part of the human race, according to Marxism) are quite different. Anyway, you wanted a quote? This one is good:

"The immediate objective of the class-conscious vanguard of the international working-class movement, i.e., the Communist parties, groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to lead, not only their own party but also these masses in their advance and transition to the new position. While the first historical objective (that of winning over the class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class) could not have been reached without a complete ideological and political victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, the second and immediate objective, which consists in being able to lead the masses to a new position ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, cannot be reached without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, and without a full elimination of its errors."
Lenin, "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder", 1920.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch10.htm
.

Lenin didnt want to kill them, or even purge them, and he didnt include Trotsky either.

And Lenin understood the need for democracy just as Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Luxemburg did.

Engels:
"
What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution"

Lenin:
"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.

Engels expressed this splendidly in his letter to Bebel when he said, as the reader will remember, that "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist".
Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people--this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.
Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom". Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.
The expression "the state withers away" is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect; for we see around us on millions of occassions how readily people become accustomed to observing the necessary rules of social intercourse when there is no exploitation, when there is nothing that arouses indignation, evokes protest and revolt, and creates the need for suppression."

Zulu

12th February 2012, 20:27

Zulu, there is nothing in that Lenin quote which suggests that the vanguard can lead the masses against their will. There are, however, other documents (such as the position on the vanguard party articulated as the second congress) which explicitly state that the vanguard's leadership is to be exercised by winning the assent and confidence of the masses.

But to me it seems pretty clear what the implications of the masses being "for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden" are... If the masses don't show any will, it falls upon the communist party to act on their behalf anyway. Basically, if the masses are revolutionary, good, harness their force; if they are not... oh well, not too bad either, revolutionize them, and then harness their force. Doesn't really matter if the masses realize that they want a revolution at present. Sooner or later, they will realize that, but the revolution itself is out of question. And for a successful revolution there must be a vanguard party to lead the masses through. Lead = command, like what officers do in the army, or on a ship.

And attempting to win the confidence of the masses is quite the standard modus operandi for any political party or movement, regardless of ideology and the level of genuine adherence to that ideology by the party functionaries, so this point is redundant. The important thing is HOW that confidence should be won, and I don't think Lenin was ready to compromise any major point of the party program just because the masses were willing something different at some particular time.

By the way, it's quite remarkable, how his fight for the party discipline and against factionalism began at the 2nd Congress already and was unrelenting ever since, so by cracking down on the opposition and the deviationists in the 20s Stalin was following Lenin's method too.

he invented socialism in one country

You mean Lenin, right? He thought that socialism might score its first win in one country, and that country turned out to be Russia.

As for democracy, the bourgeois democracy which would replace the tsarist autocracy after the bourgeois revolution, was regarded by Lenin as a mere tool to carry on the main task, which was the socialist revolution. And the "true" democracy would come only as the result of the complete socialist revolution (which is separate from the bourgeois revolution), i.e. when there wouldn't be a difference between physical and intellectual labor and so on, and everybody would be a communist, which would be unattainable in too short a time, which would require the dictatorship of the proletariat for the transitional period, which would REPRESS THE REACTION!!!

.

Lucretia

12th February 2012, 21:54

But to me it seems pretty clear what the implications of the masses being "for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden" are... If the masses don't show any will, it falls upon the communist party to act on their behalf anyway. Basically, if the masses are revolutionary, good, harness their force; if they are not... oh well, not too bad either, revolutionize them, and then harness their force. Doesn't really matter if the masses realize that they want a revolution at present. Sooner or later, they will realize that, but the revolution itself is out of question. And for a successful revolution there must be a vanguard party to lead the masses through. Lead = command, like what officers do in the army, or on a ship.

That's a terrible misinterpretation of the quote you provided. You are trying to take a statement Lenin is making about the relationship between the party and the masses in a specific historical situation, a specific stage in a pre-revolutionary situation whose trajectory he is beginning to outline, and trying to extrapolate from that a general principle that Lenin foresaw the party as having to manage the entire project of constructing socialism against the will of the masses. In the section of the text you are drawing from, Lenin is breaking down the revolutionary process into a series of rather abstract steps and in the quote you provide, is talking about the step of taking the "apathetic masses" and "leading them to their new position." What does Lenin mean by this? Well, it is obvious from the previous paragraph what this "new position" is, and what it means to "lead" them. And unfortunately for you, he's not talking about the vanguard leading the masses directly to socialism against their will.

Lenin says: "The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of sympathetic neutrality towards it and of precluded support for the enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the broad masses of the working people, those oppressed by capital, to take up such a stand. For that, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions, which has been confirmed with compelling force and vividness, not only in Russia but in Germany as well. To turn resolutely towards communism, it was necessary, not only for the ignorant and often illiterate masses of Russia, but also for the literate and well-educated masses of Germany, to realise from their own bitter experience the absolute impotence and spinelessness, the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie, and the utter vileness of the government of the paladins of the Second International."

Leadership, then, means securing the direct support -- or at the very least the sympathy -- of the broad masses of previous dormant and apathetic people by creating a situation in which they are participants in the political struggle against their oppressors and exploiters. Only from their own political experiences fighting against oppression and exploitation can they learn the need for socialist revolution. Contrary to your interpretation, Lenin is suggesting that to try to achieve socialism against the will of the masses is, in his words, "not merely foolish but criminal."

Lenin continues on this theme in the following paragraph, noting "In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves, not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes—positively of all the classes in a given society, without exception—are arrayed in such a way that the decisive battle is at hand—in such a way that ... among the proletariat, a mass sentiment favouring the most determined, bold and dedicated revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie has emerged and begun to grow vigorously. Then revolution is indeed ripe; then, indeed, if we have correctly gauged all the conditions indicated and summarised above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is assured." Notice at this point that the masses are no longer "dormant" and "apathetic," but rather have been stirred by their own participation in political struggles -- struggles instigated and shaped to some degree by the vanguard -- to overwhelming support for the revolution. If anything, the only thing that the vanguard does "against the will" of the masses is to agitate and instigate the kinds of political struggles and demands that will then stimulate the masses to take a position on their own accord.

This, as I said, is fully in keeping with the theses on the fundamental tasks of the second congress of communist international, where Lenin -- backed by the congress -- notes that "Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it really comprises all the finest representatives of that class, if it consists of fully conscious and staunch Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of a persistent revolutionary struggle, and if it has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and, through it, with the whole mass of the exploited, and in completely winning the confidence of this class and this mass—only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in a final, most ruthless and decisive struggle against all the forces of capitalism."

So I repeat, Zulu, where is there any evidence in any of Lenin's texts that he thought communists could or should try to achieve socialism against the expressed will of the masses?

Zulu

12th February 2012, 23:32

So I repeat, Zulu, where is there any evidence in any of Lenin's texts that he thought communists could or should try to achieve socialism against the expressed will of the masses?

You've just chewed it up yourself. How can you not see it?

"Struggles instigated by the vanguard", that is the tool, and Lenin looks at them as a mere tool of education the masses, because at this point there isn't much else to be done. Because there is still no will to revolution as such within the masses, but the vanguard is already acting - putting the masses through this school of struggle (strikes, etc.) and leading them already. Can we say that at this stage the masses are already "conscious" and "willing"? No, we cannot say that. So we're practically speaking of the same thing. Only from a slightly different perspective. I've told similar things to this daft punk guy, in response to the moans about Stalin's "suppressing" revolutions in other countries, when there really was little support of the masses for the respective communist parties, that were in addition themselves not fully organized the way they should.

However, what must be clearly distinguished yet is the matter of the proletariat taking power, which is relatively easy and practically automatic, when the conditions are ripe, the vanguard has secured full support of the masses, the outgoing classes are in disarray, etc., and the matter of constructing socialism after the seizure of power, which not only can't be done overnight but presents some serious challenges, of which the possibility of a bourgeois revanche and restoration of capitalism is not the last. But the most serious problem is determining the correct path, the order of measures and steps necessary for the socialist construction.

So the Bolsheviks found themselves in that peculiar situation in Russia, which hadn't been able to complete its capitalist development. After the dust settled, and no aid from the more advanced countries' proletariat was available, there was the need to create the very "prerequisites" of socialist construction, which Lenin acknowledged himself in "Our Revolution". Hence the further need of detailed guidance by the vanguard, and impossibility for that "workers' democracy", where the vanguard becomes not important. Do you realize that in 1917 the literacy rate of the masses in Russia was below 50%? The Bolsheviks had to recruit the former tsarist/bourgeois bureaucrats as specialists just to keep the country chugging on.

But in the meantime, the social lifts opened for the broadest masses and that was unprecedented in the entire history of mankind. And that continued well into Stalin's period, as the new bureaucracy cemented itself as a separate social strata only in the period of revisionism. And what would have happened if the party consulted what was the will of the masses before every decision? Having a referendum every day was technically impossible, you know, and even if it wasn't what were the chances that the still poorly educated masses would make the right decisions?

Rafiq

13th February 2012, 00:30

many do unfortunately,as you know antisemitism is buring strong,amonth other things because like 90% of oligarchs are jewish

And you're a.... Brony?

Why aren't you banned?

Krano

13th February 2012, 00:32

And you're a.... Brony?

Why aren't you banned?
He is.

Lucretia

13th February 2012, 00:35

You've just chewed it up yourself. How can you not see it?

"Struggles instigated by the vanguard", that is the tool, and Lenin looks at them as a mere tool of education the masses, because at this point there isn't much else to be done. Because there is still no will to revolution as such within the masses, but the vanguard is already acting - putting the masses through this school of struggle (strikes, etc.) and leading them already. Can we say that at this stage the masses are already "conscious" and "willing"? No, we cannot say that. So we're practically speaking of the same thing. Only from a slightly different perspective. I've told similar things to this daft punk guy, in response to the moans about Stalin's "suppressing" revolutions in other countries, when there really was little support of the masses for the respective communist parties, that were in addition themselves not fully organized the way they should.

However, what must be clearly distinguished yet is the matter of the proletariat taking power, which is relatively easy and practically automatic, when the conditions are ripe, the vanguard has secured full support of the masses, the outgoing classes are in disarray, etc., and the matter of constructing socialism after the seizure of power, which not only can't be done overnight but presents some serious challenges, of which the possibility of a bourgeois revanche and restoration of capitalism is not the last. But the most serious problem is determining the correct path, the order of measures and steps necessary for the socialist construction.

So the Bolsheviks found themselves in that peculiar situation in Russia, which hadn't been able to complete its capitalist development. After the dust settled, and no aid from the more advanced countries' proletariat was available, there was the need to create the very "prerequisites" of socialist construction, which Lenin acknowledged himself in "Our Revolution". Hence the further need of detailed guidance by the vanguard, and impossibility for that "workers' democracy", where the vanguard becomes not important. Do you realize that in 1917 the literacy rate of the masses in Russia was below 50%? The Bolsheviks had to recruit the former tsarist/bourgeois bureaucrats as specialists just to keep the country chugging on.

But in the meantime, the social lifts opened for the broadest masses and that was unprecedented in the entire history of mankind. And that continued well into Stalin's period, as the new bureaucracy cemented itself as a separate social strata only in the period of revisionism. And what would have happened if the party consulted what was the will of the masses before every decision? Having a referendum every day was technically impossible, you know, and even if it wasn't what were the chances that the still poorly educated masses would make the right decisions?

You're still indicating to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is pretty disturbing since this kind of error, committed decades earlier, would have made you a useful stooge in the service of Stalinist oppression.

To repeat: the purpose of the work you are quoting from is to draw from Lenin's experiences in the Russian revolution to lay down a general guide, or set of principles, for communists in other societies to imitate if they want to be successful (a major part of this is to combat "left communism," which he shows what antithetical to the success of the revolution in Russia).

The specific passage you are quoting from is a summary of the historical lessons Lenin learned, part of which is how you go from a situation when there is a revolutionary-minded vanguard of workers, but still a relatively low level of consciousness and activity on the part of the masses, to a revolutionary situation in which the masses support the party. The reason finding this bridge is important is so important for Lenin is that he understood that socialism could not be achieved without the widespread support of the workers. This, of course, flies entirely in the face of the argument you have made in this thread that the party does not have to enjoy the assent of the masses, but need only represent their "interests."

You also miserably and embarrassingly fail to understand the "bridge" that Lenin proposes to stimulate the "dormant" masses into revolutionary masses. It is not to carry out the revolution on their behalf. It is to lead by example in struggle, to inspire the workers, to act as models for the workers, and in the process encourage the workers to enter into the struggle on their own behalf where they can begin to learn the lessons that will steer them toward a revolutionary understanding of the tasks to be confronted. But these are lessons that the vanguard cannot force the masses into learning. They are learned in the process of struggle. The reason that this process of struggle is so important is that the revolutionary push for power is in no sense "easy" or "automatic" -- a shocking belief that has no basis in the texts of classical Marxist thinkers.

And of course, it should go without saying that if the vanguard cannot replace the masses in the act of carrying out the revolution, it sure as hell can not replace them in governing a "socialist" society.

Zulu

13th February 2012, 08:59

You're still indicating to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is pretty disturbing since this kind of error, committed decades earlier, would have made you a useful stooge in the service of Stalinist oppression.

Was it supposed to be a compliment? Guess that makes me a hardcore Stalinist, but whatever.

To repeat: the purpose of the work you are quoting from is to draw from Lenin's experiences in the Russian revolution to lay down a general guide, or set of principles, for communists in other societies to imitate if they want to be successful (a major part of this is to combat "left communism," which he shows what antithetical to the success of the revolution in Russia).

And as the return of courtesy for your compliment I must diagnose that you have that "infantile disorder" yourself.

The specific passage you are quoting from is a summary of the historical lessons Lenin learned, part of which is how you go from a situation when there is a revolutionary-minded vanguard of workers, but still a relatively low level of consciousness and activity on the part of the masses, to a revolutionary situation in which the masses support the party. The reason finding this bridge is important is so important for Lenin is that he understood that socialism could not be achieved without the widespread support of the workers. This, of course, flies entirely in the face of the argument you have made in this thread that the party does not have to enjoy the assent of the masses, but need only represent their "interests."
Everybody understands the necessity of the wide support of the masses. But it can be secured via different means. Nothing says it must be limited or necessarily include the "workers' democracy" at all times. And the party exists before it gains the wide support, which means that "representing the interests" is more important, than "gaining support". Because if you gain support without representing the interests (which is not only possible, but quite a widespread phenomenon actually; see: all kinds of populist bourgeois parties - some of them even calling themselves "communist" these days), you are just a bunch of political bandits, or mercenaries of the big buck, out for nothing but personal gain.

You also miserably and embarrassingly fail to understand the "bridge" that Lenin proposes to stimulate the "dormant" masses into revolutionary masses. It is not to carry out the revolution on their behalf. It is to lead by example in struggle, to inspire the workers, to act as models for the workers, and in the process encourage the workers to enter into the struggle on their own behalf where they can begin to learn the lessons that will steer them toward a revolutionary understanding of the tasks to be confronted. But these are lessons that the vanguard cannot force the masses into learning. They are learned in the process of struggle. The reason that this process of struggle is so important is that the revolutionary push for power is in no sense "easy" or "automatic" -- a shocking belief that has no basis in the texts of classical Marxist thinkers.
"Inspiring" workers, or "forcing" them, hmm.... Define the line between these, please.

And of course, it should go without saying that if the vanguard cannot replace the masses in the act of carrying out the revolution, it sure as hell can not replace them in governing a "socialist" society.

Actually, I was always wondering how that "workers' democracy" would work. I don't doubt that in the Bright Future, which is far and distant at this point, every human being will be educated and competent enough to participate in some important planning and management activities, but most importantly will have enough common sense and good will to not get involved into planning and management in the fields he or she has little understanding of. But immediately after the revolution, what are the masses going to do, if not "replaced" (i.e. led on) by the vanguard? Consult Wikipedia all the day, then have a global planetary poll on whether to save the pandas or not? And when we're talking Stalin here and his putting Marxism-Leninism into practice, I repeat again: the majority of the masses in the first years after the October Revolution didn't know how to fucking read!!!

All in all, I feel that you (the people with your mindset) are exactly the kind, which Lenin referred to as "convention-ridden". You have this sacred cow of the petty bourgeois liberal democracy so deeply installed on the subcortex, that those who use it as a smokescreen for their tyranny (namely, the capitalists) need not worry, like, at all.

Finally, have another quote from Lenin (same work, Ch. V):

"Repudiation of the Party principle and of Party discipline -- that is what the opposition has arrived at. And this is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It all adds up to that petty-bourgeois diffuseness and instability, that incapacity for sustained effort, unity and organised action, which, if encouraged, must inevitably destroy any proletarian revolutionary movement. From the standpoint of communism, repudiation of the Party principle means attempting to leap from the eve of capitalism’s collapse (in Germany), not to the lower or the intermediate phase of communism, but to the higher. We in Russia (in the third year since the overthrow of the bourgeoisie) are making the first steps in the transition from capitalism to socialism or the lower stage of communism. Classes still remain, and will remain everywhere for years after the proletariat’s conquest of power. Perhaps in Britain, where there is no peasantry (but where petty proprietors exist), this period may be shorter. The abolition of classes means, not merely ousting the landowners and the capitalists—that is something we accomplished with comparative ease; it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be ousted, or crushed; we must learn to live with them. They can (and must) be transformed and re-educated only by means of very prolonged, slow, and cautious organisational work. They surround the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat, and constantly causes among the proletariat relapses into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, and alternating moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralisation and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organisational role of the proletariat (and that is its principal role) may be exercised correctly, successfully and victoriously. The dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit in millions and tens of millions is a most formidable force. Without a party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged successfully. It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralised big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions upon millions of petty proprietors; however, through their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive and demoralising activities, they produce the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie. Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat."

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm

.

daft punk

13th February 2012, 09:55

I honestly cannot believe people are still throwing around words like "stalinism" and arguing from Trotskyist and "Left" Communist points of views against Stalin.

Nothing of substance here. There is good reason to tell the truth about Stalinism.

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2357203#post2357203)
"he invented socialism in one country "
You mean Lenin, right? He thought that socialism might score its first win in one country, and that country turned out to be Russia.

No he did not, and he said many times Russia would need the help of several advanced countries to achieve socialism, Stalin also said it before the summer of 1924. We went through this didnt we? I have been through all the quotes loads of times.

As for democracy, the bourgeois democracy which would replace the tsarist autocracy after the bourgeois revolution, was regarded by Lenin as a mere tool to carry on the main task, which was the socialist revolution. And the "true" democracy would come only as the result of the complete socialist revolution (which is separate from the bourgeois revolution), i.e. when there wouldn't be a difference between physical and intellectual labor and so on, and everybody would be a communist, which would be unattainable in too short a time, which would require the dictatorship of the proletariat for the transitional period, which would REPRESS THE REACTION!!!

This is just words. Stalin led a political counter-revolution. He drowned Bolshevism in blood. You cant see what is staring you in the face. After the civil war in Russia things started to go backwards. Even Lenin could see it in 1922 and Trotsky tried to stop it from 1923 onwards. Even today, after the terrible waste of 100 years of revolutionary potential around the world, you cant see the obvious.

The main 'reaction' Stalin was scared of in the purges was the chance of people wanting to go back on the path Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky envisaged. This is why Stalin killed the old Bolsheviks and their families and supporters. The bulk of his victims were kulaks and ethnic minorities of course. But the threat of capitalist restoration was pretty low in 1936-8. He saw what was going on in Spain, socialist revolution, and he shat himself.

Zulu

13th February 2012, 11:07

tell the truth about Stalinism.

People who are obsessed with telling truth about something that does not exist. They are called preachers.

We went through this didnt we?

Yes, and when I showed you a quote of Lenin that disproved your point, you said Lenin was grasping at straws. Think what, Trotsky grasped at straws his entire life, having no consistent views on any important question of Marxism (Lenin said this).

daft punk

13th February 2012, 17:15

You had one quote in which Lenin was trying to emphasise how crucial it was to get the poor peasants into communes. He talks of a cultural revolution being required:

"This cultural revolution would now suffice to make our country a completely socialist country; but it presents immense difficulties of a purely cultural (for we are illiterate) and material character (for to be cultured we must achieve a certain development of the material means of production, we must have a certain material base)."

Does he say, yeah, socialism in one country. No. Did he know Stalin would manage to kick out and/or kill all the socialists? No.

Lucretia

13th February 2012, 17:51

Was it supposed to be a compliment? Guess that makes me a hardcore Stalinist, but whatever.

And as the return of courtesy for your compliment I must diagnose that you have that "infantile disorder" yourself.

Everybody understands the necessity of the wide support of the masses. But it can be secured via different means. Nothing says it must be limited or necessarily include the "workers' democracy" at all times. And the party exists before it gains the wide support, which means that "representing the interests" is more important, than "gaining support". Because if you gain support without representing the interests (which is not only possible, but quite a widespread phenomenon actually; see: all kinds of populist bourgeois parties - some of them even calling themselves "communist" these days), you are just a bunch of political bandits, or mercenaries of the big buck, out for nothing but personal gain.

"Inspiring" workers, or "forcing" them, hmm.... Define the line between these, please.

Actually, I was always wondering how that "workers' democracy" would work. I don't doubt that in the Bright Future, which is far and distant at this point, every human being will be educated and competent enough to participate in some important planning and management activities, but most importantly will have enough common sense and good will to not get involved into planning and management in the fields he or she has little understanding of. But immediately after the revolution, what are the masses going to do, if not "replaced" (i.e. led on) by the vanguard? Consult Wikipedia all the day, then have a global planetary poll on whether to save the pandas or not? And when we're talking Stalin here and his putting Marxism-Leninism into practice, I repeat again: the majority of the masses in the first years after the October Revolution didn't know how to fucking read!!!

All in all, I feel that you (the people with your mindset) are exactly the kind, which Lenin referred to as "convention-ridden". You have this sacred cow of the petty bourgeois liberal democracy so deeply installed on the subcortex, that those who use it as a smokescreen for their tyranny (namely, the capitalists) need not worry, like, at all.

Finally, have another quote from Lenin (same work, Ch. V):

"Repudiation of the Party principle and of Party discipline -- that is what the opposition has arrived at. And this is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It all adds up to that petty-bourgeois diffuseness and instability, that incapacity for sustained effort, unity and organised action, which, if encouraged, must inevitably destroy any proletarian revolutionary movement. From the standpoint of communism, repudiation of the Party principle means attempting to leap from the eve of capitalism’s collapse (in Germany), not to the lower or the intermediate phase of communism, but to the higher. We in Russia (in the third year since the overthrow of the bourgeoisie) are making the first steps in the transition from capitalism to socialism or the lower stage of communism. Classes still remain, and will remain everywhere for years after the proletariat’s conquest of power. Perhaps in Britain, where there is no peasantry (but where petty proprietors exist), this period may be shorter. The abolition of classes means, not merely ousting the landowners and the capitalists—that is something we accomplished with comparative ease; it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be ousted, or crushed; we must learn to live with them. They can (and must) be transformed and re-educated only by means of very prolonged, slow, and cautious organisational work. They surround the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat, and constantly causes among the proletariat relapses into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, and alternating moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralisation and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organisational role of the proletariat (and that is its principal role) may be exercised correctly, successfully and victoriously. The dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit in millions and tens of millions is a most formidable force. Without a party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged successfully. It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralised big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions upon millions of petty proprietors; however, through their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive and demoralising activities, they produce the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie. Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat."

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm

.

Zulu, do you not even read the passages you quote? It's like I'm talking to a fundamentalist Christian who thinks he is making an argument just by quoting Bible passage after Bible passage without explaining how those Bible passages supposedly bolster his argument.

Lenin here is talking about the internal functioning of the party in a period of severe crisis, such as that which Russia was experiencing in the aftermath of the civil war, and which requires a higher degree of centralization within the decision-making bodies than is usual (a greater emphasis on the centralism than on the democratic). In other words, he is talking about how the party functions internally, not how it is to relate to the workers or masses in general. In regards to that issue, he states, "Without a party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged successfully."

The model Lenin falls back on again and again and again in his writings is that the success of a struggle for socialism depends upon the confidence of the masses, specifically the confidence of the vast majority of the proletariat -- a confidence that is secured not by fiat, not by violently coercing the workers into carrying out party dictates, but by a slow and exacting process of "influencing," teaching, and persuading. The reason this is important is that Lenin understood socialism as inseparable from workers taking control over their own destiny. And a worker cannot be conditioned to take control over his own destiny by just carrying out orders delivered from above. Such "training" would turn the worker into a slave of the party, not a part of the group that is to collectively govern society.

Zulu

13th February 2012, 19:33

Lenin here is talking about the internal functioning of the party in a period of severe crisis, such as that which Russia was experiencing in the aftermath of the civil war, and which requires a higher degree of centralization within the decision-making bodies than is usual (a greater emphasis on the centralism than on the democratic).

Err, no. He is talking about it in universal terms. Even in this very excerpt he mentions Britain and Germany. And he uses the Russian experience as an illustration and example. Notice how he says that the Bolsheviks managed to oust the capitalists relatively easy - something you said was unheard of in the Marxist literature, when I'd said it a couple of posts back. And here we are: Revolution easy - construction hard, says Lenin.

In other words, he is talking about how the party functions internally, not how it is to relate to the workers or masses in general.
And all this talk about influencing the masses, dealing with millions petty proprietors, it's all internal functioning of the party in your books, it seems.

And you don't get to influence the masses correctly, if you begin by licking their collective behind. You have to re-educate them, Lenin says.

Of course, you can't put a commissar with a revolver behind every worker or petty proprietor needing re-education. But that never happened anywhere in the Soviet Union except in the horror tales of the bourgeois imagination. The "influencing" was carried out mainly through the media, propaganda and the education system. Repressions were used too, but were only a part of the picture. Because you may mildly influence the "honest" with the kind word, but the "dishonest" usually need something more tangible to be influenced.

You can possibly make case that the Great Terror was outside of the scope of Lenin's writings, but we naturally can't tell for sure what Lenin would do in that particular situation, which means you can't just claim "it's bad because Lenin didn't write about it". You'd have to demonstrate how it contradicts the sentence that "The dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society."

But anyway, it is absolutely clear that with this disputable exception of the years 1937-1938, Stalin's policies never violated Lenin's vision of the period of socialist construction and the principles of the proletarian dictatorship.

Lucretia

13th February 2012, 19:48

And all this talk about influencing the masses, dealing with millions petty proprietors, it's all internal functioning of the party in your books, it seems.

No, please learn to read more carefully. I said that in the passage in question, Lenin's talk of strict discipline, etc., pertained to the internal functioning of the party. His talk of "influencing the masses" obviously pertained to how the party relates externally to others. So, no, I am not saying that "influencing the masses" is "all internal functioning of the party." Quite the opposite.

And you don't get to influence the masses correctly, if you begin by licking their collective behind. You have to re-educate them, Lenin says.Yes, and "re-education" does not mean bossing around people against their will. What you conveniently ignore in all your responses is how Lenin's talk of education of the masses always, including in the passages you are citing in support of your position, goes hand-in-hand with the concept of winning their confidence. You cannot gain people's confidence by bossing them around against their will. Built into Lenin's conception of the transition to socialism is the need for workers' self-empowerment and ultimate political authority -- an authority which is entrusted to the party so that the workers can willingly learn what is to be done. Why do the workers and masses entrust the party with this authority? Because the party has proven itself in the struggle to improve the lives of the workers, in its effectiveness at overthrowing political tyranny, and in its willingness to listen to the workers -- not do exactly as the workers say -- but to listen and translate their needs into a program of action that the workers will find agreeable. Your Stalinist model has this issue ass backwards, where political authority of the party comes before the workers bestow their trust.

Of course, you can't put a commissar with a revolver behind every worker or petty proprietor needing re-education. But that never happened anywhere in the Soviet Union except in the horror tales of the bourgeois imagination. The "influencing" was carried out mainly through the media, propaganda and the education system. Repressions were used too, but were only a part of the picture. Because you may mildly influence the "honest" with the kind word, but the "dishonest" usually need something more tangible to be influenced.You're getting too caught up here in how Stalinist repression was carried out. You're right in saying that not every worker was assigned a revolver-wielding party official. But did the party really need to do so? The very threat of starvation, jail, etc., meant that workers just went along with things for the sake of not making themselves a target. Which is why it's odd you mention propaganda and the media as the reason the workers went along -- it clearly wasn't, and I could give you a list of Marxist historians who have studied the period of 1928-1939 who have detailed just how cynically the bulk of the workers viewed that propaganda.

The point is that the workers did not see the regime as their regime. The regime/party had clearly not won the confidence of the workers, and could therefore in no way be considered a workers' state. The only counter-argument you can make is to fall back on the position that socialism is about a distribution of goods, not a set of power relations involving producers, non-producers, and the means of production. But then that would result into turning socialism into a matter of distribution rather than production.

Omsk

13th February 2012, 20:21

The point is that the workers did not see the regime as their regime.

This is not true,the Soviet people supported the party,if it didnt,than the party wouldn't have achieved anything.There would be no victory in the GPW.

This position of Stalin in relation to the Party was matched by the position of the Party in relation to the masses.... Since the moment when they [the Bolsheviks] first secured a majority in the Soviets prior to the November Revolution they have retained the confidence of the majority, or they could not have maintained power.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 173

"But if you take the progressive peasants and workers, not more than 15 percent are skeptical of the Soviet power, or are silent from fear or are waiting for the moment when they can undermine the Bolsheviks state. On the other hand, about 85 percent of the more or less active people would urge us further than we want to go. We often have to put on the brakes. They would like to stamp out the last remnants of the intelligentsia. But we would not permit that. In the whole history of the world there never was a power that was supported by nine tenths of the population as the Soviet power is supported.
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 175

These characteristics of a Bolshevik party are far from being fully understood by supporters of the Soviet Union today. The Communist Party is continually being described as a small disciplined elite, ordering the people of the Soviet Union hither and thither for their own good. In short, the Soviet regime is pictured as the dictatorship of a Party.
This is a travesty which is unfortunately accepted by friends, as well as by enemies. In the remarks we have quoted above, Lenin is explaining to the Socialists of Western Europe that the Communist Party could only function on the basis of the confidence of the workers; that this confidence was not created by propaganda, but by people testing from their own experience the quality of the political leadership of the Party; that before any policy could be carried out, the Communist Party had to secure the co-operation of millions of people who were not Party members, who were not under Party discipline, who could not be coerced into co-operation, but who could only be convinced on the basis of their experience; and that further, if in the progress of the struggle a change of direction was necessary, not only the Party, but tens of millions of non-party people had to be convinced of the need for this change of direction and had to understand the methods of carrying it through.
In carrying out its activities, the Party rests on the trade unions and on the Soviets. Without the support of the 20 million trade unionists, without the support of the peasantry, organized in the Soviets and in the collective farms, the Party could not last for a week, for it is not the dictatorship of the Party, but a dictatorship of the working-class, in alliance with the peasantry.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 15-16

The British War Cabinet scheduled a meeting for July 29, 1919 to discuss the Russian situation. The news of Kolchak's reverses emboldened those who had all along wanted an accommodation with Lenin. Their thinking was reflected in a memorandum submitted to the Cabinet by a Treasury official and banker named Harvey. The document grossly distorted the internal situation in Russia to press the argument for abandoning the White cause. Its basic premise held that in a Civil War the victory went to the side that enjoyed greater popular support, from which it followed that since Lenin's government had beaten off all challengers it had to have the population behind it [the document stated]:
"It is impossible to account for the stability of the Bolshevik Government by terrorism alone.... When the Bolshevik fortunes seemed to be at the lowest ebb, a most vigorous offensive was launched before which the Kolchak forces are still in retreat. No terrorism, not even long suffering acquiescence, but something approaching enthusiasm is necessary for this. We must admit then that the present Russian government is accepted by the bulk of the Russian people."

The pledge of the Whites immediately after victory to convene a Constituent Assembly meant little since there was no assurance that " Russia, summoned to the polls, will not again return the Bolsheviks." The unsavory aspects of Lenin's rule were in good measure forced on him by his enemies:
"Necessity of state enables him to justify many acts of violence whereas in a state of peace his Government would have to be progressive or it would fall. It is respectfully contended that the surest way to get rid of Bolshevism, or at least to eradicate the vicious elements in it, is to withdraw our support of the Kolchak movement and thereby end the Civil War."

Although the author did not explicitly say so, his line of argument led to the inescapable conclusion that support should also be withdrawn from Denikin and Yudenich.
Pipes, Richard. Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993, p. 96

The very small number of active dissidents against the Soviet system has reflected their lack of support in the general population. All active dissidents have generally acknowledged that their ideas and activities are unpopular and elicit no responsive chords in the Soviet population. The Soviet system has a high degree of legitimacy among almost all of its citizens, as is readily admitted by virtually all of its critics both inside and outside the USSR. The legitimacy of the regime was greatly enhanced by the trauma of World War II and the heroic, and very bloody, victory over the Nazi invaders (which not only generated great feelings of solidarity and sacrifice, but also confirmed the national fear of foreign intervention which has lasted until today). The Communist Party's successful industrialization and modernization program has also generated massive support for the Soviet system, as has the high rate of upward mobility and the considerable Soviet achievements in science, education, public-health, and other welfare services. Western Sovietologists (most of whom are not sympathizers of the Soviet system) essentially concede that there is widespread support for Soviet institutions among the Soviet people as a whole.
Szymanski, Albert. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books, 1984, p. 274

There are many account on this issue:

Nothing that may be said abroad about the tyranny and high-handedness of the Bolshevik regime can alter the fact that the Russian masses think and speak of "our" Rodina," "our" technicians, "our" successes and "our" failures.
Duranty, Walter. I Write as I Please. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935, p. 341

Russian workers complain, and loudly, about many things--mainly bureaucracy and petty graft--but never that the entire system is run primarily in the interests of someone else. In general there is to be found a genuine spirit of cooperation.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 65

But peasant sentiment as a whole supports the Soviet regime for the simple reason that the peasants know any other possible regime would bring back the landlords--just as did the White regime in the civil wars.
Baldwin, Roger. Liberty Under the Soviets, New York: Vanguard Press, 1928, p. 39

From various sources:

The great transformation that the country had gone through before the war had, despite all its dark sides, strengthened the moral fiber of the nation. The majority was imbued with a strong sense of its economic and social advance, which it was grimly determined to defend against danger from without.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 485

Zulu

13th February 2012, 21:51

Yes, and "re-education" does not mean bossing around people against their will. What you conveniently ignore in all your responses is how Lenin's talk of education of the masses always, including in the passages you are citing in support of your position, goes hand-in-hand with the concept of winning their confidence.

I don't ignore the concept of winning the confidence, I just say that winning the confidence, according to Lenin, does not exclude application, if need be, of strict authoritarian measures - something you tend to ignore.

Because the party has proven itself in the struggle to improve the lives of the workers, in its effectiveness at overthrowing political tyranny, and in its willingness to listen to the workers -- not do exactly as the workers say -- but to listen and translate their needs into a program of action that the workers will find agreeable. Your Stalinist model has this issue ass backwards, where political authority of the party comes before the workers bestow their trust.
Well, yes, this listening to the workers (and the masses) part, especially since they are not fully educated yet, in order to somehow consult with them, would seem to be a waste of time. Just as it would be a waste of time, if a teacher of, say, chemistry listened to his students' opinion on where the molecule of water belonged in the periodic table, and even amended the curriculum as a result of such a fruitful discussion. That would be indeed a nonsensical upside-down situation.

It makes sense to listen to the masses for the feedback on the vanguard's performance, to monitor the level of confidence, which has been secured so far through more efficient means. One of such means, and at that something, what the party should really go out of its way in doing, is explaining as much as possible the policy that is currently being carried out, what's the rationale behind this policy and how it fits into the Marxist theory and the practice of the socialist construction.

The backside of the problem is that without everybody being a conscious participant in the collective production effort socialism can't work for very long, but that's also why you can't dismiss the commissars with revolvers the next morning after the revolution: while the commissars without revolvers are busy re-educating the masses, the ones with revolvers see to it that the economy didn't slide back to capitalism.

And here is the bonus question: what the vanguard party is supposed to do, if the workers, in a workers' democracy, after all the influencing, suddenly vote for a return to capitalism?

The point is that the workers did not see the regime as their regime. The regime/party had clearly not won the confidence of the workers, and could therefore in no way be considered a workers' state.
This is not true. The party did win the widest support of the masses. Partially through Stalin's cult of personality, by the way. That's why Khruschev's de-Stalinization was a political mistake, if only because it looked like "kicking the dead lion". The worker's support for the party diminished greatly.

Admittedly, significant groups still remained (intellectuals, nationalists, former bourgeoisie and kulaks) whose support the party had never won, and only managed to suppress the dissent of these groups. So the society in general was split, I can give you that, but that's not something unexpected by Lenin either.

The only counter-argument you can make is to fall back on the position that socialism is about a distribution of goods, not a set of power relations involving producers, non-producers, and the means of production. But then that would result into turning socialism into a matter of distribution rather than production.
Not sure I fully understand your train of thought here, but anyway, socialism is first of all about the economy. Politics, with all its democracies, dictatorships, influences, coercions, etc. comes in the wake of the economy. If the economy functions not on the principle of profitability, but on the principle of fulfilling the needs of the society as a whole, and objective indicators of the quality of life grow faster than previously under capitalism, then you have to accept whatever the superstructure such society produces as socialist, whether it conforms your preconceptions or not. Of course, to a bourgeois mindset the juice may not always be worth the squeeze.

.

Comrade Hill

13th February 2012, 22:43

Nothing of substance here. There is good reason to tell the truth about Stalinism.

Nothing that you have said here in this thread is the truth, Stalin was against Mao for a time because he was skeptical of Mao, but he supported him in the end. He was skeptical, because he was afraid he would end up being like Tito. He was right.

I presented to you proof that socialism happened in the Soviet Union, instead of replying, you ignored the rest of my post, and decided to comment on my first paragraph, which contained no quotes or statistics.

As for 10,000 trotskyists being sent in exile in Siberia, where did you get those statistics from? You only tell one side of the story, if it's a true story at all.

No he did not, and he said many times Russia would need the help of several advanced countries to achieve socialism, Stalin also said it before the summer of 1924. We went through this didnt we? I have been through all the quotes loads of times.

But he didn't advocate for permanent world revolution like Trotsky did. Lenin has also condemned Trotsky's revisionist, and idealistic theory of "permanent revolution."

“The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him. [….] Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as 'Lenin’s cudgel'. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.*e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that 'between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf'. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left 'permanent revolution' theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg. In the period of disintegration, after long 'non-factional' vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas” (CW 20, 346-7).

This is just words. Stalin led a political counter-revolution. He drowned Bolshevism in blood. You cant see what is staring you in the face. After the civil war in Russia things started to go backwards. Even Lenin could see it in 1922 and Trotsky tried to stop it from 1923 onwards. Even today, after the terrible waste of 100 years of revolutionary potential around the world, you cant see the obvious.

No, that is wrong. If anyone was leading a counter revolution it was Trotsky and his faction of permanent counter revolutionists, who spoke ill of the peasantry and disagreed with Lenin on many decisions regarding WW1.

*********** “Trotsky threw up his hands, telling the Germans that he would never agree to what they wanted [in the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty] and urging Lenin to adopt a 'no war, no peace' policy in which Russia would neither continue to fight nor agree to Germany's terms […] The Ukrainian capital of Kiev fell to the Germans on March 1. Trotsky, furious, said that Russia should rejoin the Entente and resume the war. Lenin, fearing the capture of Petrograd and the destruction of his fledgling regime, moved his government to Moscow and said no” (Meyer 619-620).

Here is Trotsky revealing Soviet Spies to Imperial Japan:

*********** “To be sure Moscow had ample reasons in its day to hide its participation in publishing and exposing the ‘Tanaka Memorial.’ The prime consideration was not to provoke Tokio. This explains why the Kremlin took the round-about way in making it public. [….] One has to assume that operating here is the excessive caution which often drives Stalin to ignore major considerations for the sake of secondary and petty ones. It is more than likely that this time too Moscow does not wish to cause any annoyances to Tokio in view of the negotiations now under way in the hope of reaching a more stable and lasting agreement. All these considerations, however, recede to the background as the world war spreads its concentric circles ever wider” (Trotsky, The ‘Tanaka Memorial’).

The main 'reaction' Stalin was scared of in the purges was the chance of people wanting to go back on the path Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky envisaged. This is why Stalin killed the old Bolsheviks and their families and supporters. The bulk of his victims were kulaks and ethnic minorities of course. But the threat of capitalist restoration was pretty low in 1936-8. He saw what was going on in Spain, socialist revolution, and he shat himself.

This entire paragraph is riddled with absurdity and nonsense. Trotsky's counter revolutionary dream of permanent revolution, and aim to sabotage socialist industry, completely went against what Marx, Engels, and Lenin stood for. Lenin and Trotsky should not even be mentioned in the same sentence, Trotsky has shown brutal opposition to Lenin countless times, when he was a Menshevik and when he was a Bolshevik. Lenin led the socialist October Revolution and wrote numerous books on revolutionary theory and tactics, Trotsky did not. Marx and Engels came up with critiques of capitalism, Trotsky did not.

Stalin did not kill anybody, the people who were in charge of the executions were the NKVD and Yezhnov, the Commisariat of Internal Affairs. Many Bolsheviks were purged on grounds that they were either passive, violated party discipline, or engaged in traitorous activities. Some were admitted back into the Soviet government. You need to do more research before you go criticizing Stalin. "Purge" does not mean executed.

Lucretia

14th February 2012, 00:45

I don't ignore the concept of winning the confidence, I just say that winning the confidence, according to Lenin, does not exclude application, if need be, of strict authoritarian measures - something you tend to ignore.

You don't ignore it. You just give it a meaning that is not found anywhere in Lenin's texts. Where in Lenin's texts do you see Lenin talking about the process of winning the confidence of workers entailing the use of "strict authoritarian measures"? At best Lenin viewed these as temporary emergency measures that would maintain the political leadership necessary for the future possibility of transitioning to socialism and educating the workers, but at no time did he view these coercive or anti-democratic measures as part of the process of educating the workers and transitioning to socialism.

In your vain quest to find such a quote from Lenin, the best you've managed to do is produce a few obvious and, from my perspective, non-controversial statements about the necessity of communist political leadership for transitioning to socialism, and how that process will entail winning the confidence of workers while educating them.

Well, yes, this listening to the workers (and the masses) part, especially since they are not fully educated yet, in order to somehow consult with them, would seem to be a waste of time. Just as it would be a waste of time, if a teacher of, say, chemistry listened to his students' opinion on where the molecule of water belonged in the periodic table, and even amended the curriculum as a result of such a fruitful discussion. That would be indeed a nonsensical upside-down situation.No, listening to workers is not a waste of time--it's what Lenin specifically calls for in the texts you keep quoting from! The reason he calls for this is that he understands the process of education to be participatory and dialectical. The leadership does not swoop down from outside the class and bestow all its pearls of wisdom to those poor, ignorant workers. The workers on the shop floor, including the vanguard workers who are members of the party, possess a kind of knowledge that bureaucrats in the party do not have. What the non-party workers lack is the training in Marxian theory to understand how their experiences and ideas have a wider applicability or meaning. It is the duty of the party workers and bureaucrats to listen to those experiences and, as best it can, to formulate positions and policies based on the input it receives from workers, then to explain those positions to the workers on Marxian grounds -- including any alterations to the workers' expressed wishes that the party feels a need to bring into line with a Marxian analysis. That is how the process of education occurs.

That you dismiss the understanding of the workers by comparing it to a chemistry teacher listening to a student giving a lecture shows you know as little about Lenin's writings as you do about pedagogy. Every effective teacher listens to the students, asks the students questions and gauges their responses, identifies the students level of understanding, and seeks to tailor his lessons to suit the interests of the students. Teaching in a classroom is just as dialectical and interactive as teaching workers throughout society.

In your model the masses are a passive vessel for an omniscient party that implicitly stands apart from the class. The workers "give feedback" that can easily be ignored, while the orders of the party can never be ignored. It's a recipe for disaster.

The backside of the problem is that without everybody being a conscious participant in the collective production effort socialism can't work for very long, but that's also why you can't dismiss the commissars with revolvers the next morning after the revolution: while the commissars without revolvers are busy re-educating the masses, the ones with revolvers see to it that the economy didn't slide back to capitalism.This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that the transition to socialism will take place with everybody on the same page and no need for compulsion. There will be some need for coercion and compulsion, but when a workers' state carries out such coercion, it will be carrying out the expressed wishes of -- not just the interests of -- the vast majority of the workers. By substituting the latter for the former, you're opening the door to a concept completely foreign to Marx, Engels and Lenin: a socialist transition in which the masses of workers are dragged kicking and screaming.

And here is the bonus question: what the vanguard party is supposed to do, if the workers, in a workers' democracy, after all the influencing, suddenly vote for a return to capitalism?Let's set aside the fact that you're once again counterposing the party to the workers, as if the bulk of the workers' party would be anything other than workers who democratically elect their leadership. The answer to this question is that the party members, reduced to a minority, might be forced to substitute itself for the workers. But *might* is the key word, because a minority controlling production at the behest of the majority requires a coercive state apparatus that will attract into the party people who do not sympathize with socialist principles. It will lead to the evolution of the workers' state so that it assumes an identical form to that found in a class society -- since such a substitutionist "workers state" will need the very same machinery to oppress the vast majority at the behest of the minority that can be found in, say, a capitalist society. And it will force the party to predicate its political authority not on the wishes of the majority, but on the only alternative -- the control of the means of production and the resultant social surplus, which it will distribute not according to socialist principles but according to how best to entrench the political leadership.

In other words, too many years of a minority dictating to the majority what its interests supposedly are, and the corollary struggle between the minority and the reluctant majority, will eventually result in that minority's mistaking its own interests in defending its political leadership with the actual interests of the majority. It will, to be blunt, become a class that mistakes it particular interests with universal interests in the same way that all preceding ruling classes have done.

And it won't be because the leadership originally had bad ideas. It will be the inevitable result of the social conditions which prevent workers from supporting a system that truly *is* in its best interests (whether those conditions be war, scarcity, competition with foreign capitalist nations, etc.).

4th supporter

14th February 2012, 01:10

I really appreciate all the info guys and apologize as i had a feeling this would turn into a senseless argument lol

Zulu

14th February 2012, 11:43

Where in Lenin's texts do you see Lenin talking about the process of winning the confidence of workers entailing the use of "strict authoritarian measures"?

The best way to win somebody's confidence is to demonstrate that you are able to successfully solve problems, such as, for example, those, that arise in the course of revolutionary struggle and socialist construction. It's clear from Lenin's texts that he does not rule out the option of solving problems by application of force and violence.

Every effective teacher listens to the students, asks the students questions and gauges their responses, identifies the students level of understanding,

Yes, that's what I call "feedback". The teacher has to listen to the students in order to asses how successful he has been in educating them. However, the teacher has no point in listening (consulting with) students before he teaches them the basics of the subject. The teacher has nothing to learn from students about chemistry, and if he has, then he hasn't been doing his job right.

and seeks to tailor his lessons to suit the interests of the students.

Right, and the interests of the students are to learn the subject, not to finish the lesson early (which would be happening a lot, if the lessons were conducted "democratically"). The teacher needs not wait till the student become interested in learning. The students are in the classroom - teach them. Of course, it's better when the students are interested (subjectively), and the teacher has to try and make his lessons interesting and even entertaining, when appropriate, but it is his duty to put some knowledge even into the most uninterested students' heads. And needless to say, the students can't "democratically" elect their teacher.

The workers "give feedback" that can easily be ignored, while the orders of the party can never be ignored. It's a recipe for disaster.
Right, that's why the feedback should not be ignored, just as our chemistry teacher has to check the tests and lab works of his students. But he can't allow the students to blow up the classroom, just because a couple of them wants to try out some stuff they've seen on the "Myth Busters".

There will be some need for coercion and compulsion
...

you're opening the door to a concept completely foreign to Marx, Engels and Lenin: a socialist transition in which the masses of workers are dragged kicking and screaming.
So yeah, finally, you admit that there might be some need for compulsion, which means that there will be "dragging, kicking and screaming", if only from a few reactionary and dishonest elements. Which will be immediately used by the bourgeoisie as "evidence" that socialism doesn't work, that it's only about violence and coercion and so on. And you either have to be prepared to live with that, or abandon your socialist and revolutionary ideals.

In any case, while you correctly point out that that idea of socialist transition exclusively by "dragging" the working class is foreign to Lenin, you again ignor the obvious fact that the idea of making this transition not without some "dragging" is explicitly pronounced by Lenin.

Moreover, since the "honest" and "conscious" elements would not require any "dragging" efforts to be wasted on them (as these elements understand the need for the transition and tag along with the vanguard voluntarily), you need not worry about the "dragging" to be applied to anybody who does not reaaly deserve it. Of course, that is an ideal model, but so long as we talk theory and disregard personal qualities of the particular imperfect human beings, there is no difference between Leninism and "Stalinism".

It will lead to the evolution of the workers' state so that it assumes an identical form to that found in a class society...

That is a problem that needs to be addressed, but if you want to have a planned economy, you'll need centralization and compulsion. So the solution to the corruption of the party can't be based on decentralization or on making compliance with the economic plan optional. You'll need another solution, or you'll have to abandon socialism altogether, just as it happened in the USSR during the Perestroika, which was executed under the same "interpretation" you demonstrate: Lenin was a nice guy democrat, Stalin was a monster totalitarianist. That's what Gorbachev's chief ideologist Yakovlev said. It doesn't even matter, if they genuinely believed in it, or not. Objectively it was a mere smokescreen for the full restoration of capitalism.

.

Yazman

14th February 2012, 13:00

What the fuck is wrong with you? Answer my questions. Who do you think came up with the idea of industrialisation of Russia (also the idea of having a Socialist revolution) and who do you think said that going on a series of five year plans to industrialise was just a utopian dream? Also, could you re-write your previous post so it's not an incomprehensible pile of commas?

Chill out Bill O'Reilly, not everybody here is a native speaker of english and it isn't appropriate to shit talk them for it. I've had enough complaints this type of stuff lately. You could have made your point without the shit talk. Quit blasting other users and quit trashing them for their posting style and/or english aptitude.

This post is a warning.

El Chuncho

14th February 2012, 13:04

No need to be aggresive and insulting.

You have to remember, comrade, that some people cannot make any form of a post without flaming and criticizing the writing style of others.

Comments like ''Also, could you re-write your previous post so it's not an incomprehensible pile of commas?'' are unhelpful and very insulting considering that English is not your first language. You post did make sense and your English is not at all bad. It just reflects badly on the ''critics''.

In other words, you should not let his insults and aggression get to you. ;)

The Soviet leadership guided the process,and was responsible for the entire thing.

On the other hand,you had Bukharinites,Trotskyists and others who called it "too fast,too aggresive".

If their plans were followed,the SU would have faced Nazi Germany with a bunch of recruits in old type tanks,while the countryside would remain,for the better part,empty.Factories and industry?Maybe a bit.

Indeed, but some people like to ignore the good points of the SU and thus build an absurd wall of anti-Soviet myths around themselves. In their minds any achievements were built by non-''Stalinists''. People should take a more unbiased and complete view of groups they disagree with. I can even find some merit in Trotsky, whilst disagree with ''Trotskyism'' as a whole.

I really appreciate all the info guys and apologize as i had a feeling this would turn into a senseless argument lol

Yeah, I wish we could have a polite discussion without the infighting, personally. :( And ''Stalinist'' is just a buzzword, we do not see Stalin as the greatest revolutionary leader, we instead believe Lenin to be, but we do believe he protected and continued Marxism-Leninism (fundamentally) successfully, and we respect his views.

Lucretia

14th February 2012, 18:45

The best way to win somebody's confidence is to demonstrate that you are able to successfully solve problems, such as, for example, those, that arise in the course of revolutionary struggle and socialist construction. It's clear from Lenin's texts that he does not rule out the option of solving problems by application of force and violence.

This is so vague as to be meaningless. It's basically you saying that Lenin was not a pacifist. Everybody agrees on that. Why bother saying it?

Where we disagree is about your conception of educating the workers. You seem to think that the process of education envisioned by Lenin necessarily involves compulsion because it entails the enlightened party bureaucrats teaching the rabble what its interests are.

To make matters worse, you seem to think you have scored points by getting me to admit that political substitution in the case of emergencies might be necessary.

But you still haven't wrapped your mind around my earlier point: that the process of education Lenin envisions as taking place in the transition to socialism involves guiding a supportive working class with confidence in the party. This is necessary because the process of transition to socialism involves the workers learning to assume -- then assuming -- a greater and greater control over their own workplaces and their own lives (then learning from their mistakes after assuming control). To think that this can occur through a process by which the majority of workers are bossed around, threatened, and coerced is contradictory and meaningless. Such treatment conditions the workers to be servants of the party, not their own leaders.

Therefore whenever there are emergency measures by which the majority of workers ares suppressed, those emergency measures do not constitute a transition to socialism. To repeat for the third time: they constitute an emergency measure to hold in place the right leadership so that the transition to socialism can take place at a future date.

You, on the other, seem to want to dub Stalin's oppressive measures, inflicted on the majority of the working class either through direct application or by threat, as an "education" in the Leninist sense. That Stalin and his party were simply "teaching" the workers how to be socialist (because, just their luck, Stalin and not the workers knew what socialism was).

There's no other word for this crass Stalinist apologia than the first word that comes to my mind when reading it: stupidity.

daft punk

14th February 2012, 19:33

Nothing that you have said here in this thread is the truth, Stalin was against Mao for a time because he was skeptical of Mao, but he supported him in the end. He was skeptical, because he was afraid he would end up being like Tito. He was right.

Rubbish. Stalin supported Chiang from 1925-1948. He switched sides when Mao won. And Chaing was completely different to Mao. Mao wanted a bourgeois revolution, but I believe he did want socialism several decades later as he said. Stalin didnt want socialism full stop. It was the last thing he wanted.

I presented to you proof that socialism happened in the Soviet Union, instead of replying, you ignored the rest of my post, and decided to comment on my first paragraph, which contained no quotes or statistics.

No you didnt. Socialism is a democratic system in which the state withers away. Stalinist USSR was a dictatorship by an elite, nothing like socialism.

"Without the support of the 20 million trade unionists, without the support of the peasantry, organized in the Soviets and in the collective farms, the Party could not last for a week, for it is not the dictatorship of the Party, but a dictatorship of the working-class, in alliance with the peasantry. "

What a joke. They had just killed about a million people. Nobody dared criticise the regime, it was instant death.

As for 10,000 trotskyists being sent in exile in Siberia, where did you get those statistics from? You only tell one side of the story, if it's a true story at all.

from a review of
Stalin’s Terror of 1937-1938: Political Genocide in the USSR — Review of New Book by Russian Historian Vadim Z. Rogovin

http://socialistalternative.org/news/article20.php?id=1210

But he didn't advocate for permanent world revolution like Trotsky did. Lenin has also condemned Trotsky's revisionist, and idealistic theory of "permanent revolution."

No he didnt, see below

“The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him. [….] Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as 'Lenin’s cudgel'. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.*e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that 'between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf'. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left 'permanent revolution' theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg. In the period of disintegration, after long 'non-factional' vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas” (CW 20, 346-7).

From 1914 Let's get this straight. Up to 1917, only Trotsky believed a socialist revolution could start in Russia. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were stagists. Lenin believed that any revolution in Russia would be a bourgeois one. But in 1917 Lenin came round to Trotsky's way of thinking. Trotsky wanted the Provisional Government overthrown, the Bolsheviks were supporting it. Lenin came back to Russia, now agreeing with Trotsky. He wrote the April Theses and called for revolution. Most of the Bolshevik Central Committee took a lot of persuading. Stalin was silent for 10 days. Some slagged Lenin off, but in the end his political weight prevailed. But Lenin still went for the idea of a 'workers and peasants' government, for Trotsky it had to be a workers government. In September Lenin shifted to Trotsky's view.

You have this straight now, I hope never to hear you saying that again.

No, that is wrong. If anyone was leading a counter revolution it was Trotsky and his faction of permanent counter revolutionists, who spoke ill of the peasantry and disagreed with Lenin on many decisions regarding WW1.

Lol! See above. Wanna hear what Marx and said about the peasantry? See Communist Manifesto. They call them reactionary. Anyway, Trotsky's plan was very clever. Let me explain. The poor peasants did not oppose the rich ones throughout most of 1917, the peasants were sort of united against the landlords. By calling for a workers government, it was a way to split them to drag the poor peasants away from the rich ones. Genius.

Communist Manifesto:

"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat. "

*********** “Trotsky threw up his hands, telling the Germans that he would never agree to what they wanted [in the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty] and urging Lenin to adopt a 'no war, no peace' policy in which Russia would neither continue to fight nor agree to Germany's terms […] The Ukrainian capital of Kiev fell to the Germans on March 1. Trotsky, furious, said that Russia should rejoin the Entente and resume the war. Lenin, fearing the capture of Petrograd and the destruction of his fledgling regime, moved his government to Moscow and said no” (Meyer 619-620).

Do you understand any of this? I'm not sure I do. All i know is Trotsky led the peace negotiations but at the last minute there was some differences with Lenin. In fact the majority of the Central Committee supported Trotsky against Lenin for a time. Anyway, it's pretty complicated. For instance the USA had just joined the war against Germany. Trotsky was trying to expose Germany's territorial ambitions. In the end Trotsky's plan didnt work out too well but there you go.

Here is Trotsky revealing Soviet Spies to Imperial Japan:

*********** “To be sure Moscow had ample reasons in its day to hide its participation in publishing and exposing the ‘Tanaka Memorial.’ The prime consideration was not to provoke Tokio. This explains why the Kremlin took the round-about way in making it public. [….] One has to assume that operating here is the excessive caution which often drives Stalin to ignore major considerations for the sake of secondary and petty ones. It is more than likely that this time too Moscow does not wish to cause any annoyances to Tokio in view of the negotiations now under way in the hope of reaching a more stable and lasting agreement. All these considerations, however, recede to the background as the world war spreads its concentric circles ever wider” (Trotsky, The ‘Tanaka Memorial’).

yeah right. I cant read this at the mo because marxists.org is down.

"Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2358142#post2358142)
The main 'reaction' Stalin was scared of in the purges was the chance of people wanting to go back on the path Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky envisaged. This is why Stalin killed the old Bolsheviks and their families and supporters. The bulk of his victims were kulaks and ethnic minorities of course. But the threat of capitalist restoration was pretty low in 1936-8. He saw what was going on in Spain, socialist revolution, and he shat himself. "

This entire paragraph is riddled with absurdity and nonsense. Trotsky's counter revolutionary dream of permanent revolution, and aim to sabotage socialist industry, completely went against what Marx, Engels, and Lenin stood for. Lenin and Trotsky should not even be mentioned in the same sentence, Trotsky has shown brutal opposition to Lenin countless times, when he was a Menshevik and when he was a Bolshevik. Lenin led the socialist October Revolution and wrote numerous books on revolutionary theory and tactics, Trotsky did not. Marx and Engels came up with critiques of capitalism, Trotsky did not.
How can permanent revolution be counter-revolutionary?

Do you even know what it means? Permanent revolution means fighting for socialism. It means not stopping at capitalism. before 1917, as I explained above, Lenin thought if a revolution happened in Russia it would stop at capitalism. In the end it was Trotsky's view that prevailed.

Menshevik? The Social Democrats split in 1903. Trotsky and most of the Iskra editors supported Martov and were called the Mensheviks. Over the next year many people swapped sides. In 1904 Trotsky left the Mensheviks.

Stalin did not kill anybody, the people who were in charge of the executions were the NKVD and Yezhnov, the Commisariat of Internal Affairs. Many Bolsheviks were purged on grounds that they were either passive, violated party discipline, or engaged in traitorous activities. Some were admitted back into the Soviet government. You need to do more research before you go criticizing Stalin. "Purge" does not mean executed.[/QUOTE]

Zulu

15th February 2012, 10:54

To make matters worse, you seem to think you have scored points by getting me to admit that political substitution in the case of emergencies might be necessary.
And the Soviet Union found itself in a situation (often referred to as a "besieged fortress"), which put in in a state of constant emergency. Of course, the socialist construction there could not be anything like what it should look like, if the danger of capitalist restoration is diminished with all the major industrial countries going socialist.

But you still haven't wrapped your mind around my earlier point: that the process of education Lenin envisions as taking place in the transition to socialism involves guiding a supportive working class with confidence in the party. This is necessary because the process of transition to socialism involves the workers learning to assume -- then assuming -- a greater and greater control over their own workplaces and their own lives (then learning from their mistakes after assuming control).

One side of the process of "assuming greater control" is that the workers cease to be workers we know in the capitalist formation. And that side was present in the Soviet Union (as well as other socialist countries) with an ever growing number of workers being recruited in the party and promoted to important positions in industry, science, agriculture, military, etc. (after receiving some proper education), where they could contribute directly to the socialist construction.

Lucretia

16th February 2012, 03:52

And the Soviet Union found itself in a situation (often referred to as a "besieged fortress"), which put in in a state of constant emergency. Of course, the socialist construction there could not be anything like what it should look like, if the danger of capitalist restoration is diminished with all the major industrial countries going socialist.

You appear not to be registering what I am saying, or least have no interest in directly addressing it. But I'll repeat the two most important points again, hoping they will eventually sink in at some point: (1) the substitutionist political measures undertaken as emergencies, whereby workers are deprived of decision-making abilities and forced to obey the party against their will, by definition cannot constitute a transition process to socialism (and is therefore not just a different form of transition, which is what you seem to think it was); and (2) such political substitution is a delicate process and can only take place for so long before the substitutes begin to assume the status of a new class. The process can not go on for decades, like a lot of orthodox Trotskyists think it did.

One side of the process of "assuming greater control" is that the workers cease to be workers we know in the capitalist formation. And that side was present in the Soviet Union (as well as other socialist countries) with an ever growing number of workers being recruited in the party and promoted to important positions in industry, science, agriculture, military, etc. (after receiving some proper education), where they could contribute directly to the socialist construction.Huh? In what sense did workers in the Soviet Union cease being workers? Yeah, the ones who were recruited into the party bureaucracy certainly did, but those bureaucrats did not live by paperwork alone. People still had to do the gritty work to produce the necessary goods and services of society. As for your statement about promotions, that just doesn't seem to be relevant to the topic at hand. A worker given a higher status position in industry is still an industrial worker -- unless he becomes a managing bureaucrat. But in that case, see my previous point.

Lev Bronsteinovich

16th February 2012, 04:09

"But if you take the progressive peasants and workers, not more than 15 percent are skeptical of the Soviet power, or are silent from fear or are waiting for the moment when they can undermine the Bolsheviks state. On the other hand, about 85 percent of the more or less active people would urge us further than we want to go. We often have to put on the brakes. They would like to stamp out the last remnants of the intelligentsia. But we would not permit that. In the whole history of the world there never was a power that was supported by nine tenths of the population as the Soviet power is supported.
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 175

More retarded quotes from the same tired Stalinist hacks. I suppose comrade Ludwig did the polling himself, on a random basis? I would bet at least 35 twenty sevenths of the population loved comrade Stalin more than their own mothers. LMFAO.

daft punk

16th February 2012, 12:34

This is not true,the Soviet people supported the party,if it didnt,than the party wouldn't have achieved anything.There would be no victory in the GPW.

Well, it was a war, and there had just been 7 years of terror against the population. You could say the Nazis were just as popular among their people. It doesn't say much.

This position of Stalin in relation to the Party was matched by the position of the Party in relation to the masses.... Since the moment when they [the Bolsheviks] first secured a majority in the Soviets prior to the November Revolution they have retained the confidence of the majority, or they could not have maintained power.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 173

Murphy was a Stalinist, a member of the CPGB.

"But if you take the progressive peasants and workers, not more than 15 percent are skeptical of the Soviet power, or are silent from fear or are waiting for the moment when they can undermine the Bolsheviks state. On the other hand, about 85 percent of the more or less active people would urge us further than we want to go. We often have to put on the brakes. They would like to stamp out the last remnants of the intelligentsia. But we would not permit that. In the whole history of the world there never was a power that was supported by nine tenths of the population as the Soviet power is supported.
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 175

Well, this is Stalin being quoted ffs. Please stop pasting these random quotes from the Stalinist School of Falsification, without checking them, without links etc.

These characteristics of a Bolshevik party are far from being fully understood by supporters of the Soviet Union today. The Communist Party is continually being described as a small disciplined elite, ordering the people of the Soviet Union hither and thither for their own good. In short, the Soviet regime is pictured as the dictatorship of a Party.
This is a travesty which is unfortunately accepted by friends, as well as by enemies. In the remarks we have quoted above, Lenin is explaining to the Socialists of Western Europe that the Communist Party could only function on the basis of the confidence of the workers; that this confidence was not created by propaganda, but by people testing from their own experience the quality of the political leadership of the Party; that before any policy could be carried out, the Communist Party had to secure the co-operation of millions of people who were not Party members, who were not under Party discipline, who could not be coerced into co-operation, but who could only be convinced on the basis of their experience; and that further, if in the progress of the struggle a change of direction was necessary, not only the Party, but tens of millions of non-party people had to be convinced of the need for this change of direction and had to understand the methods of carrying it through.
In carrying out its activities, the Party rests on the trade unions and on the Soviets. Without the support of the 20 million trade unionists, without the support of the peasantry, organized in the Soviets and in the collective farms, the Party could not last for a week, for it is not the dictatorship of the Party, but a dictatorship of the working-class, in alliance with the peasantry.
Campbell, J. R. Soviet Policy and Its Critics. London: V. Gollancz, ltd., 1939, p. 15-16

This talks about Lenin so is pre-1924 and therefore irrelevant.

The British War Cabinet scheduled a meeting for July 29, 1919 to discuss the Russian situation. The news of Kolchak's reverses emboldened those who had all along wanted an accommodation with Lenin. Their thinking was reflected in a memorandum submitted to the Cabinet by a Treasury official and banker named Harvey. The document grossly distorted the internal situation in Russia to press the argument for abandoning the White cause. Its basic premise held that in a Civil War the victory went to the side that enjoyed greater popular support, from which it followed that since Lenin's government had beaten off all challengers it had to have the population behind it [the document stated]:
"It is impossible to account for the stability of the Bolshevik Government by terrorism alone.... When the Bolshevik fortunes seemed to be at the lowest ebb, a most vigorous offensive was launched before which the Kolchak forces are still in retreat. No terrorism, not even long suffering acquiescence, but something approaching enthusiasm is necessary for this. We must admit then that the present Russian government is accepted by the bulk of the Russian people."

The pledge of the Whites immediately after victory to convene a Constituent Assembly meant little since there was no assurance that " Russia, summoned to the polls, will not again return the Bolsheviks." The unsavory aspects of Lenin's rule were in good measure forced on him by his enemies:
"Necessity of state enables him to justify many acts of violence whereas in a state of peace his Government would have to be progressive or it would fall. It is respectfully contended that the surest way to get rid of Bolshevism, or at least to eradicate the vicious elements in it, is to withdraw our support of the Kolchak movement and thereby end the Civil War."

Although the author did not explicitly say so, his line of argument led to the inescapable conclusion that support should also be withdrawn from Denikin and Yudenich.
Pipes, Richard. Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993, p. 96

1919, irrelevant

The very small number of active dissidents against the Soviet system has reflected their lack of support in the general population. All active dissidents have generally acknowledged that their ideas and activities are unpopular and elicit no responsive chords in the Soviet population. The Soviet system has a high degree of legitimacy among almost all of its citizens, as is readily admitted by virtually all of its critics both inside and outside the USSR. The legitimacy of the regime was greatly enhanced by the trauma of World War II and the heroic, and very bloody, victory over the Nazi invaders (which not only generated great feelings of solidarity and sacrifice, but also confirmed the national fear of foreign intervention which has lasted until today). The Communist Party's successful industrialization and modernization program has also generated massive support for the Soviet system, as has the high rate of upward mobility and the considerable Soviet achievements in science, education, public-health, and other welfare services. Western Sovietologists (most of whom are not sympathizers of the Soviet system) essentially concede that there is widespread support for Soviet institutions among the Soviet people as a whole.
Szymanski, Albert. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books, 1984, p. 274

Great, and 5 years later the USSR closed for business.

and so on

daft punk

16th February 2012, 12:56

Andre Gide became a communist and went to the USSR in 1936.

He wrote:

"In my opinion, no country today not even in Hitler's Germany is the spirit more suppressed, more timid, more servile than in the Soviet Union."

Zulu

16th February 2012, 13:09

(1) the substitutionist political measures undertaken as emergencies, whereby workers are deprived of decision-making abilities and forced to obey the party against their will, by definition cannot constitute a transition process to socialism (and is therefore not just a different form of transition, which is what you seem to think it was);

It's not "substitutionist" measures, the rule of the workers through the vanguard party is the political system that is correct for the entire period of socialism (aka transition to full communism), just as the rule of the bourgeoisie through parliamentary democracy is the political system intrinsic only to capitalism. The democratic character of the dictatorship of th proletariat is ensured not by the widest participation in decision making, but that the decision makers are recruited from the working class. Part-time planning / part-time toiling is impossible because it's grossly inefficient so long as the classes remain. Only when the antagonisms between manual and intellectual labor, decision-making and execution diminish, which will be some time (presumably no less than a few decades if everything goes well) into the transition attempts should be made in the direction of the part-time planning. A "workers' democracy" would be the more inefficient, the earlier it is attempted.

BTW, the parliamentary democracy is in the decline under the monopoly capitalism already, as it is in reality substituted by the "managed democracy", when the voting (and public opinion in general) is greatly influenced and manipulated through the media (owned guess by who). This reflects the character of the decision making under the conditions of the more centralized planning of production. During the period of socialism production will be even more centralized, so that leaves even less room for the naive liberal aspirations of parliamentary democracy.

and (2) such political substitution is a delicate process and can only take place for so long before the substitutes begin to assume the status of a new class. The process can not go on for decades, like a lot of orthodox Trotskyists think it did.
Again, measures against the corruption of the party should be devised, but they cannot be based on decentralization, which would be reactionary idealism trying to go against the tide of history.

Huh? In what sense did workers in the Soviet Union cease being workers? Yeah, the ones who were recruited into the party bureaucracy certainly did, but those bureaucrats did not live by paperwork alone. People still had to do the gritty work to produce the necessary goods and services of society. As for your statement about promotions, that just doesn't seem to be relevant to the topic at hand. A worker given a higher status position in industry is still an industrial worker -- unless he becomes a managing bureaucrat. But in that case, see my previous point.
Your inability to grasp the dialectical character of the process of recruitment of workers into managerial (bureaucratic) positions is quite telling. In reality having former workers as "captains of industry" gave the Soviet industry its edge over the capitalist industry. Since they had the first-hand experience in the production processed their decisions were on average better that those of their western counterparts, who with the rare exceptions had only theoretical knowledge acquired in the colleges for the rich kids. The real problems began only when the party became corrupted, social mobility diminished and higher levels of the hierarchy were in fact reserved for the Soviet "rich kids".

Arguably, the Communist Party of China has developed better mechanisms of self-regulation, owing perhaps mostly to Mao's ideas of the "Mass Line". During the Cultural Revolution the dialectical character of the party membership was confirmed by the fact that many of the purged (including Deng Xiaoping) were not executed or imprisoned, but sent to work as simple workers and peasants. If anything, with all it's obvious vices, there seems to be no real drive to break up with socialism completely, as was the case with the CPSU during the Perestroika.

Omsk

16th February 2012, 14:39

"In my opinion, no country today not even in Hitler's Germany is the spirit more suppressed, more timid, more servile than in the Soviet Union."

Yeah,it was really fun in Nazi Germany.

Oh,it was the worst place on earth if you are a Jew,Slav,Non-Nazi,woman,foreigner,scientist,child,poor,sick,una ble to work,if you refuse to go to the army,etc etc.

It was all right if you were a German Nazi noble.

Andre's nonsense was tolerated long enough.

And what did Andre think of communism,in general?

-It is impermissible under any circumstances for morals to sink as low as communism has done.

I ask you,what did,"comrade" Gide,think of morals?

Well, it was a war, and there had just been 7 years of terror against the population. You could say the Nazis were just as popular among their people. It doesn't say much.

It does,you are just blind in your Trotskyite rage.

And the rest of your quite bold answers are irelevant,because the unimformed user i responded to,was talking about the Soviet leadership and party as a whole,in its entire existance,not just a couple of years.

Lucretia

16th February 2012, 18:32

It's not "substitutionist" measures, the rule of the workers through the vanguard party is the political system that is correct for the entire period of socialism (aka transition to full communism), just as the rule of the bourgeoisie through parliamentary democracy is the political system intrinsic only to capitalism.

The rule of the workers through the vanguard party is what is key here. It means that the workers are voluntarily using the vanguard party as an instrument of education and intellectual leadership to pull themselves up to a higher level. It takes a mind stricken by denial to pretend that workers who are being ordered around against their will by party bureaucrats are "ruling" anything.

We call the Stalinist model of society substitutionist because the cadre substitutes its judgment for the judgment of the workers. It doesn't supplement their judgment, it doesn't guide their judgment. It ignores their judgment, represses their will, and threatens them if they try to protest.

The democratic character of the dictatorship of th proletariat is ensured not by the widest participation in decision making, but that the decision makers are recruited from the working class.Some of the worst tyrants have been from working-class backgrounds. Does that mean their political authority was "democratic" in character? You're just repeating the same sloppy formulation that, if you have the right people in charge (they are the right people because they are from a particular background), then the content of their political decisions is necessarily democratic, regardless of what the masses of people think about their decisions. Sounds more akin to divine right than socialism.

Anyhow, you won't find this idea -- the idea that the democratic character of the DoP consisting entirely in working-class-background bureaucrats call the shots -- in any of Lenin's writings.

It is yet another Stalinist innovation that you're embracing.

daft punk

16th February 2012, 18:54

Yeah,it was really fun in Nazi Germany.

Oh,it was the worst place on earth if you are a Jew,Slav,Non-Nazi,woman,foreigner,scientist,child,poor,sick,una ble to work,if you refuse to go to the army,etc etc.

It was all right if you were a German Nazi noble.

Andre's nonsense was tolerated long enough.

And what did Andre think of communism,in general?

-It is impermissible under any circumstances for morals to sink as low as communism has done.

Which bit of "Andre Gide became a communist and went to the USSR" did you not understand? He became a communist, went to Russia, saw the mood of the people and the purges, and was disgusted.

I ask you,what did,"comrade" Gide,think of morals?

No idea what you are on about

"Well, it was a war, and there had just been 7 years of terror against the population. You could say the Nazis were just as popular among their people. It doesn't say much. "

It does,you are just blind in your Trotskyite rage.

And the rest of your quite bold answers are irelevant,because the unimformed user i responded to,was talking about the Soviet leadership and party as a whole,in its entire existance,not just a couple of years.

Stalin was in power more than a couple of years.

None of your pasta-fest had any credibilty, that is the fact. No the people didnt topple the regime, they didnt topple lots of dictators in history, doesnt mean they loved him either.

Millions were purged to maintain the dictatorship.

The Old Man from Scene 24

16th February 2012, 20:55

"In my opinion, no country today not even in Hitler's Germany is the spirit more suppressed, more timid, more servile than in the Soviet Union."

That has got to be one of the most stupid and reactionary statements I have ever heard. Whether or not one likes the Soviet Union, any sane person will know that the CCCP was not anywhere near as bad as Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany:
Prejudice against people based on race
Genocide against non-Christians
Private Capitalism

Soviet Union:
Racial tolerance
Atheism was enforced, but non-atheists weren't slaughtered on a regular basis.
Marxism-Leninism - Even if one thinks that it was "state capitalist", that has still got to be better than private capitalism.

The Old Man from Scene 24

16th February 2012, 20:58

Millions were purged to maintain the dictatorship.

Millions of fascists and capitalists were purged to maintain the "dictatorship".

GoddessCleoLover

16th February 2012, 21:10

daft punk

16th February 2012, 21:28

The vast majority of the workers of the world know quite well that most of the purge victims were neither fascists nor capitalists. We will never win over the working class as long as we hong on to the past baggage of Stalin, Mao, the Kims and the like. We need to articulate a vision of revolution and working class rule that that means real workers' democracy and real workers' control of society. The age of the "vanguard party" is past. The vanguard parties that misrule China, Cuba and the DPRK are the last of a dying breed. If we want revolution, we have to come up with new ideas with real mass appeal to workers who have no faith in the old discredited vanguards. Those dinosaurs have no future in the real world, only among internet-based debating societies.
Not sure we can get away from the vanguard party during the actual revolution, but you would be involving the masses as much as possible. The Bolsheviks did sort of have democracy for a few months, but their problem was that the working class was only a tiny percentage of the population.

It wasnt the vanguard party idea that led to Stalinism, it was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country.

Stalin misused the vanguard thing then to justify his one man dictatorship.

Trotsky wrote some stuff on this in 1923, the New Course, in which he says the centralism, necessary in 1917 and the civil war, has been increasing when it should be decreasing.

Lenin wanted the masses to be making decisions and so on, but the civil war put a stop to it. However he felt confident enough in 1918 to say that Russia was now a million times more democratic than any capitalist country.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm

GoddessCleoLover

16th February 2012, 21:56

My view is that while much of what Trotsky began to advocate in 1923 with respect to party democracy was valid, he was a bit late to the table. In 1921 the RCP (b) outlawed not only Trotsky's faction but also the Workers' Opposition and the Democratic Centralists. The stigmatization of the Democratic Centralists/Group of Fifteen was tragic in particular as they emphasized the need for the party to remain internally democratic two years prior to when Trotsky took up the issue. Therefore by 1921 the party had ceased to function democratically at it merely remained for Stalin to utilize the powers granted to the General Secretariat to attain his own personal dictatorship over the party.

The historical lesson I draw from this tragic decline of the Bolsheviks into a top-down structure dominated by Stalin is that the institutions of socialism must be democratic within the party and that the party must be accountable to the working class. The history of the various "communist" countries also might lead one to doubt the basic efficacy of the vanguard party. After all, didn't Trotsky once state his objection to that structure on the grounds that the party would supplant the class, the central committee would supplant the party and finally a dictator would supplant the central committee?

Zulu

16th February 2012, 23:10

workers who are being ordered around against their will.

If the party is right, then such workers are reactionary.
If the party is wrong, the workers are free to start another revolution. However, if the workers think the party is wrong, when in reality it is right, they are still reactionary and their revolution will actually be a counter-revolution.

But there is no way to solve this by a popular vote in socialism. Because popular vote = adios to socialism. This has been confirmed like a dozen times in
the 20th century. Sure, there have been some leaders who brand themselves as revolutionaries and try to be socialist and populist at the same time, one of such is even the author of my signature quote. Sadly, their discrepancy from Marxism-Leninism casts doubt as to the eventual success of their programs and undertakings.

Anyhow, you won't find this idea -- the idea that the democratic character of the DoP consisting entirely in working-class-background bureaucrats call the shots -- in any of Lenin's writings.

Well, of course so big a thing as the DoP is bound to have many elements, besides the "working-class-background bureaucrats calling the shots", but in essence that's about how Lenin saw it. Basically, your views are that of the Workers' Opposition (http://marxists.org/glossary/orgs/w/o.htm#workers-opposition), which was routed by Lenin at the 10th Party Congress as an anarcho-syndicalist deviation. To understand his vision of the organization of production, government, etc. during the transition to socialism, and how the workers participate in it all, study his writings concerning the trade unions. This quote perhaps summarizes it the best in one short paragraph, what Lenin's views were on the role of the state, the party and the trade unions:

"The state is a sphere of coercion. It would be madness to renounce coercion, especially in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that the administrative approach and “steerage” are indispensable. The Party is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules directly. The trade unions are a reservoir of the state power, a school of communism and a school of management. The specific and cardinal thing in this sphere is not administration but the “ties ” “between the central state administration” (and, of course, the local as well), “the national economy and the broad masses of the working people” (see Party Programme, economic section, §5, dealing with the trade unions)."
V. I. Lenin, "Once Again on the Trade Unions", 1921.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm

(This one should be also of interest to our Trotskyist pal here, as an example of Lenin and Trotsky's "unanimity" on all things Marxist...)

.

Omsk

16th February 2012, 23:17

Which bit of "Andre Gide became a communist and went to the USSR" did you not understand? He became a communist, went to Russia, saw the mood of the people and the purges, and was disgusted.

Why do you keep on making straw-men,if you can discuss normaly,dont argue at all.

That,what you just posted,just proved he was an opportunist and non-communist.

Stalin was in power more than a couple of years.

He was talking about the Soviet leadership 1917-onward.Read.

None of your pasta-fest had any credibilty, that is the fact.

You can dictate that something is a fact?

All right,in the same way,i can say that Andre Gide was an opportunist,and the quote you posted is absolutely disgusting and reactionary.

That is a fact.Dont even try to answer,because that is a fact.

Lucretia

16th February 2012, 23:59

If the party is right, then such workers are reactionary.

You are reducing socialism to a question of having the right answers. Socialism is a movement, a process, in which the people collectively determine how necessary things are produced and distributed. One year they might decide to build more libraries than jogging paths. The next year it might be the reverse. Neither of these decisions is inherently "socialist." What makes them socialist is that it is the people collectively making the decision through democratic means. It is not being dictated by capitalists, a cadre of bureaucrats, or any other minority of the population. To repeat what Marx said on a related issue: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established." It is necessarily an ongoing process whose essential feature is workers' power to make economic decisions.

If the party is wrong, the workers are free to start another revolution. However, if the workers think the party is wrong, when in reality it is right, they are still reactionary and their revolution will actually be a counter-revolution.

The key question here, though, is "who determines whether the party is wrong, and on what basis?" The basis for determining whether the party is right or wrong on a particular issue is by judging how well it is overseeing the process of empowering workers to take control over an economy that is collectively planned and managed for the good of society.

There are two components here, then, and they are necessary components. The first is that workers must be transitioning to a period of direct management and control over the economy. And the second is that the workers' administering of the economy must be directed toward *social* production -- not class-based or capitalist production.

If either of these necessary components is missing, you won't end up with socialism. The people collectively choosing to empower capitalists won't lead to socialism, but then neither will bureaucrats dictating how much of whatever widget is to be produced (since socialism is not a 'state of affairs').

The question you're grappling with is: well, what if the people really, really love capitalism, and therefore aren't willing to make decisions geared toward social production?

In answering this question, the first thing to note is that the vast majority of people have an economic interest in socialism. In a context where the bourgeoisie has been smashed by the masses (led by an explicitly anti-capitalist revolutionary vanguard), and their propaganda organs dismantled, people will no longer have the counter-veiling cultural forces preventing them from fully embracing socialism; (b) to the extent that there is cultural hang-over from bourgeois society, that out-moded attachment to capitalism will tend to be offset by the trust that the masses have in the explicitly anti-capitalist vanguard. There is, in other words, an organic fusion between the workers' will and the movement toward a socialist economy in a period following a socialist-led revolution.

But this organic fusion can be disturbed or in some way upset. The case of post-revolutionary Russia is a classic example. The majority of the workers following October were decidedly behind the Bolsheviks and the Bolshevik program for communism. What chipped away at that support were the exhaustion, stress, and suffering exacted by foreign invasion in a backward country. It was, in other words, not socialism that caused the Bolsheviks to lose support. It was declining support for the emergency measures the Bolsheviks needed to enforce in order to create a space in Russia for the transition to socialism to occur. Even then, many of the workers continued to support the party up to the late 1920s, which saw a sharp rise in their exploitation and oppression.

So what do you do when you have a situation in which the workers and the party support socialism, but where the support of the working masses is worn away by the objective situation? Lenin and Trotsky knew the answer. You take emergency measures, both economic and political, to handle the emergency situation so that when that emergency is over, the transition to socialism can proceed without such intervening obstacles. When the transition begins to build up a head of steam, you would then -- it was believed -- no longer need such substitutionist political or economic measures, because the workers will once again be on the same page as the party.

But what do you do when the emergency situation is basically permanent, where a backward country is isolated in a sea of capitalist empires? The answer is there is no way to achieve socialism is such conditions -- which is why "socialism in one country" is bullshit. The isolated country will be in geo-political (and therefore economic) competition with the rest of the capitalist globe, and will therefore be forced to behave capitalistically, with competitive expansion of capital goods, weaponry, etc. Once again, Lenin and Trotsky understood this.

You then trot out another Lenin quote in which Lenin is arguing the exact opposite of the position you've been defending. In the quote, Lenin is saying that in the period of transition, you don't just immediately hand over all economic power directly to workers at the most local of levels. The result of that would be workers making economic decisions in their factories on the basis of what's good for people in their factory -- not what's good for society as a whole. The workers need to adjust themselves to a new way of thinking about production. And the way to do that is NOT BY COERCING THEM -- which is precisely why Lenin insists on maintaining a distinction between the state ("the sphere of coercion") and the trade unions (a "resevoir," a resource, a source of legitimacy for the state). The way to do this is by allowing workers to maintain some degree of control through unionization at the level of the workshop--which is why Lenin adamantly opposed the statification of the trade unions--and to use their experiences alongside party members in those unions to begin to learn how to run the economy in a social way.

Again, this flies in the face of your conception of Leninist "education" by which people are bossed into socialism by just doing what the omniscient bureaucrats instruct.

Zulu

17th February 2012, 05:33

Lenin and Trotsky understood this.

Lenin said: We can hold out for as long as necessary and even build socialism, step by step, starting with prerequisites: electrification, liquidation of illiteracy, etc. (See "Our Revolution", 1923.)

Trotsky didn't understand squat, and he was always at odds with Lenin, except on some matters in 1917-1920.

Again, this flies in the face of your conception of Leninist "education" by which people are bossed into socialism by just doing what the omniscient bureaucrats instruct.

People aren't educated by being "bossed" into socialism. People are educated and "bossed" into socialism at the same time. naturally, the process of education includes (although is not limited to) some specifically educational "bossing".

All right, this has been goign long enough with you now playing semantics to pretend Lenin's quotes mean something different rather than what they seem to mean at the first glance , and then trying to tell me what the correct socialism should look like (which is at the end of the day peripheral to the discussion of Stalin's adherence to Leninism). SO, let's summarize.

Lenin said:

1. Yay to coercion!
2. Party rules.
3. Education of workers in trade unions, then recruitment of them into the Party and Soviet bureaucracy.
4. Workers do not have control over the industry, the Party has.
5. Compliance with the economic planning done by the Party (&Gosplan) is compulsory.
6. All who don't like it get purged from the Party.
7. And coerced into submission (see the Kronstadt uprising, btw).

Guess Lenin was the first "Stalinist". Even before Stalin himself was a "Stalininst".

.

Lucretia

17th February 2012, 06:16

Lenin said: We can hold out for as long as necessary and even build socialism, step by step, starting with prerequisites: electrification, liquidation of illiteracy, etc. (See "Our Revolution", 1923.)

Having read this document before, I was pretty certain that it did not say anything remotely like "we can hold for as long as necessary against competition in order to build socialism in one country." Sure enough, I went to the marxists online archive, read it again, and saw nothing in the document that even hinted at the possibility.

The only thing that might be mistaken for making such a claim is his rhetorical question: "If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?"

This statement breaks down as follows: (1) A certain level of culture is required for socialism. (2 -- Implicit) In western Europe, that level of culture is being or has been developed by capitalism. (3 -- Implicit) Our country has not developed to that level of culture because we are late-comers to capitalist development. (4) Why can't we have a revolution that combines the tasks of the bourgeoisie with the tasks of socialist revolution? In so doing, we would "overtake" the other nations by having a socialist revolution before them.

You should note that number 4 is essentially Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. So, far from your statement that "Trotsky didn't understand squat, and he was always at odds with Lenin, except on some matters in 1917-1920," here we see Lenin in 1923 affirming one of Trotsky's main theoretical achievements. But also note that there is nothing in this which indicates the possibility of socialism in one country, or the possibility of the USSR being able to hold out indefinitely as a workers' state against capitalist empires.

So, surprise, surprise, you once again have managed to completely mangle Lenin's ideas.

Not only that, but you are conspicuously silent on the fact that in my last response to you, I showed that you read into Lenin the exact opposite of what he was saying about the relationship between educating workers and coercing them. Instead, you cling to this bizarre idea, not present in any of Lenin's texts, that "people are educated and "bossed" into socialism at the same time."

Yes, there will be some bossing going on. Hence, the need for the state. And this bossing will occur as the process of transitioning to socialism occurs. But the bossing is not an integral part of the process of transitioning to socialism. To the extent that there is bossing, it is to provide for the political space to allow the transition to occur. People are not "bossed into socialism." People are educated into socialism, and only bossed to the extent that they are trying to sabotage that transition in ways that are anti-social or anti-democratic. At best coercion can only ensure that people do not take actions to make the transition to socialism more difficult. It cannot make people move toward socialism.

Lenin said:
1. Yay to coercion!
2. Party rules.
3. Education of workers in trade unions, then recruitment of them into the Party and Soviet bureaucracy.
4. Workers do not have control over the industry, the Party has.
5. Compliance with the economic planning done by the Party (&Gosplan) is compulsory.
6. All who don't like it get purged from the Party.
7. And coerced into submission (see the Kronstadt uprising, btw).

Guess Lenin was the first "Stalinist". Even before Stalin himself was a "Stalininst".
This is more ridiculous mangling of Lenin's ideas. Show me where Lenin said "yay" to coercion, that only the party and not the workers are to have control over industry (hint: see the portion of my last post about statification of the unions), or that people who don't like Lenin's ideas should be purged from the party.

It's just more half-baked Stalinist non-sense from a person who has made a bloodsport with Lenin's texts all throughout this thread.

Zulu

17th February 2012, 07:43

You should note that number 4 is essentially Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution.
Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was in fact Parvus' (a Bolshevik liaison in Germany or something) theory of permanent revolution, which was vulgarization of basic Marxism. Like Lenin said about Trotsky's view on the topic of the trade unions, but it's quite suitable to describe his " main theoretical achievement" as well: "Comrade Trotsky’s theses have landed him in a mess. That part of them which is correct is not new and, what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong."

(4) Why can't we have a revolution that combines the tasks of the bourgeoisie with the tasks of socialist revolution? In so doing, we would "overtake" the other nations by having a socialist revolution before them.
This is you who blatantly attempt to mangle the meaning of Lenin's work here. First of all, both bourgeois and socialist revolutions have been accomplished 6 years prior to Lenin's writing that, so your point makes no sense at all. And it's clear from that place and from the entire text of the article that Lenin speaks of overtaking other nations regardless of any help they might render (as was hoped for, when the Bolsheviks generally considered the world revolution imminent). On the contrary, he emphasizes, that the "prerequisites" may be achieved in a revolutionary way, out of dire necessity, and such a useful institution as the Soviet system of government can provide everything needed for the task. And once you have the "prerequisites", what's going to stop you from moving on? In other words, it's "socialist construction in one country".

Besides, the Soviet Union either was technically not a "one country" (there were 4 republics at its creation), or it would always remain a "one country" (as it was presumed at the time that every socialist country would be entering the Union after having a proper revolution). Would it still be impossible, even from the point of the orthodox Marxism, to build socialism in "one country", if that country (still called the USSR) spanned the entire Eurasia, and included a "French Soviet Socialist Republic", a "Norwegian Soviet Socialist Republic", a "Japanese Soviet Socialist Republic" and so on?

Have more "stalinist" quotes from Lenin though:

"It was, of course, much easier to solve war problems than those that confront us now"...

"Our Party must make the masses realise that the enemy in our midst is anarchic capitalism and anarchic commodity exchange"...

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fierce war. The proletariat has been victorious in one country, but it is still weak internationally. It must unite all the workers and peasants around itself in the knowledge that the war is not over"...

"In an impoverished country either those who cannot stand the pace will perish, or the workers’ and peasants’ republic will perish. There is not and cannot be any choice or any room for sentiment. Sentiment is no less a crime than cowardice in wartime. Whoever now departs from order and discipline is permitting the enemy to penetrate our midst"...

"We had deserters from the army, and also from the labour front. We must say that in the past you worked for the benefit of the capitalists, of the exploiters, and of course you did not do your best. But now you are working for yourselves, for the workers’ and peasants’ state. Remember that the question at issue is whether we shall be able to work for ourselves, for if we cannot, I repeat, our Republic will perish. And we say, as we said in the army. that either those who want to cause our destruction must perish, or we must adopt the sternest disciplinary measures and thereby save our country—and our Republic will live"...

"Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out"...

V. I. Lenin. "The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments", 1921.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm

.

Lucretia

17th February 2012, 08:22

Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was in fact Parvus' (a Bolshevik liaison in Germany or something) theory of permanent revolution, which was vulgarization of basic Marxism. Like Lenin said about Trotsky's view on the topic of the trade unions, but it's quite suitable to describe his " main theoretical achievement" as well: "Comrade Trotsky’s theses have landed him in a mess. That part of them which is correct is not new and, what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong."

Parvus and Trotsky collabored quite a lot in the early 20th century, but it would be wrong to characterize the idea as "in fact Parvus.'" (See the book Witnesses to Permanent Revolution for more information on this front.) Anyhow, that is all beside the point. The quote you cited showed Lenin echoing some of Trotsky's ideas on permanent revolution. You apparently don't like this, so have resorted to bringing up Lenin's criticisms on a completely different subject. :laugh:

This is you who blatantly attempt to mangle the meaning of Lenin's work here. First of all, both bourgeois and socialist revolutions have been accomplished 6 years prior to Lenin's writing that, so your point makes no sense at all.Huh? The socialist revolution was complete? You mean that the USSR had already established socialism. Where do you see Lenin saying that this had occurred? This sounds like another Stalinist "innovation" that you are projecting onto Lenin, but which is not found anywhere in Lenin's writings.

And it's clear from that place and from the entire text of the article that Lenin speaks of overtaking other nations regardless of any help they might render (as was hoped for, when the Bolsheviks generally considered the world revolution imminent).If you think the rendering of help from other nations has anything to do with the passage, you need to read more carefully. The entire piece is clearly a response to the social-democratic criticism that the October Revolution was premature because the country had not achieved the requisite cultural or economic development. I would like for you to point out any passage where Lenin is talking about "help" from other nations. My guess is, though, you'll just ignore this request.

On the contrary, he emphasizes, that the "prerequisites" may be achieved in a revolutionary way, out of dire necessity, and such a useful institution as the Soviet system of government can provide everything needed for the task. And once you have the "prerequisites", what's going to stop you from moving on? In other words, it's "socialist construction in one country".No, not "in other words." You're making a tremendous leap of logic here. The "overtaking" in question does not mean that socialism becomes established in Russia, then other countries might finally catch up with "socialisms" of their own. Lenin is talking about the process of constructing socialism. And of course this process will occur unevenly throughout the globe, which is really the only implication to be drawn from this passage. To deny this obvious fact would be idiotic. And to admit it does not mean that socialism can be achieved in one country. This is yet another Stalinist "innovation."

Besides, the Soviet Union either was technically not a "one country" (there were 4 republics at its creation), or it would always remain a "one country" (as it was presumed at the time that every socialist country would be entering the Union after having a proper revolution). Would it still be impossible, even from the point of the orthodox Marxism, to build socialism in "one country", if that country (still called the USSR) spanned the entire Eurasia, and included a "French Soviet Socialist Republic", a "Norwegian Soviet Socialist Republic", a "Japanese Soviet Socialist Republic" and so on?This is semantics. Replace "country" with "region," and you still have the same issue. The point is that socialism must exist on a world-historical, global level, or it cannot exist. Marx was clear about this in the German Ideology, and Lenin and Trotsky were equally clear about it.

Have more "stalinist" quotes from Lenin though:

"It was, of course, much easier to solve war problems than those that confront us now"...

"Our Party must make the masses realise that the enemy in our midst is anarchic capitalism and anarchic commodity exchange"...

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fierce war. The proletariat has been victorious in one country, but it is still weak internationally. It must unite all the workers and peasants around itself in the knowledge that the war is not over"...

"In an impoverished country either those who cannot stand the pace will perish, or the workers’ and peasants’ republic will perish. There is not and cannot be any choice or any room for sentiment. Sentiment is no less a crime than cowardice in wartime. Whoever now departs from order and discipline is permitting the enemy to penetrate our midst"...

"We had deserters from the army, and also from the labour front. We must say that in the past you worked for the benefit of the capitalists, of the exploiters, and of course you did not do your best. But now you are working for yourselves, for the workers’ and peasants’ state. Remember that the question at issue is whether we shall be able to work for ourselves, for if we cannot, I repeat, our Republic will perish. And we say, as we said in the army. that either those who want to cause our destruction must perish, or we must adopt the sternest disciplinary measures and thereby save our country—and our Republic will live"...

"Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out"...

V. I. Lenin. "The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments", 1921.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htmInstead of just pasting random quotes from Lenin, do you care to actually break down specific passages and explain how they supposedly contradict all the points I have made in this thread about the meaning of socialism, how to transition, there, the meaning of Leninist "education" and how it is to be carried out, etc.? (Hint: this will require actual attempts at critical thinking, not just copying-pasting.) Debating you is like nailing jelly to a wall. You make one stupid statement that I contradict, only to see you shifting to making other stupid statements and misinterpretations of Lenin. It's like a never-ending process of remedial ..erm.. education.

daft punk

17th February 2012, 12:33

Why do you keep on making straw-men,if you can discuss normaly,dont argue at all.

That,what you just posted,just proved he was an opportunist and non-communist.

He was talking about the Soviet leadership 1917-onward.Read.

You can dictate that something is a fact?

All right,in the same way,i can say that Andre Gide was an opportunist,and the quote you posted is absolutely disgusting and reactionary.

That is a fact.Dont even try to answer,because that is a fact.

He became a communist, but what he saw in Russia put him off. Obviously he mistakenly thought that what was going on in Russia was communism.

No, the fact is that Russia was a horrible dictatorship which killed of all dissent, especially from socialists. Hundreds of thousands were purged from the Communist Party, all the old Bolsheviks and keen young communists were killed, purged on ludicrous made up charges.

Zulu

17th February 2012, 15:32

Obviously he mistakenly thought that what was going on in Russia was communism.
Obviously he was a cheap liberal philistine who though that communism could be achieved overnight with no other effort than subscribing to the idea. He could with the same luck hope for the Bolsheviks to pull out a magic wand and show him a hocus-pocus.

daft punk

17th February 2012, 15:41

He was a good example of how the USSR gave communism a bad name. Philistine? He won a Nobel Prize in Literature.

Zulu

17th February 2012, 15:45

showed Lenin echoing some of Trotsky's ideas on permanent revolution.
I guess some Marx's works echoed Trotsky's ideas then... You see, the "ideas of permanent revolution" aren't totally alien to Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotsky's errors (mainly his blatant disregard for material conditions) that make it useless.

Huh? The socialist revolution was complete? You mean that the USSR had already established socialism.

Again you're fiddling with words here. You know all to well, that sometimes, in the most broad sense the word "revolution" may refer to the entire period of transition from one formation to another. But way more often it is used to designate a single uprising, a revolt, a mutiny, which result in the shift of power from one group to another. Marxists are not beyond using it in this narrow sense, although they distinguish coups from revolutions, as the former are not part of the class struggle. The February Revolution = bourgeois-democratic revolution, the October Revolution = socialist revolution. The Civil War was over and the USSR was created by the time Lenin wrote it. So don't take it out of historical context to play semantics!

I would like for you to point out any passage where Lenin is talking about "help" from other nations.
And that's exactly my point. Lenin talks about the help from other nations in his earlier works, but in this work he does not. That's clear he has reassessed this topic.

You're making a tremendous leap of logic here.
Not at all. What do you think drew the criticism from the Social Democrats that Lenin felt so obliged to respond to in the first place? I'll tell you what: the obvious fact that the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership have by that moment already been building "socialism in one country". The SD said: No, you can't do that, that's against theory. Lenin said: sorry, we're adjusting the theory in accordance with our successes.

And of course this process will occur unevenly throughout the globe, which is really the only implication to be drawn from this passage.
Right, so the first country to have a successful socialist revolution (as in "power grab by a vanguard proletarian party") has in this department already overtaken other countries that still dicker despite their more advanced industry.

To deny this obvious fact would be idiotic. And to admit it does not mean that socialism can be achieved in one country.
Yes, to admit that that Lenin's work does not mean socialism can be achieved in one country would be idiotic.

The point is that socialism must exist on a world-historical, global level, or it cannot exist. Marx was clear about this in the German Ideology, and Lenin and Trotsky were equally clear about it.
Stalin too. He was clear that socialism could be built - up to a certain level, but cannot exist - not indefinitely, unless it is joined by all the major industrial powers. The issue here is dual. As socialism is the lower stage of communism it is by definition something unfinished. Communism is by definition global. So at some point socialism needs to go global, before it can develop further in the direction of full communism. On the other hand, before it goes global, there remains the threat of capitalist restoration, which requires the socialist society to defend itself and maintain the state, which is not only another indication of incomplete communism, but distorts the very economic basis (in favor of the "guns"). However, nowhere along this train of thought there is anything that precludes any socialist construction (one country or not) - up to the very level, when there is nothing else to be done before the socialist society comes to a head with the capitalist countries. And that leaves quite a lot to be done for the communists, instead of sitting on their ass and passively waiting for socialist revolutions in other countries. The basics, the "prerequisites", upgrades to industry, agriculture, the Soviet system of government can obviously be done in one country, as well as educating of the working class in managing all that. If it's not socialist construction, then nothing is.

Of course, all these things need to be done right, rather than wrong, but with the first socialist country ever, some experimentation and possibility of failures were hardly avoidable (just the same it would have been as if it were not a "one country" or not a "backwards country" situation).

explain how they supposedly contradict all the points I have made in this thread about the meaning of socialism, how to transition, there, the meaning of Leninist "education" and how it is to be carried out, etc.?
What part of the "cruel training" at the hands of temporarily readmitted capitalists during the NEP, and side by side with the elusive enemies of the working class in its own midst, requiring iron discipline (unlike under the rule of capitalists, when the workers were supposed to go on strike as often as possible) do you not understand? Not exactly the kumbaya lifestyle you seem to think is so indispensable for the socialist construction.

You make one stupid statement that I contradict, only to see you shifting to making other stupid statements and misinterpretations of Lenin.
You contradict the "stupid" statements by Lenin with saying they don't mean what they mean, for they don't conform your Workers' Opposition leftism. Why don't you try for a change to bring up a quote, where Lenin describes how the "workers' democracy" is actually supposed to work, functionally or institutionally, that confirm your opinion (preferably from the post-October period, when he had a lot of first-hand experience and practice of running a workers' state to draw conclusions from)?

.

daft punk

17th February 2012, 15:56

Zulu

17th February 2012, 16:23

He won a Nobel Prize in Literature.

Lol.

Obama won the Nobel prize for peace... Mwahahahahaha!!!!

Zulu

17th February 2012, 16:49

The fact is, up to the middle of 1924, no Marxist, including Stalin, believed that socialism could be achieved in one country.

The fact is: except Lenin, who in 1923 defended the socialist construction already underway in one country.

Then Stalin rewrote the book.

Apparently, he had to do some catching up on Lenin's "Stalinism".

In the end he said the only thing Russia was missing was freedom from attack by capitalist countries.
... and from capitalist restoration from within, which, dialectically, would be a form of attack by the capitalist countries (as was explicitly pronounced on the show trials, btw).

In other words the actual economy was socialist.

"Socialist" is by definition "incomplete communist", which prompts further action, on the international scale. But since the possibility of military attack or subversive capitalist restoration provided enough reason for action on the international scale, Stalin omitted redundant repetition of the world revolution communist agenda in his later works, presumably to deceive the capitalists (which didn't quite work, for they were smarter than Trotsky). However, as late as 1931 with the 1st 5-year plan (of socialist construction in one country) almost complete, Trotsky already in exile and all the opposition within the Party routed, Stalin said that he the only correct way to regard the Russian revolution was this:

"The Russian revolution is not a private cause of the Russians... on the contrary, it is the cause of the working class of the whole world, the cause of the world proletarian revolution."
J. V. Stalin. "Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism", 1931.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/x01/x01.htm

.

Armchair War Criminal

17th February 2012, 16:57

Are you still churning this stuff out?

The fact is, up to the middle of 1924, no Marxist, including Stalin, believed that socialism could be achieved in one country.

Then Stalin rewrote the book. Literally, and changed it to socialism could and later in fact had been achieved.

In the end he said the only thing Russia was missing was freedom from attack by capitalist countries. In other words the actual economy was socialist.

But in 1924 he had said that would be impossible.

And no, Lenin never said SIOC was possible in Russia.

Therefore, Stalin rewrote a basic Marxist principle.
This kind of rhetoric is really poisonous, I think. So Stalin rewrote the book and overturned a basic Marxist principle. So what! Gabriel didn't dictate the Koran to Marx while he slept in a cave; Marx, like others in the tradition identified with him, observed reality, interpreted it through the lens of existing theories, and attempted to develop new theories that could more elegantly explain the new observations.

Of course Stalin may well have been wrong to change his mind in this case; he may well, as political leaders often are, have not been very concerned about the truth of the matter and simply said what was most advantageous to him at the given time - but the change in line was wrong it certainly wasn't wrong because it was a change in line. If we're going to call historical materialism scientific it has to be because we're constantly looking at the world to see evidence of where we might be wrong, not because associating ourselves with "science" makes us feel warm and superior.

A Marxist Historian

17th February 2012, 19:02

This kind of rhetoric is really poisonous, I think. So Stalin rewrote the book and overturned a basic Marxist principle. So what! Gabriel didn't dictate the Koran to Marx while he slept in a cave; Marx, like others in the tradition identified with him, observed reality, interpreted it through the lens of existing theories, and attempted to develop new theories that could more elegantly explain the new observations.

Of course Stalin may well have been wrong to change his mind in this case; he may well, as political leaders often are, have not been very concerned about the truth of the matter and simply said what was most advantageous to him at the given time - but the change in line was wrong it certainly wasn't wrong because it was a change in line. If we're going to call historical materialism scientific it has to be because we're constantly looking at the world to see evidence of where we might be wrong, not because associating ourselves with "science" makes us feel warm and superior.

But it was dishonest, because Stalin denied he was changing what Marx and Lenin had to say, and even started calling himself, of all things, a "Marxist-Leninist."

If Stalin had outrightly said, Marx and Lenin were wrong, I'm right, and here is why they are wrong and I'm right, that would be totally differrent.

Though at this point this too is a settled matter pretty much. The entire historical experience of the 20th Century proves 100% and without a shadow of a doubt that you can't build socialism in one country, and that if you try anyway, making that your strategic objective and subordinating everything else to that in the Stalin fashion, by any means necessary, bad things are gonna happen, and sooner or later it is gonna all come crumbling down anyway.

And, like ol' man Santayana said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

17th February 2012, 19:12

The fact is: except Lenin, who in 1923 defended the socialist construction already underway in one country.

I'm not even going to bother dealing with the rest of your nonsense below, we've been there and done that infinitum on Revleft, and repitition gets very tiresome.

Just on what's above, of course he defended the socialist construction already underway in Russia, and so did Trotsky, and it would be very easy to come up with innumerable quotes from Trotsky from that period on the same lines as the comments by Lenin that you guys try to twist into a defense of SIOC.

More to the point, one of the main ways Lenin was defending the socialist construction already under way in Russia in 1922 was defending the state monopoly of foreign trade in the Soviet Union, in alliance with Trotsky, against the assault on this by Bukharin and Stalin.

Lenin and Trotsky won their point on that as Stalin capitulated, which is why the main point of controversy, which likely would have led to a factional conflict except for Lenin's stroke, was the national question in Georgia instead of how to construct socialism--which nobody including Stalin was claiming at that point could actually be fully accomplished in one country.

And this of course was one of the things behind Lenin's call in his very last letter, the day before his stroke, for Stalin to be removed as General Secretary.

And nowadays Stalin's successors in China, the current Chinese leadership, have revived and carried out Stalin's old idea, which he never went back to, and neither did any of his Soviet successors, not even Gorbachev before his ousting, of dropping the state monopoly of foreign trade in China.

-M.H.-

Apparently, he had to do some catching up on Lenin's "Stalinism".

... and from capitalist restoration from within, which, dialectically, would be a form of attack by the capitalist countries (as was explicitly pronounced on the show trials, btw).

"Socialist" is by definition "incomplete communist", which prompts further action, on the international scale. But since the possibility of military attack or subversive capitalist restoration provided enough reason for action on the international scale, Stalin omitted redundant repetition of the world revolution communist agenda in his later works, presumably to deceive the capitalists (which didn't quite work, for they were smarter than Trotsky). However, as late as 1931 with the 1st 5-year plan (of socialist construction in one country) almost complete, Trotsky already in exile and all the opposition within the Party routed, Stalin said that he the only correct way to regard the Russian revolution was this:

"The Russian revolution is not a private cause of the Russians... on the contrary, it is the cause of the working class of the whole world, the cause of the world proletarian revolution."
J. V. Stalin. "Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism", 1931.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/x01/x01.htm

.

daft punk

17th February 2012, 19:29

The fact is: except Lenin, who in 1923 defended the socialist construction already underway in one country.

Underway yeah.

Apparently, he had to do some catching up on Lenin's "Stalinism".
No this is ridiculous.

... and from capitalist restoration from within, which, dialectically, would be a form of attack by the capitalist countries (as was explicitly pronounced on the show trials, btw).

Nope, he said they were safe from that, and if Russia was an island it would have achieved the final blah blah blah.
Hey, I'm lovin the way you admit they were show trials.

wikipedia:
"The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trial) in which there is a strong connotation that the judicial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial) authorities have already determined the guilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt) of the defendant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant). The actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials tend to be retributive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice) rather than correctional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections) justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice). The term was first recorded in the 1930s.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial#cite_note-0) Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence) and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves: they have often signed statements under duress and/or suffered torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) prior to appearing in the courtroom."

"Socialist" is by definition "incomplete communist",
Not necessarily.

which prompts further action, on the international scale.

You mean Stalin's sabotage of revolutions around the world?

But since the possibility of military attack or subversive capitalist restoration provided enough reason for action on the international scale, Stalin omitted redundant repetition of the world revolution communist agenda in his later works, presumably to deceive the capitalists (which didn't quite work, for they were smarter than Trotsky). However, as late as 1931 with the 1st 5-year plan (of socialist construction in one country) almost complete, Trotsky already in exile and all the opposition within the Party routed,

Oh, did I imagine the purges of 1932-40 then?

Stalin said that he the only correct way to regard the Russian revolution was this:

"The Russian revolution is not a private cause of the Russians... on the contrary, it is the cause of the working class of the whole world, the cause of the world proletarian revolution."
J. V. Stalin. "Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism", 1931.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/x01/x01.htm

Very big of him. And then he let the fascists take power and crushed all revolutions, or at least tried to. He didn't actually let the fascists in on purpose, it was down to the terrible policies he had though.

" Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2361533#post2361533)
Are you still churning this stuff out?

The fact is, up to the middle of 1924, no Marxist, including Stalin, believed that socialism could be achieved in one country.

Then Stalin rewrote the book. Literally, and changed it to socialism could and later in fact had been achieved.

In the end he said the only thing Russia was missing was freedom from attack by capitalist countries. In other words the actual economy was socialist.

But in 1924 he had said that would be impossible.

And no, Lenin never said SIOC was possible in Russia.

Therefore, Stalin rewrote a basic Marxist principle. "

This kind of rhetoric is really poisonous, I think. So Stalin rewrote the book and overturned a basic Marxist principle. So what! Gabriel didn't dictate the Koran to Marx while he slept in a cave; Marx, like others in the tradition identified with him, observed reality, interpreted it through the lens of existing theories, and attempted to develop new theories that could more elegantly explain the new observations.

Of course Stalin may well have been wrong to change his mind in this case; he may well, as political leaders often are, have not been very concerned about the truth of the matter and simply said what was most advantageous to him at the given time - but the change in line was wrong it certainly wasn't wrong because it was a change in line. If we're going to call historical materialism scientific it has to be because we're constantly looking at the world to see evidence of where we might be wrong, not because associating ourselves with "science" makes us feel warm and superior.

Er, no, it wasn't all a well meaning mistake. That just glosses over the whole thing. From 1923-40 Trotsky argued against Stalinism, and every time Trotsky was right. And after about 1928 Stalin was consciously anti-socialist.

I'm not even going to bother dealing with the rest of your nonsense below, we've been there and done that infinitum on Revleft, and repitition gets very tiresome.

Just on what's above, of course he defended the socialist construction already underway in Russia, and so did Trotsky, and it would be very easy to come up with innumerable quotes from Trotsky from that period on the same lines as the comments by Lenin that you guys try to twist into a defense of SIOC.

More to the point, one of the main ways Lenin was defending the socialist construction already under way in Russia in 1922 was defending the state monopoly of foreign trade in the Soviet Union, in alliance with Trotsky, against the assault on this by Bukharin and Stalin.

Lenin and Trotsky won their point on that as Stalin capitulated, which is why the main point of controversy, which likely would have led to a factional conflict except for Lenin's stroke, was the national question in Georgia instead of how to construct socialism--which nobody including Stalin was claiming at that point could actually be fully accomplished in one country.

And this of course was one of the things behind Lenin's call in his very last letter, the day before his stroke, for Stalin to be removed as General Secretary.

And nowadays Stalin's successors in China, the current Chinese leadership, have revived and carried out Stalin's old idea, which he never went back to, and neither did any of his Soviet successors, not even Gorbachev before his ousting, of dropping the state monopoly of foreign trade in China.

-M.H.-

Ah, someone who actually reads stuff and knows what they're on about.

Lucretia

17th February 2012, 19:43

I guess some Marx's works echoed Trotsky's ideas then... You see, the "ideas of permanent revolution" aren't totally alien to Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotsky's errors (mainly his blatant disregard for material conditions) that make it useless.

Again you're fiddling with words here. You know all to well, that sometimes, in the most broad sense the word "revolution" may refer to the entire period of transition from one formation to another. But way more often it is used to designate a single uprising, a revolt, a mutiny, which result in the shift of power from one group to another. Marxists are not beyond using it in this narrow sense, although they distinguish coups from revolutions, as the former are not part of the class struggle. The February Revolution = bourgeois-democratic revolution, the October Revolution = socialist revolution. The Civil War was over and the USSR was created by the time Lenin wrote it. So don't take it out of historical context to play semantics!

And that's exactly my point. Lenin talks about the help from other nations in his earlier works, but in this work he does not. That's clear he has reassessed this topic.

Not at all. What do you think drew the criticism from the Social Democrats that Lenin felt so obliged to respond to in the first place? I'll tell you what: the obvious fact that the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership have by that moment already been building "socialism in one country". The SD said: No, you can't do that, that's against theory. Lenin said: sorry, we're adjusting the theory in accordance with our successes.

Right, so the first country to have a successful socialist revolution (as in "power grab by a vanguard proletarian party") has in this department already overtaken other countries that still dicker despite their more advanced industry.

Yes, to admit that that Lenin's work does not mean socialism can be achieved in one country would be idiotic.

Stalin too. He was clear that socialism could be built - up to a certain level, but cannot exist - not indefinitely, unless it is joined by all the major industrial powers. The issue here is dual. As socialism is the lower stage of communism it is by definition something unfinished. Communism is by definition global. So at some point socialism needs to go global, before it can develop further in the direction of full communism. On the other hand, before it goes global, there remains the threat of capitalist restoration, which requires the socialist society to defend itself and maintain the state, which is not only another indication of incomplete communism, but distorts the very economic basis (in favor of the "guns"). However, nowhere along this train of thought there is anything that precludes any socialist construction (one country or not) - up to the very level, when there is nothing else to be done before the socialist society comes to a head with the capitalist countries. And that leaves quite a lot to be done for the communists, instead of sitting on their ass and passively waiting for socialist revolutions in other countries. The basics, the "prerequisites", upgrades to industry, agriculture, the Soviet system of government can obviously be done in one country, as well as educating of the working class in managing all that. If it's not socialist construction, then nothing is.

Of course, all these things need to be done right, rather than wrong, but with the first socialist country ever, some experimentation and possibility of failures were hardly avoidable (just the same it would have been as if it were not a "one country" or not a "backwards country" situation).

What part of the "cruel training" at the hands of temporarily readmitted capitalists during the NEP, and side by side with the elusive enemies of the working class in its own midst, requiring iron discipline (unlike under the rule of capitalists, when the workers were supposed to go on strike as often as possible) do you not understand? Not exactly the kumbaya lifestyle you seem to think is so indispensable for the socialist construction.

You contradict the "stupid" statements by Lenin with saying they don't mean what they mean, for they don't conform your Workers' Opposition leftism. Why don't you try for a change to bring up a quote, where Lenin describes how the "workers' democracy" is actually supposed to work, functionally or institutionally, that confirm your opinion (preferably from the post-October period, when he had a lot of first-hand experience and practice of running a workers' state to draw conclusions from)?

Almost all of your latest response is so absurd as to not even require a response (e.g., you claiming that the Lenin passage I quoted in the last response was not really about permanent revolution, but was about the USSR holding out in relation to not getting help from other countries, then admitting in this latest response that the issue of aid from other countries and its implications for the development of socialism is only talked about in "other works"). Lurkers and other followers of this thread will be able to glean what they can from what's already been said.

I do, however, want to point out another misreading of yours. You say:

What part of the "cruel training" at the hands of temporarily readmitted capitalists during the NEP, and side by side with the elusive enemies of the working class in its own midst, requiring iron discipline (unlike under the rule of capitalists, when the workers were supposed to go on strike as often as possible) do you not understand? Not exactly the kumbaya lifestyle you seem to think is so indispensable for the socialist construction.The piece in question is interesting in talking about tasks that must be completed before a transition to socialism/communism can begin -- not be complete, but even begin. As Lenin says, "They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you [the workers] be able to build up a communist republic."

And these tasks are, of course, the tasks of the NEP -- the introduction of state capitalism and the permitting of the law of value under the regulation of a "proletarian state." It is in the context of fulfilling these emergency tasks, bourgeois tasks requiring exploitation of workers and making the workers subject to the asocial forces of the law of value, tasks which must be executed before the workers will "be able to build up a communist republic," not the task of transitioning to socialism, that Lenin makes use of the language of discipline, cruelty, and the like, which at least point to the possibility of political substitution (certainly NOT its desirability, or its utility in transitioning to socialism). Even having said that, there is no place in the entire text where Lenin advocates the party coercing the workers. When he speaks of the "cruel" tasks, he does so in the context of the party disseminating the line: "And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out." The "we" there is referring not to the non-party workers who must undergo the training, while the party sits back and pulls the strings. It is referring to everyone, which is why Lenin then proceeds to take on bribery and corruption within the party, etc.

So, in short, we still see no evidence anywhere in this text for Lenin envisioning socialist education as a process of elite party bureaucrats "disciplining" and coercing the workers into being socialist. It's yet another example of you not carefully reading a text, then reading into it all sorts of things that aren't there.

Zulu

17th February 2012, 20:38

of course he defended the socialist construction already underway in Russia, and so did Trotsky, and it would be very easy to come up with innumerable quotes from Trotsky from that period on the same lines as the comments by Lenin that you guys try to twist into a defense of SIOC.

Which would only demonstrate Trotsky wasn't against SioC either at the time he was sitting high on his horse.

More to the point, one of the main ways Lenin was defending the socialist construction already under way in Russia in 1922 was defending the state monopoly of foreign trade in the Soviet Union, in alliance with Trotsky, against the assault on this by Bukharin and Stalin.
Which suggests that at the time Stalin was more orthodox than Lenin, and not such a huge fan of SioC, as the cancellation of the monopoly on foreign trade would have meant retreating even further back into capitalism, but not at odds with the general line of the NEP. However, later on, he caught up with Lenin's "Stalinism" as I've put it already. Which is quite different from "Stalin made a one-eighty on everything Lenin had stood for" description of his course, which is so popular (and not surprisingly among the openly bourgeois historians too...).

which nobody including Stalin was claiming at that point could actually be fully accomplished in one country.
Stalin never at all claimed that the socialist construction could be accomplished in one country fully.

And this of course was one of the things behind Lenin's call in his very last letter, the day before his stroke, for Stalin to be removed as General Secretary.
Yeah-yeah, Stalin's rudeness - that was his weak spot... While Trotsky was bright but too overconfident and focused on the administrative side of things, Zinoviev&Kamenev's October episode hadn't been accidental, and Bukharin never truly understood dialectics... Sounds like Stalin wasn't a bad Marxist after all.

.

Zulu

17th February 2012, 20:43

you claiming that the Lenin passage I quoted in the last response was not really about permanent revolution, but was about the USSR holding out in relation to not getting help from other countries, then admitting in this latest response that the issue of aid from other countries and its implications for the development of socialism is only talked about in "other works".

Yes, in the latest work Lenin is not talking about international assistance, which means that the relation of the USSR's holding out to that assistance is such that the USSR isn't going to need that assistance to hold out.

And these tasks are, of course, the tasks of the NEP -- the introduction of state capitalism and the permitting of the law of value under the regulation of a "proletarian state." It is in the context of fulfilling these emergency tasks, bourgeois tasks requiring exploitation of workers and making the workers subject to the asocial forces of the law of value, tasks which must be executed before the workers will "be able to build up a communist republic," not the task of transitioning to socialism, that Lenin makes use of the language of discipline, cruelty, and the like, which at least point to the possibility of political substitution (certainly NOT its desirability, or its utility in transitioning to socialism).
This is really scholastic. How can the period of creating prerequisites, using the market to boost economy and undertaking all other "emergency" measures, necessary to be able to build a communist republic (in one country?), be not counted as a transition period, especially, since the socialist revolution has already occurred and the political power already rests with the workers' state and the workers' party? If it's not the task of transitioning to socialism that the NEP (and the cruel training) serve, than why have it at all (as opposed to going back to bourgeois parliamentary democracy and at least allowing the workers to go on strike, while letting the productive forces develop their normal way)? So no, you miss. Lenin makes use of this language dealing exactly with transitioning to socialism. He says: learn from the capitalists, and behave yourself, 'cause this isn't a game, this is for communism!

Even having said that, there is no place in the entire text where Lenin advocates the party coercing the workers. When he speaks of the "cruel" tasks, he does so in the context of the party disseminating the line: "And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out." The "we" there is referring not to the non-party workers who must undergo the training, while the party sits back and pulls the strings. It is referring to everyone, which is why Lenin then proceeds to take on bribery and corruption within the party, etc.

What kind of a proletarian vanguard party leader would Lenin be, if he didn't apply the same rules for the party as for the non-party workers? But since the most conscious workers are recruited into the party, it falls upon the party to discipline both itself and the non-party workers. It would be strange if the conscious party workers were to be disciplined by the not so conscious non-party workers. It must be said, the Bolshevik party disciplined itself quite effectively during Stalin's time.

.

Lucretia

17th February 2012, 21:41

Yes, in the latest work Lenin is not talking about international assistance, which means that the relation of the USSR's holding out to that assistance is such that the USSR isn't going to need that assistance to hold out.

You're not paying attention, Zulu. Two pages ago you claimed: "Lenin said: We can hold out for as long as necessary and even build socialism, step by step, starting with prerequisites: electrification, liquidation of illiteracy, etc. (See "Our Revolution", 1923.)"

I responded by noting that there was no point in that work where Lenin said anything on the topic of receiving (or not receiving) international assistance, and what implications that might have for the political or economic development of the USSR.

You then responded by saying: "And that's exactly my point. Lenin talks about the help from other nations in his earlier works, but in this work he does not. That's clear he has reassessed this topic."

You seem to be arguing that Lenin is talking about the USSR developing into socialism without assistance from other nations, but as I pointed out repeatedly, Lenin is not talking at all about the subject of whether socialism can develop in the USSR without the USSR receiving assistance from other countries. Let me repeat one more time. Please read it carefully and even re-read it if necessary: Lenin DOES NOT even mention the topic of assistance from other nations -- either to say that it is NECESSARY for socialism in the USSR or to say that it is NOT NECESSARY for socialism there. It is not directly related to the issue he is discussing.

If you want to argue that he is talking about the possibility of socialism in one country, you have to show it by quoting the relevant passages and explaining how those passages mean what you say they do. Up to now you've just mentioned the work as whole, without discussing any specific passages.

This is really scholastic. How can the period of creating prerequisites, using the market to boost economy and undertaking all other "emergency" measures, necessary to be able to build a communist republic (in one country?), be not counted as a transition period, especially, since the socialist revolution has already occurred and the political power already rests with the workers' state and the workers' party?

This is not scholastic or semantic at all. "Boosting the economy" and elevating the level of industrial output is not the same thing as transitioning to socialism. If it were, then capitalism itself is a transition to socialism. The transition to socialism is a matter of politics, of the workers taking control over and managing the already existing economy and resources. The reason that this was not possible in the USSR, as already noted, was that the country's economy was so backward that the material prerequisites did not exist for an immediate transition to socialism. As a result, the party had to carry out bourgeois economic tasks of accumulation, which entailed the encroachment of bourgeois forms of work discipline and political rule -- the emergency substitutionist measures I mentioned earlier. Still, it attempted to accommodate these encroachments within the framework of proletarian governance. And as I said, it was a delicate balancing act with the party being pulled against the workers as the overseers of anarchic capitalist-style accumulation, and at the same time that it was attempting to forge a new political system where the workers had authority.

Here is would be useful for you to revisit the discussion on the economics of the transition period that took place in the run-up to the NEP between Bukharin and Preobrazhensky. Bukharin thought that the party could introduce and utilize the law of value while still maintaining proletarian political rule, whereas Preobrazhensky saw the complexity I talked about in the proceeding paragraph -- the tension between the law of value and what he called "the law of primitive socialist accumulation" -- with one pulling toward class rule and the other toward an egalitarian classless society.

Zulu

18th February 2012, 00:50

Lenin DOES NOT even mention the topic of assistance from other nations -- either to say that it is NECESSARY for socialism in the USSR or to say that it is NOT NECESSARY for socialism there. It is not directly related to the issue he is discussing.

Because this is NOT RELEVANT anymore. The ability of the Soviet Republic to successfully withstand the Civil War and carry out the NEP assures Lenin that all the necessary prerequisites for socialist construction can be achieved on its own by any given country, including even the countries of the East. The argument of "backwardness" and "underdevelopment", which was earlier used to support the claim, that Russia would need assistance rendered by the proletariat of the more developed industrial countries to overcome its deficiency, DOES NOT STAND. So the theoretical claim of impossibility of socialist construction in backward countries like Russia and even more backward countries in the East has lost its basis and is therefore invalid.

If you want to argue that he is talking about the possibility of socialism in one country, you have to show it by quoting the relevant passages and explaining how those passages mean what you say they do. Up to now you've just mentioned the work as whole, without discussing any specific passages.

The work is quite short, and it's concerned solely with the refutation of the dogmatic approach characteristic of the German social democracy to the questions of socialist revolution and construction. Since the "SoiC is impossible" claim was based on this dogmatic approach, its refutation automatically refutes the "SoiC is impossible" claim as well. If that claim was to be upheld, its advocates had to bring to the table new arguments for it (such as, for instance, "the global market makes SoiC = state capitalist"), which at the time wasn't done.

This is not scholastic or semantic at all. "Boosting the economy" and elevating the level of industrial output is not the same thing as transitioning to socialism. If it were, then capitalism itself is a transition to socialism. The transition to socialism is a matter of politics, of the workers taking control over and managing the already existing economy and resources.
The claim that transition to socialism is a matter of politics is un-Marxist. Simple as that.

However, the workers were taking control of the economy and resources through the Soviets and the Bolshevik Party, which was the result of specific economic conditions and the relations of classes that developed in the Russian Empire during the WWI and resulted in the October Revolution and the subsequent Civil War. So, even by your un-Marxist definition of the transition to socialism, it had already begun by the time Lenin wrote the works in question.

The reason that this was not possible in the USSR, as already noted, was that the country's economy was so backward that the material prerequisites did not exist for an immediate transition to socialism. As a result, the party had to carry out bourgeois economic tasks of accumulation, which entailed the encroachment of bourgeois forms of work discipline and political rule -- the emergency substitutionist measures I mentioned earlier.
How are the Soviet government and the one-party political regime a "bourgeois form of political rule"? Why is Lenin citing the "workers' and peasants'" character of the state to justify his request of iron discipline, if that was a "bourgeois form of work discipline"?

You are completely wrong, if you think that socialism = more slack for workers. Actually, socialism = less slack for workers, especially in a backward country, which has to begin its socialist transition by finishing some capitalist stuff first. (And yes, doing capitalist business in a Soviet Republic within the limits imposed by the Communist Party in order to achieve necessary prerequisites for further socialist development IS transition to socialism!) When this is done and the socialist transition has advanced to the next phase, then there will be some benefits, unheard of under capitalism, - but no slack until communism is built in full. Even in your favorite field of education:

"When there is communism, the methods of education will be milder. Now, however, I say education must be harsh". - Lenin, ibid. (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm)

Here is would be useful for you to revisit the discussion on the economics of the transition period that took place in the run-up to the NEP between Bukharin and Preobrazhensky.

While I'm sure that is very informative in its own right and can provide some insight on what parts of "Stalinism" Stalin later "stole" from Bukharin, the question at hand is Stalin's relation to Lenin's views. And it is clear that Stalin's course of the 1920s and 1930s was directly following the path Lenin had outlined in his latter works and pressed forward at the Party congresses. The only sensible discussion may be that of how well the timing was chosen for implementation of this or that particular measure of socialist transformation in the USSR.

.

Lucretia

18th February 2012, 02:45

Because this is NOT RELEVANT anymore. The ability of the Soviet Republic to successfully withstand the Civil War and carry out the NEP assures Lenin that all the necessary prerequisites for socialist construction can be achieved on its own by any given country, including even the countries of the East. The argument of "backwardness" and "underdevelopment", which was earlier used to support the claim, that Russia would need assistance rendered by the proletariat of the more developed industrial countries to overcome its deficiency, DOES NOT STAND. So the theoretical claim of impossibility of socialist construction in backward countries like Russia and even more backward countries in the East has lost its basis and is therefore invalid.

Let's set aside the fact that this paragraph is just you making sweeping declarations about what Lenin supposedly thought without providing any substantiating evidence in the form of quotes to show that this is the case (remember: if you want to show that's what the work was suggesting, you need to show as much with specific passages). The content is wrong in that backwardness isn't the only thing that can keep a country from becoming socialist. There's also international competition, which can compel the production decisions within national economies, as happened in the Soviet Union. Socialism, if you remember, is a system where the workers collectively decide how to manage the economy on the basis of human need, not on the basis of their nation-state competing with other nation states or regions of the world. In fact, the logic of competition and maximizing surplus leads to the restoration of the law of value, which is itself antithetical to socialism.

The work is quite short, and it's concerned solely with the refutation of the dogmatic approach characteristic of the German social democracy to the questions of socialist revolution and construction. Since the "SoiC is impossible" claim was based on this dogmatic approach...No, the issue of whether socialism in one country is possible is separate from the question of whether a socialist revolution can fold into itself the tasks of bourgeois revolution -- which is, as I have shown in an earlier post, precisely what the entire document is concerned with establishing. This doesn't suddenly become about socialism in one country just because you declare it to be so. I feel like I am reading a badly written high school English paper, with all sorts of random and unsubstantiated claims.

The claim that transition to socialism is a matter of politics is un-Marxist. Simple as that.Another sweeping declaration with no basis of support. Why would you claim that the transition to socialism is not a matter of politics when one of the defining features of the transition is the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. What is this "dictatorship of the proletariat" if not a form of state -- a form of political relations? The reason the dictatorship of the proletariat was necessary was that politics was to play a leading role in the economic transformation. The proletariat would use its political party to wrest control from the bourgeoisie and empower themselves economically. This process is different than all other social revolutions, where the transition from one mode of production to another happens gradually and in the gaps and interstices of the existing mode of production. Socialism does not grow inside capitalism because its defining feature is workers' power, which capitalism necessarily suppresses. All of this is Marxism 101, Zulu. I would advise you to go back and actually read Marx instead of pouring over Stalinist misreadings of Lenin's texts.

However, the workers were taking control of the economy and resources through the Soviets and the Bolshevik Party, which was the result of specific economic conditions and the relations of classes that developed in the Russian Empire during the WWI and resulted in the October Revolution and the subsequent Civil War. So, even by your un-Marxist definition of the transition to socialism, it had already begun by the time Lenin wrote the works in question.It's amazing that I even have to explain this to you, Zulu, but there's a difference between the workers using the Bolshevik party to take control over the economy, and the Bolshevik party planning the entire economy then forcing the workers (against their will) to conform to that plan. One is the party playing a leading role in a society where the proletariat has power; the other is a society where the party has power and is using that power to suppress proletarian power.

What made the Bolshevik party the revolutionary proletarian party was that it enjoyed the widespread support and confidence of the workers. If that confidence and support dwindles, and the relationship between the party and the proletariat becomes antagonistic, it is no longer appropriate to equate -- as you do -- the party with the proletariat.

How are the Soviet government and the one-party political regime a "bourgeois form of political rule"? Why is Lenin citing the "workers' and peasants'" character of the state to justify his request of iron discipline, if that was a "bourgeois form of work discipline"?Am I really having to explain to you that Taylorism and one-man management are bourgeois forms of work discipline? Would you like for me to point out where Lenin says as much, or are you doubting that the NEP introduced these into the Soviet economy? There's only so much education I am willing to spend my time providing you on this forum, Zulu. You need to start cracking open some books and doing some serious study if you ever want to be conversant in these issues.

You are completely wrong, if you think that socialism = more slack for workers. Actually, socialism = less slack for workers, especially in a backward country, which has to begin its socialist transition by finishing some capitalist stuff first. (And yes, doing capitalist business in a Soviet Republic within the limits imposed by the Communist Party in order to achieve necessary prerequisites for further socialist development IS transition to socialism!)I don't even know where to begin to address this trainwreck of a paragraph. First we have the rather enlightening equation of socialism with bossing workers around against their will. Then we have the even more enlightening claim that carrying out bourgeois/capitalist tasks are part of the transition to socialism (in which case all capitalist societies are making the transition to socialism!).

When this is done and the socialist transition has advanced to the next phase, then there will be some benefits, unheard of under capitalism, - but no slack until communism is built in full. Even in your favorite field of education:

"When there is communism, the methods of education will be milder. Now, however, I say education must be harsh". - Lenin, ibid. (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm)Actually analyze the fucking quote, Zulu, instead of just dropping it into your post like a lazy dog shitting in the middle of the floor then running away with its tail between its legs. What does Lenin mean when he says that education must be "harsh"? Who is performing this education? What is the nature of this education? Are the workers being educated into socialist relations of production, or capitalist relations of production? All of these issues are crucial to understanding what Lenin is saying, and you haven't grappled with any of them. Like a typical Stalinist trying to justify oppression and cruelty, you just latch onto the word "harsh" as proof that whatever harsh shit the Stalinist regime did must have been justified (after all: look, Lenin supports "harshness"!!!).

While I'm sure that is very informative in its own right and can provide some insight on what parts of "Stalinism" Stalin later "stole" from Bukharin, the question at hand is Stalin's relation to Lenin's views. And it is clear that Stalin's course of the 1920s and 1930s was directly following the path Lenin had outlined in his latter works and pressed forward at the Party congresses. The only sensible discussion may be that of how well the timing was chosen for implementation of this or that particular measure of socialist transformation in the USSR.In order to understand Stalin's relation to Lenin's views, you have to actually understand Lenin's views. This requires more than dogmatically declaring "Stalin followed Lenin's views!" It requires carefully reading and analyzing Lenin's writings and explaining specifically how Stalin's practices related to Lenin's views. I get the sense from this thread that this task is well above your head.

Zulu

18th February 2012, 15:06

backwardness isn't the only thing that can keep a country from becoming socialist. There's also international competition, which can compel the production decisions within national economies, as happened in the Soviet Union.
This argument wasn't made at the time. Or provide a proof it was. (You're also still to provide a quote supporting the notion Lenin was for non-party workers' direct participation in any major decision-making after the October revolution.)

Socialism, if you remember, is a system where the workers collectively decide how to manage the economy on the basis of human need

No, socialism is simply managing the economy on the basis of human need. Workers' collective decision-making is optional, and if it in any way hampers the economy satisfying the human need to the possible maximum, then it must give way to a method of decision-making that does not.

the question of whether a socialist revolution can fold into itself the tasks of bourgeois revolution -- which is, as I have shown in an earlier post, precisely what the entire document is concerned with establishing.
Lolwut? Where in that work does Lenin say a single word about bourgeois revolutions and tasks? He only speaks of "our revolution", which means the revolution the Bolsheviks made, the October revolution. It was the revolution that drew ire from N. Sukhanov and the 2nd Internationale, for, as they argued, it was premature and going to fail to bring about socialism in Russia, due to that country's backwardness. Lenin dumps this whole approach and says in different countries revolutionary masses can walk different roads to socialism, and he even hints at the possibility of successful socialist revolutions in the East (and in China, mind you, the bourgeois revolution occurred already in 1911, so no "folding of tasks" was necessary there either...)

Another sweeping declaration with no basis of support. Why would you claim that the transition to socialism is not a matter of politics when one of the defining features of the transition is the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.
Because in your post I was responding to you'd blatantly torn politics from economy. The DoP is not something separate from economy, it is something grounded in economy. And the DoP would have been a wrong thing to do, if the economy wasn't ready to begin transition to socialism. In fact, if there was nothing Russian proletariat could do as far as socialist transition was concerned, the October revolution wouldn't have occurred at all.

Granted, the productive forces were underdeveloped in Russia, but so was the class of the bourgeoisie, which let the proletariat advance and become more class-conscious than in the West. So the relations of production were somewhat ahead of the productive forces, which (and only which) made the DoP a possible and more preferable superstructure, instead of parliamentary democracy for the period of the productive forces' "catching up" with those in the West. These were the views Lenin expressed even before 1917, justifying the possibility of the socialist revolutions occurring in the "weak link" countries first, rater than in the most advanced. You could say that was contrary to what Marx had said, but we're talking about the relation of Stalin's views to Lenin's views, not of Lenin's views to Marx's views here. And it's been said that Stalin's views were somewhat more orthodox until Lenin persuaded him in his innovations.

All of this is Marxism 101

Marxism 101 is that the relations between the classes are economic in nature. Politics, just like culture, like law, like religion, only reflect the economic essence of class relations. During the NEP the hegemony of the working class remained, reflecting the fact that the bourgeoisie, the capitalists were economically weaker, even though the workers had to put up with them and their ways for a while. That's why the NEP was part of the socialist transition period, that's why Lenin demanded iron discipline from the workers, as opposed to his demands of breaking the discipline before the economic power of the working class (in relation to that of the bourgeoisie anyway) manifested itself and the October Revolution succeeded.

but there's a difference between the workers using the Bolshevik party to take control over the economy, and the Bolshevik party planning the entire economy then forcing the workers (against their will) to conform to that plan. One is the party playing a leading role in a society where the proletariat has power; the other is a society where the party has power and is using that power to suppress proletarian power.
If the Bolshevik party is doing the planning in the interests of the proletariat, and that is against the will of some individual workers who lack class consciousness, it only means that such workers are betrayers of the interests of the working class, who only help the bourgeoisie regain power. Therefore, forcing the workers (those that need forcing, because many don't) is not suppressing the proletarian power, but suppressing the power of the bourgeoisie.

What made the Bolshevik party the revolutionary proletarian party was that it enjoyed the widespread support and confidence of the workers.
The Bolshevik party was a revolutionary proletarian party even before it gained the widespread support, because it was fighting for the interests of the working class. If it weren't, it would have never gained that support.

If that confidence and support dwindles, and the relationship between the party and the proletariat becomes antagonistic, it is no longer appropriate to equate -- as you do -- the party with the proletariat.
And when did that support dwindle? Rrrrrright... in the 1980s. Not that attempts of "workers' democracy" and dumping the planned economy did the working class any good then, as it played right into the hands of the bourgeoisie (just as Lenin had suggested it would)...

Am I really having to explain to you that Taylorism and one-man management are bourgeois forms of work discipline? Would you like for me to point out where Lenin says as much, or are you doubting that the NEP introduced these into the Soviet economy?

If you mean this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/13.htm), I can only read that Lenin actually praises the Taylor system as an efficient tool, which can be used by the proletariat for its own benefit, although at the time the capitalists used it to squeeze more profit for their fat selves. Nowhere does Lenin condemn the Taylor system per se. He, in fact, proposes to scale it up.

Actually analyze the fucking quote, Zulu, instead of just dropping it into your post like a lazy dog shitting in the middle of the floor then running away with its tail between its legs.
Oh, you're really more skilled agitator, than theoretician, Lucretia. Comrade Stalin would have possibly appointed you to write an article about the Trotskyist-Zinovievite Center for the "Pravda".

What does Lenin mean when he says that education must be "harsh"?
Whatever he might mean, it's clear that he does not think it can get any "milder" before the communism is here, which means the "harsh" methods are to be used for the entire period of socialist transition, including the phases of it that come after the NEP.

you just latch onto the word "harsh"
Actually, I latch to the word "communism".

In order to understand Stalin's relation to Lenin's views, you have to actually understand Lenin's views. This requires more than dogmatically declaring "Stalin followed Lenin's views!" It requires carefully reading and analyzing Lenin's writings and explaining specifically how Stalin's practices related to Lenin's views. I get the sense from this thread that this task is well above your head.
Well, actually, Stalin explained that himself. His works are full of "Lenin said this", "Lenin taught us that" remarks. Try to disprove any of them. Show that Lenin didn't support harsh methods and violence, that he thought socialist construction in Russia was absolutely impossible and the Russian proletariat would have to sit and smoke grass, till the Western proletariat walked in and built advanced industry in Russia, and so on.

And you still have do demonstrate that Lenin supported that "workers' democracy" anarchism. But you can't because he didn't.

daft punk

18th February 2012, 17:30

Stalin never at all claimed that the socialist construction could be accomplished in one country fully.

Oh yes he did.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?
Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.
It follows that this question contains two different problems :
1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.
We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

so, the only thing that was missing was being safe from attack by other countries.

And of course he had a cunning plan to ensure that - attempt to sabotage revolutions in other countries and establish capitalism.

Zulu

18th February 2012, 17:50

Oh yes he did.

If the USSR had liberated the entire world from capitalism, and all other countries had joined it, it would have been effectively one country. Would socialism have been possible then?

And of course he had a cunning plan to ensure that - attempt to sabotage revolutions in other countries and establish capitalism.

What he did was attempting to turn rag-tag movements, branding themselves as "communist parties" into real vanguard parties like the Bolshevik Party. So that they could carry out real revolutions, as opposed to simple uprisings bound to bog down and be defeated because of all kinds of anarchists and petty-bourgeois opportunists.

Grenzer

18th February 2012, 18:26

If the USSR had liberated the entire world from capitalism, and all other countries had joined it, it would have been effectively one country. Would socialism have been possible then?

I'm not sure I really understand the point of this. When the USSR "liberated" other countries in World War 2, it simply imposed its own particular orientation of capitalism on them. If the Soviet Union had "liberated" the world, it would still be capitalist, albeit with a degree of socialist rhetoric(something they rarely bothered as time went on). So yes, socialism would have been possible then, it just would have required world revolution first. Same fucking thing as the situation right now.

What he did was attempting to turn rag-tag movements, branding themselves as "communist parties" into real vanguard parties like the Bolshevik Party. So that they could carry out real revolutions, as opposed to simple uprisings bound to bog down and be defeated because of all kinds of anarchists and petty-bourgeois opportunists.

This sounds like a euphemism for "Well, we don't want to support any revolution that we can't control." It almost seems like you are using your distaste of Anarchists and so-called "petty bourgeois opportunists" to justify counter-revolution.

I'm still a bit confused as to why you people are so obsessed with defending the legacy of Stalin. He's been fucking dead for more than a half a century, and has no relevance today.

Zulu

18th February 2012, 19:08

I'm not sure I really understand the point of this. When the USSR "liberated" other countries in World War 2, it simply imposed its own particular orientation of capitalism on them. If the Soviet Union had "liberated" the world, it would still be capitalist, albeit with a degree of socialist rhetoric(something they rarely bothered as time went on). So yes, socialism would have been possible then, it just would have required world revolution first. Same fucking thing as the situation right now.
First of all, the USSR was socialist, but that's beside the point. Let's assume Trotsky gets the upper hand after Lenin's death and Stalin goes into exile instead. So Trotsky makes everything right from his PoV, and it's the Trotskyist Soviet Union that liberates everybody. It is still one country. Entire world = one country => socialism impossible???

This sounds like a euphemism for "Well, we don't want to support any revolution that we can't control." It almost seems like you are using your distaste of Anarchists and so-called "petty bourgeois opportunists" to justify counter-revolution.
I have this "distaste" for the anarchists and opportunists, because they are counter-revolutionary in the first place. Because the latter don't want revolution at all, and the first thing the former want to do after taking power is to throw it in the gutter, thus allowing any outside or internal counter-revolutionary force to easily defeat the revolution.

I'm still a bit confused as to why you people are so obsessed with defending the legacy of Stalin. He's been fucking dead for more than a half a century, and has no relevance today.
Because it's not the legacy of Stalin, it's the legacy of Lenin. But yeah, a little more historical accuracy regarding Stalin personally wouldn't hurt. And the question that still has relevance, namely, that of the vanguard party, invokes this Stalin-Lenin-Trotsky-one-billion-eaten-babies polemic every time.

.

GoddessCleoLover

18th February 2012, 19:13

Historical accuracy about Stalin would be nice indeed, whether with respect to individuals such as Schliapnikov and Miasnikov and many other honest Communists murdered by his regime or peasants who died due to a famine triggered not by crop failures rather by grain seizure policies.

Lucretia

18th February 2012, 20:24

Zulu,

I am still waiting for two things from you before I proceed to spend any more of time getting into the specifics of the conversation. First, where in the text of "Our Revolution" do you detect Lenin making any kind of argument about socialism in one country?

Second, what does Lenin mean in the speech before the educationists when says that education in the period of the NEP will be "harsh"?

If you cannot answer these two basic questions, providing support for your answers using specific passages from the texts in question (not just making sweeping generalizations),I am afraid any additional time I spend addressing your specific issues will be a complete waste.

daft punk

18th February 2012, 20:40

If the USSR had liberated the entire world from capitalism, and all other countries had joined it, it would have been effectively one country. Would socialism have been possible then?

Only if the masses overthrew all the Stalinist regimes.

What you fail to understand is that while Russia was backward, 1924-34, the rot set in, the bureaucracy took power, any attempt at socialism was terminated. In fact it was terminated in 1925. Stalin only collectivised later because he had no choice.

What he did was attempting to turn rag-tag movements, branding themselves as "communist parties" into real vanguard parties like the Bolshevik Party. So that they could carry out real revolutions, as opposed to simple uprisings bound to bog down and be defeated because of all kinds of anarchists and petty-bourgeois opportunists.

Ah, I see, I keep forgetting that the Bolsheviks joined the Provisional Government and vowed not to touch private property.

And I forget that Mao beat the heavily armed KMT without a mass uprising of millions of people. I forget that Stalin backed the Red army in China.

I forget that Trotsky didnt lead the Russian revolution and had no idea how to run one.

Zulu

18th February 2012, 20:56

where in the text of "Our Revolution" do you detect Lenin making any kind of argument about socialism in one country?

In every word of it.

what does Lenin mean in the speech before the educationists when says that education in the period of the NEP will be "harsh"?

I'm not answering this question, until you manage to grasp that the education methods will be "harsh" not only during the NEP, but throughout the entire period of the socialist transition, and will only be relaxed after communism has been built.

Only if the masses overthrew all the Stalinist regimes.
Let's assume Trotsky gets the upper hand after Lenin's death and Stalin goes into exile instead. So Trotsky makes everything right from his PoV, and it's the Trotskyist Soviet Union that liberates everybody. It is still one country. Entire world = one country => socialism impossible???

Lucretia

18th February 2012, 23:41

Zulu: As I thought, you simply refuse to answer simple questions. You lack the analytical abilities to sustain even intermediate textual arguments, and this would be clear if you attempted an answer to my questions. The best you can do is just parrot sweeping generalizations. Good luck trying to build a revolutionary movement without being able to defend your positions when pressed.

Oh, and for future reference, "every word of it" is not a specific passage, and the point of the question about the meaning of harshness was that I *do* agree with it. But then again, I think it has a different meaning than "workers will have to be forced to do what the party says." You are unwilling to provide a defense of your interpretation, so why should I?

I shan't waste any more of my time trying to discuss these important issues with somebody who isn't even making a good faith effort.

daft punk

19th February 2012, 12:23

Let's assume Trotsky gets the upper hand after Lenin's death and Stalin goes into exile instead. So Trotsky makes everything right from his PoV, and it's the Trotskyist Soviet Union that liberates everybody. It is still one country. Entire world = one country => socialism impossible???

Trotsky would have done the following in the period 1924-8:
Tax the rich peasants to raise money and keep them down
Build state industry
Subsidise cooperatives for the poor peasants
Cut bureaucracy, bring more democracy.

All policies supported by Lenin as well.

This would have avoided the forced collectivisation and famine of the period 1928-34. The purges would not have happened (remember they included all the best socialists). The Spanish revolution would not have been sabotaged. The German revolution of 1923 would have been encouraged and supported more. The French general strike would not have been called off. The Chinese revolution would not have adopted such a disastrous policy. So, by the start of WW2, Russia might not have been the only one.

And there would be no fascism, no WW2 anyway, because the German CP would have formed an alliance with the social democrat workers to block fascism.

So, overall, a much better chance of socialism.

Zulu

19th February 2012, 21:24

Trotsky would have done the following

I am mighty indifferent to what Trotsky would have done. I'm interested only in one simple answer to a simple question:

If it were a Trotskyist Soviet Union, "one country" joined by all former bourgeois states in the world, would socialism still be impossible in this "one country"?

What I'm really aiming at, is the entirely scholastic nature of this thesis, which every Stalin-hater clings to: "Socialism in one country is impossible". If it was approached dialectically (the way Lenin and Stalin approached it), it would have been patently obvious that taken out of historical context this thesis had no meaning, and when taken in the historical context, it would be pretty clear, that Stalin's PoV was at least no worse than anyone else's.

In 1939 Trotsky himself wrote:

"That socialisation of the capitalist-created means of production is of tremendous economic benefit is today demonstrable not only in theory but also by the experiment of the USSR, notwithstanding the limitations of that experiment. True, capitalistic reactionaries, not without artifice, use Stalin’s regime as a scarecrow against the ideas of socialism. As a matter of fact, Marx never said that socialism could be achieved in a single country, and moreover, a backward country. The continuing privations of the masses in the USSR, the omnipotence of the privileged caste, which has lifted itself above the nation and its misery, finally, the rampant club-law of the bureaucrats are not consequences of the socialist method of economy but of the isolation and backwardness of the USSR caught in the ring of capitalist encirclement. The wonder is that under such exceptionally unfavourable conditions planned economy has managed to demonstrate its insuperable benefits."
L. D. Trotsky, "Marxism in Our Time", 1939.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/marxism.htm

What do we read here? We read here, that despite SiOC never being written about by Marx, and Trotsky's being personally butthurt about the fact that it's not he who runs the show, the USSR is a tremendous success! It's clear that Trotsky thinks that the USSR is a socialist country, because of the mere fact that it has planned economy, and the limitations to socialism in the USSR are due to its "isolation" and "backwardness" (but they are only limitations, not negations, mind you). And much of the rest of that pamphlet is concerned with the discussion of the perspectives of socialism in one country, the United States of America.

daft punk

20th February 2012, 18:32

I am mighty indifferent to what Trotsky would have done. I'm interested only in one simple answer to a simple question:

If it were a Trotskyist Soviet Union, "one country" joined by all former bourgeois states in the world, would socialism still be impossible in this "one country"?

What I'm really aiming at, is the entirely scholastic nature of this thesis, which every Stalin-hater clings to: "Socialism in one country is impossible". If it was approached dialectically (the way Lenin and Stalin approached it), it would have been patently obvious that taken out of historical context this thesis had no meaning, and when taken in the historical context, it would be pretty clear, that Stalin's PoV was at least no worse than anyone else's.

Pretty much impossible yeah, but it would have had a chance because Trotsky would have tried to internationalise it. It might not have been exactly socialism, it would have been in transition, and there could have been a counter revolution, who knows? But Stalin provoked the counter-revolution as I have explained, by letting the rich get richer.

In 1939 Trotsky himself wrote:

"That socialisation of the capitalist-created means of production is of tremendous economic benefit is today demonstrable not only in theory but also by the experiment of the USSR, notwithstanding the limitations of that experiment. True, capitalistic reactionaries, not without artifice, use Stalin’s regime as a scarecrow against the ideas of socialism. As a matter of fact, Marx never said that socialism could be achieved in a single country, and moreover, a backward country. The continuing privations of the masses in the USSR, the omnipotence of the privileged caste, which has lifted itself above the nation and its misery, finally, the rampant club-law of the bureaucrats are not consequences of the socialist method of economy but of the isolation and backwardness of the USSR caught in the ring of capitalist encirclement. The wonder is that under such exceptionally unfavourable conditions planned economy has managed to demonstrate its insuperable benefits."
L. D. Trotsky, "Marxism in Our Time", 1939.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/marxism.htm

What do we read here? We read here, that despite SiOC never being written about by Marx, and Trotsky's being personally butthurt about the fact that it's not he who runs the show, the USSR is a tremendous success! It's clear that Trotsky thinks that the USSR is a socialist country, because of the mere fact that it has planned economy, and the limitations to socialism in the USSR are due to its "isolation" and "backwardness" (but they are only limitations, not negations, mind you). And much of the rest of that pamphlet is concerned with the discussion of the perspectives of socialism in one country, the United States of America.

No Trotsky does not think the USSR is socialist, that is very wrong. It has a planned economy but socialism is more than that. It's isolation and backwardness was what caused the NEP and Stalinism, the dictatorship of an elite based on the bureaucracy. And the bureaucracy countered the gains of the planned economy, relatively at first and later completely. The planned economy brought gains and the bureaucracy brought negative gains.

A Marxist Historian

21st February 2012, 01:10

In every word of it.

This is, of course, true. Just as true as that every word of the Bible, the Koran, and the US Constitution are all one long argument for Socialism In One Country.

Not.

[QUOTE=Zulu;2362556]I'm not answering this question, until you manage to grasp that the education methods will be "harsh" not only during the NEP, but throughout the entire period of the socialist transition, and will only be relaxed after communism has been built.

Let's assume Trotsky gets the upper hand after Lenin's death and Stalin goes into exile instead. So Trotsky makes everything right from his PoV, and it's the Trotskyist Soviet Union that liberates everybody. It is still one country. Entire world = one country => socialism impossible???

Funnier yet.

Actually, it wouldn't be "one country."

If you're unclear about that, try listening to one of our favorite Leninists, or rather Lennonists, John Lennon, in his song "Imagine."

He was hanging out with the sort-of-Trotskyist IMG in England when he wrote it.

-M.H.-

"Imagine there's no country ... and no religion too..."

A Marxist Historian

21st February 2012, 01:15

I am mighty indifferent to what Trotsky would have done. I'm interested only in one simple answer to a simple question:

If it were a Trotskyist Soviet Union, "one country" joined by all former bourgeois states in the world, would socialism still be impossible in this "one country"?

What I'm really aiming at, is the entirely scholastic nature of this thesis, which every Stalin-hater clings to: "Socialism in one country is impossible". If it was approached dialectically (the way Lenin and Stalin approached it), it would have been patently obvious that taken out of historical context this thesis had no meaning, and when taken in the historical context, it would be pretty clear, that Stalin's PoV was at least no worse than anyone else's.

In 1939 Trotsky himself wrote:

"That socialisation of the capitalist-created means of production is of tremendous economic benefit is today demonstrable not only in theory but also by the experiment of the USSR, notwithstanding the limitations of that experiment. True, capitalistic reactionaries, not without artifice, use Stalin’s regime as a scarecrow against the ideas of socialism. As a matter of fact, Marx never said that socialism could be achieved in a single country, and moreover, a backward country. The continuing privations of the masses in the USSR, the omnipotence of the privileged caste, which has lifted itself above the nation and its misery, finally, the rampant club-law of the bureaucrats are not consequences of the socialist method of economy but of the isolation and backwardness of the USSR caught in the ring of capitalist encirclement. The wonder is that under such exceptionally unfavourable conditions planned economy has managed to demonstrate its insuperable benefits."
L. D. Trotsky, "Marxism in Our Time", 1939.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/marxism.htm

What do we read here? We read here, that despite SiOC never being written about by Marx, and Trotsky's being personally butthurt about the fact that it's not he who runs the show, the USSR is a tremendous success! It's clear that Trotsky thinks that the USSR is a socialist country, because of the mere fact that it has planned economy, and the limitations to socialism in the USSR are due to its "isolation" and "backwardness" (but they are only limitations, not negations, mind you). And much of the rest of that pamphlet is concerned with the discussion of the perspectives of socialism in one country, the United States of America.

Cute. Trotsky says, in almost so many words, that the USSR is not a socialist country, and our scholar interprets this as him saying, that the USSR is a socialist country!

After all, one plus one may seem like two, but if you study it closely, maybe it's just a lil' bit threeish.

Yes indeed, the victory of Stalin in the USSR was due to its isolation and backwardness.

If the Russian Revolution had spread to Germany and then the rest of of Europe, and then the world, in the 1920s, then Stalin would never have come to power in the first place. His victory was a direct result of working class defeat.

-M.H.-

Krano

21st February 2012, 01:15

You guys remember the day when there was a global communist revolution? yeah me neither.

Zulu

21st February 2012, 03:24

Trotsky says, in almost so many words, that the USSR is not a socialist country

-M.H.-

Right. USSR isn't a socialist country, that's why Trotsky uses it as an example to prove that socialism works, in spite of Stalin being a scarecrow.

A Marxist Historian

22nd February 2012, 00:15

Right. USSR isn't a socialist country, that's why Trotsky uses it as an example to prove that socialism works, in spite of Stalin being a scarecrow.

He's saying that socialist methods are better than capitalist methods, that socializing industry and instituting planned production is better than the capitalist method of production for profit.

Despite all the horrors of Stalinist brutality.

From that, to saying that the USSR is a "socialist country" is a ridiculously huge leap.

Basically, Zulu, you're just playing word games. And getting egg on your face in the process.

Why don't you make an actual argument instead?

Heck, Zulu, I'll make you a deal.

You wanna say Trotsky believed in "socialism in one country" just like Stalin, and he was right?

Ok, I'll stop arguing the point, if you just admit what everybody else knows, that everything else Trotsky said about Stalinism was true too.

-M.H.-

Zulu

22nd February 2012, 03:32

You wanna say Trotsky believed in "socialism in one country" just like Stalin, and he was right?

The point stands, that the dots "socialist mode of production is better", "USSR is the proof of that", "Stalin's horrors are result of matters not inherent to socialism" connect quite nicely. Whether Trotsky believed in it or not, is his own personal religious business.

Stalin, for instance, did not believe in SiOC. He knew for sure that there was a non-zero probability that it might work, and that only practice could give the final answer. The practice gave that answer: it worked. The USSR held out, repelled a colossal imperialist invasion (something Trotsky said it wouldn't be able to, btw), and helped create an entire camp of socialist countries, spanning at least a quarter of the dry land on the globe. Where it went from there after that wasn't exactly up to Stalin, because he got old and died, but in any case it wasn't due to socialism being confined to one country anymore.

.

daft punk

22nd February 2012, 09:31

Right. USSR isn't a socialist country, that's why Trotsky uses it as an example to prove that socialism works, in spite of Stalin being a scarecrow.

Trotskyists use it as an example to show that a planned economy can do well despite being hampered by a dictatorship of a bureaucracy, but that in the long run, the disadvantages of the dictatorship will outweigh the advantages of a planned economy.

not too hard to understand and find evidence for.

A Marxist Historian

22nd February 2012, 19:53

The point stands, that the dots "socialist mode of production is better", "USSR is the proof of that", "Stalin's horrors are result of matters not inherent to socialism" connect quite nicely. Whether Trotsky believed in it or not, is his own personal religious business.

Stalin, for instance, did not believe in SiOC. He knew for sure that there was a non-zero probability that it might work, and that only practice could give the final answer. The practice gave that answer: it worked. The USSR held out, repelled a colossal imperialist invasion (something Trotsky said it wouldn't be able to, btw), and helped create an entire camp of socialist countries, spanning at least a quarter of the dry land on the globe. Where it went from there after that wasn't exactly up to Stalin, because he got old and died, but in any case it wasn't due to socialism being confined to one country anymore.

.

So then, Trotsky believed in Socialism in One Country, but Stalin didn't? Now there's a bright new idea.

That "socialist camp" Stalin created was a fine thing indeed. And the only problem with it was that Stalin had the bad taste to die.

Actually, him dying was a capitalist conspiracy, all those Jewish doctors you know.

-M.H.-

Zulu

23rd February 2012, 00:22

Actually, him dying was a capitalist conspiracy, all those Jewish doctors you know.
Stalin's death is an interesting topic. Personally, I doubt those Jewish doctors had any say in the matter. And Stalin was old, smoked a lot...

GoddessCleoLover

23rd February 2012, 00:33

Zulu

23rd February 2012, 01:25

ClassWarMutualist

23rd February 2012, 05:17

does anyone else get sick of State Communist cult-like hero worship?

Zulu

23rd February 2012, 06:53

does anyone else get sick of State Communist cult-like hero worship?
Khrushchev? Gorbachev? Putin?

A Marxist Historian

23rd February 2012, 08:15

According to Molotov, Beria stated that he did Stalin in and "saved all of us". There were fairly clear indications that another bloody purge was in the offing and that Molotov, Beria, Mikoyan and probably others were doomed. Some forensic experts have opined that Stalin's stroke could have been caused by poisoning and certainly Beria was the one responsible for leaving Stalin without medical attention for hours after he was stricken.

Molotov is not to be trusted as a source.

There's been quite a bit written about this, and I think the consensus at this point among the historians that this was a useful fantasy for Molotov. Stalin didn't get proper medical attention in his last hours because everybody, including Beria, was scared stiff of messing in Stalin's personal business.

In Stalin's last few weeks of life, he was actually starting to back off somewhat on the whole "Jewish doctors plot" insanity, which he was realising was very bad PR, so probably Molotov et.al. were safe. Stalin was getting old and feeble after all. And paranoid, very paranoid. Especially about Beria, which is understandable.

There are some indications that, behind closed doors, Molotov would have preferred a more conciliatory line to the West than Stalin was practicing, though he certainly didn't have the courage to fight with Stalin about this. This is definitely the case with Mikoyan, if his son's memoirs are at all accurate. Mikoyan, the foreign trade minister, seems to have been the top Soviet leader perhaps interested in maybe engaging in a little economic colonialism, like the Brits and Americans, maybe in Iran, maybe Libya, and therefore wanted to have better relations with the West, as he was less anti-capitalist than the others.

This is what Stalin was complaining and making threats about in his last years.

-M.H.-

Zulu

12th March 2012, 11:40

If you want to argue that he is talking about the possibility of socialism in one country, you have to show it by quoting the relevant passages

Aaaaaand... found it!

"Marxism alone has precisely and correctly defined the relation of reforms to revolution, although Marx was able to see this relation only from one aspect—under the conditions preceding the first to any extent permanent and lasting victory of the proletariat, if only in one country. Under those conditions, the basis of the proper relation was that reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Throughout the capitalist world this relation is the foundation of the revolutionary tactics of the proletariat—the ABC, which is being distorted and obscured by the corrupt leaders of the Second International and the half-pedantic and half-finicky knights of the Two-and-a-Half International. After the victory of the proletariat, if only in one country, something new enters into the relation between reforms and revolution. In principle, it is the same as before, but a change in form takes place, which Marx himself could not foresee, but which can be appreciated only on the basis of the philosophy and politics of Marxism...

Before the victory of the proletariat, reforms are a by product of the revolutionary class struggle. After the victory (while still remaining a “by-product” on an international scale) they are, in addition, for the country in which victory has been achieved, a necessary and legitimate breathing space when, after the utmost exertion of effort, it becomes obvious that sufficient strength is lacking for the revolutionary accomplishment of some transition or another. Victory creates such a “reserve of strength” that it is possible to hold out even in a forced retreat, hold out both materially and morally. Holding out materially means preserving a sufficient superiority of forces to prevent the enemy from inflicting utter defeat. Holding out morally means not allowing oneself to become demoralised and disorganised, keeping a sober view of the situation, preserving vigour and firmness of spirit, even retreating a long way, but not too far, and in such a way as to stop the retreat in time and revert to the offensive."
V. I. Lenin, "The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism", 1921.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm

This excerpt is marvelous in its own right for all the talk about the relation between revolution and reformism, with Lenin catapulting Marxism up to a whole new level in just a few sentences.

But as it pertains to the topic of SiOC, it makes it clear, that Lenin was the "inventor" of it, not Stalin. Lenin was talking about all the "holding out", the "retreats" and the "revert to the offensive". And that's 1921, the NEP was only beginning, and Lenin wasn't yet hit by his malady, so this cuts it.

Amal

13th March 2012, 16:04

If you ask me, those are against "socialism in one country" are callous enough to understand that by winning one country, proletariat will win one frontier that will give it more strength to go to the next front.
No Marxist can deny "worldwide revolution" in essence, what Trotsky want to preach is "overnight worldwide revolution". He (and his present followers) are just unable to understand that worldwide revolution will continue and it will take a long time for proletariat to win the whole world. Afterall, nobody with a little common sense want to wait for the "fine morning" in which proletariat will win the world.
IMO, it's basically the incapability to understand that the process is long and slow and the road isn't always straight.

Bostana

13th March 2012, 16:10

Well Stalin came up with Socialism in one Country because The defeat of several proletarian revolutions in countries like Germany and Hungary ended Bolshevik hopes for an imminent world revolution and began promotion of "Socialism in One Country" by Stalin. In the first edition of the book Osnovy Leninizma (Foundations of Leninism, 1924), Stalin was still a follower of Lenin's idea that revolution in one country is insufficient. But by the end of that year, in the second edition of the book, his position started to turn around: the "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". In April 1925 Nikolai Bukharin elaborated the issue in his brochure Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? The position was adopted as the state policy after Stalin's January 1926 article On the Issues of Leninism.

So in order to spread Socialism and Communism to other countries and start a world Revolution we must achieve it in our own first.

daft punk

13th March 2012, 16:13

No, Stalin adopted the idea to avoid getting involved in world revolution. He was opposed to the revolution in Germany in 1923. Fact.

Bostana

13th March 2012, 16:17

No, Stalin adopted the idea to avoid getting involved in world revolution. He was opposed to the revolution in Germany in 1923. Fact.

Do you have a source for this? And besides that would make no sense. Stalin was at war with Capitalists why would he what to support it? And when Germany did start Communism it was flawed and not Communism at all.

German 1923 Revolution you mean Hitler's attempted coup in 1923?

daft punk

13th March 2012, 16:56

Do you have a source for this? And besides that would make no sense. Stalin was at war with Capitalists why would he what to support it? And when Germany did start Communism it was flawed and not Communism at all.

German 1923 Revolution you mean Hitler's attempted coup in 1923?

No, a coup by a fascist is not a revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch07.htm

STALIN KILLS THE 1923 REVOLUTION

"In my opinion the Germans must be curbed and not spurred on."
Stalin, 1923.

"Trotsky, in Moscow, was already out of the secret councils of the leaders, and Stalin's part in checking the revolution became known only later when Zinoviev and Kamenev broke with him and exposed the origins of the struggle against Trotskyism. But the incompetence of the German Communist Party for its tasks could be seen by any trained revolutionary. In September Trotsky warned the Central Committee of the German party's "fatalism, sleepyheadedness, etc." He was ridiculed. Claiming that the German revolutionary situation was now fully mature, he asked that a date should be fixed provisionally (subject to sudden changes in the general situation) some eight or ten weeks ahead, and that the party should concentrate all its energies on organising the masses for the revolution. The Stalin-ridden International turned the proposal down"

A Marxist Historian

13th March 2012, 17:27

First of all, Stalin himself condemned the term "Stalinism" when it was brought up once in his presence. So the only "Stalinists" out there are those that hold on to an imaginary Stalin, who is pretty much the same character the Trotskyists so much love to hate. And those who advocate the actual Stalin's course are called the Marxist-Leninists, something Stalin used to call himself.

Secondly, we do not "dig up" that quote, it's pretty much in every Stalin's work on the subject, next to the "one country" phrases, including the Short Course. So the real bad guys here are again the Trotskyists, who permanently take the "one country" quotes out of context to slander Stalin.

This is highly misleading. Sure, Stalin expressed his disapproval of the use of the term "Stalinism," but nonetheless it was used ubiquitously in the USSR. This was just one of Stalin's little games. If he had really disliked it, it would have come to an abrupt halt, as Soviet leaders who did things Stalin actually disliked ended up in the gulag--if they were lucky.

The way it was supposed to be was that it was just the Soviet people's extreme love of Stalin overcoming Stalin's own modest reluctance. And if you believe that, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

13th March 2012, 17:32

Aaaaaand... found it!

"Marxism alone has precisely and correctly defined the relation of reforms to revolution, although Marx was able to see this relation only from one aspect—under the conditions preceding the first to any extent permanent and lasting victory of the proletariat, if only in one country. Under those conditions, the basis of the proper relation was that reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Throughout the capitalist world this relation is the foundation of the revolutionary tactics of the proletariat—the ABC, which is being distorted and obscured by the corrupt leaders of the Second International and the half-pedantic and half-finicky knights of the Two-and-a-Half International. After the victory of the proletariat, if only in one country, something new enters into the relation between reforms and revolution. In principle, it is the same as before, but a change in form takes place, which Marx himself could not foresee, but which can be appreciated only on the basis of the philosophy and politics of Marxism...

Before the victory of the proletariat, reforms are a by product of the revolutionary class struggle. After the victory (while still remaining a “by-product” on an international scale) they are, in addition, for the country in which victory has been achieved, a necessary and legitimate breathing space when, after the utmost exertion of effort, it becomes obvious that sufficient strength is lacking for the revolutionary accomplishment of some transition or another. Victory creates such a “reserve of strength” that it is possible to hold out even in a forced retreat, hold out both materially and morally. Holding out materially means preserving a sufficient superiority of forces to prevent the enemy from inflicting utter defeat. Holding out morally means not allowing oneself to become demoralised and disorganised, keeping a sober view of the situation, preserving vigour and firmness of spirit, even retreating a long way, but not too far, and in such a way as to stop the retreat in time and revert to the offensive."
V. I. Lenin, "The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism", 1921.
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm

This excerpt is marvelous in its own right for all the talk about the relation between revolution and reformism, with Lenin catapulting Marxism up to a whole new level in just a few sentences.

But as it pertains to the topic of SiOC, it makes it clear, that Lenin was the "inventor" of it, not Stalin. Lenin was talking about all the "holding out", the "retreats" and the "revert to the offensive". And that's 1921, the NEP was only beginning, and Lenin wasn't yet hit by his malady, so this cuts it.

Zulu is here, in the usual "Marxist Leninist" fashion, confusing the victory, the dictatorship, of the proletariat with socialism.

Even Stalin knew better than that, only claiming that socialism had been created in the USSR by the mid 1930s, what with the Five Year Plans, complete collectivization, and, allegedly, the abolition of classes in the USSR, leaving behind only a "fanatical remnant" of the bourgeoisie, desperately intent on Hitler invading, vanguard of that being, of course, the "Trotzkyites."

If understood intelligently, as opposed to how Zulu misunderstands it, this quote from Lenin is simply elementary Trotskyism.

-M.H.-

Bostana

13th March 2012, 17:47

No, a coup by a fascist is not a revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch07.htm

STALIN KILLS THE 1923 REVOLUTION

"In my opinion the Germans must be curbed and not spurred on."
Stalin, 1923.

"Trotsky, in Moscow, was already out of the secret councils of the leaders, and Stalin's part in checking the revolution became known only later when Zinoviev and Kamenev broke with him and exposed the origins of the struggle against Trotskyism. But the incompetence of the German Communist Party for its tasks could be seen by any trained revolutionary. In September Trotsky warned the Central Committee of the German party's "fatalism, sleepyheadedness, etc." He was ridiculed. Claiming that the German revolutionary situation was now fully mature, he asked that a date should be fixed provisionally (subject to sudden changes in the general situation) some eight or ten weeks ahead, and that the party should concentrate all its energies on organising the masses for the revolution. The Stalin-ridden International turned the proposal down"

They only fighting in Germany in 1923 was when Hitler first tried to station coup.

Did Stalin send troops to Germany to help the Capitalists? No.
So why do you think his involvement was that important in Germany anyway? Better than turning in Soviet information to German Capitilaist spies,
cough cough Trotsky cough

"In my opinion the Germans must be curbed and not spurred on."
Stalin, 1923.

You do know curbed means to keep a watchful eye on? Which was a smart thing to do the fact that Germany invaded the USSR a decade later.

daft punk

13th March 2012, 19:27

Zulu

14th March 2012, 03:32

Zulu is here, in the usual "Marxist Leninist" fashion, confusing the victory, the dictatorship, of the proletariat with socialism.

Even Stalin knew better than that, only claiming that socialism had been created in the USSR by the mid 1930s, what with the Five Year Plans, complete collectivization, and, allegedly, the abolition of classes in the USSR, leaving behind only a "fanatical remnant" of the bourgeoisie, desperately intent on Hitler invading, vanguard of that being, of course, the "Trotzkyites."

If understood intelligently, as opposed to how Zulu misunderstands it, this quote from Lenin is simply elementary Trotskyism.

-M.H.-

You can put two and two together, right? I'm not misunderstanding that Lenin speaks of a victory of the proletariat in struggle for power (a "lasting" one at that) in one country (and that country being obviously Russia with all its backwardness and stuff). But in the same paragraph he says that among the implications of such a victory there is that reformism is no longer a bad thing and the reforms should not remain a "by-product", but must be the way to go (in that one Russia country), in the course of continued construction of socialism with all its "retreats" and "offensives". Indeed, he notices elsewhere in the article that "The Soviet system and all forms of proletarian dictatorship will have the finishing touches put to them and be completed only by the efforts of a number of countries" (to which end the USSR would be created a year after the article), but between the "finishing touches" and the state of affairs at the time of the article there was plenty of tasks to accomplish through reforms, "if only in one country".

And that statement of yours practically calling Lenin a trotskyist is, of course, as lulzy as it's baseless. Or is it just because there is the word "permanent" somewhere in the text? Is it kind of a hypnotic trigger or something, I wonder? Because, you know, another paragraph from the very same article is a direct condemnation of Trotskyism:

"The greatest, perhaps the only danger to the genuine revolutionary is that of exaggerated revolutionism, ignoring the limits and conditions in which revolutionary methods are appropriate and can be successfully employed. True revolutionaries have mostly come a cropper when they began to write “revolution” with a capital R, to elevate “revolution” to something almost divine, to lose their heads, to lose the ability to reflect, weigh and ascertain in the coolest and most dispassionate manner at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere of action you must act in a revolutionary manner, and at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere you must turn to reformist action. True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the “great, victorious, world” revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner under all circumstances and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is certain.
Whoever gets such ideas into his head is lost because he has foolish ideas about a fundamental problem; and in a fierce war (and revolution is the fiercest sort of war) the penalty for folly is defeat."

But I guess it was actually some Stalin's scheme to put these words into Lenin's works to justify Stalinism, because such a true Trotskyist as Lenin simply could not write such a thing!
/sarcasm.

This is highly misleading. Sure, Stalin expressed his disapproval of the use of the term "Stalinism," but nonetheless it was used ubiquitously in the USSR.
Proof?

There was a cult of personality, of course, and many things were called "Stalin's this" and "Stalin's that", but the term "Stalinism" was dropped once and for all. It was not until the Perestroika, that it entered the Russian vocabulary (from the West). If anything, Khrushchev wouldn't miss a chance to mention it in his "secret speech", would he?

This was just one of Stalin's little games. If he had really disliked it, it would have come to an abrupt halt, as Soviet leaders who did things Stalin actually disliked ended up in the gulag--if they were lucky.

The way it was supposed to be was that it was just the Soviet people's extreme love of Stalin overcoming Stalin's own modest reluctance.

Proof of this tabloid folk history again, please? Stalin said himself something to the effect that he was personally embarrassed by all the excessive praise of him, but thought it had an objective character (due to the masses' poor understanding of social theory) and had an overall positive effect on the Soviet society (when it had to remain continuously mobilized for the struggle to achieve and expand socialism), so the people should not be denied the chance to sing songs and write letters to him if they so choose.

.

Zulu

14th March 2012, 03:59

Do you have a source for this? And besides that would make no sense. Stalin was at war with Capitalists why would he what to support it? And when Germany did start Communism it was flawed and not Communism at all.

German 1923 Revolution you mean Hitler's attempted coup in 1923?

The Bolsheviks intended to foment an armed uprising in Germany starting on the 6th anniversary of the October Revolution. Stalin was skeptical at the prospects of its success, and thought it would fail to gain mass support. As such it would only be a waste of resources (and people). And not only him, but many others, including Zinoviev thought so as well. And at that point Stalin was in no way a dictator and had no final or decisive say, so saying he botched the whole thing by himself is another piece of Trotskyist bullshit.

Trotsky tried to push on with it even after the general consensus in the Central Committee was to call it off, and several actions were carried out across Germany. Hitler's coup attempt was in part a response to it (as he thought the wannabe Bavarian secessionists were complicit).

Ismail

14th March 2012, 06:30

There was a cult of personality, of course, and many things were called "Stalin's this" and "Stalin's that", but the term "Stalinism" was dropped once and for all. It was not until the Perestroika, that it entered the Russian vocabulary (from the West). If anything, Khrushchev wouldn't miss a chance to mention it in his "secret speech", would he?"Stalinist" was occasionally used in the 1930's and 40's, but not in a pejorative sense and not in an official capacity. E.g. people would praise the "great Leninist-Stalinist Central Committee," the "great Stalinist organization of our armed forces led by our outstanding theoretician Stalin" and suchlike. It had no ideological content, just "yay Stalin."

Zulu

14th March 2012, 07:46

"Stalinist" was occasionally used in the 1930's and 40's, but not in a pejorative sense and not in an official capacity. E.g. people would praise the "great Leninist-Stalinist Central Committee," the "great Stalinist organization of our armed forces led by our outstanding theoretician Stalin" and suchlike. It had no ideological content, just "yay Stalin."

Like I said, the term wasn't "Stalinist", but simply "Stalin's". Not "the successes the Stalinist airship industry", but "the successes of Stalin's airship industry". Same difference between "Ismail's forum moderation" and "the Ismailist forum moderation" ;)

It might also be added that at the time this was a fairly common kind of expression and some widespread examples featured other authoritative persons: "Voroshilov's sharpshooter", "Michurin's selection practice", "Stanislavky's acting school", etc.

Ismail

14th March 2012, 08:28

Like I said, the term wasn't "Stalinist", but simply "Stalin's". Not "the successes the Stalinist airship industry", but "the successes of Stalin's airship industry". Same difference between "Ismail's forum moderation" and "the Ismailist forum moderation"https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Leninist-Stalinist+Central+Committee%22&num=10

As you can see official Soviet-translated works from that time (e.g. Joseph Stalin: A Short Biography) indeed used "Leninist-Stalinist" on occasion. Google "Ленинско-сталинского Центрального комитета" and you can find more examples.

daft punk

14th March 2012, 09:35

The Bolsheviks intended to foment an armed uprising in Germany starting on the 6th anniversary of the October Revolution. Stalin was skeptical at the prospects of its success, and thought it would fail to gain mass support. As such it would only be a waste of resources (and people). And not only him, but many others, including Zinoviev thought so as well. And at that point Stalin was in no way a dictator and had no final or decisive say, so saying he botched the whole thing by himself is another piece of Trotskyist bullshit.

Trotsky tried to push on with it even after the general consensus in the Central Committee was to call it off, and several actions were carried out across Germany. Hitler's coup attempt was in part a response to it (as he thought the wannabe Bavarian secessionists were complicit).

I think this is incorrect. The actions that happened did so because some people didn't know it had been called off. People like Zinoviev dithered, that was the problem, and Trotsky was blocked from going to Germany. Calling it off at the last minute disorientated and disillusioned the workers. The KDP never recovered.

"The failure of the German revolution clinched the victory of Stalin in Russia. It strengthened the development of the bureaucracy towards the nationalism to be proclaimed a year later in Stalin's monstrous theory. The world revolution does not come on a plate. It has to be fought for. But the consequences of failure are almost automatic. It is impossible to minimise the importance of the German defeat. To-day, Trotskyists and Stalinists (all except Brandler and his followers) agree that the finest of postwar revolutionary situations was missed in 1923. The roots of the failure were in Moscow, not in Berlin, and in Moscow in more senses than one."

from my link above

Zulu

14th March 2012, 10:11

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Leninist-Stalinist+Central+Committee%22&num=10

As you can see official Soviet-translated works from that time (e.g. Joseph Stalin: A Short Biography) indeed used "Leninist-Stalinist" on occasion. Google "Ленинско-сталинского Центрального комитета" and you can find more examples.

All right, if it was the official Soviet translation, I will not argue. Maybe some grammar was lost in translation, but then let the Grammar Nazis discuss that.

Case in point, there was nothing in "Stalinism" that had no roots in Lenin's works. As such, it may be called anything - Leninism, Stalinism, Trololanism - but in essence it was implementation of Lenin's ideas, in the changing conditions of the 1920s through 50s.

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 11:12

All right, if it was the official Soviet translation, I will not argue. Maybe some grammar was lost in translation, but then let the Grammar Nazis discuss that.

Case in point, there was nothing in "Stalinism" that had no roots in Lenin's works. As such, it may be called anything - Leninism, Stalinism, Trololanism - but in essence it was implementation of Lenin's ideas, in the changing conditions of the 1920s through 50s.
Lenin's ideas of course being show trials and slaughtering the entire Bolshevik Party and starving Ukrainians in millions because they want their own country!

Of course, now my eyes are open!

Ismail

14th March 2012, 11:19

and starving Ukrainians in millions because they want their own country!That's an anti-communist myth which today only gets backing from the Glenn Beck crowd (and, of course, the reactionary Ukrainian government.) Stalin never created an intentional famine, and there was no nationalist activity to any significant extent for the Soviet leadership to even contemplate such a thing at the time. You could read The Years of Hunger by Davies and Wheatcroft on this point. Even Robert Conquest noted that the Soviet leadership didn't intentionally produce a famine. Stalin himself expressed confusion as to the events going on in the Ukraine at the time.

Here's a nice introductory read back when the "Ukrainian genocide" was actually a common claim: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

If you distrust me because I'm a "Stalinist" then you could always ask ComradeOm, who hates Stalin and who has studied the subject far more than I.

Zulu

14th March 2012, 12:58

Lenin's ideas of course being show trials

Actually, Lenin did not believe in trials at all. Czar's Dad killed Lenin's elder brother, Lenin kills Czar. And Czar's family. And the family doctor. Fun fact: Lenin was a lawyer by education.

and slaughtering the entire Bolshevik Party

Opposition cannot be Bolshevik. That's why Lenin invented purges. And had all those Kronstadt revolutionary sailors shot.

and starving Ukrainians in millions because they want their own country!

Lenin was a Jew who hated the Russian people. That's why he conducted a revolution on behalf of the Germans, had Orthodox priests shot by the thousands (without trial), called the Russian intellectuals "dung of the nation" (and had them all shot or exiled) and [ta-da!] starved millions of Russians in the Povolzhye region.

Of course, now my eyes are open!
Good.

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 17:33

That's an anti-communist myth which today only gets backing from the Glenn Beck crowd (and, of course, the reactionary Ukrainian government.) Stalin never created an intentional famine, and there was no nationalist activity to any significant extent for the Soviet leadership to even contemplate such a thing at the time. You could read The Years of Hunger by Davies and Wheatcroft on this point. Even Robert Conquest noted that the Soviet leadership didn't intentionally produce a famine. Stalin himself expressed confusion as to the events going on in the Ukraine at the time.

Here's a nice introductory read back when the "Ukrainian genocide" was actually a common claim: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

If you distrust me because I'm a "Stalinist" then you could always ask ComradeOm, who hates Stalin and who has studied the subject far more than I.
"no nationalist activity to any significant extent" yes there was. Ukrainian nationalism erupted violently in 1917-1919 and didn't subside until Ukraine was literally starved to death. Ukrainian Nationalists even had major left-wing manifestations like the Borotbists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borotbists)and the Ukapists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Communist_Party). Many Ukapists joined the Communist Party and in the Ukraine, Nationalist Communists were a large faction until, again, Ukraine was starved to death.

Ukrainian Nationalism was even encouraged by the Bolsheviks, since they knew that it was too strong to oppose(i.e Lenin's alliance with the Borotbists and the policy of Ukrainization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainization)which did much to promote Ukrainian Nationalism).

And what of Western Ukraine? Do you know how much of a pain in the ass militant Ukrainian nationalists were for Poland? You think it didn't spill into Eastern Ukraine as well?

Even Trotsky wrote of Ukrainian Nationalism and Separatism.

What about the OUN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists)? The Bulbovsty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Revolutionary_Army)? The UPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army)? Anyone remember Skrypnyk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Skrypnyk)?

Ukrainian Nationalism was a big fucking issue, bigger than today.

Anyways, according to Stalin and Molotov(you love to quote the two, don't you?)not only did a man-made famine not happen, but a famine didn't happen at all, according to Stalin and Molotov, the hundreds of thousands of hungry Ukrainians weren't fleeing from Ukraine into Russia because there's a famine, they were fleeing because Polish spies tricked them into thinking there was one!

Come on. This is a joke.

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 17:34

Actually, Lenin did not believe in trials at all. Czar's Dad killed Lenin's elder brother, Lenin kills Czar. And Czar's family. And the family doctor. Fun fact: Lenin was a lawyer by education.

Opposition cannot be Bolshevik. That's why Lenin invented purges. And had all those Kronstadt revolutionary sailors shot.

Lenin was a Jew who hated the Russian people. That's why he conducted a revolution on behalf of the Germans, had Orthodox priests shot by the thousands (without trial), called the Russian intellectuals "dung of the nation" (and had them all shot or exiled) and [ta-da!] starved millions of Russians in the Povolzhye region.

Good.
I'm a supporter of Lenin and the Bolsheviks what the fuck are you trying to prove to me? Do you think I'm some kind of stupid Anarchist or Ultra-Leftist?

Zulu

14th March 2012, 18:00

I'm a supporter of Lenin and the Bolsheviks what the fuck are you trying to prove to me? Do you think I'm some kind of stupid Anarchist or Ultra-Leftist?

What you said about Stalin was equally ridiculous.

Ismail

14th March 2012, 20:04

Omsk

14th March 2012, 20:25

Anyways, according to Stalin and Molotov(you love to quote the two, don't you?)not only did a man-made famine not happen, but a famine didn't happen at all, according to Stalin and Molotov, the hundreds of thousands of hungry Ukrainians weren't fleeing from Ukraine into Russia because there's a famine, they were fleeing because Polish spies tricked them into thinking there was one!

Come on. This is a joke.

I see you are quite enthusiastic when it comes to debating Soviet-related subjects.However,your post (the part of the text i didn't include in the quote) was,as it is usual for people who are trying to evade the main points,quite attacking,but you focused on just a short specific point,rather than on the main subject.There was little nationalist behaviour in the '33 Ukraine,but that is not too important,the main point is that your idea,that the Golodomor was a man-made famine,is false,and is often used by right-wingers,to show the 'hells or Bolshevism' Many people note that.

And the famine which hit the USSR was also present in the other parts of the CCCP,many people suffered: Russians, Turkmen, Kazaks, Caucasus groups.

The idea of a planned genocide was destroyed many times.

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 20:36

Except I wasn't talking about the famine existing or not, and I wasn't quoting either Stalin or Molotov. I did say I'd quote Stalin, but from Soviet archives, not from his Works.

Also Western Ukraine was a bit different, the Polish Government treated Ukrainians there quite badly. There was large amounts of peasant resistance to collectivization in the USSR all over, not just in the Ukrainian SSR.
That doesn't matter. My point is, when it comes to famines, Stalinists have nothing but history of lying about them. No famines happened, everyone had bread! The Poles are spreading this lie! The Americans are spreading this lie! There were shortages of food, but no one died! Only a few people died!

When it comes the Holodomor, the claims of the Stalinists, like you, are, to any reasonable person, as credible and trustworthy as the defenses of the unrepentant criminals at Nuremberg. That is to say not credibly and not trustworthy in any way.

And yes, Western Ukraine was a bit different. The Poles treated them a quite badly, but they didn't slaughter, quite literally, millions of them(even by Stalinist counts!), and Poles didn't promote Ukrainian Nationalism(Like the Bolsheviks, you need to read up on Korenizatsiya and more specifically, Ukrainization). The Poles weren't exporting huge amounts of grain(to import factories, but do you need factories if you starved to death?) from the Ukraine while in Ukraine everyone was starving to death, either.

Omsk

14th March 2012, 20:58

Borz i am going to have to ask you nicely to stop making such straw-man arguments.

And don't compare posts on a forum with the defense system of Nazi war-criminals.

Ismail

14th March 2012, 21:48

Again, the claim that the Soviets tried to genocide Ukrainians is bunk. This isn't a case of "Stalinists" versus Trots or whatever (I haven't met a Trot who takes the claims of the "Holodomor" seriously), it's a case of Communists versus right-wing nationalists.

Here's one of the main works on the subject of the "Holodomor": (although again The Years of Hunger by Davies and Wheatcroft, neither of whom are in any way communists, is the best recent work on the famine in general): http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

And now to quote an old post of mine:

One of the main reasons the famine occurred was due to the lack of info the Soviets had on the actual conditions in the area. For example, Stalin's letters show him basically saying "What's the matter? Why aren't X regions producing grain?" Molotov's memoirs note that he did not hear about famines while in the Ukraine.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

[…] in his conversations with collective farmers, comrade Budyenny said: “Your predicament is that the authorities do not know that you have no bread, your “Ukrainian” and local leaders are to blame, they over-promised [to the Central authorities] all these ‘self-imposed extensions’ of quotas for grain procurement, and took your grain, and left you without bread”.

Etc. There's plenty more. The source is "Famine in the USSR: 1929-1934: New Documentary Evidence" (http://www.rusarchives.ru/publication/famine/famine-ussr.pdf) Basically, its point is to note that the famine was unintentional and due to both natural and "man-made" (pressures, etc.) reasons. The latter being done due to lack of sufficient knowledge of the region.

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 22:28

Please. "Glorious Comrade Stalin could have prevented the famine in the Ukraine only if he knew about it!"

1) The criminal incompetence of the Stalinist bureaucracy lead to the famine
and
2) Once underway, no attempts to alleviate it were made, in fact conditions were made worse with hundreds of thousands Ukrainians being prevented from fleeing from the Ukraine on Stalin's orders and grain was stolen from starving peasants and exported, the only logical conclusion is that the famine was a successful attempt to eradicate Ukrainian Nationalism that has been exploding since 1917-1919.

It's not reasonable to question whether the bureaucracy in Moscow was aware that it's actions were killing millions of peasants in the Ukraine because first of all, the starving of the peasants and the destruction of Ukrainian Nationalism was beneficial to the bureaucracy and second of all, the bureaucracy was exporting gigantic amounts of grain while millions were starving to death. If the Stalinists didn't notice this, they were so criminally incompetent that they are still guilty of crimes more vile than the fabricated crimes of all the Old Bolsheviks combined. The argument works against you if you're both right and wrong. If millions are starving in the country over which you exercise absolute control, in times of peace and normal weather, and not only do you not notice it but you continue to steal all the grain from the peasants while they scream "We are starving, leave us out grain!" and you reply "No, you're not, you're tricked into thinking you're starving by Polish spies!" and export it you're the most incompetent ruler in history.

And I will repeat, to take the word of Stalinists when it comes to the Holodomor and consider it to be true is comparable to treating the word of the defendants at Nuremberg as true when it comes to the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes. These Stalinists executed people left and right for alleged collaboration with fascists, yet they sign alliances with Hitler and invade countries together...yet this is not collaboration with Nazis! If Stalin had any consistency he would have ordered his dogs in the NKVD to torture him until he confessed to being a Japanese spy since he was 9 years old and he would have held a show trial with himself as the main defendant, and he would have had himself shot after admitting to unbelievable crimes.

Omsk

14th March 2012, 23:05

Since your replies are not too adequate,i wont go into lenght.

Once underway, no attempts to alleviate it were made

Wrong,the Soviet administration tried to help the people,and stop the famine,and this is widely accepted.

For an example: That year (1931) was one of severe drought in the Volga, Western Siberia, parts of Ukraine, and other regions. Acknowledging this, the regime publicly sent procured grain back to drought regions as food relief and seed, organized a conference of specialists to discuss measures against drought, and began implementation of some of the measures proposed.
Tauger, Mark. "Statistical Falsification in the Soviet Union: a Comparative Case Study of Projections, Biases, and Trust." The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, 2001, p. 44.

the only logical conclusion is that the famine was a successful attempt to eradicate Ukrainian Nationalism that has been exploding since 1917-1919.

This is just ridiculous.Do you see the complete fallacy of your argument?

They used the famine to stop nationalism?

And you say it was even successful in the attempt to destroy nationalism?

I thought we were discussing history,not silly conspiracy theories.

the bureaucracy was exporting gigantic amounts of grain while millions were starving to death.

Wrong.

In view of the importance of grain stocks to understanding the famine, we have searched Russian archives for evidence of Soviet planned and actual grain stocks in the early 1930s. Our main sources were the Politburo protocols, including the ("special files," the highest secrecy level), and the papers of the agricultural collections committee Komzag, of the committee on commodity funds, and of Sovnarkom. The Sovnarkom records include telegrams and correspondence of Kuibyshev, who was head of Gosplan, head of Komzag and the committee on reserves, and one of the deputy chairs of Komzag at that time. We have not obtained access to the Politburo working papers in the Presidential Archive, to the files of the committee on reserves or to the relevant files in military archives. But we have found enough information to be confident that this very a high figure for grain stocks is wrong and that Stalin did not have under his control huge amounts of grain, which could easily have been used to eliminate the famine.
Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933 by R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S.G. Wheatcroft.Slavic Review, Volume 54, Issue 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657.

I thought you would at least be more reasonable after your case was demolished in the Chechen WW2 debate..

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 23:35

Bro, grain exports 1932-1933 totaled 1.6 million metric tons, 1933-1934, they totaled 1.4 million metric tons. That's enough to feed 10 million Ukrainians. If grain wasn't exported, not a single Ukrainian would have starved to death. Either Stalin did this out of criminal incompetence or on purpose, either way, his actions are deserving of a million death sentences for this. The regime didn't "publicly sent procured grain back to drought regions as food relief", the regime pretended the famine didn't happen until the 1980s. That's not "the regime pretended it wasn't a man-made famine", that's a "the regime pretended there was no famine at all for decades and suppressed all information about it".

Where is the fallacy in my argument? Ukrainian Nationalism explodes in 1917-1919, it becomes a huge problem, the Bolsheviks court left/communist-nationalists and eventually assimilate them, Bolsheviks reverse Russification and introduce Ukrainization which revives Ukrainian culture after it was suppressed for centuries and Ukrainian Nationalism grows even more, then Stalin reversed Ukrainization, re-introduces Russification and Great Russian Chauvinism, kills the entire Communist Ukrainian Elite, starves Ukraine and that crushes Ukrainian nationalism.

What Chechen WW2 debate?

A Marxist Historian

14th March 2012, 23:37

"no nationalist activity to any significant extent" yes there was. Ukrainian nationalism erupted violently in 1917-1919 and didn't subside until Ukraine was literally starved to death. Ukrainian Nationalists even had major left-wing manifestations like the Borotbists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borotbists)and the Ukapists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Communist_Party). Many Ukapists joined the Communist Party and in the Ukraine, Nationalist Communists were a large faction until, again, Ukraine was starved to death.

Ukrainian Nationalism was even encouraged by the Bolsheviks, since they knew that it was too strong to oppose(i.e Lenin's alliance with the Borotbists and the policy of Ukrainization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainization)which did much to promote Ukrainian Nationalism).

And what of Western Ukraine? Do you know how much of a pain in the ass militant Ukrainian nationalists were for Poland? You think it didn't spill into Eastern Ukraine as well?

Even Trotsky wrote of Ukrainian Nationalism and Separatism.

What about the OUN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists)? The Bulbovsty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Revolutionary_Army)? The UPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army)? Anyone remember Skrypnyk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Skrypnyk)?

Ukrainian Nationalism was a big fucking issue, bigger than today.

Anyways, according to Stalin and Molotov(you love to quote the two, don't you?)not only did a man-made famine not happen, but a famine didn't happen at all, according to Stalin and Molotov, the hundreds of thousands of hungry Ukrainians weren't fleeing from Ukraine into Russia because there's a famine, they were fleeing because Polish spies tricked them into thinking there was one!

Come on. This is a joke.

By the early '30s when the famine happened, there was in fact no nationalist activity to any significant extent in Ukraine. Stalin and his coterie manufactured some to justify their Russian chauvinist policies, and you had show trials of Ukrainian intellectuals who had been involved in Ukrainian left-nationalism previously.

Skrypnyk wasn't a Ukrainian nationalist, he was a Ukrainian Stalinist wih certain mild Ukrainian national leanings, for which he was scapegoated after he died, and accused of being at the center of some sort of Trotsko-nationalist Ukrainian plot, jointly led by Rakovsky and Skrypnik, who as it happened had always opposed each other.

The UPA was centered in Western Ukraine, occupied by Poland, not Eastern, Soviet Ukraine. Nazi sympathizers that they were, they engaged in mass murder of Jews, Poles and Russians. Did they have sympathizers among anti-Communist Ukrainians, especially after the famine? Sure.

But Soviet Ukrainians, despite all the bourgeois propaganda to the contrary, after the initial shock of Barbarossa rallied around the Soviet regime against Hitler and his Ukrainian nationalist puppets. To this day, the eastern half of Ukraine, the always Soviet part, is not terribly interested in Ukrainian nationalism, especially in the Donbass where everybody speaks Russian.

Was there a famine in Ukraine? Did it kill millions of Ukrainians? Of course.

Was it manufactured by Stalin in order to punish Ukrainians for being nationalist? That is nonsense pushed by Robert Conquest and your more fascistic-minded right wing Ukrainians. And some leftist "useful idiots."

Millions of Ukrainians, and quite a few others too, starved to death because of Stalin's insanely ultraleft policy of forcible collectivization, which resulted in not enough food being grown to feed everyone. Since the Soviet Union was after all a workers state, it was the peasants not the workers who starved to death, especially in Ukraine, the traditional Russian breadbasket, from which grain was forcibly taken so that the workers in the cities would not starve to death.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

14th March 2012, 23:40

electro_fan

14th March 2012, 23:47

Lenin was a Jew who hated the Orthodox people

What the fucking fuck? i bet you say in your next post that you "actually" mean "zionist" ...

l'EnfermÃ©

14th March 2012, 23:58

By the early '30s when the famine happened, there was in fact no nationalist activity to any significant extent in Ukraine. Stalin and his coterie manufactured some to justify their Russian chauvinist policies, and you had show trials of Ukrainian intellectuals who had been involved in Ukrainian left-nationalism previously.

Skrypnyk wasn't a Ukrainian nationalist, he was a Ukrainian Stalinist wih certain mild Ukrainian national leanings, for which he was scapegoated after he died, and accused of being at the center of some sort of Trotsko-nationalist Ukrainian plot, jointly led by Rakovsky and Skrypnik, who as it happened had always opposed each other.

The UPA was centered in Western Ukraine, occupied by Poland, not Eastern, Soviet Ukraine. Nazi sympathizers that they were, they engaged in mass murder of Jews, Poles and Russians. Did they have sympathizers among anti-Communist Ukrainians, especially after the famine? Sure.

But Soviet Ukrainians, despite all the bourgeois propaganda to the contrary, after the initial shock of Barbarossa rallied around the Soviet regime against Hitler and his Ukrainian nationalist puppets. To this day, the eastern half of Ukraine, the always Soviet part, is not terribly interested in Ukrainian nationalism, especially in the Donbass where everybody speaks Russian.

Was there a famine in Ukraine? Did it kill millions of Ukrainians? Of course.

Was it manufactured by Stalin in order to punish Ukrainians for being nationalist? That is nonsense pushed by Robert Conquest and your more fascistic-minded right wing Ukrainians. And some leftist "useful idiots."

Millions of Ukrainians, and quite a few others too, starved to death because of Stalin's insanely ultraleft policy of forcible collectivization, which resulted in not enough food being grown to feed everyone. Since the Soviet Union was after all a workers state, it was the peasants not the workers who starved to death, especially in Ukraine, the traditional Russian breadbasket, from which grain was forcibly taken so that the workers in the cities would not starve to death.

-M.H.-
Skrypnyk called for Ukrainian independence(and independence of other Soviet republics) and was one of the main figures behind the re-Ukrainization of the Ukraine. The Eastern half of Ukraine was forcibly Russified(and more ruthlessly than the Czars ever imagined!), so that's not a surprise. Regarding the UPA, they weren't Nazi-sympathizers, they fought against the Nazis as well as the Soviets(and the Poles and the Czechs and Slovaks).

The argument about Ukrainian Nationalism is futile. It's been proven that not only did it exist, but it was actually encouraged by the Bolsheviks as they thought they could control it. Another funny thing is that these famines, man-made famines(caused either on purpose or out of incompetence), seem to have hit hardest the areas with the most nationalist and seperatist populations, i.e the Ukraine, North Caucasus.

We know that nationalism was a major issue in the Soviet Union before the Second World war. I belong to a nation that was packed into trains in it's entirety and sent of to Siberia(half of the nation, the Chechens, died because of this) for the sole reason that we weren't particularly fond of the Russian yoke. Why then, if we admit nationalism existed, do we pretend that it's not possible it existed in the Ukraine...even though that's the only place where Ukrainian Nationalists were a major force in the local administration. It's incomprehensible.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 00:00

I will answer to this:
What Chechen WW2 debate?

It was some time ago,you might have forgotten it,and there were two debates about the same subject,in the first,you posted,and in the second,some other would be 'criticizer' responded.Never mind.

While the rest of your post was basically answered by a number of people (Some of them not "Stalinists" ) including me,i wont bother with it.

for the sole reason that we weren't particularly fond of the Russian yoke

What about the support to the Nazis in their offensive on the CCCP?

Geiseric

15th March 2012, 01:03

Collectivisation caused the peasents production to drop to the bottom, and especially in Ukraine, where feelings were already frustrated because of the Civil war, the peasentry simply refused to harvest, like many other places throughout Russia. If collectivisation happened earlier, before the Kulaks and rich peasants grew as strong as they were, like the Left opposition was suggesting in 1923, it and the industrialization would have happened much better. That if anything is the issue of Holodomor, along with the fact that the fSU dealt with it almost as well as the British handled the Irish Potato Famine.

The reason that the nationalities had the right to self determination is because they, for hundreds of years, have been oppressed by the Russian state as they are today, so self determination for an oppressed nationality, as it would be for the Black and Chicano communities in the U.S. should be supported if the members of these Nations feel it's necessary.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 02:39

Read the link! You are talking pure rubbish. There was a revolutionary situation in 1923. Trotsky wanted to go for it. Stalin wanted to curb it. Curb does not mean keep a watchful eye on it!

curb

Pronunciation: /kəːb/
noun

1a check or restraint on something:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/curb?q=curb

ffs, you cant redefine the English language to suit you fictitious version of history.

Yes do me a favor,

Find me something where Stalin openly opposes the "revolution" situation in Germany.
Can ya do that?

And on the curbed thing
From Google itself:

curb
noun /kərb/

verb /kərb/
curbed, past participle; curbed, past tense; curbing, present participle; curbs, 3rd person singular present

Restrain or keep in check

And ya'know I think it's kinda Ironic a Trotskyist is saying Stalin was against a revolution.
The fact that Trotsky was part of an anti-Revolution group.

On the subject at hand,
Yeah, Germany had an attempted revolution before 1923 if that's what you're referring to?

Bostana

15th March 2012, 02:40

Here I found this link explaining Socialism in one Country:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/05.htm

Grenzer

15th March 2012, 02:55

Lenin's ideas of course being show trials and slaughtering the entire Bolshevik Party and starving Ukrainians in millions because they want their own country!

Of course, now my eyes are open!

This is complete trash.

If the Soviet government was afraid of Ukrainian nationalism(it wasn't) then it would have had far more effective ways of dealing with it than mass starvation. Mass starvation would be economically counter productive, something of which the Soviets were well aware. The simple fact is that famine was caused by a combination of natural factors along with the incompetent conception and implementation of agricultural collectivization. Not even the McCarthyites of the Cold War would make such an absurd claim that the famine was intentional.

It really seems like you are just pulling shit out of your ass to support whatever bizarre Trotskyo-Menshevist conception of the world you have on any given subject. Please back up wild assertions with evidence.. this isn't the first time you've done this.

Ostrinski

15th March 2012, 03:05

Grenzer's aggression has increased tenfold since becoming active.

I am ok with this.

Grenzer

15th March 2012, 03:45

I did say please.

Borz has been going from thread to thread, making historical fabrications, pitiful straw men, and displays a general lack of understanding for whatever it is he chooses to comment about. He's not interested in facts, just slandering whoever happens to disagree with his neo-menshevist views. This is, of course, standard fare for revleft; but I think you're obligated to say something sensible at least some of the time. I mean, if Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Left Communists, anarchists, and all those inbetween are fighting you; then you have to be doing something wrong.

Geiseric

15th March 2012, 06:20

he's probably trolling man, I wouldn't worry about it.

daft punk

15th March 2012, 15:30

Yes do me a favor,

Find me something where Stalin openly opposes the "revolution" situation in Germany.
Can ya do that?

And on the curbed thing
From Google itself:

curb
noun /kərb/

verb /kərb/
curbed, past participle; curbed, past tense; curbing, present participle; curbs, 3rd person singular present

Restrain or keep in check

And ya'know I think it's kinda Ironic a Trotskyist is saying Stalin was against a revolution.
The fact that Trotsky was part of an anti-Revolution group.

On the subject at hand,
Yeah, Germany had an attempted revolution before 1923 if that's what you're referring to?

Tbh you post rubbish, even for a Stalinist. I have never seen anything other than repeating simplistic lies without any support. You dont read links, you have no idea what you're on about.

KEEP IN CHECK does not mean 'keep a watchful eye on' it means 'keep under control'

in check

1under control: a way of keeping inflation in check

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/check?q=in+check#check__34

check1

Pronunciation: /tʃɛk/

2stop or slow the progress of (something, typically something undesirable): efforts were made to check the disease
curb or control (one’s feelings or reaction): he learned to check his excitement
Ice Hockey hamper or neutralize (an opponent) with one’s body or stick.
[no object] (check against) provide a means of preventing: processes to check against deterioration in the quality of the data held

please, stop the rubbish posting and use a dictionary

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 16:16

Grenzer: Accusing me, a Socialist, Materialist, Marxist and Leninist of Neo-Menshevism is ridiculous nonsense. Regarding Marxist-Leninists, Left-Coms and Anarchists, I'm not trying to win their love. If they all attack me, it means I'm doing something right. I don't know which Trotskyists are attacking me, but if they are, I'm surprised because it's the line of Trotsky in the 30s that I repeat...many call me a Trotskyists for my support of Trotsky, thinking that I take it as an insult.

Omsk: The Chechen Partisans began their armed struggle against Stalin while Hitler and Stalin were allies, when Hitler was aiding Stalin in his attempt to annex Finland and when Hitler and Stalin were partitioning Poland between themselves(like the Czars and the Kaisers did, incidentally!). Stalin didn't deport the entire Georgian nation to Siberia because a Georgian, Stalin, collaborated with Nazis(in order to subjugate other nations, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and the Chechens are accusing of collaborating with Nazis to free Chechnya from Great Russian Chauvinism! This false slander of the Chechen nation, if true, is still entirely justifiable, yet the charge against Stalin is proven and unforgivable), killing half of them and condemning the other half to eat grass and roots for a decade before they were allowed to return to their homes, which were now occupied by Russian colonists that moved to the Caucasus because their land was devastated by a war that was caused because the Comintern under Stalin wasn't able to thwart fascism, like in Germany, and actually helped it, like in Spain!

Again, double standards. Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Tomsky, Rykov...they are falsely accused of spying...sabotage...collaborating with facists...and are executed(along with almost a million others during the Great Purge, according to Soviet Archives). Stalinists support this. Stalin allies himself with Hitler, Stalinists don't say a word, don't say he deserved to be executed. A few Chechens that began a rebellion against Stalinism when Stalin and Hitler were still allied are accused of collaborating with Nazis(a ridiculous claim, the Chechen rebels had manyChechen-Jews in their ranks and leadership and said they want independence, not to exchange Stalinist tyranny to Hitlerite tyranny) and the entire Chechen and Ingush people are rounded up on trains during winter(and those who weren't capable or willing were massacred on the spot) and sent to Siberia...half die in total. Stalin is the main Georgian and enjoys huge popularity in Georgia and allies himself with Hitler, yet Georgians are not deported and murdered.

Who are the Nazi-collaborators? Chechens or Stalin. We even have photographic evidence of Stalin's and his deputies' disgusting treachery and their deals with the biggest enemies of the Proletarian of the 20th century(it's not a coincidence that German tanks invaded the Soviet Union were running on fuel that was being imported from the SU):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/MolotovRibbentropStalin.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H27337%2C_Moskau%2C_Stalin_und_Ribbentrop_im_Kreml .jpg/408px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H27337%2C_Moskau%2C_Stalin_und_Ribbentrop_im_Kreml .jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1984-1206-523%2C_Berlin%2C_Verabschiedung_Molotows.jpg

Ismail

15th March 2012, 16:31

Ocean Seal

15th March 2012, 16:32

That doesn't matter. My point is, when it comes to famines, Stalinists have nothing but history of lying about them. No famines happened, everyone had bread! The Poles are spreading this lie! The Americans are spreading this lie! There were shortages of food, but no one died! Only a few people died!

When it comes the Holodomor, the claims of the Stalinists, like you, are, to any reasonable person, as credible and trustworthy as the defenses of the unrepentant criminals at Nuremberg. That is to say not credibly and not trustworthy in any way.

And yes, Western Ukraine was a bit different. The Poles treated them a quite badly, but they didn't slaughter, quite literally, millions of them(even by Stalinist counts!), and Poles didn't promote Ukrainian Nationalism(Like the Bolsheviks, you need to read up on Korenizatsiya and more specifically, Ukrainization). The Poles weren't exporting huge amounts of grain(to import factories, but do you need factories if you starved to death?) from the Ukraine while in Ukraine everyone was starving to death, either.

When you make a post like this it implies that you have information which will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Stalin planned the Ukrainian famine. You will also have to destroy the case that Stalin making the Ukrainian famine by attacking the claims made by previous users Omsk and Ismail.
Why did people starve in other regions of the country if Stalin intended to starve the nationalism out of the Ukraine?
What evidence of this insurgent nationalism can you produce?
What evidence can you produce to show that it was intentional?
This may include food data, private reports from Stalin or Molotov which support this claim or any other reasonable evidence for this claim.

Before you make a claim like this and accuse "Stalinists" of being incredulous you should make sure that your own claims are credible. Please do so before posting again.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 16:35

I shouldn't need to point out that most bourgeois histories note that the pact was because of the failure of the USSR to gain British and French backing against Nazi Germany, and that Stalin anticipated a Nazi invasion which would be delayed by signing the pact. A most recent book on this subject is Stalin's Wars.

This is my understanding of the Hiter-Stalin pact. It was logical opportunism. More time to prepare for war: training officers, soliders, technicians, building tanks, planes, munitions and the rest of it.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 16:36

The Chechen Partisans began their armed struggle against Stalin while Hitler and Stalin were allies

Too bad they later accepted the Swastika on their flags and joined the Ost-Legions in huge numbers,accepting to massacre other Soviet nationalities,not only that,but the majority of the population also had no problem with the sabotage work and they were quite active in their refusal to help the Red Army,which did not fight for "Great Russia" but for the freedom of the entire Soviet society.

, when Hitler was aiding Stalin in his attempt to annex Finland

Stalin,or the Soviet government had no plan to annex Finland,they only wanted to propose a quite reasonable deal to the Finnish Nazi's who refused,and provoked the Soviets with bombings and constant refusals plus some ignoring.

and the Chechens are accusing of collaborating with Nazis to free Chechnya from Great Russian Chauvinism!

Yes,the pro-Nazi Chechen nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists certainly didn't like the Soviet system.

This false slander of the Chechen nation

False?It has been documented and it is widely accepted that the Chechen collaborated with the Nazi invaders,and joined the Ost-Legions.

a war that was caused because the Comintern under Stalin wasn't able to thwart fascism, like in Germany, and actually helped it, like in Spain!

So,the war was caused by the Comintern and Stalin.

This is interesting,not only is it completely non-marxist but also very simplistic,as a Marxist,you should know that the war of such sizes can't possibly start with the actions of one man,an individual.

Stalin allies himself with Hitler

A pact is not an alliance.And it was not because Stalin liked Hitler or some similar laughable reason you might believe.

A few Chechens that began a rebellion against Stalinism when Stalin and Hitler were still allied are accused of collaborating with Nazis(a ridiculous claim, the Chechen rebels had manyChechen-Jews in their ranks and leadership and said they want independence, not to exchange Stalinist tyranny to Hitlerite tyranny)

I am talking about the Chechen collaboration with the Nazi murderes who helped them rebell against the CCCP and try to establish their own lands.It was their intention,and this is something widely accepted.

Who are the Nazi-collaborators? Chechens or Stalin.

The Chechens were some of the worst WW2 Nazi collaborators,right behind the ultra-nationalist fascist and ultra-religious collaborators in the Balkans.

I still can't believe that you will try to denounce all claims that the Chechens were Nazi collaborators,i understand that it might be a,different,subject for you,but you should really try to be objective and to look at all the historical facts,and the facts say that the Chechens were Nazi collaborators.You can read about the Ost-Legions,of the Eastern Nazi collaborators,and their war-record.Which is,quite,quite long.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 18:41

please, stop the rubbish posting and use a dictionary

Calm yourself,
Germany should be kept under control the fact that they basically invaded all of Europe a decade later. So it would be wise to keep a country who is going to attempt a turn the whole continent German.

You have yet to prove yourself so. I asked you to provide me an open statement of Stalin that says he was against this so called German "revolution" in 1923.

Can you do that?
or are you just gonna keep using a dictionary?

Bostana

15th March 2012, 18:42

This is my understanding of the Hiter-Stalin pact. It was logical opportunism. More time to prepare for war: training officers, soliders, technicians, building tanks, planes, munitions and the rest of it.

You should read what Ismail posted.

Stalin didn't ally with Hitler. I shouldn't need to point out that most bourgeois histories note that the pact was because of the failure of the USSR to gain British and French backing against Nazi Germany, and that Stalin anticipated a Nazi invasion which would be delayed by signing the pact. A most recent book on this subject is Stalin's Wars. Various historians, also, have noted that Stalin refused to ally with the Nazis even though they brought proposals to that effect.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 18:49

You should read what Ismail posted.

I read what he wrote. How did it contradict what I said? Are you saying the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact didn't exist? The Russian copy of the document was declassified years ago.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 18:51

I read what he wrote. How did it contradict what I said? Are you saying the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact didn't exist?

I am saying Stalin didn't support Hitler.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 18:51

I am saying Stalin didn't support Hitler.

I never said that he did.

Amal

15th March 2012, 18:52

Geiseric

15th March 2012, 18:57

This forum is ruined because of threads like this, honestly it's impossible to be taken seriously as a socialist when there's people so cultish about Stalin. I mean we have hindsight at this point.

One question is why was comintern dismantled in 1943? Was international communism not important at that point?

Bostana

15th March 2012, 18:59

I never said that he did.

Hmm,

Must of misunderstood you then.

Ismail

15th March 2012, 19:10

One question is why was comintern dismantled in 1943? Was international communism not important at that point?"We now know that on 20 April 1941, at a closed dinner at the Bolshoi Theater, Stalin... [r]effering to the fact that the American Communists had disaffiliated from the Comintern in order to avoid prosecution under the Voorhis Act... declared,

'Dimitrov is losing his parties. That's not bad. On the contrary, it would be good to make the Com[munist] parties entirely independent instead of being sections of the CI. They must be transformed into national Com. parties under various names—Labor Party, Marxist Party, etc. The name doesn't matter. What is important is that they take root in their own people and concentrate on their own special tasks. The situation and tasks vary greatly from country to country, for instance in England and Germany, they are not at all the same. When the Com. parties get strong in this fashion, then you'll reestablish their international organization.'

Stalin continued:

'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)

At this same time, though, relations with the Soviet CP continued to exist and practically all the functions of the Comintern in-re providing subsidies and direction to parties still existed in a more covert form via the Department of International Information, which was also chaired by Dimitrov. Of course the dismantling of the Comintern also gave unintended encouragement to renegade trends in some parties, most notably the Browderists in the CPUSA, but that was dealt with soon after.

"To Browder: Received Foster's telegram [which criticized Browder's views]. Please report which leading party comrades support his views. I am somewhat disturbed by the new theoretical, political, and tactical positions you are developing. Are you not going too far in adapting to the altered international situation, to the point of denying the theory and practice of class struggle and the necessity for the working class to have its own independent political party? Please reconsider all of this and report your thoughts."
(Dimitrov to Browder, March 1944, quoted in Harvey Klehr & John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New York: Vail-Ballou Press. 1998. p. 106.)

daft punk

15th March 2012, 19:12

Calm yourself,
Germany should be kept under control the fact that they basically invaded all of Europe a decade later.

pmsl. No offence, but this is perhaps the most insane and desperate piece of 'reasoning' yet!

Have you thought this through? Let's go back to Stalin's quote, now we have established that curb means to keep in check, to prevent, hamper, neutralise, slow the progress of etc.

STALIN:

"Should the Communists (at a given stage) strive to seize power without the Social Democrats, are they mature enough for that? That, in my opinion, is the question. When we seized power, we had in Russia such reserves as (a) peace, (b) the land to the peasants, (c) the support of the great majority of the working class, (d) the sympathy of the peasantry. The German Communists at this moment have nothing of the sort. Of course, they have the Soviet nation as their neighbour, which we did not have, but what can we offer them at the present moment? If to-day in Germany the power, so to speak, falls, and the Communists seize hold of it, they will fall with a crash. That in the 'best' case. And at the worst, they will be smashed to pieces and thrown back. The whole thing is not that Brandler wants to 'educate the masses,' but that the bourgeoisie plus the Right Social Democrats will surely transform the lessons–the demonstration–into a general battle (at this moment all the chances are on their side) and exterminate them. Of course, the Fascists are not asleep, but it is to our interest that they attack first: that will rally the whole working class around the Communists (Germany is not Bulgaria). Besides, according to all information the Fascists are weak in Germany. In my opinion the Germans must be curbed and not spurred on." [10] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch07.htm#10)

So, Stalin wants the German revolution prevented, because he doent think it can succeed. It has got fuck all to do with him predicting that 10 years later the fascists will take power and 6 years after that start a war. In fact he says they are 'weak', but it is in "our interest that they attack first". He is not saying German fascism should be kept under control, he is saying German communism should be kept under control.

So it would be wise to keep a country who is going to attempt a turn the whole continent German.

Try to understand the above and then we can move on to social fascism and the rise of the Nazis, but you have to understand the above first. The only way you are gonna do it is to read up.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch07.htm
"Stalin, master of the apparatus, imposed his view, and after that one thing only was certain, that the German revolution would never be led to victory by the Communist International. With the collapse of the Cuno Government German Capitalism faced disaster. Once more nothing could have saved it but the Social Democracy, and these sycophants who can never lead anything except expeditions against colonials and their own followers, rushed to the rescue. Stresemann, the capitalist, formed a Coalition Government, putting the Social Democrats in the most dangerous positions, Home Affairs and Justice, where they would be responsible for the shooting down of revolting workers, and Finance, where they would be responsible for any further fluctuations of the mark.
The new Government was to stabilise the mark and tax the rich. But between August and October the inflation continued, with increasing misery, destitution and the exasperation of the population. The German proletariat waited for the Third International and the Third International waited for the German proletariat."

Please read the article, then you will know what's what instead of just wildly guessing based on a few half baked bits of Stalinist nonsense.

You have yet to prove yourself so. I asked you to provide me an open statement of Stalin that says he was against this so called German "revolution" in 1923.

Can you do that?
or are you just gonna keep using a dictionary?

see the above. Try reading the whole article, even just the Stalin quote is clear. You have totally misinterpreted it, but we can let that drop, read the article and you will see.

"Trotsky, in Moscow, was already out of the secret councils of the leaders, and Stalin's part in checking the revolution became known only later when Zinoviev and Kamenev broke with him and exposed the origins of the struggle against Trotskyism. But the incompetence of the German Communist Party for its tasks could be seen by any trained revolutionary. In September Trotsky warned the Central Committee of the German party's "fatalism, sleepyheadedness, etc." He was ridiculed. Claiming that the German revolutionary situation was now fully mature, he asked that a date should be fixed provisionally (subject to sudden changes in the general situation) some eight or ten weeks ahead, and that the party should concentrate all its energies on organising the masses for the revolution. The Stalin-ridden International turned the proposal down. [11] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch07.htm#11)"

Zulu

15th March 2012, 19:47

One question is why was comintern dismantled in 1943? Was international communism not important at that point?

At the request of the Western Allies. However, a thing called Cominform was formed in its place, and Stalin continued to coordinate the world communist movement.

The Chechens were some of the worst WW2 Nazi collaborators,right behind the ultra-nationalist fascist and ultra-religious collaborators in the Balkans.

Come on, they were mostly just brigands and conscription dodgers (which were capital offenses though during the war time). With no Tsarist Cossacks around to keep them in check they just harassed their neighbors, both Russians and other peoples of the Caucasus. Their collaboration was just the last drop, but it wasn't really that bad and didn't go beyond their "normal" banditry, which, however, served the interests of the Nazis. Also the Nazi incursion on the Caucusus was quite short lived so they simply had little time to putthe Chechens to some use.

And those Ost batallions in general hardly went much past PR stunts, as the Nazis simply couldn't fit them into their war machine due to low discipline, desertions, etc. Ukrainian and Latvian nationalists, Vlasov's army and Kaminsky's brigade were far more deadly.

And this Borz guy just seems to be trolling.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 20:53

So, Stalin wants the German revolution prevented because he doent think it can succeed

So he was right then,

Germany did attempt Communism and Germany did not succeed with it. So you're arguing with yourself here.

Basically your argument is Stalin was right.

I mean really I posted a whole thread about East Germany and their version of Communism.

Here why don't you read what people on RevLeft think about Germany's attempt on Communism:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/east-germany-workingi-t168619/index.html?t=168619

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 21:21

Too bad they later accepted the Swastika on their flags and joined the Ost-Legions in huge numbers,accepting to massacre other Soviet nationalities,not only that,but the majority of the population also had no problem with the sabotage work and they were quite active in their refusal to help the Red Army,which did not fight for "Great Russia" but for the freedom of the entire Soviet society.

I would appreciate it if you didn't invent fictional flags for the Chechen National Liberation war. I'm very proud of my ancestors and their contemporaries that actively engaged in sabotage and refused to help the Red Army. The Chechen and Ingush people refused to aid those who subjugate them, well, good for them. I wouldn't Maybe the Red Army fought for the freedom of the entire Soviet society from Hitlerism, but it certainly didn't fight for the freedom of Chechen society from Stalinism.

Stalin,or the Soviet government had no plan to annex Finland,they only wanted to propose a quite reasonable deal to the Finnish Nazi's who refused,and provoked the Soviets with bombings and constant refusals plus some ignoring.

I told you before: Stalin set up a Stalinist puppet government which was supposed to take over Finland and turn it into a Stalinist "Republic" that would obviously "democratically" "choose" to join the Soviet Union. What prevented Stalin from doing is the resistance of the Finns to being conquered and the fact that France and Germany were just about to send troops Finland and intervene in the Winter War on the side of the Finns, that forced Stalin to settle for less than what he wanted.

Yes,the pro-Nazi Chechen nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists certainly didn't like the Soviet system.

No one likes a system which is monstrously oppressive and murderous to their people. Regarding Islamic Fundamentalism, the 1940-1944 Chechen Uprising was lead by a Communist Party member/poet/journalist and a Communist Party Member/Lawyer whose brother was a Bolshevik Revolutionary who was one of the Commanders of the Chechen Red Army during the Civil War, to accuse these men of Islamic fundamentalism is ridiculous(Chechens were less religious than Russians at this time, and Chechen customs dominated over Islamic until the 1990s).

False?It has been documented and it is widely accepted that the Chechen collaborated with the Nazi invaders,and joined the Ost-Legions.
This, again, is another falsehood by Stalinists. Chechens did not join the Ost-Legions, a couple dozen Chechens and Ingushs captured as PoWs joined them, but there was a Caucasian Legion in the Ost-Legions. It was made up of Azeris and Dagestanians, Chechens compromised no more than 2-3%. Why that is is clear: The Ost-Legions were made up of conscripts of occupied territories and Chechenya-Ingushetia was never occupied. It was completely impossible for Chechens-Ingushs to have joined the Ost-Legions: Chechenens and Ingushs were exempt from service in the Red Army, Chechnya-Ingushetia wasn't even partially mobilized.

So,the war was caused by the Comintern and Stalin.
Yes. The failure of the Comintern under Stalin to battle fascism lead to the rise of the Nazis. No Nazis, no war. It's pretty simple.

A pact is not an alliance.And it was not because Stalin liked Hitler or some similar laughable reason you might believe.

When 2 armies collaborate in invading a country(Poland), they're pretty much allies.

I am talking about the Chechen collaboration with the Nazi murderes who helped them rebell against the CCCP and try to establish their own lands.It was their intention,and this is something widely accepted.
The deportation of the Chechen-Ingushs was a response to the 1940-1944 Chechen Uprising against Stalinism. The uprising began when Hitler and Stalin were allies. At this time Hitler was aiding Stalin in his war to annex Finland(blocking armaments shipments to Finland, this killed the Finnish war effort, and threatening Sweden with war if Sweden allowed British and French troops to cross into Finland through Sweden, etc) and Stalin and Hitler were invading countries together and dividing others between their spheres of influence.

The Chechens were some of the worst WW2 Nazi collaborators,right behind the ultra-nationalist fascist and ultra-religious collaborators in the Balkans.
Since Chechens were exempt from military service and didn't live in territories occupied by the German Army, it's physically impossible for Chechens to have collaborated with Nazis on any scale. The notion is ridiculous.

I still can't believe that you will try to denounce all claims that the Chechens were Nazi collaborators,i understand that it might be a,different,subject for you,but you should really try to be objective and to look at all the historical facts,and the facts say that the Chechens were Nazi collaborators.You can read about the Ost-Legions,of the Eastern Nazi collaborators,and their war-record.Which is,quite,quite long.
I will say this, The Chechens and Ingushs are guilty of one thing and one thing only: In spite of all the sacrifices they made, they failed to reconquer their freedom.

Look, Azeris contributed 14 Azeri-only Ost-Legion battalions. The Chechen-Ingushs are blamed for contributing 5 Battatlions, the "Caucasian Muslim Legion", and these battalions were actually mostly Azeri and Dagestani. Georgians contributed 14 battalions. Armenians contributed 11. Turkestanians contributed 34.

Neither Azeris, nor Georgians, nor Armenians had literally half(according to Soviet statistics!) of their nations killed and deported to desolate Siberia.

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 21:24

Ismail's Law: Every time the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is discussed the likelihood of it being called an "alliance" rises dramatically, and it is topped off by gigantic photographs of Soviet and Nazi officials signing it and meeting with each other because that's so totally shocking that you'll die of a heart and mind explosion if you've over the age of 20.

Stalin didn't ally with Hitler. I shouldn't need to point out that most bourgeois histories note that the pact was because of the failure of the USSR to gain British and French backing against Nazi Germany, and that Stalin anticipated a Nazi invasion which would be delayed by signing the pact. A most recent book on this subject is Stalin's Wars. Various historians, also, have noted that Stalin refused to ally with the Nazis even though they brought proposals to that effect.
Of course he did. It's an alliance when 2 States plan to invade a country and then collaborate in invading it. If it's not, then what is? Do I have to sink to the level of actually copy-pasting dictionary excerpts?

Here, dictionary.com:

l·li·ance

[uh-lahy-uhns] Show IPA noun 1. the act of allying (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ally) or state of being allied (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allied).

2. a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.

3. a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations: an alliance between church and state.

4. the persons or entities so allied (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allied).

5. marriage or the relationship created by marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) between the families of the bride and bridegroom.

al·ly

[v. uh-lahy; n. al-ahy, uh-lahy] Show IPA verb, -lied, -ly·ing, noun, plural -lies.
verb (used with object) 1. to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage), or the like (usually followed by with or to ): Russia allied itself to France.

2. to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

al·lied

[uh-lahyd, al-ahyd] Show IPA
adjective 1. joined by treaty, agreement, or common cause: allied nations.

2. related; kindred: allied species.

3. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Allies.

Maybe you could argue that the NAP pact itself was not an alliance(but still a counter-revolutionary and vile thing), but the secret-provisions that call for Nazi Germany and the USSR to jointly invade country, assist each other in invading others and to divide the rest between Soviet and Nazi spheres of influence...how is that not an alliance?

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 21:39

At the request of the Western Allies. However, a thing called Cominform was formed in its place, and Stalin continued to coordinate the world communist movement.

Come on, they were mostly just brigands and conscription dodgers (which were capital offenses though during the war time). With no Tsarist Cossacks around to keep them in check they just harassed their neighbors, both Russians and other peoples of the Caucasus. Their collaboration was just the last drop, but it wasn't really that bad and didn't go beyond their "normal" banditry, which, however, served the interests of the Nazis. Also the Nazi incursion on the Caucusus was quite short lived so they simply had little time to putthe Chechens to some use.

And those Ost batallions in general hardly went much past PR stunts, as the Nazis simply couldn't fit them into their war machine due to low discipline, desertions, etc. Ukrainian and Latvian nationalists, Vlasov's army and Kaminsky's brigade were far more deadly.

And this Borz guy just seems to be trolling.
Brigands? "Harassed their neighbors"? What kind of racist prick are you, fuckface? THE FILTHY UNCIVILIZED CHECHENS WERE ALL JUST CRIMINALS THAT WENT AROUND HARASSING AND ROBBING EVERYONE UNTIL THE GREAT RUSSIANS CIVILIZED THEM WITH STALINIST CULTURE!

I would like to know who exactly we "harassed".

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 21:40

Omsk

15th March 2012, 21:49

Come on, they were mostly just brigands and conscription dodgers (which were capital offenses though during the war time). With no Tsarist Cossacks around to keep them in check they just harassed their neighbors, both Russians and other peoples of the Caucasus. Their collaboration was just the last drop, but it wasn't really that bad and didn't go beyond their "normal" banditry, which, however, served the interests of the Nazis. Also the Nazi incursion on the Caucusus was quite short lived so they simply had little time to putthe Chechens to some use.

And those Ost batallions in general hardly went much past PR stunts, as the Nazis simply couldn't fit them into their war machine due to low discipline, desertions, etc. Ukrainian and Latvian nationalists, Vlasov's army and Kaminsky's brigade were far more deadly.

It is not exaggeration,when i say they were the worst Nazi collaborators,i was not really talking about the combat effectivness of the troops under controll of the Reich,but i was talking about their huge hate toward everything that the Soviet Union fought for.

I would appreciate it if you didn't invent fictional flags for the Chechen National Liberation war.

It was a metaphore.They accepted the Hitlerites.You can't denounce that.

I'm very proud of my ancestors and their contemporaries that actively engaged in sabotage and refused to help the Red Army.

You are proud of Nazi collaborators?Than is your position closer to some kind of Chechen nationalism,and not communism?

Maybe the Red Army fought for the freedom of the entire Soviet society from Hitlerism, but it certainly didn't fight for the freedom of Chechen society from Stalinism.

It could not have fought against your imaginary "Stalinism" because it was the army of the people and was directed by the commanders and on the higher levels,party members.So you support counter-revolutionaries and nationalist islamists too?

I told you before: Stalin set up a Stalinist puppet government which was supposed to take over Finland and turn it into a Stalinist "Republic" that would obviously "democratically" "choose" to join the Soviet Union. What prevented Stalin from doing is the resistance of the Finns to being conquered and the fact that France and Germany were just about to send troops Finland and intervene in the Winter War on the side of the Finns, that forced Stalin to settle for less than what he wanted.

You are throwing a huge number of un-supported claims that are generally not accepted.It is common knowledge that the Soviet government's only interest where the small islands and the need to protect Leningrad.

No one likes a system which is monstrously oppressive and murderous to their people. Regarding Islamic Fundamentalism, the 1940-1944 Chechen Uprising was lead by a Communist Party member/poet/journalist and a Communist Party Member/Lawyer whose brother was a Bolshevik Revolutionary who was one of the Commanders of the Chechen Red Army during the Civil War, to accuse these men of Islamic fundamentalism is ridiculous(Chechens were less religious than Russians at this time, and Chechen customs dominated over Islamic until the 1990s).

Oh please,Khasan Israilov was a digusting nationalist.

By January 28, 1942, Khasan had decided to extend the uprising from Chechens and Ingush to eleven of the dominant ethnic groups in the Caucasus by forming the Special Party of Caucasus Brothers (OKPB), with the aim of an'armed struggle with Bolshevik barbarism and Russian despotism'.

This, again, is another falsehood by Stalinists. Chechens did not join the Ost-Legions, a couple dozen Chechens and Ingushs captured as PoWs joined them, but there was a Caucasian Legion in the Ost-Legions. It was made up of Azeris and Dagestanians, Chechens compromised no more than 2-3%. Why that is is clear: The Ost-Legions were made up of conscripts of occupied territories and Chechenya-Ingushetia was never occupied. It was completely impossible for Chechens-Ingushs to have joined the Ost-Legions: Chechenens and Ingushs were exempt from service in the Red Army, Chechnya-Ingushetia wasn't even partially mobilized.

Completely unsupported claims.It is common knowledge that the Chechens joined the Nazis.Don't engage in such historical revisionism,and don't defend Nazi puppets.

Just in the areas which where under the rebellion:

Abwehr's Nordkaukasische Sonderkommando Schamil were fighting the Red Army alongside the pathetic collaborators.

Yes. The failure of the Comintern under Stalin to battle fascism lead to the rise of the Nazis. No Nazis, no war. It's pretty simple.

You are not a Marxist.And you are a nationalist.

When 2 armies collaborate in invading a country(Poland), they're pretty much allies.

The Soviets never saw the pact as an alliance,and they knew the Nazis would attack.

Since Chechens were exempt from military service and didn't live in territories occupied by the German Army, it's physically impossible for Chechens to have collaborated with Nazis on any scale. The notion is ridiculous

The Nazis did take controll of some areas,but the things is,that the Germans invited the Chechens into their units and local militias,and they gladly joined.

Brigands? "Harassed their neighbors"? What kind of racist prick are you, fuckface? THE FILTHY UNCIVILIZED CHECHENS WERE ALL JUST CRIMINALS THAT WENT AROUND HARASSING AND ROBBING EVERYONE UNTIL THE GREAT RUSSIANS CIVILIZED THEM WITH STALINIST CULTURE!

I would like to know who exactly we "harassed".

And I guess the Jews were all back-stabbing bankers that preyed on the German people!

You should not continue with such responses.The Chechens were brigands and murderers,traitors to the Soviet Union.

Do you even realise you are supporting a nationalist and anti-communist faction?

Bostana

15th March 2012, 22:01

Stalin knew that Hitler’s ultimate aim was to attack Russia. In 1939, he invited Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary to go to Russia to discuss an alliance against Germany. Britain refused. The British feared Russian Communism, and they believed that the Russian army was too weak to be of any use against Hitler.
In August 1939, with war in Poland looming, the British eventually sent a minor official called Reginald Ranfurly Plunckett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. He travelled by slow boat, not by plane. He did not have authority to make any decisions, and had to refer every question back to London. The talks dragged on.
The Russians asked if they could send troops into Poland if Hitler invaded. The British refused. The talks broke down.

In August 1939, Hitler sent Ribbentrop, a senior Nazi, to Russia. He offered a Nazi-Soviet alliance – Russia and Germany would not go to war, but would divide Poland between them. Germany would allow Russia to annex Estinia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Stalin knew Hitler was lying, but he did not trust the British either – the Munich Agreement had convinced him that Britain and France would never dare to go to war with Hitler.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 22:05

Ended Britain's hopes of an alliance with Russia to stop Hitler - people in Britain realised that nothing would stop Hitler now but war.

You are not hoping for an alliance when you try to turn Hitlerite Germany on the Soviet Union.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 22:09

The point is Hitler thought he could outsmart Stalin,
but nay for Stalin outsmarted Hitler.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 22:11

The point is Hitler thought he could outsmart Stalin,
but nay for Stalin outsmarted Hitler.

Your post contained some inaccuracies and mistakes,the point is that Stalin,and the Soviet people,got the most from the pact.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 22:16

Your post contained some inaccuracies and mistakes,but you overall got the main point: Stalin won in that diplomatic game,and the pact is easily one of the better solutions that were possible during the pre war period.

Yeah most of it's from some British website I found so it's gonna be bias

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 22:36

It is not exaggeration,when i say they were the worst Nazi collaborators,i was not really talking about the combat effectivness of the troops under controll of the Reich,but i was talking about their huge hate toward everything that the Soviet Union fought for.

The Chechens fought for national self-determination and freedom. The Soviet Union opposed self-determination and freedom and fought for subjugating smaller peoples and Great Russian Chauvinism. Again, I am proud of what my ancestors and their contemporaries did. They fought for freedom, liberty and emancipation. I will not refuse their legacy.

It was a metaphore.They accepted the Hitlerites.You can't denounce that.
They didn't accept anything other than the freedom for the peoples of the Caucasus.

You are proud of Nazi collaborators?Than is your position closer to some kind of Chechen nationalism,and not communism?

Chechens did not collaborate with Nazis. This is impossible. Ost-Legions were made up of people living in occupied territories and captured PoWs, Chechnya was neither occupied by Germany(It was occupied by Stalin) and only a couple of dozen Chechen PoWs joined the Ost-Legions. Chechnya-Ingushetia was exempt from conscription, and since being de-mobilized during the Finnish-Soviet war, hasn't been mobilized again.

It could not have fought against your imaginary "Stalinism" because it was the army of the people and was directed by the commanders and on the higher levels,party members.So you support counter-revolutionaries and nationalist islamists too?
The only counter-revolutionaries were those in the Kremlin who were murdering Bolshevik revolutionaries by the thousands, including most of the surviving architects of the October Revolution.

You are throwing a huge number of un-supported claims that are generally not accepted.It is common knowledge that the Soviet government's only interest where the small islands and the need to protect Leningrad.
Stalin created a Puppet government which was going to be take over Finland and join the USSR. It's common knowledge, as phrased it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic)

My "claims" are not "mine", and neither are they claims, they're facts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War)

Oh please,Khasan Israilov was a digusting nationalist.
A member of the Komsomol and a Communist. What's disgusting about fighting Stalinist tyranny?

Completely unsupported claims.It is common knowledge that the Chechens joined the Nazis.Don't engage in such historical revisionism,and don't defend Nazi puppets.
No it's not. I fucking told you, Chechens were exempted from service in the Red Army and Chechnya was never occupied by Germany. There was even no opportunity to join the Nazis for Chechens even if they wanted! The 1940-1944 Insurgency only had a couple thousand guerrillas(it's a shame the number is so small), Chechens that fought against the Soviet Union fought in the Insurgent Guerrilla Army. The insurgency began and the army was created when Hitler and Stalin were at peace, and more than that, they were allies that were dismembering Europe and dividing it between themselves! Nazi Germany had no influence on the Insurgency at all, the only connection is that when Hitler betrayed Stalin more than a year afterwards, Stalin, besides fighting Chechens, was also fighting against Germans.

Just in the areas which where under the rebellion:

Abwehr's Nordkaukasische Sonderkommando Schamil were fighting the Red Army alongside the pathetic collaborators.

You're referring to Germany's operation Schamil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Schamil), which was a planned Nazi operation to drop paratroopers into the cities of Maykop in Circassia and Grozny in Chechnya. It doesn't have anything to do with Chechens. Grozny was a predominantly Cossack/Russian city, it was a Russian military fort that was built over Chechen villages where were burned down and whose inhabitants were slaughtered. It grew as an oil refining center(Chechnya-Ingushetia was the USSR's second most important oil production area, why else would we have been deported?), as more Cossack colonists arrived there it grew. During World War 2, it was still a Cossack/Russian city, Chechens were a minority that recently arrived there. The same is true of Maykop(not even in Chechnya), it was a city made up of Slavic colonists. If anything, the planned operation paints Russians and Cossacks as Nazi-collaborators since Grozny wasn't a Chechen city, it was a Russian one.

You are not a Marxist.And you are a nationalist.
I'm a Marxist, an Internationalist and a Leninist. But nice try.

The Soviets never saw the pact as an alliance,and they knew the Nazis would attack.

"Hmm, we are invading ccountries together, but this doesn't make us allies, right?

The Nazis did take controll of some areas,but the things is,that the Germans invited the Chechens into their units and local militias,and they gladly joined.

Chechen insurgents joined Chechen units and militias that have been fighting against Stalinist Imperialism since February 1940(Hitler invaded the USSR in June, 1941). Chechen freedom fighters fought for Chechen freedom, not for Nazism.

You should not continue with such responses.The Chechens were brigands and murderers,traitors to the Soviet Union.
You're a fucking a racist. Go fuck yourself.

Do you even realise you are supporting a nationalist and anti-communist faction?
Stalin wasn't a nationalist and an anti-communist?

"Traitors to the Soviet Union"...who's the fucking nationalist, asshole? GLORY TO MOTHER RUSSIA!

Omsk

15th March 2012, 22:59

The Chechens fought for national self-determination and freedom. The Soviet Union opposed self-determination and freedom and fought for subjugating smaller peoples and Great Russian Chauvinism. Again, I am proud of what my ancestors and their contemporaries did. They fought for freedom, liberty and emancipation. I will not refuse their legacy.

The Soviet Union stood against nationalism,and Stalin,saw the problem the nationalities could bring to the Soviet state,so he took the right and only true approach and took care of the problem.

However, when the Soviets first came into power, there was a somewhat special "Asiatic" conception of the problem of nationalities. It was manifested by strong "colonializing tendencies," that is to say the subjection of the distant country, and a preponderance of the Russian element in its administration and in the development of its Soviet assimilation. Russian workers and Russian propagandists went into Asia, directed everything and settled everything themselves, the native population being "neglected by socialism," according to Stalin's own expression.
This did not agree with one of the principles of Leninist Marxism, which was a particularly dear one to Stalin, namely the untrammelled, direct and conscious participation of all in the common work. So Stalin fought bitterly against these eruptions of Muscovite exclusivism mingled with socialist organization, and against putting into practice methods which were very nearly "protectorate" or colonial methods in dealing with Soviet natives, as being a system which was erroneous in theory and foolish in practice.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 104

Some people depict the struggle of the borderland "governments" as a struggle for national liberation and against the "soulless centralism" of the Soviet government. This, however, is wrong. No government in the world ever granted such extensive decentralization, no government in the world ever afforded its peoples such plenary national freedom as does the Soviet government of Russia. The struggle of the borderland "governments" was and remains a struggle of the bourgeois counter-revolution against socialism. The national flag is tacked on to the cause only to deceive the masses, only as a popular flag which conveniently covers up the counter-revolutionary designs of the national bourgeoisie.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 187

And,your comment of Stalin being a "Great Russian nationalist"

-
[Report to the 18th Congress on March 10, 1939]
Long live the great friendship of the nations of our country!
Franklin, Bruce, Ed. The Essential Stalin; Major Theoretical Writings. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1972, p. 392

They didn't accept anything other than the freedom for the peoples of the Caucasus.

National-self-determination is secondary to the Proleterian Dictatorship.And especially if the struggle for such self-determination is led by islamist nationalist anti-Communists.

Chechens did not collaborate with Nazis. This is impossible. Ost-Legions were made up of people living in occupied territories and captured PoWs, Chechnya was neither occupied by Germany(It was occupied by Stalin) and only a couple of dozen Chechen PoWs joined the Ost-Legions. Chechnya-Ingushetia was exempt from conscription, and since being de-mobilized during the Finnish-Soviet war, hasn't been mobilized again.

They joined the Nazi units and supported them,and undermined the efforts of the Red Army,you know this.

The only counter-revolutionaries were those in the Kremlin who were murdering Bolshevik revolutionaries by the thousands, including most of the surviving architects of the October Revolution.

Lets not drop down to empty rhetoric.

A member of the Komsomol and a Communist.

He was a nationalist and he talked about the fight against the Bolsheviks.He was a horrible nationalist.

What's disgusting about fighting Stalinist tyranny?

Well,when you are fighting against the Soviet state with the help from the Nazis,than something quite disgusting is going on.

No it's not. I fucking told you, Chechens were exempted from service in the Red Army and Chechnya was never occupied by Germany. There was even no opportunity to join the Nazis for Chechens even if they wanted! The 1940-1944 Insurgency only had a couple thousand guerrillas(it's a shame the number is so small), Chechens that fought against the Soviet Union fought in the Insurgent Guerrilla Army. The insurgency began and the army was created when Hitler and Stalin were at peace, and more than that, they were allies that were dismembering Europe and dividing it between themselves! Nazi Germany had no influence on the Insurgency at all, the only connection is that when Hitler betrayed Stalin more than a year afterwards, Stalin, besides fighting Chechens, was also fighting against Germans.

Too bad the Chechen traitors joined the Eastern units.

You're referring to Germany's operation Schamil (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Schamil), which was a planned Nazi operation to drop paratroopers into the cities of Maykop in Circassia and Grozny in Chechnya. It doesn't have anything to do with Chechens. Grozny was a predominantly Cossack/Russian city, it was a Russian military fort that was built over Chechen villages where were burned down and whose inhabitants were slaughtered. It grew as an oil refining center(Chechnya-Ingushetia was the USSR's second most important oil production area, why else would we have been deported?), as more Cossack colonists arrived there it grew. During World War 2, it was still a Cossack/Russian city, Chechens were a minority that recently arrived there. The same is true of Maykop(not even in Chechnya), it was a city made up of Slavic colonists. If anything, the planned operation paints Russians and Cossacks as Nazi-collaborators since Grozny wasn't a Chechen city, it was a Russian one.

And yet the Nazis got help from the Chechen rebells.In the general activity on the Caucasus.

I'm a Marxist, an Internationalist and a Leninist. But nice try.

A Marxist with the opinion that a single man and an organization caused WW2.

A Leninist that supports people who fought against the Soviet state.

A Internationalist who supports petty nationalists with their self-determination goals and own personal devious and ulterior motives,allies of the Nazis.

Chechen insurgents joined Chechen units and militias that have been fighting against Stalinist Imperialism since February 1940(Hitler invaded the USSR in June, 1941). Chechen freedom fighters fought for Chechen freedom, not for Nazism.

Too bad they later on accepted the Nazis and tried to get their chance to create petty republics and launch anti-Soviet activity on a mass scale.

"Traitors to the Soviet Union"...who's the fucking nationalist, asshole? GLORY TO MOTHER RUSSIA!

I never even once mentioned Russia in this discussion.Go figure things out.On the other hand,you support nationalists.

Stalin wasn't a nationalist

He was not,you didn't know that?

Bostana

15th March 2012, 23:00

"Traitors to the Soviet Union"...who's the fucking nationalist, asshole? GLORY TO MOTHER RUSSIA!

By saying some people are traitors to the CCCP that makes him a Racist and a Nationalist?
:lol:

l'EnfermÃ©

15th March 2012, 23:02

And what the fuck is it up with these fucking Stalinists and their fetish for masturbating for genocide? Forced deportation is a fucking act of genocide according to the Geneva Convention and the UN! Especially if it fucking results in the deaths of half of the entire nation that is being subjected to genocide! In perspective, during roughly the same era, due to the Holocaust, the Jewish population declined from 17 million to 11. Proportionally, the Chechen-Ingushs were more hurt by the genocide than the Jews by the Holocaust.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 23:02

Omsk

15th March 2012, 23:03

We where discussing about the presence of nationalists who were against the Soviet Union.

You seem to support them.

Bostana

15th March 2012, 23:05

We where discussing about the presence of nationalists who were against the Soviet Union.

You seem to support them.

Borz does seem to support them,

the fact that s/he seems to defend them on every ground.

A Marxist Historian

16th March 2012, 01:47

We have here an ugly dispute between Russian nationalism and Chechen nationalism, in both cases in "Marxist" disguise.

Is it a fact that Chechens have suffered national oppression at the hands of the Great Russians ever since they were conquered by the Tsars? Yes.

Is it a fact that Stalin was a Russian chauvinist, and towards the end of his rule tolerated discrimination against non-Russian nationalities? Yes.

Was therefore a Chechen national revolt in alliance with the Nazis justified? No.

And whose fault was this tragic reactionary revolt? Stalin's, of course.

And did all Chechens want to support Hitler, as our Russian chauvinist Stalinists are proclaiming? Absolutely not!

All I really have to say about this is what Marx had to say in the Manifesto, which is that the workers have no country, they have nothing to lose but their chains.

-M.H.-

It is not exaggeration,when i say they were the worst Nazi collaborators,i was not really talking about the combat effectivness of the troops under controll of the Reich,but i was talking about their huge hate toward everything that the Soviet Union fought for.

It was a metaphore.They accepted the Hitlerites.You can't denounce that.

You are proud of Nazi collaborators?Than is your position closer to some kind of Chechen nationalism,and not communism?

It could not have fought against your imaginary "Stalinism" because it was the army of the people and was directed by the commanders and on the higher levels,party members.So you support counter-revolutionaries and nationalist islamists too?

You are throwing a huge number of un-supported claims that are generally not accepted.It is common knowledge that the Soviet government's only interest where the small islands and the need to protect Leningrad.

Oh please,Khasan Israilov was a digusting nationalist.

Completely unsupported claims.It is common knowledge that the Chechens joined the Nazis.Don't engage in such historical revisionism,and don't defend Nazi puppets.

Just in the areas which where under the rebellion:

Abwehr's Nordkaukasische Sonderkommando Schamil were fighting the Red Army alongside the pathetic collaborators.

You are not a Marxist.And you are a nationalist.

The Soviets never saw the pact as an alliance,and they knew the Nazis would attack.

The Nazis did take controll of some areas,but the things is,that the Germans invited the Chechens into their units and local militias,and they gladly joined.

You should not continue with such responses.The Chechens were brigands and murderers,traitors to the Soviet Union.

Do you even realise you are supporting a nationalist and anti-communist faction?

Ismail

16th March 2012, 07:47

Maybe you could argue that the NAP pact itself was not an alliance(but still a counter-revolutionary and vile thing), but the secret-provisions that call for Nazi Germany and the USSR to jointly invade country, assist each other in invading others and to divide the rest between Soviet and Nazi spheres of influence...how is that not an alliance?Because it isn't an alliance, because it wasn't an agreement for both states to jointly invade, say, Poland. For instance:

"The Germans went beyond the line where they were to have stopped under a Soviet-German understanding. They crossed the Western Bug and San and entered the Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia, annexed by Poland in 1921...

The Soviet operation alarmed the Nazi command, General Nicolaus von Vormann, a member of Hitler’s Headquarters, recalls in his memoirs. The Headquarters debated whether to come to blows with the Red Army or to bide its time and retreat. In the end, it decided on the latter course."
(G. Deborin. Secrets of the Second World War. Progress Publishers: Moscow. 1972. p. 43.)

That doesn't sound like cooperation to me. The agreement was that if the Nazis invaded Poland (and it should be noted that Poland had rejected offers for an actual Soviet alliance in the past) they would stop at the Curzon line. When the Nazis invaded the Polish Government fled and the Nazis thus argued to themselves that the Curzon line was irrelevant because a government no longer existed to negotiate with. That's when the Soviets moved into eastern Poland (aka western Byelorussia and western Ukraine.)

On this issue see: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

I've already noted in another thread that Hitler was surprised at the movement of Soviet troops into Lithuania, per A.E. Senn's book Lithuania: Revolution From Above.

Also, on Stalin and the Pact:

"He met uncertainty with ambiguity. He staked out the middle ground without indicating the direction in which he might move. Events would dictate... The one certainty remained his belief, rooted in Leninism, of the inevitability of war.

[....]

In the parallel negotiations with the Anglo-French and the Germans during the summer of 1939, Stalin's dual aim was to avoid being drawn into a war that he believed inevitable, and to ensure that if and when he became involved it would be under the most favourable political and military circumstances....

The Nazi-Soviet Pact did not, by contrast, involve a military alliance, and Stalin refused to conclude one with Germany over the following months. Its main advantages in Stalin's mind were to keep the Soviet Union out of the coming 'imperialist war' ... Given his assumption that the war in the West would be prolonged... Stalin envisaged gaining a necessary breathing space because 'only by 1943 could we meet the Germans on an equal footing.' ....

The fall of France shattered his illusions of a stalemate...

That Stalin was stupefied by the German attack in June 1941... [made him] the victim of self-deception based on a set of perfectly rational, if faulty, calculations. He was convinced that Hitler would never risk repeating the error of the Germans in the First World War of fighting on two fronts."
(Alfred J. Rieber, "Stalin as foreign policy-maker: avoiding war, 1927-1953" in Stalin: A New History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp. 143, 146-147.)

Amal

16th March 2012, 09:54

When 2 armies collaborate in invading a country(Poland), they're pretty much allies.
If you have little idea about historical facts, you should know that those "Polish land" were actually part of Ukraine and was grasped by Poland during the revolutionary war. They become part of Poland by the Brest-Litovosk treaty which is equally an attempt to buy time to take breathe.

l'EnfermÃ©

16th March 2012, 14:42

The Soviet Union stood against nationalism,and Stalin,saw the problem the nationalities could bring to the Soviet state,so he took the right and only true approach and took care of the problem.
The Soviet Union stood against nationalism and chauvinism in the 1920s, and in the 1920s the Chechen-Ingushs and all the other minorities, including the Ukrainians, stood for the Soviet Union because of it. This is one of the great legacies of the October Revolution. The Socialist program of Korenizatsiya(коренизация) lasted until the late 20's, when it was dis-continued, and a return to Russification and Great Russian Chauvinism happened just before the second World War began, when Stalin's power became completely absolute.

However, when the Soviets first came into power, there was a somewhat special "Asiatic" conception of the problem of nationalities. It was manifested by strong "colonializing tendencies," that is to say the subjection of the distant country, and a preponderance of the Russian element in its administration and in the development of its Soviet assimilation. Russian workers and Russian propagandists went into Asia, directed everything and settled everything themselves, the native population being "neglected by socialism," according to Stalin's own expression.
This did not agree with one of the principles of Leninist Marxism, which was a particularly dear one to Stalin, namely the untrammelled, direct and conscious participation of all in the common work. So Stalin fought bitterly against these eruptions of Muscovite exclusivism mingled with socialist organization, and against putting into practice methods which were very nearly "protectorate" or colonial methods in dealing with Soviet natives, as being a system which was erroneous in theory and foolish in practice.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 104

Some people depict the struggle of the borderland "governments" as a struggle for national liberation and against the "soulless centralism" of the Soviet government. This, however, is wrong. No government in the world ever granted such extensive decentralization, no government in the world ever afforded its peoples such plenary national freedom as does the Soviet government of Russia. The struggle of the borderland "governments" was and remains a struggle of the bourgeois counter-revolution against socialism. The national flag is tacked on to the cause only to deceive the masses, only as a popular flag which conveniently covers up the counter-revolutionary designs of the national bourgeoisie.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 187
I'm not particularly impressed by Stalinist propagandists and the crap they puke out onto paper.

National-self-determination is secondary to the Proleterian Dictatorship.And especially if the struggle for such self-determination is led by islamist nationalist anti-Communists.
That's not a Marxist or Leninist line. I didn't realize that you, or Stalin, was a Luxemburgist.

But that doesn't matter. Proletarian Dictatorship did not exist in the Soviet Union. There was the Dictatorship of the Stalinist bureaucracy, and I accept armed struggle against it on many grounds, including National Self-Determination, and especially National Self-Determination. If the people of Chechnya-Ingushetia were so happy about Stalinist tyranny, they would not have approved of the Insurgency. Chechnya was a class-less society without a "national bourgeoisie" which was so heavily attacked by Stalin in places like the Ukraine. Chechen communities, since before and after, the conquest of the Caucasus operated under popular assemblies. Everyone enjoyed the same rights and everyone enjoyed same social position. Feudalism never existed, there was no gentry...even tribal chiefs were elected and their authority was limited in power(this is a unique case in the Caucasus, only only has to look at the history of the Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Dagestanians. Even the Circassians had a developed gentry and aristocracy). Even under in the 1930s, this remained mostly so.

The slandering of the leaders of the 1940-1944 National Liberation war as "Islamists" is laughable, they did not use any sort of Islamic language...the war was not Islamic in any form. Nothing points to that, even Soviet claims. You're just making that up as you speak.

The leader of the insurgency joined the Komsomol in 1919, the the Party 1929. He was a Communist, like so many other Communists, until he became disillusioned with Stalinism. The second-in-command was the younger brother of a Bolshevik commander of the Chechen Red Army that died in the Civil War and was a Party member also. The leaders were a Poet/Journalist and a Jurist, not some chauvinist Islamis-fundamentalist Mullahs.

They joined the Nazi units and supported them,and undermined the efforts of the Red Army,you know this.
How fucking stupid are you? How hard is this for you to understand? Chechens did not join Nazi Ost-Legions and literally physically could not have joined Nazi units even if they wanted because Ost-Legions were conscripted and recruited from Soviet Prisoners of War and the populations of territories occupied by the Wehrmacht. Chechnya and Ingushetia was never occupied by the Wehrmacht. Chechens and Ingushs were exempt from serving in the Red Army. How could Chechen-Ingush PoWs have been captured, besides a couple dozen Chechens-Ingushs, if Chechens and Ingushs did not serve in the Red Army?

Lets not drop down to empty rhetoric.
You're a Stalinist, empty rhetoric is all you know.

He was a nationalist and he talked about the fight against the Bolsheviks.He was a horrible nationalist.
Stalin promoted the concept of Russians being the "big brother" and "protector" of other Soviet peoples. Stalin ditched the internationalist L'Internationale and replaced it with this reactionary, chauvinist garbage

An unbreakable union of free republics,
Great Rus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people) joined together forever.
Long live the creation of the will of the peoples,
The united, the mighty Soviet Union!
CHORUS:Be glorified, our fatherland, united and free!The sure bulwark of the friendship of the peoples!Flag of the Soviets, Flag of the people,Let it lead from victory to victory! Through storms the sun of freedom has shined upon us,
And the great Lenin has lighted the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Theses)
Stalin has taught us faithfulness to the people,
To labour, and inspired us to great feats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_ Union)!
CHORUS:Be glorified, our fatherland, united and free!The sure bulwark of the happiness of the peoples!Flag of the Soviets, Flag of the people,Let it lead from victory to victory! We brought our army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_army) to the battles.
We shall brave the despicable invaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) from the street!
In battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29) we shall decide the fate of generations,
We shall lead to the glory of the Motherland!
CHORUS:Be glorified, our fatherland, united and free!The sure bulwark of the glory of the peoples!Flag of the Soviets, Flag of the people,Let it lead from victory to victory!
Great Rus'? "Fatherland"? I thought the Working Class has no "fatherland"! I will consider arguments from you, someone that worships the chauvinist nationalist Stalin, that accuse someone else of nationalism.

Well,when you are fighting against the Soviet state with the help from the Nazis,than something quite disgusting is going on.
That's fucking ridiculous. The Chechen National Liberation War began before Operation Barbarossa, it was organized in January 1940 and insurgency began in Feburuary, Barbarossa began in June 1941. The insurgents received no help from the Nazis, no weapons, no ammunition, nothing, and Soviet sources admit to this. No one has ever argued that the Chechen insurgents received any help from the Nazis. The Chechen Insurgency and the Nazi invasion were completely different and unrelated events.

Too bad the Chechen traitors joined the Eastern units.
What the fuck is wrong with you?

And yet the Nazis got help from the Chechen rebells.In the general activity on the Caucasus.
Nazis operated in sabotaging Grozny oil fields, and planned an operation in Maykop(not even Chechnya but Circassia). Grozny and Maykop were predominantly Russian/Cossack cities, Grozny had a small minority of Chechens. Nazi however received help from Georgians, Armenians, Dagestanians and Azeris in the Caucausus. That's simply because Georgians, Armenians, Dagestnians and Azeris actually served in the Red Army and were captured as PoWs, and as PoWs they were conscripted into serving in the Ost-Legions(Which didn't even have any real combat roles, they were support units).

Note: Georgians, Armenians, Dagestanians and Azeris were not deported to some desolate location where half of them died.

A Marxist with the opinion that a single man and an organization caused WW2.
Yes, put words in my mouth, you racist fuck..

A Leninist that supports people who fought against the Soviet state.
Yes. The Soviet Union, after it's degeneration by the Soviet bureaucracy, deserves no help and Lenin, if he survived, would have been the first to attack it.

A Internationalist who supports petty nationalists with their self-determination goals and own personal devious and ulterior motives,allies of the Nazis.
There's nothing "petty" about the Chechen insurgents. Chechna-Ingushetia, and the Caucasus in general, was suffering under chauvinism, horrible oppression and tyranny from the Stalinist state. The insurgents fought against this oppression, tyranny and chauvinism and that's why I support them. Are the heroes of FLN in Algeria that died fighting for Algeria's freedom "petty nationalists" as well? Was Ho Chi Minh a "petty nationalist"?

I support the Chechen National Liberation war during the 1940-1944 period. I support the Algerian War of Independence of 1954-1962. I support the National Liberation wars the peoples of Guinea-Bissau, Angola and Mozambique fought against the Portuguese. I support the Irish War of Independence of 1919-1921. I support the armed struggle in South Africa against Apartheid fought by the MK the APLA/Poqo. I support all the conflicts of colonial peoples against their colonizers, including the conflict of my people against the first Russian and then Soviet colonizers that exploited the vast oil resources of Chechya-Ingushetia. Do I need to make myself more clear? This is not a nationalist position. The struggles of colonial peoples against their oppressors is detrimental to World Imperialism and aids the international socialist movement, one only had to read Marx and Engels' opinions on the struggle of the Polish people to liberate themselves from Russia, Austria and Germany to understand their view on this subject.

Too bad they later on accepted the Nazis and tried to get their chance to create petty republics and launch anti-Soviet activity on a mass scale.
The Nazis and the Chechen insurgents had completely different views, opinions and ideologies. The Nazis believed in the enslavement and genocide of nations, the Chechens believed in national self-determination and freedom from oppressors. Regarding launching anti-Soviet activity, I applaud that for that. But it didn't take Chechen insurgents for the people of Chechnya to understand that they were being fucked by the Stalinist State.

Zulu

16th March 2012, 14:46

Brigands? "Harassed their neighbors"? What kind of racist prick are you, fuckface? THE FILTHY UNCIVILIZED CHECHENS WERE ALL JUST CRIMINALS THAT WENT AROUND HARASSING AND ROBBING EVERYONE UNTIL THE GREAT RUSSIANS CIVILIZED THEM WITH STALINIST CULTURE!

I would like to know who exactly we "harassed".

And I guess the Jews were all back-stabbing bankers that preyed on the German people!

Hey, chilax. There is nothing racist in the assertion that some peoples are more civilized than others. That assertion is all over the Marxist and Leninist literature. It's only racist to say that some peoples are "naturally" and "genetically" savage, and others are always the "true bearers" of civilization and culture, as opposed saying that the the level of culture is the result of social, economic, geographic conditions, the historical record of those conditions, etc.

The record of the criminal activity of the Chechens, including that from the pre-WW2 period is to be found in Kobulov's report to Beria, which laid the main ground for the decision to deport them. There were very few cases of ideologically motivated acts (nationalist or religious), while the acquisitive crimes were plenty (along with the draft dodge).

And it's quite telling that during the deportation the NKVD employed help from the local civilians in Georgia, Dagestan and Osetia to block off the possible escape routes, but that was hardly necessary, as the Chechens knew they wouldn't get any sympathy from their neighbors anyway so nobody even attempted to flee. And this "half of them died in deportation" stuff is just another piece of slanderous bourgeois propaganda. Between 1939 and 1959 there even was an increase in the number of ethnic Chechens in the Soviet Union, which means that the average birth and mortality rates were mostly on the same level.

Concerning Poland: do you realize that the Red Army "invaded Poland" (it was more like "moved in completely unopposed", actually) more than two weeks into the war (on the 17th of September, IIRC), and the Poles were already defeated by the German blitzkrieg at that point?

And in any case, the Red Army, being the force of communism, simply can't be blamed for invading a country ruled by a bourgeois government. Isn't that the ABC of the world revolution? Same applies to Finland as well, or any other country the Soviet Union invaded in the course of its history. The point of contention may be whether or not the USSR was standing for the world revolution at each particular moment (which it was not only after 1956).

.

l'EnfermÃ©

16th March 2012, 15:04

Because it isn't an alliance, because it wasn't an agreement for both states to jointly invade, say, Poland. For instance:

The text of the pact literally talks about the partition of Poland between Stalin and Hitler. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html)

"The Germans went beyond the line where they were to have stopped under a Soviet-German understanding. They crossed the Western Bug and San and entered the Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia, annexed by Poland in 1921...
And then they withdraw from beyond the line and allowed the Red Army to move in.

The Soviet operation alarmed the Nazi command, General Nicolaus von Vormann, a member of Hitler’s Headquarters, recalls in his memoirs. The Headquarters debated whether to come to blows with the Red Army or to bide its time and retreat. In the end, it decided on the latter course."
(G. Deborin. Secrets of the Second World War. Progress Publishers: Moscow. 1972. p. 43.)
How could it alarm the Nazi command if the German Government was asking the SU if it will comply with it's side of the pact and invade Poland?

That doesn't sound like cooperation to me. The agreement was that if the Nazis invaded Poland (and it should be noted that Poland had rejected offers for an actual Soviet alliance in the past) they would stop at the Curzon line. When the Nazis invaded the Polish Government fled and the Nazis thus argued to themselves that the Curzon line was irrelevant because a government no longer existed to negotiate with. That's when the Soviets moved into eastern Poland (aka western Byelorussia and western Ukraine.)
Doesn't? Jointly invading country is not cooperation? When Italy declared war on France it wasn't cooperating with Germany? When Germany declared war on Greece it wasn't cooperating with Italy?

Here is photographic evidence of the cooperation of the Nazi and Red armies in Poland:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wsp%C3%B3lna _parada.jpg
Red Army-Wehrmacht parade in Brest.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-013-0068-18A%2C_Polen%2C_Treffen_deutscher_und_sowjetischer _Soldaten.jpg
German and Soviet troops in Lublin.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Spotkanie_Sojusznik%C3%B3w.jpg
German and Soviet officers shaking hands in Poland.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-121-0011-20%2C_Polen%2C_deutsch-sowjetische_Siegesparade.jpg
More Soviet and German troops in Brest.

I've already noted in another thread that Hitler was surprised at the movement of Soviet troops into Lithuania, per A.E. Senn's book Lithuania: Revolution From Above.
No he wasn't. He asked for more territory in Poland from Stalin, and Stalin agreed on the condition that Lithuania, which was to be occupied by Germany according to the Stalin-Hitler alliance, should instead "fall into" the Soviet "sphere of influence".

The Nazi-Soviet Pact did not, by contrast, involve a military alliance, and Stalin refused to conclude one with Germany over the following months. Its main advantages in Stalin's mind were to keep the Soviet Union out of the coming 'imperialist war' ... Given his assumption that the war in the West would be prolonged... Stalin envisaged gaining a necessary breathing space because 'only by 1943 could we meet the Germans on an equal footing.' .
Invading Poland together is a military alliance. What Stalin refused to is to join Germany's attack on the rest of the allies, as that would be of absolutely no benefit to him.

It's as if you think I'm claiming that Stalin allied with Hitler because he thought Hitler was a pretty nice guy. That's absolutely wrong. Stalin allied with Hitler out of self-interest, all alliances come from self-interest or perceived self-interest. The bottom point is, Stalin allied with the biggest enemy of the working people in the history of mankind. This is a betrayal of every Socialist principle, and it's a betrayal of humanity itself. It's for acts like this that the bastards memory should be cursed.

Now, I've posted pictures of the Red Army, and Stalin/Molotov cooperating with Nazis. Would anyone like to post pictures of the alleged Chechens that volunteered to join Ost-Legions(a ridiculous notion, Chechnya was never occupied by the Wehrmacht and the Ost-Legions recruited only from occupied territories and PoWs)

l'EnfermÃ©

16th March 2012, 15:43

Hey, chilax. There is nothing racist in the assertion that some peoples are more civilized than others. That assertion is all over the Marxist and Leninist literature. It's only racist to say that some peoples are "naturally" and "genetically" savage, and others are always the "true bearers" of civilization and culture, as opposed saying that the the level of culture is the result of social, economic, geographic conditions, the historical record of those conditions, etc.
"Chechens were uncivilized barbarians, brigands and criminals and Chechnya had to be ethnically cleansed and genocide had to be committed against the Chechen-Ingush peoples because of that"

The record of the criminal activity of the Chechens, including that from the pre-WW2 period is to be found in Kobulov's report to Beria, which laid the main ground for the decision to deport them. There were very few cases of ideologically motivated acts (nationalist or religious), while the acquisitive crimes were plenty (along with the draft dodge).
Racism is fine as long as it comes from people that call themselves Communists!

And it's quite telling that during the deportation the NKVD employed help from the local civilians in Georgia, Dagestan and Osetia to block off the possible escape routes, but that was hardly necessary, as the Chechens knew they wouldn't get any sympathy from their neighbors anyway so nobody even attempted to flee. And this "half of them died in deportation" stuff is just another piece of slanderous bourgeois propaganda. Between 1939 and 1959 there even was an increase in the number of ethnic Chechens in the Soviet Union, which means that the average birth and mortality rates were mostly on the same level.

Over 100,000 NKVD men were moved into Chechnya-Ingushetia. The entire population of Chechnya-Ingeshetia was summoned into party buildings, and told that they will immediately be deported. There was no question "escape routes".

The entire Chechen people were put into uninsulated, unheated freight cars. They were given no food or water. The journey to Siberia lasted for 4 weeks. In the winter. NKVD archives show that 25 percent of the Chechen population died, this number is a huge understatement. Under such conditions, the fact that any Chechens survived is a miracle. Especially since 40 percent of the deportees were children. Cold, typhus, starvation, it took the lives of half the entire nation.

The massive bombing campaign(that didn't kill a single insurgent, by the way)in Chechnya isn't even counter, nor are the thousands of the elderly, pregnant and the weak who were executed on the spot by NKVD troops because they were deemed "untransportable".

Concerning Poland: do you realize that the Red Army "invaded Poland" (it was more like "moved in completely unopposed", actually) more than two weeks into the war (on the 17th of September, IIRC), and the Poles were already defeated by the German blitzkrieg at that point?
The Red Army captured over 400,000 Polish PoWs. Most of these never survived the war. Don't trivialize the situation. During the War with Poland itself, tens of thousands of Polish PoWs were executed. 20,000 at Katyn itself. According to Soviet archives, over 300,000 Polish civilians were deported to Siberia and over 150,000 died. Don't trivialize the event.

And in any case, the Red Army, being the force of communism, simply can't be blamed for invading a country ruled by a bourgeois government. Isn't that the ABC of the world revolution? Same applies to Finland as well, or any other country the Soviet Union invaded in the course of its history. The point of contention may be whether or not the USSR was standing for the world revolution at each particular moment (which it was not only after 1956).

Did the Red Army rape hundreds of thousands of women in Germany in the name of "communism"? The Red Army was no force of communism, it was a force of Stalinist Imperialism.

Actually, the Soviet Union only began to stand for world revolution after 1956. Besides the pre-Stalinist period, of course. It was Krushchev and his successors and the "revisionists" that supported revolutionary movements around the world, like the communists in Indochina(Ho Chi Minh etc), Communists in Afghaninstan, the Communists in South America like Allende, Guevara, Castro, Communists in Africa, etc, etc. It was Stalin who held back world revolution and revolutionary movements in order to get favorable trade deals with Western Imperialists, in order to appease them. It was Stalin who betrayed the communists in Greece, and it was Stalin that killed the revolution in Spain and it was the Comintern under Stalin's administration that was not able to prevent the rise of fascism, it's counter-productive policies actually helped fascism. Anyone remember when Stalin told the Communists to ally with the Nazis in Germany against Social-Democracy?

You're a racist joke.

Zulu

16th March 2012, 16:07

"Chechens were uncivilized barbarians, brigands and criminals and Chechnya had to be ethnically cleansed and genocide had to be committed against the Chechen-Ingush peoples because of that"

Deportation is not a genocide. It's a way to avoid it. And I don't care what the capitalist conventions say about it. If anything, it was no worse that what the Americans did to the Indians, or the British to the Zulus.

Racism is fine as long as it comes from people that call themselves Communists!
It is even finer, if it's not racism at all.

Over 100,000 NKVD men were moved into Chechnya-Ingushetia. The entire population of Chechnya-Ingeshetia was summoned into party buildings, and told that they will immediately be deported. There was no question "escape routes".

The entire Chechen people were put into uninsulated, unheated freight cars. They were given no food or water. The journey to Siberia lasted for 4 weeks. In the winter. NKVD archives show that 25 percent of the Chechen population died, this number is a huge understatement. Under such conditions, the fact that any Chechens survived is a miracle. Especially since 40 percent of the deportees were children. Cold, typhus, starvation, it took the lives of half the entire nation.

The massive bombing campaign(that didn't kill a single insurgent, by the way)in Chechnya isn't even counter, nor are the thousands of the elderly, pregnant and the weak who were executed on the spot by NKVD troops because they were deemed "untransportable".

The Red Army captured over 400,000 Polish PoWs. Most of these never survived the war. Don't trivialize the situation. During the War with Poland itself, tens of thousands of Polish PoWs were executed. 20,000 at Katyn itself. According to Soviet archives, over 300,000 Polish civilians were deported to Siberia and over 150,000 died. Don't trivialize the event.

Did the Red Army rape hundreds of thousands of women in Germany in the name of "communism"? The Red Army was no force of communism, it was a force of Stalinist Imperialism.
In your own words, pics or it didn't happen!

Actually, the Soviet Union only began to stand for world revolution after 1956. Besides the pre-Stalinist period, of course. It was Krushchev and his successors and the "revisionists" that supported revolutionary movements around the world, like the communists in Indochina(Ho Chi Minh etc), Communists in Afghaninstan, the Communists in South America like Allende, Guevara, Castro, Communists in Africa, etc, etc. It was Stalin who held back world revolution and revolutionary movements in order to get favorable trade deals with Western Imperialists, in order to appease them. It was Stalin who betrayed the communists in Greece, and it was Stalin that killed the revolution in Spain and it was the Comintern under Stalin's administration that was not able to prevent the rise of fascism, it's counter-productive policies actually helped fascism. Anyone remember when Stalin told the Communists to ally with the Nazis in Germany against Social-Democracy?

You're a racist joke.
Lol, yet under Stalin the socialist camp expanded and under the revisionists it was split and came to a sad end. Might have something to do with too much of the support of "Non-affiliation" pro-capitalism nationalists, like Tito, Nasser, Ghandi and Sukharto, who all led their countries straight into the tight embrace of global imperialism...

Zulu

16th March 2012, 16:27

That Stalin was stupefied by the German attack in June 1941... [made him] the victim of self-deception based on a set of perfectly rational, if faulty, calculations. He was convinced that Hitler would never risk repeating the error of the Germans in the First World War of fighting on two fronts."
(Alfred J. Rieber, "Stalin as foreign policy-maker: avoiding war, 1927-1953" in Stalin: A New History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp. 143, 146-147.)

A bit of personal opinion here. I haven't seen it anywhere in the literature, but I think Stalin fell victim to some German intelligence misinformation campaign. First of all, the mystery still remains on the nature of Rudolf Hess' flight to Scotland, and what exactly was the message he delivered to the British. If that message was that the Germans were about to invade the British Isles in a surprise move, or (even more likely) to begin a decisive push to take the Suez Canal in Africa (and that that was the real task of those forces that were being concentrated on the Soviet border, with the "Barbarossa" plan being a decoy), Stalin could have been informed of that, thanks to Kim Philby's spy ring. Moreover, the first "exact dates" of the German invasion of the Soviet Union reported by Zorge and other agents came and went peacefully.

Ismail

16th March 2012, 17:00

*Secret treaty*Where does it talk about a partitioning of Poland between Stalin and Hitler?

How could it alarm the Nazi command if the German Government was asking the SU if it will comply with it's side of the pact and invade Poland?Gee, I don't know, maybe said senior Nazi official was hallucinating.

Doesn't? Jointly invading country is not cooperation? When Italy declared war on France it wasn't cooperating with Germany? When Germany declared war on Greece it wasn't cooperating with Italy?Again, as Professor Furr notes, the Nazis expected a rump Poland to exist. Instead the government fled. That's when the Soviets decided to intervene.

*photos*That's just after-the-fact events.

Invading Poland together is a military alliance. What Stalin refused to is to join Germany's attack on the rest of the allies, as that would be of absolutely no benefit to him."Stalin indeed looked forward to profiting from an Anglo-German conflict. In a letter of September 7 [1939] to Georgii Dimitrov, the head of the Communist International, Stalin wrote that 'we are not against' a war between capitalist states in which they 'would weaken each other.' Hitler, nolens volens [aka unwillingly], was on his way to destroying the capitalist system. Poland, Stalin added, was just another 'bourgeois fascist state,' and 'What would be wrong if in the destruction of Poland [as a bourgeois state] we spread the socialist system to new inhabitants in new territories?'"
(Alfred Erich Senn. Lithuania 1940: Revolution from Above. New York: 2007. p. 21.)

The bottom point is, Stalin allied with the biggest enemy of the working people in the history of mankind. This is a betrayal of every Socialist principle, and it's a betrayal of humanity itself. It's for acts like this that the bastards memory should be cursed.And Lenin at one point called on the Allies to help the Red Army with its organization and supplies in battle against Imperial Germany. The Bolsheviks also backed Atatürk when he was massacring Turkish communists at the same time. What's your point? Moralizing about "o noes stalin 'allied' with teh nazis" is worthless, you ought to blame the British and French Governments who saw Nazism as less of a threat than Communism (or "Stalinism" if you prefer.)

l'EnfermÃ©

16th March 2012, 18:04

I am done arguing with genocide and ethnic cleansing deniers and justifiers. I once signed up on Stomfront and tried to argue with those pigs about the Holocaust. This discussion reminds me of that. Forced deportation constitutes an act of genocide, as established in the Hague Convention, the UN Convention on Genocide(signed by your beloved Stalin in 1949!) and confirmed by the European Parliament in 2004. Physically impossible "nazi collaboration" is a ridiculous claim, advanced only by Russian ultra-nationalists today that want to justify the 2 post-Soviet Chechen Wars.

You're racist, chauvinist scumbags that are no better than Turks that try to justify the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides, or Skinheads that justify the Holocaust by claiming that Jews are evil bankers that betrayed and preyed upon the noble Aryan race.

l'EnfermÃ©

16th March 2012, 18:33

Molotov-Ribbentrop Alliance (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html):

Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.
Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.
Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.
Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.
Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.
Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.
Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.] Secret Additional Protocol.
Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.
Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop
Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov Also the German-Soviet Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation, (http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/nazi_soviet_friendship/nsf_G-S_T_2_eng.html) the one which arranged it so that the SU gives up bits of Poland to Germany that they were promised in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but in return gets Lithuania, which was supposed to have been annexed by Germany in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

OUNDARY AND FRIENDSHIP TREATY
BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. consider it as exclusively their task, after the collapse of the former Polish state, to re-establish peace and order in these territories and to assure to the peoples living there a peaceful life in keeping with their national character. To this end, they have agreed upon the following:

Article I.
The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. determine as the boundary of their respective national interests in the territory of the former Polish state the line marked on the attached map, which shall be described in more detail in a supplementary protocol.

Article II.
Both Parties recognize the boundary of the respective national interests established in Article I. as definitive and shall reject any interference of third powers in this settlement.

Article III.
The necessary reorganization of public administration will be effected in the areas west of the line specified in article I by the Government of the German Reich, in the areas east of this line by the Government of the U.S.S.R.

Article IV.
The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. regard this settlement as a firm foundation for a progressive development of the friendly relations between their peoples.

Article V.
This Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin as soon as possible. The Treaty becomes effective upon signature.

Done in duplicate, in the German and Russian languages.
Moscow, September 28, 1939.
This one actually has "Friendship" and "Cooperation" in it's title...so stop fucking around, you're a liar, a fabricator and try to make excuses for ethnic cleansing and genocide.