Opportunism, purges, and whatnot

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Feeling a very M-L thread here that's come to me after days of pondering.

Opportunism. It's out there and it's a problem. So many of the former Eastern Bloc nations are clear examples of the party being filled with opportunists. The current liberal Prime Minister of Romania, for example, was a member of the politburo of the Romanian Union of Communist Youth. I've heard a Hoxhaist friend refer to the lack of purging in Kruschev's time and after as being the cause of it.

It seems that it's inevitable for opportunists to join the ruling party after a Marxist-Leninist revolution. What do you think is the proper way to counter this?

[Искра]

ML is opportunism in its essence. It is a greatest revision of Marxism which claims that socialism can happen in single country and while doing that it rejects internationalism and adopts nationalism.

All these stories about anti-revisionism and shit are because Hoxha had small dick.

[Comrade Auldnik]

ML is opportunism in its essence. It is a greatest revision of Marxism which claims that socialism can happen in single country and while doing that it rejects internationalism and adopts nationalism.

All these stories about anti-revisionism and shit are because Hoxha had small dick.

Just about the accuracy and maturity you could expect from someone who describes Marxism-Leninism as opportunism.

[Искра]

Just about the accuracy and maturity you could expect from someone who describes Marxism-Leninism as opportunism.Blahblahblahblah I'm boring stalinist taking internet to seriously and my politics is shit

[Comrade Auldnik]

Blahblahblahblah I'm boring stalinist taking internet to seriously and my politics is shit

Aaaaaand reported to the trolls thread.

[Ostrinski]

The conditions that Marxist-Leninists propose are really just the degeneration of socialist revolution as a result of unfavorable conditions (loss of momentum, isolation into a region, etc.) pedaled into "ideology" by the very opportunists that you oppose. The solutions to opportunist roaders are class-consciousness and and international revolution.

[Comrade Auldnik]

The conditions that Marxist-Leninists propose are really just the degeneration of socialist revolution as a result of unfavorable conditions (loss of momentum, isolation into a region, etc.) pedaled into "ideology" by the very opportunists that you oppose. The solutions to opportunist roaders are class-consciousness and and international revolution.

It's absurd to think that the workers should just sit on their hands before seizing power, waiting in a protracted conflict with their bourgeoisie until revolution breaks out all over the globe. Socialism in one country is not opposed to international revolution; it is opposed to this notion that we have to wait until utopian conditions spontaneously arise before wresting power away from the exploiting classes. And all revisionist ideologies attempt to explain this glaring flaw away with hems-and-haws about "bureaucracy" and how the vanguard necessarily becomes an exploiting force.

[Ismail]

I've heard a Hoxhaist friend refer to the lack of purging in Kruschev's time and after as being the cause of it.Actually Khrushchev did a lot of purges. In the 1930's he, a man who formerly flirted with Trotskyism in the 20's, was one of the foremost individuals responsible for carrying out the Great Purges in the Ukraine. He was also one of the foremost "yay Stalin" individuals for his own purposes.

Hoxha noted, also, that in the 1950's Khrushchev was responsible for a non-violent purging of "Stalinist" cadres, including the "Anti-Party Group."

As Hoxha noted:

If the Dubcek counterrevolutionaries attacked and purged the Soviet agency—the Novotny counter-revolutionaries whom the Soviet leadership call "the Party's fund of gold," the Khrushchevite counter-revolutionary clique of the Soviet Union in its own country attacked and purged the real revolutionary cadres who were remaining true to the Marxist-Leninist line of the Bolshevik Party and to the ideals of socialism. Under the slogan of the "fight against Stalin's personality cult," or under the pretext of rotation, the Khrushchevite revisionists rode roughshod over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Seventy per cent of the members of the members of the Central Committee elected at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in 1952 were no longer figuring on the list of the Central Committee members elected at the 22nd Congress in 1961. Sixty per cent of the CC members in 1956 were no longer figuring on the list of the CC members that were elected at the 23rd Congress in 1966. A still greater purge has been carried out in the lower party organs. For instance, during 1963 alone, more than 50 per cent of the members of the party central and regional committees in the Republics of the Soviet Union were relieved of their functions, while in the city and district party committees three quarters of their members were replaced with others. The purge of the revolutionary cadres has been carried out on a large scale also in the State organs, and especially in those of the army and State security.Opportunism is kept in line so long as the Party is militant and vigilant and so long as the leadership and the cadre are willing to extend the socialist revolution in all fields. Ramiz Alia and Co. were not willing to do that, and they were helped by the unfavorable economic situation in Albania in the late 80's. They themselves then capitulated to capitalism and imperialism.


Blahblahblahblah I'm boring stalinist taking internet to seriously and my politics is shitKnock off the trolling.

[Ostrinski]

It's absurd to think that the workers should just sit on their hands before seizing power, waiting in a protracted conflict with their bourgeoisie until revolution breaks out all over the globe.Oh I agree completely. Nowhere in my post did I espouse this kind of absurd idea. And I'm pretty sure most other non-ML's on here don't either. The idea of international revolution isn't about spontaneous insurrections in all parts of the globe at the same time, that would be ludicrous. The case for international revolution entails revolution in the industrialized nations first (which was explained and upheld thoroughly by Marx and Engels, effectively making Marxist-Leninists the revisionists in this sense), and the spreading of revolution throughout the world with increasing momentum.


Socialism in one country is not opposed to international revolution; it is opposed to this notion that we have to wait until utopian conditions spontaneously arise before wresting power away from the exploiting classes. And all revisionist ideologies attempt to explain this glaring flaw away with hems-and-haws about "bureaucracy" and how the vanguard necessarily becomes an exploiting force.Socialism in one country maintains that socialist development can take place in a definitively limited area, which is untrue. Marx and Engels understood this, most anarchists understand this, in fact come to think of it, Marxist-Leninists are the only ones who maintain this assertion. Which is why I find it entertaining that you're the ones screaming "Revisonist, revisionist!" Socialism can be established in one area, but it cannot be sustained in one area. Once the revolution is isolated, the path is wide open for counter-revolution. This can take place under two different sets of conditions:

1. Authoritarianization and centralization of the decision making process, rationization of food and basic necessities, effectively the only way to sustain some of the gains made in the revolution.
2. Open doors up for foreign investment.

[Ismail]

Socialism in one country maintains that socialist development can take place in a definitively limited area, which is untrue. Marx and Engels understood this, most anarchists understand this, in fact come to think of it, Marxist-Leninists are the only ones who maintain this assertion. Which is why I find it entertaining that you're the ones screaming "Revisonist, revisionist!"Actually the revisionists carried forward similar claims and draw from them reformist conclusions. Mehmet Shehu, for instance, wanted Albania to pursue a "realistic" policy and to "open up" to the West. Similar things happened in the early 70's when certain members of the intelligentsia were like "Albania must always remember it is a part of Europe," etc. Hence Hoxha's comment to the effect that "we should not follow Europe, but Europe should follow our road, for Europe's road is very far from the road of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which we uphold." Albania considered itself the outpost of the world proletarian revolution. Its goal, and Hoxha noted this, was to serve the international communist movement to that effect.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Oh I agree completely. Nowhere in my post did I espouse this kind of absurd idea. And I'm pretty sure most other non-ML's on here don't either. The idea of international revolution isn't about spontaneous insurrections in all parts of the globe at the same time, that would be ludicrous. The case for international revolution entails revolution in the industrialized nations first (which was explained and upheld thoroughly by Marx and Engels, effectively making Marxist-Leninists the revisionists in this sense), and the spreading of revolution throughout the world with increasing momentum.

Socialism in one country is not opposed to international revolution; it is opposed to this notion that we have to wait until utopian conditions spontaneously arise before wresting power away from the exploiting classes. And all revisionist ideologies attempt to explain this glaring flaw away with hems-and-haws about "bureaucracy" and how the vanguard necessarily becomes an exploiting force.Socialism in one country maintains that socialist development can take place in a definitively limited area, which is untrue. Marx and Engels understood this, most anarchists understand this, in fact come to think of it, Marxist-Leninists are the only ones who maintain this assertion. Which is why I find it entertaining that you're the ones screaming "Revisonist, revisionist!" Socialism can be established in one area, but it cannot be sustained in one area. Once the revolution is isolated, the counter-revolution begins. This is why the Russian Revolution was scarcely able to last a decade.[/QUOTE]

I disagree about the situation regarding the revolution in Russia and the Soviet Union. As for the development of socialism in one country, it's still hardly isolated in practice.

[Ostrinski]

I disagree about the situation regarding the revolution in Russia and the Soviet Union. As for the development of socialism in one country, it's still hardly isolated in practice.It isolates if it stagnates and ceases to expand.

[Comrade Auldnik]

It isolates if it stagnates and ceases to expand.

I feel that it ceased to expand as a result of the forces of reaction suppressing the further development of socialism where the revolution had broken out.

[Ostrinski]

Actually the revisionists carried forward similar claims and draw from them reformist conclusions. Mehmet Shehu, for instance, wanted Albania to pursue a "realistic" policy and to "open up" to the West. Similar things happened in the early 70's when certain members of the intelligentsia were like "Albania must always remember it is a part of Europe," etc. Hence Hoxha's comment to the effect that "we should not follow Europe, but Europe should follow our road, for Europe's road is very far from the road of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which we uphold." Albania considered itself the outpost of the world proletarian revolution. Its goal, and Hoxha noted this, was to serve the international communist movement to that effect.Pretty sure no one gives a fuck about about Mehmet Shehu.

[Ostrinski]

I feel that it ceased to expand as a result of the forces of reaction suppressing the further development of socialism where the revolution had broken out.Exactly. And this is why the counter-revolution was in full effect by the 30's.

[Ismail]

It isolates if it stagnates and ceases to expand.Expansion was evidently based on the view that capitalism was going to collapse. Throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's every communist felt that capitalism was on its last legs. Same thing in the 1930's and 40's. I recall that one Yugoslav person (one of Tito's colleagues, Djilas or Dedijer) claimed that Stalin thought capitalism would be in a terrible crisis by the 60's and give way to socialism worldwide.

The point is to resist the reactionary attempts to isolate socialism. Hence the Albanian slogan to "smash the imperialist-revisionist blockade" throughout the 1960's and 70's.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Exactly. And this is why the counter-revolution was in full effect by the 30's.

See, I disagree it was in effect by the 30's.

[Rafiq]

Marxism-Leninism as a whole is all together dead. It's modern adherents are essentially opportunists, rats, if you will, left over from the destruction of 20th century Communism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It also stagnates when the "vanguard" party usurps the leading role of the working class and imposes a dictatorship of the party. When that party ceases to be internally democratic, as did the Bolsheviks in 1921, then an oppressive dictatorship is inevitable.

[Ostrinski]

Expansion was evidently based on the view that capitalism was going to collapse. Throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's every communist felt that capitalism was on its last legs. Same thing in the 1930's and 40's. I recall that one Yugoslav person (one of Tito's colleagues) claimed that Stalin thought capitalism would be in a terrible crisis by the 60's and give way to socialism worldwide.

The point is to resist the reactionary attempts to isolate socialism.Socialist revolution can only be facilitated by crisis. Crisis is what intensifies class struggle and by extension develops class struggle. The bourgeoisie and global market were able to adapt themselves to the disagreeable conditions of the 20th century, making it possible to isolate socialist development, which is why none of the Communist regimes of the 20th century were able to transcend the laws of capital.

[Ismail]

Marxism-Leninism as a whole is all together dead. It's modern adherents are essentially opportunists, rats, if you will, left over from the destruction of 20th century Communism.Of course you also think that Juche and Dengism are totally natural and that Kim Il Sung and Deng were merely bowing down to Marxism ("material conditions") by adopting them. So much for your opposition to opportunism.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Marxism-Leninism as a whole is all together dead. It's modern adherents are essentially opportunists, rats, if you will, left over from the destruction of 20th century Communism.

And I'm the one with the infraction.

[Ostrinski]

It also stagnates when the "vanguard" party usurps the leading role of the working class and imposes a dictatorship of the party. When that party ceases to be internally democratic, as did the Bolsheviks in 1921, then an oppressive dictatorship is inevitable.The Bolsheviks were forced into a centralized position because of the civil war. They had to take bureaucratic measures to centrally coordinate war and food production or subduing the white army would have been impossible. They had to shift their policy into a more reactionary state in accordance with the disagreeable material conditions to preserve what had been gained.

[Ostrinski]

See, I disagree it was in effect by the 30's.Then it is your task to explain why. The laws of capital and exchange value began to characterize the Soviet economy by the end of the 20's, as a matter of necessity.

[Rooster]

Actually the revisionists carried forward similar claims and draw from them reformist conclusions.

Wait wait wait. So. Anti-revisionists do not draw reformist conclusions? How does one move from a class society, Leninist socialism of proletariat and peasant, onto to a classless one of communism then?

[Ismail]

Wait wait wait. So. Anti-revisionists do not draw reformist conclusions? How does one move from a class society, Leninist socialism of proletariat and peasant, onto to a classless one of communism then?Through class struggle on a worldwide scale, which does not end until communism is achieved. This is what Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha noted.

[Rooster]

Through class struggle on a worldwide scale, which does not end until communism is achieved. This is what Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha noted.

So where is the revolution?

[Ismail]

So where is the revolution?The revolution is the conquest of state power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the vanguard of the working class. There is, as Hoxha noted, the continuous revolutionization of all aspects of society throughout the period of socialist construction.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Brospierre, how was quashing what little democracy remained in the RCP (b) in 1921 dictated by material conditions? The civil war and famine were on the decline. Some of us believe that it was the worst possible response to the Kronstadt rebellion as it confirmed the accusations of dictatorship raised by the Kronstadt rebels. The concentration of power in the Secretariat and culture of dictatorship following the 1921 Party congress also led directly to Stalinism. This is where I disagree with Trotsky and Bukharin, as I believe that both were less than frank in their theories of the origins of Stalinism, since the reality is that internal Party democracy was largely killed in 1921.

[Rooster]

The revolution is the conquest of state power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the vanguard of the working class. There is, as Hoxha noted, the continuous revolutionization of all aspects of society throughout the period of socialist construction.

So we had the revolution in the USSR. Yet still had classes. So classes just reform themselves into nothing then?

[Ismail]

So we had the revolution in the USSR. Yet still had classes. So classes just reform themselves into nothing then?"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry.

Both the two classes which exist in the U.S.S.R. are building socialism and come within the system of socialist economy. But although both are in the same system of socialist economy, the working class in its work is bound up with state socialist property (the property of the whole people), while the collective farm peasantry is bound up with cooperative and collective farm property which belongs to individual collective farms and to collective-farm and cooperative associations. This connection with different forms of socialist property primarily determines the different position of these classes. This also determine the somewhat different paths of further development of each of them.

What is common in the development of these two classes is that both are developing in the direction of communism. As this proceeds the difference in their class positions will be gradually obliterated until here too the last remnants of class distinctions finally disappear.

We cannot but realize that this is a long road."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

[Rafiq]

Of course you also think that Juche and Dengism are totally natural and that Kim Il Sung and Deng were merely bowing down to Marxism ("material conditions") by adopting them. So much for your opposition to opportunism.

You're lack of an understanding of materialism is sickening.

Was Ghengis Khan bowing to Marxism because his actions were reflections of material conditions? Marxism does not equal material conditions, and acting on behalf of them is certainly not a choice or a mere expression of will (as a marxist).

You idealist fool. Crawl back in your Hoxha FuckCave and piss off

[Ismail]

You're lack of an understanding of materialism is sickening.Your apologia for Juche and Dengism is far worse than anything I could say. Your words would be at home in both the DPRK and China, where both would welcome you for noting that they, too, "correctly understood" the "material conditions."

[Rooster]

"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry.

Both the two classes which exist in the U.S.S.R. are building socialism and come within the system of socialist economy. But although both are in the same system of socialist economy, the working class in its work is bound up with state socialist property (the property of the whole people), while the collective farm peasantry is bound up with cooperative and collective farm property which belongs to individual collective farms and to collective-farm and cooperative associations. This connection with different forms of socialist property primarily determines the different position of these classes. This also determine the somewhat different paths of further development of each of them.

What is common in the development of these two classes is that both are developing in the direction of communism. As this proceeds the difference in their class positions will be gradually obliterated until here too the last remnants of class distinctions finally disappear.

We cannot but realize that this is a long road."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

So, the removal of classes is a reformist idea within marxist-leninism? Hey, Molotov seems to agree with me on that.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

As an orthodox Marxist Leninist, I believe that when a bureaucracy becomes too big, as it did in the Soviet Union during the leadership of Stalin, it takes a strong leader, like Stalin or Mao, to purge revisionist, opportunists, and parasites out of the party and government. This is how real communists dedicated to the preservation of the working class and its vanguard were able to outnumber opportunists in Stalin's and Mao's communists parties and governments. Obviously, there was a very violent problem with how these purges were carried out, and often these purges were done against innocent, honest communists and just created more tensions within the party, society and state. But here comes the bigger problem. When these leaders died, the revisionists that came into power after them kept the bureaucracies, but refused to really regulate them with iron fists. Before them, the bureaucracies were controled, but under post-Stalin and Mao leaders, they were allowed to be free to become as opportunist as it wanted. These issues didnt only affect China and the USSR, but their aligned states, such as eastern europe.

[Ismail]

So, the removal of classes is a reformist idea within marxist-leninism? Hey, Molotov seems to agree with me on that.Well unless "revolution" in this case means "massacre every single peasant and fill their ranks with proletarians who spontaneously emerge with completely modern and mechanized agricultural implements under the framework of state farms," then yeah, I suppose Lenin and Co. were "reformists." I don't really get what "revolution" you're alluding towards. Not like the peasants were going to remain in the conditions of 1938 forever.

[Rafiq]

Your apologia for Juche and Dengism is far worse than anything I could say.

You're a troll is all.

Some of the most horrendous of crimes were done in response of material and social conditions. Instead I blame the conditions in which Kings even exist, rather than blaming the individual actions of a king, or their perversions of christianity.

Moralist fucker....

I think I should bring the issue to the BA, you're constant accusatuons of me being a Dengist and a Juche-sympathizer (restrictable offenses) show a lot about the nature of your motivation in regards to you being a mod.

But your puny, incompident mind cannot handle the theoretical strength of Orthodox Marxism, so it's easy to understand why you'd call me something within the constraint of your own thinking. Much like how conservatives call me a Liberal, when discovering I'm a communist.

Go crawl back in your class collaborationist, nationalist, Bourgeois Islamist-asslicking hole, you hoxhaist fuck.

[Ismail]

One more post like that and I will hand out an infraction for flaming.

[Rafiq]

One more post like that and I will hand out an infraction for flaming.

I'm going to raise this issue with the BA. You're constant trolling is unnacceptable, especially since you're a mod.

[Искра]

Rafiq you made Hoxha's poster boy cry :( You should have probably quoted Molotov cause that wouldn't be trolling :D

[Искра]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I've just recieved infraction from Ismail :D

So, to troll you have to be mod and then you can fuck people with Hoxha's diaries and Molotov quotes :D :D :D

[Ismail]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I've just recieved infraction from Ismail :DWell yeah, that's what happens when you troll after being warned to stop. Just carrying out my duties as moderator is all.


Hoxha's diaries and Molotov quotesPeople cite Lenin's philosophical notebooks all the time. If Stalin's journal(s) had been retained rather than destroyed you can be sure people would be noting them as well. As for Molotov, he was one of the main Bolsheviks of the 30's and 40's. There's no issue in quoting him to note the official Soviet view of this or that subject.

[Искра]

Well yeah, that's what happens when you troll after being warned to stop. Just carrying out my duties as moderator is all.I didn't troll in the first place. but then again, you don't care about your "duties" but about your ego :) so, please stop with the charade....

[Ismail]

Is that why I warned you to stop trolling someone completely unrelated to me?

Anyway, if you have an issue with my modship you're free to join Rafiq in complaining to the BA. Let's keep this thread on topic.

[Ostrinski]

Brospierre, how was quashing what little democracy remained in the RCP (b) in 1921 dictated by material conditions? The civil war and famine were on the decline. Some of us believe that it was the worst possible response to the Kronstadt rebellion as it confirmed the accusations of dictatorship raised by the Kronstadt rebels. The concentration of power in the Secretariat and culture of dictatorship following the 1921 Party congress also led directly to Stalinism. This is where I disagree with Trotsky and Bukharin, as I believe that both were less than frank in their theories of the origins of Stalinism, since the reality is that internal Party democracy was largely killed in 1921.The famine lasted through 1922 and the civil war would last a little over two years after the Kronstadt rebellion. The Bolsheviks also feared another invasion. So yes, these decisions were a reflection of the material conditions.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Of course the Bolshevik leadership sought to excuse those decisions as dictated by material conditions. Once the material conditions eased, however, there was never any revival of democracy within the party. The crisis was temporary, but the dictatorship of the party permanently supplanted the dictatorship of the proletariat. Once the power of the class had been usurped by the party the road to socialism was blocked and the "new class" ruled in its own interest, not those of the workers.

[Ostrinski]

Of course the Bolshevik leadership sought to excuse those decisions as dictated by material conditions. Once the material conditions eased, however, there was never any revival of democracy within the party. The crisis was temporary, but the dictatorship of the party permanently supplanted the dictatorship of the proletariat. Once the power of the class had been usurped by the party the road to socialism was blocked and the "new class" ruled in its own interest, not those of the workers.Which was a result of their isolation among other things. I'm not defending the party's actions, just saying that they were necessary.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Bolshevik leadership claimed at the time it was necessary to extinguish even intra-party democracy. Once the Krondstadt crisis has been dealt with by military force, the most serious opposition would seem to have been eliminated. Nonetheless, although the Bolsheviks liberalized the economy through the New Economic Policy, they never allowed the restoration of democracy either in the form of real power to the Soviets or even within the party. Certainly by the mid-1920s the material conditions would have allowed for at least intra-party democracy. The logical conclusion would seem to be that Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov, Voroshilov, Molotov and the rest of the party leadership had become intoxicated with the exercise of dictatorial power and chose as a matter of policy not to restore democracy to the party or real power to the Soviets.

[Bostana]

Marxism-Leninism as a whole is all together dead. It's modern adherents are essentially opportunists, rats, if you will, left over from the destruction of 20th century Communism.

What are you talking about?
Marxists-Leninists basically built Modern Day Communism. Infact the closest thing to a Communist country today is Cuba and they're run by Marxists-Leninists

[Bostana]

I'm going to raise this issue with the BA. You're constant trolling is unnacceptable, especially since you're a mod.

WOW dude you're the damn Troll

[Bostana]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I've just recieved infraction from Ismail :D

So, to troll you have to be mod and then you can fuck people with Hoxha's diaries and Molotov quotes :D :D :D

Why are you egging him on?
Do you think you're kool?
Or are you just that Stupid?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Of course the Bolshevik leadership sought to excuse those decisions as dictated by material conditions. Once the material conditions eased, however, there was never any revival of democracy within the party. The crisis was temporary, but the dictatorship of the party permanently supplanted the dictatorship of the proletariat. Once the power of the class had been usurped by the party the road to socialism was blocked and the "new class" ruled in its own interest, not those of the workers.

I agree that this occurred, but as for when and why, I doubt we'll agree.

[Comrade Auldnik]

The logical conclusion would seem to be that Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov, Voroshilov, Molotov and the rest of the party leadership had become intoxicated with the exercise of dictatorial power and chose as a matter of policy not to restore democracy to the party or real power to the Soviets.

I hardly call that a logical conclusion. The fact is that no party can function in a time of extreme duress (as during a protracted war against capital-imperialism) if it is plagued by petty polemic. I do not believe that democracy within the party was suppressed in any way. It sounds like so much of Trotsky's whining synthesized into anti-proletariat, bourgeois propaganda.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The point that really should be made is that revolution cannot be regulated by philosophy, like the non-pragmatic philosophy of "international revolution". Socialism in one country was just Stalin's attempt to not make the Soviet Union wait on the rest of the world to begin to implement rapid socialist progress. That does not confine socialism in one nation, it just allows socialism to blossom in its current footholds. Once that nation becomes a secure fortress of socialism, then it can continue to pragmatically spread socialist liberation through aiding revolutions. Socialism in one country allows revolution to spread naturally and socialism to grow naturally. Does that mean that international revolution is not desirable? Absoluetly not. If it is pragmatic, I would be glad to see it happen.

When it comes to the connection between the idea of Socialism in one country and opportunism, that is why purges and democratic centralism exist. They will not completely fix the problem of opportunism, but at least regulate it.

Comrades, be pragmatic within the realm of antirevisionist! Do not be idealistic! Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are sciences, not romantic or utopian philosophies!

[Thirsty Crow]

The point that really should be made is that revolution cannot be regulated by philosophy, like the non-pragmatic philosophy of "international revolution"....
...Comrades, be pragmatic within the realm of antirevisionist! Do not be idealistic! Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are sciences, not romantic or utopian philosophies!
This is just absurd. A person claiming Marxism while denouncing its vital core, proletarian internationalism, as a "non-pragmatic philosophy", "utopian" and "romantic" which obviously leads to communist militants becoming "idealistic". It's beyond me how people such as yourself, obviously calling for a revision of Marxism in order that "more pragmatic" positions might be taken up, still call themselves anti-revisionists.

What's even more absurd is the total disregard for historical evidence of what actually happens with isolated states (or blocs) which are based on the expropriation of individual capitalists and the establishment of centrally directed economy.

But then again, silly ol' Karl, silly ol' Rosa and another Karl and the whole bunch were just romantic utopians, what we need is realpolitik along the lines of the Bolsheviks calling for world revolution while arming the Reichswehr (guess that went well for German working class). That's some pragmatism right there.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM. READ MY POST! I CLEARLY SAID, AND YOU WERE EXCITED ENOUGH TO QUOTE IT,

"like the non-pragmatic philosophy of 'international revolution'...."

IT DOES NOT SAY "PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM"

I AM STILL ALL FOR HELPING REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS, BUT A COUNTY'S OWN DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM, ESPECIALLY IN ITS EARLY STAGE, IS MORE IMPORTANT. MARX NOR LENIN EVER SAID THAT WORLD WIDE REVOLUTIONS HAVE TO HAPPEN BACK TO BACK. MAYBE TROTSKY DID. THEY KNEW THAT EVERY PATH TO REVOLUTION AND SOCIALISM WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT THAT AT LEAST THE BASIC IDEAS HAD TO STAY IN PLACE. YOU CANNOT EXPECT REVOLUTIONS IN BACKWARD NATIONS TO HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME AS REVOLTUIONS IN ADVANCED NATIONS. DEVELOP SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND THEN SPREAD THE LIBERATION. IT'S COMMON SENSE.

EVERY COMMUNIST WANTS WORLD WIDE REVOLTUION, ITS JUST HOW WE GET TO THAT GOAL THAT CAUSES DISAGREEMENTS. ANYWAYS, STALIN NEVER TOLD CHINA "NO, YOU CANNOT REVOLT BECAUSE OF OUR POLICY."
HIS POLICY WAS "SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY" NOT "NO MORE REVOLUTIONS"

[Threetune]

While Stalin made some correct points (but not many) in his ‘Economic Problems of Socialism’, this boastful blunder well expresses the revisionist thinking among the party leadership.
“…
This state of affairs has confronted the economists with two questions:
a) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Stalin before the Second World War regarding the relative stability of markets in the period of the general crisis of capitalism is still valid?
b) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Lenin in the spring of 1916 -- namely, that, in spite of the decay of capitalism, "on the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before"[5 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html#en5)] -- is still valid?
I think that it cannot. In view of the new conditions to which the Second World War has given rise, both these theses must be regarded as having lost their validity.”
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html#c6 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html#c6)

Yes well, completely and disastrously wrong as it turned out. This together with peaceful coexistence idiocy was the wellspring of revisionism that infected and still infects world communism and will have the acknowledged and corrected.

[Thirsty Crow]

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM. READ MY POST! I CLEARLY SAID, AND YOU WERE EXCITED ENOUGH TO QUOTE IT,

"like the non-pragmatic philosophy of 'international revolution'...."

IT DOES NOT SAY "PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM"Is caps lock stuck on your keyboard or something? But I guess mentioning the fraternal relations between Germany and Russia will trigger something of a hysteria when it comes to people who don't know their history.

And semantics will not help your case. Proletarian internationalism is synonymous with international revolution, with world revolution, and you refuted it, or at best, modified it with the argument for the defense of the so called workers' state at the expense of world revolution.


I AM STILL ALL FOR HELPING REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS, BUT A COUNTY'S OWN DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM, ESPECIALLY IN ITS EARLY STAGE, IS MORE IMPORTANT.And here we have it yet again, a clear refutation of proletarian internationalism. There isn't a possibility of "developing socialism" in an isolated country, and nor in a bloc. You might reconsider the term "anti-revisionist".


MARX NOR LENIN EVER SAID THAT WORLD WIDE REVOLUTIONS HAVE TO HAPPEN BACK TO BACK. MAYBE TROTSKY DID. THEY KNEW THAT EVERY PATH TO REVOLUTION AND SOCIALISM WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT THAT AT LEAST THE BASIC IDEAS HAD TO STAY IN PLACE. YOU CANNOT EXPECT REVOLUTIONS IN BACKWARD NATIONS TO HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME AS REVOLTUIONS IN ADVANCED NATIONS. DEVELOP SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND THEN SPREAD THE LIBERATION. IT'S COMMON SENSE.First of all, if you base your politics on Marx, it would be great to see you justify it by explicit reference to his own positions. I don't care much for Lenin or Trotsky though (though both are, obviously, to be credited as organizers and, to an extent, theoreticians).

Secondly, you can ramble all you want about different paths and other such cute phrases, but the fact is that simultaneous revolution is a straw man - I don't argue for, or expect that world revolution will take place in weeks. That's one of the most beloved ways of arguing against us infantiles, too bad it's based on a misrepresentation of our position.

And it's funny you mention "backward countries", becuase I distinctly remember one that had its bourgeois state torn down prior to any revolutionary upsurge in the advanced countries.


EVERY COMMUNIST WANTS WORLD WIDE REVOLTUION, ITS JUST HOW WE GET TO THAT GOAL THAT CAUSES DISAGREEMENTS. ANYWAYS, STALIN NEVER TOLD CHINA "NO, YOU CANNOT REVOLT BECAUSE OF OUR POLICY."
HIS POLICY WAS "SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY" NOT "NO MORE REVOLUTIONS"
In fact, the policy of the Comintern was to tie the CP of China to Kuonmintang, causing tremendous bloodshed both in the ranks of the party and especially in Shanghai where the workers' revolted and seized power, to be crushed by none other than those political forces which the Comintern supported.

So in effect, that's precisely what Stalin said to the peasants and workers of China.

[Ismail]

In fact, the policy of the Comintern was to tie the CP of China to Kuonmintang, causing tremendous bloodshed both in the ranks of the party and especially in Shanghai where the workers' revolted and seized power, to be crushed by none other than those political forces which the Comintern supported.Actually Stalin criticized the CCP for botching Comintern directives. This is what he wrote to Molotov in July 1927, shortly after Chiang Kai-shek's coup:

"The CCP Central Committee was unable to use the rich period of the bloc with Kuomintang in order to conduct energetic work in openly organizing the revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry, the revolutionary military units, the revolutionizing of the army, the work of setting the soldiers against the generals. The CCP Central Committee has lived off the Kuomintang for a whole year and has had the opportunity of freely working and organizing, yet it did nothing to turn the conglomerate of elements (true, quite militant), incorrectly called a party, into a real party. . . . The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat. But the most intolerable thing about this babbling is that the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony—it kills the initiative of the working masses, undermine the 'unauthorized' actions of the peasant masses, and reduces class warfare in China to a lot of big talk about the 'feudal bourgeoisie'... That is why I now believe the question of the party is the main question of the Chinese revolution."
(Lars T. Lih & Olev V. Naumov (ed). Stalin's Letters to Molotov. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1995. p. 141.)

And in fact Stalin never did trust the CCP much after that. Hence why he winded up writing, for instance, this in 1929:

"By the way, I think that it's time to think about organising an uprising by a revolutionary movement in Manchuria. The isolated detachments being sent to Manchuria to perform isolated tasks of an episodic nature are a good thing, of course, but they are not enough. We have to go for bigger things now. We need to organise two double-regiment brigades, chiefly made up of Chinese, outfit them with everything necessary (artillery, machine-guns, and so on), put Chinese at the head of the brigade, and send them into Manchuria with the following assignment: to stir up a rebellion among the Manchurian troops... to occupy Harbin and, after gathering force, to declare Chang Hsueh-liang overthrown, establish a revolutionary government (massacre the landowners, bring in the peasants, create soviets in the cities and towns, and so on). This is necessary. This we can, and I think should, do. No 'international law' contradicts this task. It will be clear to everyone that we are against war with China, that our Red Army soldiers are only defending our borders and have no intention of crossing into Chinese territory, and if there is a rebellion inside Manchuria, that's something quite understandable, given the atmosphere of the regime imposed by Chaing Hseuh-liang. Think about it. It's important."
(Ibid. p. 182.)


Proletarian internationalism is synonymous with international revolution, with world revolution, and you refuted it, or at best, modified it with the argument for the defense of the so called workers' state at the expense of world revolution."The British bluntly offered our Commander-in-Chief, Krylenko, one hundred rubles per month for every one of our soldiers provided we continued the war [against Germany]. Even if we did not take a single kopek from the Anglo-French, we nevertheless would be helping them, objectively speaking, by diverting part of the German army.

From that point of view, in neither case would we be entirely escaping some sort of imperialist bond, and it is obvious that it is impossible to escape it completely without overthrowing world imperialism. The correct conclusion from this is that the moment a socialist government triumphed in any one country, questions must be decided, not from the point of view of whether this or that imperialism is preferable, but exclusively from the point of view of the conditions which best make for the development and consolidation of the socialist revolution which has already begun.

In other words, the underlying principle of our tactics must not be, which of the two imperialisms it is more profitable to aid at this juncture, but rather, how the socialist revolution can be most firmly and reliably ensured the possibility of consolidating itself, or, at least, of maintaining itself in one country until it is joined by other countries."
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 26. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. p. 445.)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Is caps lock stuck on your keyboard or something? I thought it would get my point across, but by the time I noticed how stupid it looked, I didnt feel like rewriting it normally.:cool: