Socialism in one country for beginners [Archive]

View Full Version : Socialism in one country for beginners

daft punk

18th February 2012, 18:43

This comes up over and over so I thought I would do a summary for people.

The Trotskyist line is - Stalin invented SIOC which was a revision of Marxism.

The Stalinist line is - Stalin never said socialism could be fully achieved in one country, plus, Lenin said socialism could be built in one country.

This is actually trying to have your cake and eat it, trying to have it both ways. Never mind, let's get all the quotes nailed down.

Up to 1924, no Marxist considered that socialism could be built in one country.

In Feb 1924, Stalin himself wrote:

"...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." (Quoted in Woods and Grant, Lenin and Trotsky: What They Really Stood For, pages 108-109) Note the exact wording. The organisation of socialist production is impossible.

This was a routine Marxist statement, similar to what Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky said many times.

He soon changed this line and by 1938 was claiming to have completed the organisation of socialist construction in Russia:

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

As you can see he is now claiming to achieved what he said was impossible in 1924. The victory of socialist construction is obviously the same as the organisation of socialist production.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind.

Except the Stalinists dont like to admit that he changed his mind. They will start dragging out quotes with the word final in. But the word final is in my first quote, twice in fact.

At this point the Stalinists will swap their argument completely, and try to argue that Lenin said socialism could be built in one country. The interesting thing to note here is that it was Stalin himself who dredged up 3 quotes out of the volumes Lenin wrote in order to justify his (Stalin's) new line!

But if Lenin believed in SIOC, why did Stalin so clearly write against it in early 1924?

The three quotes by Lenin have to be weighed against probably dozens that all said socialism was impossible in one county.

Of the three, I think two were pre 1917. These do not count, because before 1917 Lenin thought socialist revolution was impossible in Russia and would start in the advanced countries in the West.

The other is from On Cooperation, 1923. In this article he stresses the need to encourage poor peasants into cooperatives via subsidies. Unfortunately Stalin never did that.

This circumstance is not considered sufficiently when cooperatives are discussed. It is forgotten that owing to the special features of our political system, our cooperatives acquire an altogether exceptional significance. If we exclude concessions, which, incidentally, have not developed on any considerable scale, cooperation under our conditions nearly always coincides fully with socialismhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

This is probably the closest Lenin got to SIOC after he abondoned Stagism in 1917, when he began to argue the same as Trotsky, for socialist revolution, for the overthrow of the Provisional Government. He is trying to stress the crucial importance of the cooperatives. He also points out that this is gonna be difficult. In another article he said the way to do it would be to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Unfortunately that never happened.

Why is it important? Well, Trotskyists take the view that Stalin had no interest in spreading world revolution, and in fact eventually came to be totally hostile to it.

Of course you could argue that he was trying to make the best of a bad situation.

If only that were true.

MustCrushCapitalism

18th February 2012, 18:56

Interested in seeing an anti-Trotskyist response to this.

(..Ismail)

Grenzer

18th February 2012, 19:10

But if Lenin believed in SIOC, why did Stalin so clearly write against it in early 2004?

Hopefully you mean 1924, unless Ismail has somehow managed to bring Stalin back as a zombie in addition to Hoxha.

Prometeo liberado

18th February 2012, 19:15

Here it comes. No Thread can defeat HOXHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Rafiq

18th February 2012, 19:21

Interested in seeing an anti-Trotskyist response to this.

(..Ismail)

"I let the big other think for me".

Zulu

18th February 2012, 19:26

MustCrushCapitalism

18th February 2012, 19:38

"I let the big other think for me".
Despite my primary user group, I'm not entirely informed on Trotsky. I just see Stalin as the one who, you know, did things, other than sit around and write and only become a Bolshevik in 1917.

It's not that, not at all.

daft punk

18th February 2012, 19:41

Hopefully you mean 1924, unless Ismail has somehow managed to bring Stalin back as a zombie in addition to Hoxha.
good point! edited it now.

I'm going to pull the joker outta my sleeve and say the Soviet Union wasn't "one country". It was a union of several countries, such as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc.

Give me your money, Trotskyists, you lose!

back of the net!
http://serve.mysmiley.net/jumping/jumping0006.gif (http://www.footballerpictures.co.uk)

Despite my primary user group, I'm not entirely informed on Trotsky. I just see Stalin as the one who, you know, did things, other than sit around and write and only become a Bolshevik in 1917.

It's not that, not at all.

Trotsky was more than happy to do stuff, like, oh, organise a revolution or lead the Red Army or whatever. But being lied about and then kicked out kinda hampered him.

Rooster

18th February 2012, 20:14

Despite my primary user group, I'm not entirely informed on Trotsky. I just see Stalin as the one who, you know, did things, other than sit around and write and only become a Bolshevik in 1917.

It's not that, not at all.

lol, not to derail the thread but you must be trollin'. Trotsky was heavily involved with the revolution, the events preceding it and the events following it. You could only say that he just sat around and wrote if you consider being thrown out of the USSR and exiled doing nothing.

Haha, also, despite your primary user group? lulz

Rafiq

19th February 2012, 01:12

Despite my primary user group, I'm not entirely informed on Trotsky. I just see Stalin as the one who, you know, did things, other than sit around and write and only become a Bolshevik in 1917.

It's not that, not at all.

I think Trotsky was an opportunistic piece of shit, however, he was the commander of the Red Army during the cataclysmic counter revolution, to dismiss him and say "Sit around and write" was the only thing he contributed to the revolution is foolish and naive.

That isn't to say Stalin contributed his fair share in defending the revolution, during the civil war period. However, I myself am a materialist, and believe these human beings not as heroic figures which, if not for them, the revolution would have failed, rather, I see them as mere agents of material conditions. Stalin went on to become the symbolic representative of the Soviet Bourgeoisie, and Trotsky became a Liberal-sympathizing opportunist.

Renegade Saint

19th February 2012, 01:18

Lanky Wanker

19th February 2012, 01:54

I know we've agreed that we can't all just get along like we're deciding which DVD to watch, but the more I hear all these strict sets of particular beliefs that we can say "-----ists" follow, the more ridiculous these -isms sound.

TrotskistMarx

19th February 2012, 06:05

daft: have you seen a video where Noam Chomsky says that Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers and fascists? haha, I don't know what Noam Chomsky was drinking or smoking in that video. I don't really understand the ultra-perfectionism, ultra-orthodox dogmatism of many leftists who lambast both Lenin and Trotsky for their not being leftists enough.

Man if Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers according to Noam Chomsky, we are doomed as a human species, because I don't think there have been more leftist leaders in this world than Lenin, Trotsky, Hugo Chavez, Castro etc.

.

This comes up over and over so I thought I would do a summary for people.

The Trotskyist line is - Stalin invented SIOC which was a revision of Marxism.

The Stalinist line is - Stalin never said socialism could be fully achieved in one country, plus, Lenin said socialism could be built in one country.

This is actually trying to have your cake and eat it, trying to have it both ways. Never mind, let's get all the quotes nailed down.

Up to 1924, no Marxist considered that socialism could be built in one country.

In Feb 1924, Stalin himself wrote:

Note the exact wording. The organisation of socialist production is impossible.

This was a routine Marxist statement, similar to what Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky said many times.

He soon changed this line and by 1938 was claiming to have completed the organisation of socialist construction in Russia:

As you can see he is now claiming to achieved what he said was impossible in 1924. The victory of socialist construction is obviously the same as the organisation of socialist production.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind.

Except the Stalinists dont like to admit that he changed his mind. They will start dragging out quotes with the word final in. But the word final is in my first quote, twice in fact.

At this point the Stalinists will swap their argument completely, and try to argue that Lenin said socialism could be built in one country. The interesting thing to note here is that it was Stalin himself who dredged up 3 quotes out of the volumes Lenin wrote in order to justify his (Stalin's) new line!

But if Lenin believed in SIOC, why did Stalin so clearly write against it in early 1924?

The three quotes by Lenin have to be weighed against probably dozens that all said socialism was impossible in one county.

Of the three, I think two were pre 1917. These do not count, because before 1917 Lenin thought socialist revolution was impossible in Russia and would start in the advanced countries in the West.

The other is from On Cooperation, 1923. In this article he stresses the need to encourage poor peasants into cooperatives via subsidies. Unfortunately Stalin never did that.

This is probably the closest Lenin got to SIOC after he abondoned Stagism in 1917, when he began to argue the same as Trotsky, for socialist revolution, for the overthrow of the Provisional Government. He is trying to stress the crucial importance of the cooperatives. He also points out that this is gonna be difficult. In another article he said the way to do it would be to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Unfortunately that never happened.

Why is it important? Well, Trotskyists take the view that Stalin had no interest in spreading world revolution, and in fact eventually came to be totally hostile to it.

Of course you could argue that he was trying to make the best of a bad situation.

If only that were true.

TrotskistMarx

19th February 2012, 06:14

You know I think that Stalinists are sort of social-democrats. They are a bit into the free markets. You know like the socialist social-democrats from the Socialist International, who use the names of socialism in their political parties. But they are not socialists at all. I don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think that The Socialist Party of the USA of Stewart Alexander and Alejandro Mendoza running as Presidents and Vice-Presidents of USA in the 2012 elections is social-democrat, third-way reformist party, and not an 100% socialist party.

From my own judgement of both Trotskists and Stalinists, I think Trotskists are more Marxists than Stalinists. Stalinists fall more into the category of social-democrats, bourgeoise-reformists. I think that The Communist Party of USA might be a Stalinist Party, since they support The Democratic Party, which is a capitalist party. Thanks

PS: Sorry that I had to remove the links, because I dont have 25 posts yet

.

This comes up over and over so I thought I would do a summary for people.

The Trotskyist line is - Stalin invented SIOC which was a revision of Marxism.

The Stalinist line is - Stalin never said socialism could be fully achieved in one country, plus, Lenin said socialism could be built in one country.

This is actually trying to have your cake and eat it, trying to have it both ways. Never mind, let's get all the quotes nailed down.

Up to 1924, no Marxist considered that socialism could be built in one country.

In Feb 1924, Stalin himself wrote:

Note the exact wording. The organisation of socialist production is impossible.

This was a routine Marxist statement, similar to what Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky said many times.

He soon changed this line and by 1938 was claiming to have completed the organisation of socialist construction in Russia:

As you can see he is now claiming to achieved what he said was impossible in 1924. The victory of socialist construction is obviously the same as the organisation of socialist production.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind.

Except the Stalinists dont like to admit that he changed his mind. They will start dragging out quotes with the word final in. But the word final is in my first quote, twice in fact.

At this point the Stalinists will swap their argument completely, and try to argue that Lenin said socialism could be built in one country. The interesting thing to note here is that it was Stalin himself who dredged up 3 quotes out of the volumes Lenin wrote in order to justify his (Stalin's) new line!

But if Lenin believed in SIOC, why did Stalin so clearly write against it in early 1924?

The three quotes by Lenin have to be weighed against probably dozens that all said socialism was impossible in one county.

Of the three, I think two were pre 1917. These do not count, because before 1917 Lenin thought socialist revolution was impossible in Russia and would start in the advanced countries in the West.

The other is from On Cooperation, 1923. In this article he stresses the need to encourage poor peasants into cooperatives via subsidies. Unfortunately Stalin never did that.

This is probably the closest Lenin got to SIOC after he abondoned Stagism in 1917, when he began to argue the same as Trotsky, for socialist revolution, for the overthrow of the Provisional Government. He is trying to stress the crucial importance of the cooperatives. He also points out that this is gonna be difficult. In another article he said the way to do it would be to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Unfortunately that never happened.

Why is it important? Well, Trotskyists take the view that Stalin had no interest in spreading world revolution, and in fact eventually came to be totally hostile to it.

Of course you could argue that he was trying to make the best of a bad situation.

If only that were true.

eric922

19th February 2012, 06:16

MustCrushCapitalism

19th February 2012, 06:43

Stalinists fall more into the category of social-democrats, bourgeoise-reformists. I think that The Communist Party of USA might be a Stalinist Party, since they support The Democratic Party, which is a capitalist party. Thanks

>Using the CPUSA as an example of 'Stalinism'

...no.

Grenzer

19th February 2012, 06:55

From my own judgement of both Trotskists and Stalinists, I think Trotskists are more Marxists than Stalinists. Stalinists fall more into the category of social-democrats, bourgeoise-reformists. I think that The Communist Party of USA might be a Stalinist Party, since they support The Democratic Party, which is a capitalist party. Thanks.

This isn't quite correct. As much as I do dislike Stalinism, it's not an accurate depiction of the CPUSA. They are opportunist scum through and through. Historically, they've just followed the line of whatever their overlord in Moscow has said, so at one point they were indeed Stalinist. Now they're just common liberals. I think the SPUSA is even more radical than they are.

The Old Man from Scene 24

19th February 2012, 07:12

Socialism in One Country doesn't mean that it will only exist in one country. It means that it must start out in one country and spread out when other countries are ready for revolution.

The soviet union under Stalin brought communism to may other countries. The eastern bloc formed because of Stalin.

Ostrinski

19th February 2012, 07:21

The soviet union under Stalin brought communism to may other countries.http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeS6mUP7rVfUZ5VQZZECwpHatHqlR-kodimIoevucVoFCCyLq-QQ

The Old Man from Scene 24

19th February 2012, 07:33

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeS6mUP7rVfUZ5VQZZECwpHatHqlR-kodimIoevucVoFCCyLq-QQ

*facepalm*

East Germany
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Albania
Several more...

Grenzer

19th February 2012, 07:34

The eastern bloc formed because of Stalin.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Stalin didn't bring jack shit to Eastern Europe. The Soviets simply replaced one capitalist regime with another. The workers had their labor appropriated same as any capitalist regime. They had as much control over the result of their labor as workers in America; which is to say, none at all.

TrotskistMarx

19th February 2012, 07:35

Thanks my friend for clearing that up. Indeed we cannot reject great philosophers like Noam Chomsky for their statements. Humans are not robots, and many other leftist thinkers and writters might have some small differences. Indeed Chomsky is very scientific. I have his book "Hegemony or Survival". That book became popular because of Hugo Chavez.

thanks

.

Chomsky never called them Fascists. He did say they represented a right wing deviation of Marxism and accused them of being to the right of mainstream Marxists of their time, but he never called them fascists and I doubt he considers them right-wing except in comparisons to other more libertarian socialists.

Ostrinski

19th February 2012, 07:35

*facepalm*

East Germany
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Albania
Several more...In this post: communist utopias.

The Old Man from Scene 24

19th February 2012, 07:41

In this post: communist utopias.

I never said that they were "utopias".

Ostrinski

19th February 2012, 07:46

I never said that they were "utopias".I did. Poland and Albania were utopias. Only a flaming liberal would say otherwise.

:cursing:

Comrade Hill

19th February 2012, 08:15

Khalid

19th February 2012, 09:56

Stalin speaks for Socialism in one country: It's bad because it's Stalinism.

International Socialist camp of 900 million people build in Stalins time: It's still bad because it's Stalinism.

Cool story, Trots.

Thirsty Crow

19th February 2012, 10:05

I'm going to pull the joker outta my sleeve and say the Soviet Union wasn't "one country". It was a union of several countries, such as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc.

Give me your money, Trotskyists, you lose!
Yeah, that's some joker right there.
No matter it wasn't a one country (going by the bourgeois standards of nation-states, anyway), socialism cannot be achieved in one country or in a bloc of countries (especially those which are economically "backward" - but then again, you might as well enjoy the horrors of socialist accumulation, if you're an office rat especially).

Cool story, Trots.
It's nice to see Stalinists fixation on Trots, as if those people were the only ones arguing against the theory of socialism in one country. When the glorious revolution finally comes, maybe we can have a socialist superhero blockbuster, featuring the evil and villainous super-Trotsky against the savior of mankind, super-Stalin.

Rooster

19th February 2012, 10:16

Daft Punk, why are seeking yet more attention? This has been debated numerous times, your idea of permanent revolution, or "pushing" or "exporting" the revolution is much more a form of revisionism than SiOC. Marx and Lenin specifically spoke out against forcing the revolution. Uneven development has happened in all economic systems. So there will objectively be socialist countries while others are capitalist.

And......we are done.

So, did you just admit that SiOC is revisionism? And also that whole part of not forcing a revolution, did you just also admit that the common concept of a vanguard party is wrong? That spontaneity is actually the correct way to think about how revolution will come? :confused:

19th February 2012, 12:11

I'm going to pull the joker outta my sleeve and say the Soviet Union wasn't "one country". It was a union of several countries, such as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc.

Give me your money, Trotskyists, you lose!

Socialism in One Country doesn't mean that it will only exist in one country. It means that it must start out in one country and spread out when other countries are ready for revolution.

The soviet union under Stalin brought communism to may other countries. The eastern bloc formed because of Stalin.

*facepalm*

East Germany
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Albania
Several more...

To understand why "socialism in one country" is so problematic, one does not have to resort to quotes of Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Engels or any other in a haliographic manner. One has to start from the point of where capitalism is at: A global social system of states that are competing to eachother much like companies are. As a result, we have a state hierarchy and a global division of labour. As a result also, the working class is a global class.

Now, as socialists we want to overcome this capitalist system, in a positive manner. As such we need to tackle the question of this global division of labour and work internationally by trying to unite the working class, thus forming it as a class distinct from capital.

The socialist revolution means that the working class seizes political power over society and such a regime can only bear fruit if it happens with a global focus. At the very least a significant part of the capitalist core (the top in the hierarchy of states) must be involved and the most prospective region for this, given its long history of working class struggle, is Europe. A European Democratic Republic would indeed be able to start ascending from the laws of capital.

Now, Russia at 1917 was very big, but also very much undeveloped. Only about 15% of the population were proletarian and after the civil war it was all but liquidated as a class. For that reason it was also very much low on the global state hierarchy and would today have been ranked a third world country.

As such, there was no material basis of rising up towards a society based on human need. The soviets had no access to the global division of labour to make this possible. The only solution to this dire situation (and indeed the primary strategic goal at the outset of 1917) was a successful revolution in Germany. But this failed and counterrevolution set in, setting up a fundamentally unstable bureaucratic regime that was, for a time, capable of developing the country but inevitably got stuck in its own contradictions.

So, "pulling out the joker" and claim that there was no "socialism in one country" as the Tsarist Empire got divided up into a "union" is completely missing the point. Likewise, claiming that "communism" got exported to Eastern Europe is also a fallacy as at this point the Stalinist bureaucracy was already firmly in place. Not revolution was exported (which I believe is a problematic notion as well), but counterrevolution.

daft punk

19th February 2012, 12:12

I think Trotsky was an opportunistic piece of shit, however, he was the commander of the Red Army during the cataclysmic counter revolution, to dismiss him and say "Sit around and write" was the only thing he contributed to the revolution is foolish and naive.

That isn't to say Stalin contributed his fair share in defending the revolution, during the civil war period. However, I myself am a materialist, and believe these human beings not as heroic figures which, if not for them, the revolution would have failed, rather, I see them as mere agents of material conditions. Stalin went on to become the symbolic representative of the Soviet Bourgeoisie, and Trotsky became a Liberal-sympathizing opportunist.
Please support the claim re Trotsky.

Are you not a Marxist? History is better understood by dialectical materialism than materialism alone. History is littered with revolutionary opportunity, but only once in history, in Russia 1917, did a revolution take place with the aim of achieving socialism, and two people were key to that, Lenin and Trotsky, the only two workers leaders in spring 1917 who believed in overthrowing the Provisional Government and capitalism.

daft: have you seen a video where Noam Chomsky says that Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers and fascists? haha, I don't know what Noam Chomsky was drinking or smoking in that video. I don't really understand the ultra-perfectionism, ultra-orthodox dogmatism of many leftists who lambast both Lenin and Trotsky for their not being leftists enough.

Man if Lenin and Trotsky were right-wingers according to Noam Chomsky, we are doomed as a human species, because I don't think there have been more leftist leaders in this world than Lenin, Trotsky, Hugo Chavez, Castro etc.

.
Yes, Chomsky complains about the west lying about the USSR, and then tells some of the same lies himself. I've not seen him make the fascist claim, but I have seen him claim that Stalinism was a continuation of Leninism.

You know I think that Stalinists are sort of social-democrats. They are a bit into the free markets. You know like the socialist social-democrats from the Socialist International, who use the names of socialism in their political parties. But they are not socialists at all. I don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think that The Socialist Party of the USA of Stewart Alexander and Alejandro Mendoza running as Presidents and Vice-Presidents of USA in the 2012 elections is social-democrat, third-way reformist party, and not an 100% socialist party.

From my own judgement of both Trotskists and Stalinists, I think Trotskists are more Marxists than Stalinists. Stalinists fall more into the category of social-democrats, bourgeoise-reformists. I think that The Communist Party of USA might be a Stalinist Party, since they support The Democratic Party, which is a capitalist party. Thanks

Yeah, you could say that. But the USSR didnt have much of a free market. However, outside the USSR, Communist Parties often acted like reformists, yes.

This was in accordance with TWO STAGE THEORY and POPULAR FRONT theory.

Socialism in One Country doesn't mean that it will only exist in one country. It means that it must start out in one country and spread out when other countries are ready for revolution.

The soviet union under Stalin brought communism to may other countries. The eastern bloc formed because of Stalin.

No, Stalin wanted Eastern Europe, China etc, to be capitalist. They tried coalition governments with the bourgeoisie. However they didn't last long, they were unstable. Plus the Marshal Plan backfired, pushing these countries away from America. They became Stalinist states in the end despite Stalin's original wishes.

Read this
http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-1.htm

Also read On Coalition Government by Mao in 1945 where he spells out that he wants several decades of capitalism before thinking about socialism. Even that wasnt enough for Stalin, who backed the communist killing Chiang Kai-shek right up to 1948.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

Daft Punk, why are seeking yet more attention? This has been debated numerous times, your idea of permanent revolution, or "pushing" or "exporting" the revolution is much more a form of revisionism than SiOC. Marx and Lenin specifically spoke out against forcing the revolution. Uneven development has happened in all economic systems. So there will objectively be socialist countries while others are capitalist.

And......we are done.

This is a subject that crops up again and again in bits in various threads, and I though it would be a good idea to go through it from scratch. So far no response to the OP.

Permanent revolution is another issue, but obviously connected. There is no difference between Lenin and Trotsky on the question. Lenin constantly talked about world revolution. In fact Lenin used the exact phrase "world revolution"over 100 times in his writings.

"we staked our chances on world revolution, and were undoubtedly right in doing so."
Lenin, 1920

"It is impossible to launch on a world revolution without a programme and without promises."
1922

"
The groundwork has been laid for the Soviet movement all over the East, all over Asia, among all the colonial peoples.
The proposition that the exploited must rise up against the exploiters and establish their Soviets is not a very complex one. After our experience, after two and a half years of the existence of the Soviet Republic in Russia, and after the First Congress of the Third International, this idea is becoming accessible to hundreds of millions of people oppressed by the exploiters all over the world. We in Russia are often obliged to compromise, to bide our time, since we are weaker than the international imperialists, yet we know that we are defending the interests of this mass of a thousand and a quarter million people. For the time being, we are hampered by barriers, prejudices and ignorance which are receding into the past with every passing hour; but we are more and more becoming representatives and genuine defenders of this 70 per cent of the world’s population, this mass of working and exploited people. It is with pride that we can say: at the First Congress we were in fact merely propagandists; we were only spreading the fundamental ideas among tbe world’s proletariat; we only issued the call for struggle; we were merely asking where the people were who were capable of taking this path. Today the advanced proletariat is everywhere with us. A proletarian army exists everywhere, although sometimes it is poorly organised and needs reorganising. If our comrades in all lands help us now to organise a united army, no shortcomings will prevent us from accomplishing our task. That task is the world proletarian revolution, the creation of a world Soviet republic. (Prolonged applause.)"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm

Stalin speaks for Socialism in one country: It's bad because it's Stalinism.

International Socialist camp of 900 million people build in Stalins time: It's still bad because it's Stalinism.

Cool story, Trots.
Hitler called his party National Socialist too. Was it in any way socialist? No.

Khalid

19th February 2012, 13:25

Stalin wanted Eastern Europe, China etc, to be capitalist.

You are a troll.

Permanent revolution is another issue, but obviously connected. There is no difference between Lenin and Trotsky on the question.

"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." (Lenin, Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity)

Lenin constantly talked about world revolution. In fact Lenin used the exact phrase "world revolution"over 100 times in his writings.

Of course. Marxist-Leninists absolutely support the world revolution. But unlike Trots, Marxist-Leninists are not going to betray the revolution in one country if the world revolution is not going to happen.

Hitler called his party National Socialist too. Was it in any way socialist? No.

And some Trotskyites call themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists".

19th February 2012, 13:30

And so the incessant mindkilling holy quotewar continues...

daft punk

19th February 2012, 15:24

"Stalin wanted Eastern Europe, China etc, to be capitalist. "
You are a troll.

No, there is very strong evidence, see these links

make sure to read this one:
http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-1.htm

http://www.socialismtoday.org/132/china60.html
"Stalin as late as 1948 had agued that the CCP should dissolve its army"

Mao himself clearly stated his was a bourgeois revolution and the agenda was capitalism for several decades:

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

In the countries of Eastern Europe, coalition governments were set up with capitalists. They didnt last long. There are two schools of thought among Trotskyists, one is that Stalin genuinely wanted what Mao had outlined, basically bourgeois revolutions. I believe he said this in a speech broadcast on radio. There certainly is compelling evidence.

"The CBS picked up a broadcast from Moscow on September 20 at a time when the Red Army was already in Eastern Europe, which similarly declared: “The Soviet Union will not introduce its order into other states and it does not change the existing order in them.”"
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/cochran/1946/11/eeurope.htm

The other school of thought is that it was all a trick, and the desired result was Stalinist-type satellite states modelled on the USSR. Maybe the truth is a bit of both, maybe Stalin was prepared to see which option happened. Mao certainly seems genuine in his On Coalition Government. It was the Korean was that brought nationalisation forward in China as it exacerbated the resistance of the gentry.

A quick example from Bulgaria:

"Anton Yugoff, the Stalinist Minister of the Interior, in charge of the police, went out of his way to reassure the capitalists that they had nothing to fear, that the Stalinists were absolutely “reliable.” He said: “The government of which I am a member and on whose behalf I speak, categorically denies that it has any intention of establishing a Communist regime in Bulgaria. There is no truth in rumors that the government intends to nationalize any private enterprise in the country.”"
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/cochran/1946/11/eeurope.htm

Plus we have examples like France the the CP leaders entered a bourgeois government and were thanked for helping maintain French rule in Vietnam:

"The gratitude of the French bourgeoisie was evident when “French conservative politicians rose in the National Assembly during a crucial appropriations debate from March 14-18, 1947, to thank their own Communist colleagues and the Soviet Union for leaving France to fight its war in Indochina without outside disturbance.” 18"
http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/vietnam/c1.html

In 1945 in Britain, when Labour was set for landslide, the CP called for a 'national' government (ie with the Tories).

"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." (Lenin, Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity)

At this time Lenin was still a stagist and did not envisage socialist revolution in a backward country like Russia, he thought any revolution in Russia would be a purely bourgeois one. He was also busy with a slanging match with Trotsky. Trotsky turned out to be right on the nature of the Russian revolution, both on the fact that is was not gonna be a bourgeois one, and also on the question of the peasantry. Lenin turned out to be right on the need for a centralised party, at least Trotsky accepted that, but there is some evidence that towards the end of his life Lenin maybe had doubts as things were going downhill.

Anyway, needless to say in early 1917 Lenin arrived at the same conclusion as Trotsky, that there was not gonna be a pure bourgois revolution, but that the Bolsheviks should overthrow the Provisional Government, carry out the bourgeois tasks and continue straight away with the socialist ones, and this is obviously what they did. In April 1917 Lenin had to change the minds of most of the Bolshevik Central Committee who had been supporting the Provisional Government.

Of course. Marxist-Leninists absolutely support the world revolution. But unlike Trots, Marxist-Leninists are not going to betray the revolution in one country if the world revolution is not going to happen.

Really? What did they do in Spain then? And when did Trots ever betray a revolution? Please provide support for that claim.

And some Trotskyites call themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists".
Not heard of that, but at least it makes sense. Trots still stick to the original plan, democratic socialism in all countries.

Ostrinski

19th February 2012, 15:28

This is redundant. This has been debated over and over and SIOC has been taken apart over and over. It's just a pissing contest at this point.

daft punk

19th February 2012, 16:20

I thought it might be good for new people. And no Stalinist has yet replied to the OP. The point of the OP is quick reference, and yes it is constantly debated, that's why I did this thread. I'm bored with going over it.

Comrade Hill

19th February 2012, 17:52

daft punk

19th February 2012, 18:29

Well let me know when you get an answer Daft Punk, I.e, when other M-Ls decide they want to waste time with you.

Daft Punk, I suggest when debating, you don't quote people to prove your point, but ignore their other quotes as well. Quoting doesn't always make you right. You need to quote IN CONTEXT.

Keep trying Daft Punk. You're almost there. Soon, the M-Ls will start answering your questions.

does this post have any meaning? I mean, if you wanna accuse me of quoting out of context, you need to say which quote, then quote it in context, and demonstrate that I was attributing a different meaning to that originally intended by who ever I am quoting.

One could even suggest that your post was just a waste of time because it contained nothing of substance.

Red Storm

20th February 2012, 03:42

Yes, and it is a contest that has gone on for close to a hundred years. It seems like such a pity that most people within this struggle would prefer to theorize or rehash the tired old leftist debates and arguments of the twentieth century than get active and organize an effective movement in the 21st century. Too many are overly concerned with dogma and theory that flys in the face of reason.

Being driven by dogma reduces a person to nothing more than a parrot. Too much emphasis is being placed on the mere words of great men(right, wrong, or indifferent) while there is not enough imitation of the actual deeds that made them known to us. Personally, I think the time has come to take the good from these sources of knowledge and inspiration so we can create a new formula for the 21st century that is both practical and capable of achieving socialism. Social science is continuously evolving as we reach new scientific breakthroughs and so should the theory that guides us.

daft punk

20th February 2012, 08:45

It's not a contest, and if you dont understand the last 100 years you certainly wont know what to do in the future.

Comrade Hill

20th February 2012, 15:12

does this post have any meaning? I mean, if you wanna accuse me of quoting out of context, you need to say which quote, then quote it in context, and demonstrate that I was attributing a different meaning to that originally intended by who ever I am quoting.

One could even suggest that your post was just a waste of time because it contained nothing of substance.

Wasting time is all this thread is, with you quoting all of your quotes out of context, and then making the laughable claim that Lenin was on the side of Trotsky.

Maybe when I feel like it, I'll answer your questions.:)

gorillafuck

20th February 2012, 15:25

and Trotsky became a Liberal-sympathizing opportunist.how?

Rooster

20th February 2012, 15:37

Wasting time is all this thread is, with you quoting all of your quotes out of context, and then making the laughable claim that Lenin was on the side of Trotsky.

Have you been using Lenin in October as some sort of history lesson or something? Are you saying that throughout the whole revolutionary process, of them working together, that Lenin never ever agreed with Trotsky? I'm actually surprised that someone is arguing this. I really shouldn't be, but still...

daft punk

20th February 2012, 16:17

So, three pages in and no Stalinist has tried to actually argue against the OP. No takers? Anyway, I hope the OP is a useful quick reference for people, especially noobs, and maybe a bit of food for thought for Stalinists.

Wasting time is all this thread is, with you quoting all of your quotes out of context, and then making the laughable claim that Lenin was on the side of Trotsky.

Maybe when I feel like it, I'll answer your questions.:)

Support or retract that I have quoted out of context. Remember, it means altering the meaning that was intended.

Ocean Seal

20th February 2012, 16:28

Chomsky never called them Fascists. He did say they represented a right wing deviation of Marxism and accused them of being to the right of mainstream Marxists of their time, but he never called them fascists and I doubt he considers them right-wing except in comparisons to other more libertarian socialists.
I'm pretty sure he calls them right-wingers though.

dodger

20th February 2012, 16:36

I was very impressed by the way electrification was started before the last shot was fired in the War of Intervention That must have been a top priority for people. It would transform lives. Here there are still places without, can you believe? They obviously had a vision.for how life would be after the war. Life without electricity is no fun at all.

Thirsty Crow

20th February 2012, 16:44

how?
Support for one of the imperialist camps during WWII on the grounds of anti-fascism (and support for "democratic rights").

Aurora

20th February 2012, 17:02

Support for one of the imperialist camps during WWII on the grounds of anti-fascism (and support for "democratic rights").
Trotsky didn't support the USSR based on anti-fascism, he supported the USSR because he believed that it still maintained some progressive gains from the revolution and was still in essence a workers state, this wasn't conditional on war against fascism but rather war against any capitalist state.
About democratic rights, if i understand correctly Bordiga's critique, which i assume your alluding to, is based on holding up democracy as eternal principle, something which i don't think Trotsky did, democracy and rights can and should be overstepped when necessary, something which was done extensively in the civil war.

I'd like to hear Rafiq explain how Trotsky was an opportunist, that would be interesting.

Thirsty Crow

20th February 2012, 17:13

Trotsky didn't support the USSR based on anti-fascism, he supported the USSR because he believed that it still maintained some progressive gains from the revolution and was still in essence a workers state, this wasn't conditional on war against fascism but rather war against any capitalist state.
What's up with you Trots and your memory? Trotsky supported the Allies, ergo, one imperialist camp, not USSR alone. It's enough of a blunder to assess the character of the Russian state in the way he did, but this support, based on the defence of democratic rights and anti-fascism, places him under the category of opportunism (not to say anything about other positions he defended).
This has little to do with Bordiga's critique of democracy as you presented it, specifically. Generally, I draw upon the tradition of left communists, irrespective of their divide, in their concrete assessment of what support for democracy, against fascism, means.

Aurora

20th February 2012, 17:28

Trotsky supported the Allies, ergo, one imperialist camp, not USSR alone.

Could you perhaps quote where he argues in support of the other Allies?

daft punk

20th February 2012, 17:36

What's up with you Trots and your memory? Trotsky supported the Allies, ergo, one imperialist camp, not USSR alone. It's enough of a blunder to assess the character of the Russian state in the way he did, but this support, based on the defence of democratic rights and anti-fascism, places him under the category of opportunism (not to say anything about other positions he defended).

Please support this.

Comrade Hill

20th February 2012, 18:28

The Trotskyist line is - Stalin invented SIOC which was a revision of Marxism.

If anything, Trotskyism is a form of Marxist revisionism, which advocates "permanent revolution," a theory which ignores the poor peasantry as an ally for the Russian Proletariat, and instead advocates "carrying the revolution on bayonets." It is an adventurist and counter-revolutionary theory that intends on forcing the revolution. The conditions for the revolution have to mold first before you go around charging into other countries.

In a letter to Zinoviev dated 24 August 1909, Lenin writes:

"Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one's transfer to Paris except Trotsky's (the scoundrel, he wants to 'fix up' the whole rascally crew of 'Pravda' at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists." (Collected Works, Vol. 34, p. 400).

Basically, he is calling out Trotsky for his aim to divide the proletariat and turn them against the revolution, which Lenin himself was leading, not Trotsky.

In the Communist manifesto, it states that the poor peasantry have the potential to be the ally of the proletariat. Trotsky denies this, and says that reconciliation between the "masses of peasantry" and the proletariat is impossible.

The Stalinist line is - Stalin never said socialism could be fully achieved in one country, plus, Lenin said socialism could be built in one country.

Does this make Lenin a Stalinist now?

Up to 1924, no Marxist considered that socialism could be built in one country.

Accept for Lenin, and the Bolsheviks, and the Marxists.

In Feb 1924, Stalin himself wrote:

Note the exact wording. The organisation of socialist production is impossible.

This is what I mean when I say your quotes are out of context. "Exact wording?" Stalin mentions nothing about the organization of socialist production being impossible, he means that the final victory, or the transition to the higher stage of communism, goes beyond "socialism in one country."

This was a routine Marxist statement, similar to what Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky said many times.

Trotsky said many things, including "I cannot be called a Bolshevik."

He soon changed this line....

NO. Your absurd interpretation of Stalin's quote has let you to make absurd statements.

Of the three, I think two were pre 1917. These do not count, because before 1917 Lenin thought socialist revolution was impossible in Russia and would start in the advanced countries in the West.

Actually, if Lenin truly didn't believe socialist revolution was possible, he would've not organized the party for revolution, so you are lying. Lenin said revolution was possible on countries whose sect of imperialism is the weakest, even if they were backward or underdeveloped.

And also, Trotsky is the one who believed socialist revolution was impossible. The difference, however, is that Trotsky made the inaccurate assumption that the European proletariat was more ready for revolution. Reality proved otherwise. In addition, he said it was impossible, because of the existence of the peasantry. Lenin denounce

The other is from On Cooperation, 1923. In this article he stresses the need to encourage poor peasants into cooperatives via subsidies. Unfortunately Stalin never did that.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

That's funny coming from a Trotskyist, who follows someone who believes all of the peasantry is reactionary and therefore is not ready for revolution. You need to make up your mind. Are you a Leninist, or are you a Trotskyist?

And as for Stalin, you are lying, the establishment of kolkhozies (collective farms) proves that you are lying. Your historical inaccuracy is astounding. All of the new readers here should not believe this.

Finally, what about the other 90% of peasants who did not rebel? Some peasants did not reject collectivization and even supported it. In March 1929 peasants suggested at a meeting in Riazan okrug that the Soviet government should take all the land and have peasants work on it for wages, a conception not too distant from the future operation of kolkhozy. An OGPU report quoted one middle peasant in Shilovskii raion, Riazan okrug, in November 1929 to the effect that 'the grain procurements are hard, but necessary; we cannot live like we lived before, it is necessary to build factories and plants, and for that grain is necessary'. In January 1930, during the campaign, some peasants said, 'the time has come to abandon our individual farms. It's about time to quit those, [we] need to transfer to collectivization.' Another document from January reported several cases of peasants spontaneously forming kolkhozy and consolidating their fields, which was a basic part of collectivization. Bokarev's analysis summarized above suggests a reason why many peasants did not rebel against collectivization: the kolkhoz in certain ways, especially in its collectivism of land use and principles of egalitarian distribution, was not all that far from peasant traditions and values in corporate villages throughout the USSR. In any case, this example, and the evidence that the vast majority of peasants did not engage in protests against collectivization, clearly disproves Graziosi's assertion cited above that the villages were 'united' against collectivization.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 75.

This is probably the closest Lenin got to SIOC after he abondoned Stagism in 1917, when he began to argue the same as Trotsky, for socialist revolution, for the overthrow of the Provisional Government.

Stageism has always remained part of Lenin's plan, so I don't know wtf you are talking about. By establishing a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then advocating for a socialist revolution, isn't abandoning stageism and siding with Trotsky. I said above that Trotsky did not believe the Russian proletariat was ready for socialist revolution. You have it backwards.

He is trying to stress the crucial importance of the cooperatives. He also points out that this is gonna be difficult. In another article he said the way to do it would be to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Unfortunately that never happened.

Another lie. The Central Committee under Stalin froze the Kulak class out with high taxes. Looks like you a Stalinist, without realizing it. Either that, or your story is just so historically inaccurate that we cannot tell whether you are a Trot or a M-L.

"The Right wing of the Communist Party held that kulaks should be allowed to get rich and that socialism could win through state ownership of industries. The left wing was for forcing peasants rapidly into collective farms under state control. Actual policy shifted for several years under pressure of different groups in the Party. The policy finally adopted was to draw peasants into collective farms by offering government credits and tractors, to freeze the kulaks out by high taxes and, later, to "abolish them as a class."...
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 35

Why is it important? Well, Trotskyists take the view that Stalin had no interest in spreading world revolution, and in fact eventually came to be totally hostile to it.

Here is a quote from Trotsky, remarking on the soldiers of Germans and how they can be affected with the revolutionary spirit, to overthrow the Soviet Union:

“Hitler’s soldiers are German workers and peasants…The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold…The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit” (Trotsky, Writings 113).

During the Moscow Trials, Radek testifies on Trotsky's opportunism.

One of the defendants, Radek, said “Trotsky put the question in this way: the accession of Fascism to power in Germany had fundamentally changed the whole situation. It implied war in the near future, inevitable war, the more so that the situation was simultaneously becoming acute in the Far East. Trotsky had no doubt that this war would result in the defeat of the Soviet Union. This defeat, he wrote, will create favorable conditions for the accession to power of the bloc…” (Radek 239-40).

Here is Trotsky providing valuable information about the USSR to the FBI:

The journal Revolutionary Democracy quotes a Professor William Chase about Trotsky’s dealings with the FBI: “By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa” (“Revolutionary Democracy”).

Those are some examples of Trotsky aiding the world counter-revolution.

Now that that's done, lets talk about your claim of Stalin being hostile to the world revolution.

Under Stalin, help was sent to Spain in the form of weaponry, artillery, and ships, in order to attempt to defeat Franco. Is that what you are talking about when you say hostile to the world revolution? Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Mongolia, a pro-Soviet State that formed in 1921 with the help of the Russians, as well is forming the Socialist bloc and liberating people from fascism, has been denounced as "oppressing the workers/imperialism" by Trotskyists, so I'm not sure what your definition of world revolution is, seeing as from Trotsky's ACTIONS, he aids anything but world revolution.

20th February 2012, 18:45

If anything, Trotskyism is a form of Marxist revisionism, which advocates "permanent revolution,"...
Just to cut you off at this point. You might be interested in Witnesses to Permanent revolution (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Witnesses_to_Permanent_Revolution.html?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&redir_esc=y), which is a historic research on the debates on the topic of "permanent revolution" that happened in the Marxist movement around the dawn of the 20th century.

Long story short: There is nothing unique about Trotsky's basic conclusions (we need an international revolution and this will be an uneven process), which was considered very elementary Marxism by everyone at this point. Trotsky's contribution primarily focused on the Russian context and in the debate contributions were made by such insignificant and revisionist figures as Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin, among others...

Of course this is not the whole story and "permanent revolution" had its own development, especially in contradistinction to "socialism in one country". But the basic premises were regarded as Marxist ABC by the complete movement before 1924.

In fact, when Stalin came with his notion of SIOC in that year, most people didn't even bother to respond to it, as it was regarded so absurd. To his credit it was Zinoviev that was the first that took up this battle.

Comrade Hill

20th February 2012, 19:11

Just to cut you off at this point. You might be interested in Witnesses to Permanent revolution (http://books.google.nl/books/about/Witnesses_to_Permanent_Revolution.html?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&redir_esc=y), which is a historic research on the debates on the topic of "permanent revolution" that happened in the Marxist movement around the dawn of the 20th century.

Long story short: There is nothing unique about Trotsky's basic conclusions (we need an international revolution and this will be an uneven process), which was considered very elementary Marxism by everyone at this point. Trotsky's contribution primarily focused on the Russian context and in the debate contributions were made by such insignificant and revisionist figures as Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin, among others...

Of course this is not the whole story and "permanent revolution" had its own development, especially in contradistinction to "socialism in one country". But the basic premises were regarded as Marxist ABC by the complete movement before 1924.

In fact, when Stalin came with his notion of SIOC in that year, most people didn't even bother to respond to it, as it was regarded so absurd. To his credit it was Zinoviev that was the first that took up this battle.

I have only read one page of this book and I can already tell it is nonsense.

On one of the pages, it makes references to Marx and Engels mentioning permanent revolution "3 times."

However, what Marx and Engels mean by permanent revolution doesn't entail carrying the revolution on bayonets, overthrowing socialist republics, and giving information to reactionary institutions. It's a shame that you have to use these quotes of the founders of scientific socialism to justify such nonsense.

And seeing names like Karl Kautsky really discourages me from reading this book.

20th February 2012, 19:20

I have only read one page of this book and I can already tell it is nonsense.

On one of the pages, it makes references to Marx and Engels mentioning permanent revolution "3 times."

However, what Marx and Engels mean by permanent revolution doesn't entail carrying the revolution on bayonets, overthrowing socialist republics, and giving information to reactionary institutions. It's a shame that you have to use these quotes of the founders of scientific socialism to justify such nonsense.
Neither is that claimed. But hey, I suppose the proverb is right: you really don't get a clear idea of what a 684 page book is about after judging its cover reading a page.

And seeing names like Karl Kautsky really discourages me from reading this book.
Oh noes! Kautsky! The shock and horror!

This was of course still in the period Lenin describes many times as "Kautsky, when he was still a Marxist". But let's just forget such inconveniences.

Rooster

20th February 2012, 19:25

GuttahMastah, you really have a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to thinking, don't you?

Comrade Hill

20th February 2012, 19:51

daft punk

20th February 2012, 20:33

If anything, Trotskyism is a form of Marxist revisionism, which advocates "permanent revolution," a theory which ignores the poor peasantry as an ally for the Russian Proletariat, and instead advocates "carrying the revolution on bayonets." It is an adventurist and counter-revolutionary theory that intends on forcing the revolution. The conditions for the revolution have to mold first before you go around charging into other countries.
Not sure exactly how relevant this is but lets discuss it.

"a theory which ignores the poor peasantry as an ally for the Russian Proletariat"

This is completely untrue. It is so wrong I dont know where to start. How about this

"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. "

Do you know who said that? It was Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto.

Now then, in 1917 Lenin had a policy of a workers and peasants government. Trotsky's slogan was a workers government. In September 1917 Lenin ditched his own slogan:

"The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat. "

"The essence of Marx's theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realize that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm#s2

The clever bit about Trotsky's slogan, which was the same as Marx and Engels' was this. The poor peasants and rich ones had united against the landlords. A workers and peasants government would have to include rich peasants. Trotsky wanted to split the peasantry, poor from rich, so by calling for a workers government, this would drag the poor peasants over but not the rich ones, the poor peasants would follow the workers.

more Lenin, same article

"Only the proletariat — by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production — is capable of being the leader of all the working and exploited people"

Lenin had adopted Trotsky's position after all. The workers party took power and then over the next year the poor peasants split from the rich ones to back the workers government.

In a letter to Zinoviev dated 24 August 1909, Lenin writes:

"Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one's transfer to Paris except Trotsky's (the scoundrel, he wants to 'fix up' the whole rascally crew of 'Pravda' at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists." (Collected Works, Vol. 34, p. 400).

Basically, he is calling out Trotsky for his aim to divide the proletariat and turn them against the revolution, which Lenin himself was leading, not Trotsky.

Divide the proletariat? Turn them against the revolution? Where do you conjure these things up from? I dunno what Lenin is on about but he does not say that. It sounds like some party *****ing, which they did all the time before 1917. I looked it up, read the whole thing. Explain your comment.

In the Communist manifesto, it states that the poor peasantry have the potential to be the ally of the proletariat.
Where? Anyway, Trotsky said the same, just that the lead had to come from the proletariat.

Trotsky denies this, and says that reconciliation between the "masses of peasantry" and the proletariat is impossible.
where?

Does this make Lenin a Stalinist now?

No, I explained that in the OP. Lenin said many times after 1917 that socialism could not be built in one country.

"Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2362427#post2362427)
Up to 1924, no Marxist considered that socialism could be built in one country. "

Accept for Lenin, and the Bolsheviks, and the Marxists.

Show me quotes from after 1917

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2362427#post2362427)
"In Feb 1924, Stalin himself wrote:

Note the exact wording. The organisation of socialist production is impossible. "
This is what I mean when I say your quotes are out of context. "Exact wording?" Stalin mentions nothing about the organization of socialist production being impossible, he means that the final victory, or the transition to the higher stage of communism, goes beyond "socialism in one country."

""...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.""

Er, Stalin "mentions nothing about the organisation of socialist production", but he says "the organisation of socialist production"?

I said not the exact wording, not pretend it doesnt exist.

Trotsky said many things, including "I cannot be called a Bolshevik."

Do you know why he said it? He was in a meeting with Lenin and Zinoviev and Kamenev, discussing merging their organisations, and according to Lenin's notes Trotsky felt the Bolsheviks had de-bolshevised themselves and so they should have a new name. However Lenin wasnt having that, so they merged anyway. You realy should google this stuff.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1989/trotsky1/12-return.html

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2362427#post2362427)
"He soon changed this line.... "
NO. Your absurd interpretation of Stalin's quote has let you to make absurd statements.
So far you have demonstrated that Stalin said what I said he said word for word, since I simply quoted him and said note the wording.

Actually, if Lenin truly didn't believe socialist revolution was possible, he would've not organized the party for revolution, so you are lying.

"Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution. "
"A bourgeois revolution is a revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, social and economic system."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm

"Ours is a bourgeois revolution, we Marxists say, therefore the workers must open the eyes of the people to the deception practised by the bourgeois politicians, teach them to put no faith in words, to depend entirely on their own strength, their own organisation, their own unity, and their own weapons. "

This was March 1917 when he was shifting over...

"The tactical problems of our immediate attitude towards this government will be dealt with in another article. In it, we shall explain the peculiarity of the present situation, which is a transition from the first stage of the revolution to the second, and why the slogan, the “task of the day”, at this moment must he: Workers, you hare performed miracles of proletarian heroism, the heroism of the people, in the civil war against tsarism. You must perform miracles of organisation, organisation of the proletariat and of the whole people, to prepare the way for your victory in the second stage of the revolution."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/lfafar/first.htm

But it was not until April that Lenin dropped the bombshell on the Bolsheviks and joined Trotsky in calling for the overthrow of the Provisional Government.

"When Lenin returned to Russia on 3rd April, 1917, he announced what became known as the April Theses (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSapril.htm). Lenin attacked Bolsheviks (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbolsheviks.htm) for supporting the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm). Instead, he argued, revolutionaries should be telling the people of Russia that they should take over the control of the country. In his speech, Lenin urged the peasants to take the land from the rich landlords and the industrial workers to seize the factories. Albert Rhys Williams (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwilliamsR.htm) got to know Lenin during this period. He later argued: "He was the most thoroughly civilized and humane man I ever have known, as nice a one as I ever knew, in addition to being a great man." Williams was convinced that the Bolsheviks would become the new rulers: "The Bolsheviks understood the people. They were strong among the more literate strata, like the sailors, and comprised largely the artisans and labourers of the cities. Sprung directly from the people's lions they spoke the people's language, shared their sorrows and thought their thoughts. They were the people. So they were trusted."
Lenin accused those Bolsheviks (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbolsheviks.htm) who were still supporting the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm) of betraying socialism and suggested that they should leave the party. Some took Lenin's advice, arguing that any attempt at revolution at this stage was bound to fail and would lead to another repressive, authoritarian Russian government.
Joseph Stalin (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm) was in a difficult position. As one of the editors of Pravda (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpravda.htm), he was aware that he was being held partly responsible for what Lenin had described as "betraying socialism". Stalin had two main options open to him: he could oppose Lenin and challenge him for the leadership of the party, or he could change his mind about supporting the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm) and remain loyal to Lenin.
After ten days of silence, Stalin made his move. In Pravda (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpravda.htm) he wrote an article dismissing the idea of working with the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm). He condemned left-wing members of the government such as Alexander Kerensky (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkerensky.htm) and Victor Chernov (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSchernov.htm) as counter-revolutionaries, and urged the peasants (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpeasants.htm) to form committees to prepare to takeover the land for themselves."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htm

That is a mainstream history site.

Lenin said revolution was possible on countries whose sect of imperialism is the weakest, even if they were backward or underdeveloped.

I think you are confusing Lenin with Trotsky

And also, Trotsky is the one who believed socialist revolution was impossible.

Support.
No, Trotsky was the only one, or only famous person, who believed that socialist world revolution could start in a backward country, though Max had briefly mentioned it once and Lenin had for a while thought it before going back to stagism.

The difference, however, is that Trotsky made the inaccurate assumption that the European proletariat was more ready for revolution. Reality proved otherwise. In addition, he said it was impossible, because of the existence of the peasantry. Lenin denounce

No, you have this the wrong way round I think. The Bolsheviks believed any socialist revolution would start in the west. In fact it was standard Marxism, started by Marx himself

"In 1905, Trotsky formulated a theory that became known as the theory of Permanent Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Revolution). It is one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism. Until 1905, Marxism only claimed that a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to the original theory it was impossible for such to occur in more backward countries such as early 20th century Russia. Russia in 1905 was widely considered to have not yet established a capitalist society, but was instead largely feudal with a small, weak and almost powerless capitalist class. The theory of Permanent Revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown, and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop worldwide."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2362427#post2362427)
"The other is from On Cooperation, 1923. In this article he stresses the need to encourage poor peasants into cooperatives via subsidies. Unfortunately Stalin never did that. "
That's funny coming from a Trotskyist, who follows someone who believes all of the peasantry is reactionary and therefore is not ready for revolution. You need to make up your mind. Are you a Leninist, or are you a Trotskyist?

See above, the only person who called the peasants reactionary was Marx.

In 1906 Trotsky wrote:
"The proletariat in power will stand before the peasants as the class which has emancipated it."

"But is it not possible that the peasantry may push the proletariat aside and take its place? This is impossible. All historical experience protests against this assumption. Historical experience shows that the peasantry are absolutely incapable of taking up an independent political role."

"The Russian bourgeoisie will surrender the entire revolutionary position to the proletariat. It will also have to surrender the revolutionary hegemony over the peasants. In such a situation, created by the transference of power to the proletariat, nothing remains for the peasantry to do but to rally to the regime of workers’ democracy."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp05.htm

which is basically what happened

And as for Stalin, you are lying, the establishment of kolkhozies (collective farms) proves that you are lying. Your historical inaccuracy is astounding. All of the new readers here should not believe this.

In 1922 Lenin stressed the need for subsidising coops for poor peasants, paid for by taxing the rich.

In 1927 there was almost zero % of the land collectively farmed:

Progress of collectivization in the USSR 1927-1940

Year Number of
collective farms Percent of farmsteads
in collective farms Percent of sown area
in collective use 1927 14,800 0.8 –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Progress_of_c ollectivization_in_the_USSR_1927-1940

Finally, what about the other 90% of peasants who did not rebel? Some peasants did not reject collectivization and even supported it. In March 1929 peasants suggested at a meeting in Riazan okrug that the Soviet government should take all the land and have peasants work on it for wages, a conception not too distant from the future operation of kolkhozy. An OGPU report quoted one middle peasant in Shilovskii raion, Riazan okrug, in November 1929 to the effect that 'the grain procurements are hard, but necessary; we cannot live like we lived before, it is necessary to build factories and plants, and for that grain is necessary'. In January 1930, during the campaign, some peasants said, 'the time has come to abandon our individual farms. It's about time to quit those, [we] need to transfer to collectivization.' Another document from January reported several cases of peasants spontaneously forming kolkhozy and consolidating their fields, which was a basic part of collectivization. Bokarev's analysis summarized above suggests a reason why many peasants did not rebel against collectivization: the kolkhoz in certain ways, especially in its collectivism of land use and principles of egalitarian distribution, was not all that far from peasant traditions and values in corporate villages throughout the USSR. In any case, this example, and the evidence that the vast majority of peasants did not engage in protests against collectivization, clearly disproves Graziosi's assertion cited above that the villages were 'united' against collectivization.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 75.

"Telegrams are pouring in from numerous parts of the Soviet Union with the news that deeds of arson and murders of active Communists are being perpetrated by the Kulaks… Soviet farms, village libraries and Soviet bureaus have been burned down by the Kulaks in their fierce opposition against all measures undertaken by our Communist Party and our Soviet Government… Murderous attacks have been perpetrated against Communist village school teachers and social workers, women as well as men… Seven murders and four attempted murders took place in public assemblies or in Soviet bureaus. The roll of our Communist dead contains the names of four Chairmen of local Soviets and one Secretary… A destructive blow at the Kulaks must be delivered immediately! ”

— Izvestia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izvestia), November 1928[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-6)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_crisis_of _1928

Stageism has always remained part of Lenin's plan, so I don't know wtf you are talking about. By establishing a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then advocating for a socialist revolution, isn't abandoning stageism and siding with Trotsky. I said above that Trotsky did not believe the Russian proletariat was ready for socialist revolution. You have it backwards.

See above

Another lie. The Central Committee under Stalin froze the Kulak class out with high taxes. Looks like you a Stalinist, without realizing it. Either that, or your story is just so historically inaccurate that we cannot tell whether you are a Trot or a M-L.

Trotsky 1927:

"The role of the indirect taxes in our budget is growing alarmingly at the expense of the direct. By that alone the tax-burden automatically shifts from the wealthier to the poorer levels."

"If you divide the “peasants’ into three fundamental groups, it will appear beyond a doubt that the income of the kulak increased incomparably more than that of the worker. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch01.htm

"The Right wing of the Communist Party held that kulaks should be allowed to get rich and that socialism could win through state ownership of industries. The left wing was for forcing peasants rapidly into collective farms under state control. Actual policy shifted for several years under pressure of different groups in the Party. The policy finally adopted was to draw peasants into collective farms by offering government credits and tractors, to freeze the kulaks out by high taxes and, later, to "abolish them as a class."...
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 35

The right wing was Stalin and Bukharin. The Left was Trotsky (and Lenin, although obviously he had died, but he had said what Trotsky was saying, tax the rich!). Although he did not want to force the peasants in. The above is a very simplified version.

Here is a quote from Trotsky, remarking on the soldiers of Germans and how they can be affected with the revolutionary spirit, to overthrow the Soviet Union:

“Hitler’s soldiers are German workers and peasants…The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold…The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit” (Trotsky, Writings 113).

Where does he say they are gonna overthrow the Soviet Union?

During the Moscow Trials, Radek testifies on Trotsky's opportunism.

One of the defendants, Radek, said “Trotsky put the question in this way: the accession of Fascism to power in Germany had fundamentally changed the whole situation. It implied war in the near future, inevitable war, the more so that the situation was simultaneously becoming acute in the Far East. Trotsky had no doubt that this war would result in the defeat of the Soviet Union. This defeat, he wrote, will create favorable conditions for the accession to power of the bloc…” (Radek 239-40).

These people were tricked into false confessions to save themselves and their families, they were killed anyway.

Trotsky made it clear he did not want to see the USSR defeated in the slightest.

Here is Trotsky providing valuable information about the USSR to the FBI:

The journal Revolutionary Democracy quotes a Professor William Chase about Trotsky’s dealings with the FBI: “By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa” (“Revolutionary Democracy”).

This is silly. The CIA had a better idea than Trotsky on all the espionage and shit, they were tracking Stalin's agents who penetrated Trotsky's circle, went back, made false confessions, and then got shot. The CIA were quite surprised how slack Trotsky's security was.

Those are some examples of Trotsky aiding the world counter-revolution.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Now that that's done, lets talk about your claim of Stalin being hostile to the world revolution.

Under Stalin, help was sent to Spain in the form of weaponry, artillery, and ships, in order to attempt to defeat Franco. Is that what you are talking about when you say hostile to the world revolution? Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Mongolia, a pro-Soviet State that formed in 1921 with the help of the Russians, as well is forming the Socialist bloc and liberating people from fascism, has been denounced as "oppressing the workers/imperialism" by Trotskyists, so I'm not sure what your definition of world revolution is, seeing as from Trotsky's ACTIONS, he aids anything but world revolution.

Yes read up on Spain here
http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/5201

also google Antony Beevor and Felix Morrow. Beevor is a mainstrean historian, spent years studying new info on Spain, wrote a history which became a bestseller in Spain. He is not a Trot. He does detail how the Stalinists squashed the revolution.

"Beevor accurately states that "the most outspoken champions of private property were not the liberal republicans, as might have been expected, but the Communist Party." "

Stalin only sent arms in September 1936, after the workers militias were disarmed, and the anarchist-POUM stronghold attacked. The banned the POUM and killed their leaders.

I have had Stalinists admit to me that the revolution was crushed deliberately, so go research. Their excuse was it would hamper the anti-fascist fight.

daft punk

20th February 2012, 20:34

If you are gonna reply to all that I suggest you break it into two or three posts, and take your time over it, no rush.

Grenzer

20th February 2012, 21:03

Yes. Kautsky was a genuine Marxist at ONE time.

But, that didn't last too long. And it's not like he was some kind of extraordinary leader of the revolution. I can see why he would be in this book. People who flirt with Trotskyism tend to have sympathy for unimportant, irrelevant people.

I've glossed over much more than just one page now, and I am even more disgusted now. Just a bunch of words disguising someone as a Marxist, paying lip-service to a traitor and opportunist.

First of all, you have to be fucking kidding. Kautsky was a genuine Marxist for a period of several decades before defecting to Capitalism and wrote quite a few good works before he did so. Some of his works are still pretty relevant and interesting by today's standards. You should give the Foundations of Christianity a try, that's a good one.

You'd have to be wilfully blind to claim that Trotsky wasn't a leading figure of the revolution, and there is nothing about having to support his politics being inherent to that. Personally I think he was an opportunist and a counter-revolutionary in the sense that he brutally supressed fellow revolutionaries like the Anarchists. However, at times he did have good views on politics, in addition to being a competent writer, manager, and military leader.

It's odd, but not surprising that you'd assume that everyone who thinks that Socialism in One Country is a sack of shit are Trotskyists, but it'd be damn far from the truth. Rejection of Socialism in One Country is not the same as rejection of aknowledging uneven development, but rather a rejection of the idea that an isolated Revolution can succeed in the long run. Socialism in One Country is a form of justification for nationalism and degeneration to capitalism, it's what the entire purpose of the "theory" is.

Agent Ducky

20th February 2012, 21:22

Hopefully you mean 1924, unless Ismail has somehow managed to bring Stalin back as a zombie in addition to Hoxha.

I'm gonna have nightmares about this now.

daft punk

21st February 2012, 09:29

To understand why "socialism in one country" is so problematic, one does not have to resort to quotes of Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Engels or any other in a haliographic manner. One has to start from the point of where capitalism is at: A global social system of states that are competing to eachother much like companies are. As a result, we have a state hierarchy and a global division of labour. As a result also, the working class is a global class.

Now, as socialists we want to overcome this capitalist system, in a positive manner. As such we need to tackle the question of this global division of labour and work internationally by trying to unite the working class, thus forming it as a class distinct from capital.

The socialist revolution means that the working class seizes political power over society and such a regime can only bear fruit if it happens with a global focus. At the very least a significant part of the capitalist core (the top in the hierarchy of states) must be involved and the most prospective region for this, given its long history of working class struggle, is Europe. A European Democratic Republic would indeed be able to start ascending from the laws of capital.

Now, Russia at 1917 was very big, but also very much undeveloped. Only about 15% of the population were proletarian and after the civil war it was all but liquidated as a class. For that reason it was also very much low on the global state hierarchy and would today have been ranked a third world country.

As such, there was no material basis of rising up towards a society based on human need. The soviets had no access to the global division of labour to make this possible. The only solution to this dire situation (and indeed the primary strategic goal at the outset of 1917) was a successful revolution in Germany. But this failed and counterrevolution set in, setting up a fundamentally unstable bureaucratic regime that was, for a time, capable of developing the country but inevitably got stuck in its own contradictions.

So, "pulling out the joker" and claim that there was no "socialism in one country" as the Tsarist Empire got divided up into a "union" is completely missing the point. Likewise, claiming that "communism" got exported to Eastern Europe is also a fallacy as at this point the Stalinist bureaucracy was already firmly in place. Not revolution was exported (which I believe is a problematic notion as well), but counterrevolution.

I think I missed this post earlier. What I would like to add is to stress the backwardness of Russia. This is just as crucial as the actual 'one country' bit. Lenin hammered home time and again how 'culturally' backward the Bolsheviks were, ie simply not educated. The bureaucrats they inherited from the Tsar had far more knowledge than the Bolsheviks, and were running rings around them, steering things in the wrong direction. Plus, when there are shortages, people fight for what there is (Marx, German Ideology, 'filthy business').

Essential reading - Lenin speech to congress 1922.

The 'one country' bit is closely linked to Russia's backwardness - Russia needed expertise and material assistance from outside.

With this being absent, the revolution deteriorated from 1924-8. Then it went through the motions, but for entirely the wrong reasons.

Red Storm

23rd February 2012, 03:07

Zulu

23rd February 2012, 08:23

I am talking about stagism, SOIC, permanent revolution, and the other various ideas that have been mentioned above and how they are relevant to the modern day struggle.

With globalism taking hold of the world, SiOC is, of course, a lot more problematic today, than it was eighty years ago. However, it's likely any country where a revolutionary party takes power will be isolated and under threat of invasion by the imperialists (same factors that prompted the SiOC strategy in the USSR back in the day). So the only way out would be adopting stagism and trying to play on the internal contradictions of the global capitalist system. Securing support of the PRC should be quite easy, regardless to the CPC's true intentions about the world socialist transformation. Same may be said of the ALBA group. And of course, such a party must bring an alternate global agenda to the international table both through the UN and some international revolutionary organization, like the Comintern.

Rooster

23rd February 2012, 09:33

So the only way out would be adopting stagism

ha, menshevik much?

and trying to play on the internal contradictions of the global capitalist system. Securing support of the PRC should be quite easy, regardless to the CPC's true intentions about the world socialist transformation. Same may be said of the ALBA group. And of course, such a party must bring an alternate global agenda to the international table both through the UN and some international revolutionary organization, like the Comintern.

Life isn't a board game. Also, I love how you just make some crazy assumptions.

I feel that some people here are just not quite grasping what it means when people say that capital is global. And more importantly (or less), what revolution actually means and what it means for socialism. Did socialism in one country work? No. Point to me where the USSR is now on a map if you think otherwise. Not that it matters anyway because I still haven't seen a good argument for the "socialism" part in "socialism in one country" or any evidence for it.

Zulu

23rd February 2012, 10:44

ha, menshevik much?

Looks like we've missed our chance, but we'll look what it looks after the next revolution. So, no. Still Bolshevik.

Also, I love how you just make some crazy assumptions.

Like what?

Did socialism in one country work?

Yes. USSR held out, repelled an huge imperialist invasion, and made socialist more than "one country". The End.

Point to me where the USSR is now on a map.
Where is the Roman Empire on the map? Guess it "didn't work" either.

23rd February 2012, 11:15

I think I missed this post earlier. What I would like to add is to stress the backwardness of Russia. This is just as crucial as the actual 'one country' bit. Lenin hammered home time and again how 'culturally' backward the Bolsheviks were, ie simply not educated. The bureaucrats they inherited from the Tsar had far more knowledge than the Bolsheviks, and were running rings around them, steering things in the wrong direction. Plus, when there are shortages, people fight for what there is (Marx, German Ideology, 'filthy business').

Essential reading - Lenin speech to congress 1922.

The 'one country' bit is closely linked to Russia's backwardness - Russia needed expertise and material assistance from outside.

With this being absent, the revolution deteriorated from 1924-8. Then it went through the motions, but for entirely the wrong reasons.
To be honest, if the revolution had broken out in Germany (at the time the most advanced industrial country on the planet) and had been isolated there, it would have been just as disastrous. It would probably have taken a different character though as compared to the specific form of Stalinism in the USSR.

Emphasizing so much on the backward character of Russia might lead to the wrong conclusion that if only we had a revolution in an advanced country, like the UK or some other West-European country, we will succeed. Such, for lack of a better word, national-socialist notions must at all times be fought against.

Deicide

23rd February 2012, 11:35

''Socialism'' in one country, the USSR model, has proven to be a complete disaster. Albeit it did initially have successes. But really, who wants to be ruled by an infallible ''benevolent'' elite? Don't we already have that in capitalism? Isn't the whole point of communism to remove hegemonic elites? I think stalinism/leninism is opportunist. It's based on the idea that a group of radical intellectuals should sieze state power. And then they can do whatever the hell they like, while hiding under the banner ''Socialism'' of course. The USSR distorted the ideas of socialism more than the bloody capitalists. The whole idea of socialism is the emancipation of the working class. Where did Marx say they should be herded like cattle by an elite group? Where did Marx say they should worship a personality cult like the fascists do?

I'm actually from the USSR, the place was a singularity of corruption and still is. I'll tell you all now. The working class are not stupid. By the 1980s even before that, nobody in Lithuania believed in socialism or communism. Essentially everyone (primarily the youth) thought it was utter bilge. But of course, you weren't allowed to say it in public. Unless you wanted to be arrested and beaten. Can you even imagine what it'd be like living like that?

The Lithuanian SSR was so corrupt that my dad, who was in prison for a short time, could pay the guards and they would allow him to be sneaked out in my mums car for a day. If you wanted to survive in the USSR, if you wanted a decent life style, you had to be corrupt or you had to run an illegal business. It was as simple as that. By the time the USSR collapsed, shit loads of people had amassed thousands of U.S dollars over the years. Life was great in the USSR if you had an illegal business and you didn't care about politics or thinking. The idea of the soviet ''New Man'' failed miserably. /end rant.

How can you build socialism while (essentially) the entire worlds resources and labour power are owned by hostile capitalists?

daft punk

23rd February 2012, 12:18

I would like to turn the topic of discussion ever so slightly, if I may, and if that is OK with the original poster, Daft Punk. It is not my intention to derail the thread, only to broaden the scope a bit, while remaining on these previously discussed ideas. I would like to see the thoughts of the community, in general, on how all of these ideas apply to the modern day situation that we, as socialists, are in. I am talking about stagism, SOIC, permanent revolution, and the other various ideas that have been mentioned above and how they are relevant to the modern day struggle. In my opinion, that is where the value of such discussion is to be found. That is where this becomes constructive as well as informative.

I will be the first to say that my understanding of these topics is not up to par with that of some posters here, so I ask that people please exercise patience and understanding when contemplating the things that I post. My motive and intent are both pure and I promise you I will catch up as far as my learning curve goes:D. I am interested in the practical applications of this subject; yet I am not as well versed in the literature. However, I am a very fast learner, and open minded as well.

With that being said, out of respect, I will wait until Daft Punk has had a chance to reply to this post of mine before I add anything else to the discussion. That way I do not derail his thread or create a turn in the discussion that prevents the actual discussion he('he' my assumption on this account) had intended when he took the time to put together his original post. Until then let me say this has been a interesting discussion so far.

Yes it is relevant to today, that's why I don't want the debate to be buried as some people would like.

I suppose one key lesson is never trust the bourgeoisie. For instance the people in Egypt were right to fraternise with the soldiers, but any trust in the military tops is hopelessly misplaced.

The worst example of this class collaboration in the years after Stalin was Indonesia 1965, where Stalinists slowed down a revolution and told the masses to trust the military. Soon after that a million were slaughtered by the army.

Another example is confusion on the left on whether to support NATO intervention in Libya. NATO is a bourgeois machine and will only undermine the consciousness and organisation of the workers.

The history of India is one of class collaboration by Stalinists who provided left cover to bourgeois parties. In the Stalinist led states people do relatively well, but this is more down to the readiness of the masses to strike for better conditions.

I would say Venezuela is a place to watch for class collaboration undermining the socialist movement. I think Chavez called himself a Trotskyist, but he acts more like a Stalinist, and was never involved in the Trotskyist movement.

In the west the lessons of the past are important as we have to be able to explain to people that our end goal is not some second rate dictatorship like the USSR, and that what happened there is not a natural continualtion of Leninism but it's negation. When people say 'but what about Russia' (meaning it was crap) we need the answers, and they are all there. Unfortunately the remaining Stalinists muddy the water by repeating lies invented 80 years ago do defend a dictatorship.

The west is never gonna buy Marxism while the legacy of Stalinism remains. They have to understand what went wrong and why. Only them will they lose their fear.

To be honest, if the revolution had broken out in Germany (at the time the most advanced industrial country on the planet) and had been isolated there, it would have been just as disastrous. It would probably have taken a different character though as compared to the specific form of Stalinism in the USSR.

Emphasizing so much on the backward character of Russia might lead to the wrong conclusion that if only we had a revolution in an advanced country, like the UK or some other West-European country, we will succeed. Such, for lack of a better word, national-socialist notions must at all times be fought against.

I find it surprising that you write this, maybe I misunderstand it. Lenin had his hopes pinned on Germany. Of course there are never guarantees. The backwardness of Russia is 50% of the reason it degenerated.
National-socialist is a horrible term to use btw. If you don't think a socialist revolution in an advanced country would give world socialist revolution a pretty good chance, what would?

Of course if completely isolated it probably wouldn't succeed, but isolation is not the only thing to worry about, the other is any bureaucratic tendencies within the party or coalition. It would have to stay democratic in an advanced country in my opinion, there would be no excuse apart from outright war for curbing democracy. Even in war it would maybe possible to maintain it.

The emphasis to explain the degeneration in Russia is backward and isolated. And also a small amount bureaucratic. Trotsky pointed this out in 1923, Lenin even earlier.

23rd February 2012, 13:20

National-socialist is a horrible term to use btw. If you don't think a socialist revolution in an advanced country would give world socialist revolution a pretty good chance, what would?
I deliberately used "national-socialist", to provoke. But it wouldn't be strictly incorrect, besides the whole Nazi connotation of course.

I would actually argue that a revolution solely in one modern country is less likely to succeed than it was even in Russia in 1917. Why? Because any well developed capitalist country is closely interconnected in the world capitalist system.

Take the UK for example. What would happen if the revolution were to break out and stay there? Let's have a short thought-experiment:
1. How would the surrounding countries react? Germany, France? How would Washington react? Probably something along the lines of "a mad load of commies have taken power". If we look to the example of Allende in Chili, then a reaction is not hard to imagine.

2. First there'll be pressure exerted to not nationalise any American, German, French, etc companies. If we don't adhere to their demands or if we would be so brutal as to cancel all of our debts (to prevent a Greek scenario), expect economic isolation, military intervention, etc. Oh, by the way, there won't be any planes leaving Heathrow anymore as a "no fly zone" will be enforced over all of the UK.

But we have a military, right? Yeah, good luck with that against the US navy. That is, if "our" military don't just outright join the blockade against us...

Say, this situation will last for some time. How will life be under the UK Socialist Republic? Would it be a lightning example for the international working class?

3. The UK is a big importer of food, this trade-deficit of about 8 billion pounds per year is essentially paid for by taxes on the city of London. If revolution were to break out, the city (that is, the square mile of financial institutions) would cease to exist pretty fast. As such and because of the blockade, food shortages can be expected in the short term.

How long do powerstations run without coal and oil? Not very long and it would take some time before the UK coal fields are up and running again and convert the oil and gas stations to coal ones. No or rationed electricity in the mean time. For the same reason car traffic would cease pretty fast, empty highways.

As a result our socialist government would need to declare martial law and enforce a lowering of living standards. There is no other option.

4. Workers opposition, fresh with the experiences of the revolution, would be expected. So, we'd need a police apparatus (re-establish one or use the old one), to prevent an uprising and put down any strikes with force to discipline workers to the new raw situation.

5. In the mean time many workers, especially educated workers, would no longer accept this outcry and leave for other countries. Why would they accept a breadline wage or rations after all, if they can get a good live under capitalism in other countries?

The logical response to this is that the socialist government will build an enforced border. Call it a new Iron Curtain. The socialist UK would effectively become a large prisoncamp.

Not exactly an enticing prospect for the working class worldwide, huh?

In essence this is what happened in Russia, be it that it was much larger of course than the UK. In fact, in the UK such counterrevolution would happen much faster even, exactly because it is so much more interlinked to the world economy.

What we need, at the very least, is a European revolution and, as such, we need to build a European working class movement.

Of course if completely isolated it probably wouldn't succeed, but isolation is not the only thing to worry about, the other is any bureaucratic tendencies within the party or coalition. It would have to stay democratic in an advanced country in my opinion, there would be no excuse apart from outright war for curbing democracy. Even in war it would maybe possible to maintain it.
You mix up cause and effect. Before the "temporary" ban on factions in 1921 the Bolsheviks were highly democratic, even under civil war circumstances and despite the concessions on democracy outside the party.

Incidentally, the movement has lived with the effects of that "temporary" ban to this very date and it still something we need to overcome. But that's a different story.

The emphasis to explain the degeneration in Russia is backward and isolated. And also a small amount bureaucratic. Trotsky pointed this out in 1923, Lenin even earlier.
And as I demonstrated in my short thought-experiment, any isolated socialist revolution in a modern capitalist country today would probably result in counterrevolution in a much shorter timespan than it did in Russia. The fact that it took so long in Russia was exactly because it was so underdeveloped. It reverted, under pressure of its vast peasant population, to a dictatorship, as peasant societies do more often than not. I'm not saying that our hypothetical counterrevolution would be exactly the same like Stalinism was in Russia, but the underlying dynamics would be pretty similar.

daft punk

23rd February 2012, 14:39

I deliberately used "national-socialist", to provoke. But it wouldn't be strictly incorrect, besides the whole Nazi connotation of course.

which is a massive deal.

I would actually argue that a revolution solely in one modern country is less likely to succeed than it was even in Russia in 1917. Why? Because any well developed capitalist country is closely interconnected in the world capitalist system.

Take the UK for example. What would happen if the revolution were to break out and stay there? Let's have a short thought-experiment:
1. How would the surrounding countries react? Germany, France? How would Washington react? Probably something along the lines of "a mad load of commies have taken power". If we look to the example of Allende in Chili, then a reaction is not hard to imagine.

2. First there'll be pressure exerted to not nationalise any American, German, French, etc companies. If we don't adhere to their demands or if we would be so brutal as to cancel all of our debts (to prevent a Greek scenario), expect economic isolation, military intervention, etc. Oh, by the way, there won't be any planes leaving Heathrow anymore as a "no fly zone" will be enforced over all of the UK.

But we have a military, right? Yeah, good luck with that against the US navy. That is, if "our" military don't just outright join the blockade against us...

Say, this situation will last for some time. How will life be under the UK Socialist Republic? Would it be a lightning example for the international working class?

3. The UK is a big importer of food, this trade-deficit of about 8 billion pounds per year is essentially paid for by taxes on the city of London. If revolution were to break out, the city (that is, the square mile of financial institutions) would cease to exist pretty fast. As such and because of the blockade, food shortages can be expected in the short term.

How long do powerstations run without coal and oil? Not very long and it would take some time before the UK coal fields are up and running again and convert the oil and gas stations to coal ones. No or rationed electricity in the mean time. For the same reason car traffic would cease pretty fast, empty highways.

As a result our socialist government would need to declare martial law and enforce a lowering of living standards. There is no other option.

4. Workers opposition, fresh with the experiences of the revolution, would be expected. So, we'd need a police apparatus (re-establish one or use the old one), to prevent an uprising and put down any strikes with force to discipline workers to the new raw situation.

5. In the mean time many workers, especially educated workers, would no longer accept this outcry and leave for other countries. Why would they accept a breadline wage or rations after all, if they can get a good live under capitalism in other countries?

The logical response to this is that the socialist government will build an enforced border. Call it a new Iron Curtain. The socialist UK would effectively become a large prisoncamp.

Not exactly an enticing prospect for the working class worldwide, huh?

In essence this is what happened in Russia, be it that it was much larger of course than the UK. In fact, in the UK such counterrevolution would happen much faster even, exactly because it is so much more interlinked to the world economy.

What we need, at the very least, is a European revolution and, as such, we need to build a European working class movement.

Not gonna argue with any of that. This is why socialism in one country is impossible.

You mix up cause and effect. Before the "temporary" ban on factions in 1921 the Bolsheviks were highly democratic, even under civil war circumstances and despite the concessions on democracy outside the party.

Incidentally, the movement has lived with the effects of that "temporary" ban to this very date and it still something we need to overcome. But that's a different story.

Not sure what I am mixing up but never mind. How democratic was Russia in the period 1918-20 exactly? I dont think it was anything like what you would be aiming for in the long term. For instance army officers were appointed. In the original plan you wouldn't even have a standing army.

And as I demonstrated in my short thought-experiment, any isolated socialist revolution in a modern capitalist country today would probably result in counterrevolution in a much shorter timespan than it did in Russia. The fact that it took so long in Russia was exactly because it was so underdeveloped. It reverted, under pressure of its vast peasant population, to a dictatorship, as peasant societies do more often than not. I'm not saying that our hypothetical counterrevolution would be exactly the same like Stalinism was in Russia, but the underlying dynamics would be pretty similar.

Maybe, hard to say, but yeah, it would have to rely on internationalism.

Babeufist

23rd February 2012, 15:44

I am not Stalinist but we should to see this problem in their historical context.
1. The SIOC theory was created AFTER (NOT BEFORE!) defeats of Communist uprisings in Europe 1923 (Germany, Estonia, Bulgaria).
2. The SIOC was treated as a PROVISIONAL stage preceding the expansion.
3. Under new conditions Stalin expanded the Soviet-Communism over Eastern-Europe and China and planed further expansion.

daft punk

23rd February 2012, 17:17

If Stalin wanted to expand "Soviet-Communism", why do you think he backed the KMT up to 1948?

GoddessCleoLover

23rd February 2012, 18:17

Babeufist-Isn't the tragic failure of SIOC and Stalinism extremely evident from the history of post-World War Two Poland? As i recall, Polish workers rose up against the "people's republic in 1956, 1970, and finally formed an independent union in 1980. Isn't this evidence that the Polish regime of that era was a dictatorship of the party rather than the proletariat?

daft punk

23rd February 2012, 18:24

also before WW2 Stalin killed the Polish communists in Russia, the leaders of the Polish CP, and closed the party down. After the war started and it was realised a resistance was needed Stalin had to parachute communists into Poland.

TrotskistMarx

24th February 2012, 23:12

I support Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirshner, because I am a realist, a Nietzschean as well. And I believe in "The great man theory" of changes. I have been orthodox marxist before, and even utopian christian, but I've noticed that humans are not a walk in the park. Most humans are not a piece of cake, humans right-wingers and left-wingers are not very united, tend and leand toward ultra-individualism, unfriendliness, social phobia, ultra-sectarianism etc. and that's why I think it is almost impossible for all the workers of all businesses of the world to become socialists, to join into united socialist fronts in each country. and to rise to government power.

Most humans are not very united in thought, many workers even hate politics, some workers resort to churches and religion for economic problems. Other workers vote for capitalist parties, and millions more are just too lazy and too pessimists.

So in a world so divided, some times the helping hand of strong individuals like Hugo Chavez is pretty good for the left and to destroy USA Imperialism and European Imperialism

thanks

.

Yes it is relevant to today, that's why I don't want the debate to be buried as some people would like.

I suppose one key lesson is never trust the bourgeoisie. For instance the people in Egypt were right to fraternise with the soldiers, but any trust in the military tops is hopelessly misplaced.

The worst example of this class collaboration in the years after Stalin was Indonesia 1965, where Stalinists slowed down a revolution and told the masses to trust the military. Soon after that a million were slaughtered by the army.

Another example is confusion on the left on whether to support NATO intervention in Libya. NATO is a bourgeois machine and will only undermine the consciousness and organisation of the workers.

The history of India is one of class collaboration by Stalinists who provided left cover to bourgeois parties. In the Stalinist led states people do relatively well, but this is more down to the readiness of the masses to strike for better conditions.

I would say Venezuela is a place to watch for class collaboration undermining the socialist movement. I think Chavez called himself a Trotskyist, but he acts more like a Stalinist, and was never involved in the Trotskyist movement.

In the west the lessons of the past are important as we have to be able to explain to people that our end goal is not some second rate dictatorship like the USSR, and that what happened there is not a natural continualtion of Leninism but it's negation. When people say 'but what about Russia' (meaning it was crap) we need the answers, and they are all there. Unfortunately the remaining Stalinists muddy the water by repeating lies invented 80 years ago do defend a dictatorship.

The west is never gonna buy Marxism while the legacy of Stalinism remains. They have to understand what went wrong and why. Only them will they lose their fear.

I find it surprising that you write this, maybe I misunderstand it. Lenin had his hopes pinned on Germany. Of course there are never guarantees. The backwardness of Russia is 50% of the reason it degenerated.
National-socialist is a horrible term to use btw. If you don't think a socialist revolution in an advanced country would give world socialist revolution a pretty good chance, what would?

Of course if completely isolated it probably wouldn't succeed, but isolation is not the only thing to worry about, the other is any bureaucratic tendencies within the party or coalition. It would have to stay democratic in an advanced country in my opinion, there would be no excuse apart from outright war for curbing democracy. Even in war it would maybe possible to maintain it.

The emphasis to explain the degeneration in Russia is backward and isolated. And also a small amount bureaucratic. Trotsky pointed this out in 1923, Lenin even earlier.

Red Storm

27th February 2012, 21:27

I regret that I only have a few minutes to post for today. I am sorry I have not been able to engage in this conversation. I actually wrote a reply but couldn't post it and my internet service is acting screwy so I will have to bring it to work(I saved it) and post it tomorrow. If not, the service tech is coming tomorrow to fix my problem and I should be able to spend some time catching up on this. If all goes well I will have at least two posts to add tomorrow.

Omsk

27th February 2012, 21:30

What people dont understand with Marxism-Leninism,is that we are not against internationalism,and it is not an abandonment of internationalism.

daft punk

29th February 2012, 13:32

I support Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirshner, because I am a realist, a Nietzschean as well. And I believe in "The great man theory" of changes. I have been orthodox marxist before, and even utopian christian, but I've noticed that humans are not a walk in the park. Most humans are not a piece of cake, humans right-wingers and left-wingers are not very united, tend and leand toward ultra-individualism, unfriendliness, social phobia, ultra-sectarianism etc. and that's why I think it is almost impossible for all the workers of all businesses of the world to become socialists, to join into united socialist fronts in each country. and to rise to government power.

Most humans are not very united in thought, many workers even hate politics, some workers resort to churches and religion for economic problems. Other workers vote for capitalist parties, and millions more are just too lazy and too pessimists.

So in a world so divided, some times the helping hand of strong individuals like Hugo Chavez is pretty good for the left and to destroy USA Imperialism and European Imperialism

thanks

.

a brilliant short piece to read on the 'great man' is this, Trotsky's description of Hitler.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

obviously Trotsky didnt think Hitler was 'great' in the normal sense of the word.

I regret that I only have a few minutes to post for today. I am sorry I have not been able to engage in this conversation. I actually wrote a reply but couldn't post it and my internet service is acting screwy so I will have to bring it to work(I saved it) and post it tomorrow. If not, the service tech is coming tomorrow to fix my problem and I should be able to spend some time catching up on this. If all goes well I will have at least two posts to add tomorrow.

Look forward to it.

What people dont understand with Marxism-Leninism,is that we are not against internationalism,and it is not an abandonment of internationalism.

Well I would dispute that.

Stalin invented SIOC as discussed in the OP.

Then he crushed the revolution in Spain in 1936-7.

At the same time he killed all the internationalists in Russia.

At the end of WW2 Stalinism's stated and apparent aim was the establishment of bourgeois democracies in all countries except the USSR. This meant sabotage of the massive revolutionary wave:

"The approach of the Red Army in Eastern Europe in 1944-45, in the case of every country, gave an impetus to the revolutionary uprising. The masses, believing in their ignorance that the Red Army was still the banner-bearer of the socialist revolution, took over the factories and various governmental institutions, upon the retreat of the Nazi armies, confident of the support of the approaching troops. By the same token, most of the big capitalists and landlords, who had all collaborated to one degree or another with the Nazis, fled before the Red Army, fearful not only for their property but their lives. In the existing circumstances, with the absolute breakdown of the capitalist apparati, it would have been almost child’s play for the Red Army to consolidate the people’s victory, to protect and secure newly-created Soviet states and thus to set all of Europe aflame. But alas, the Red Army entered Eastern Europe as an executor of the counter-revolutionary politics of the Kremlin. It did not support the uprisings of the masses; it suppressed them."

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/cochran/1946/11/eeurope.htm

"From the time Hitler tore up the non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded the USSR, Stalin was committed to a policy of combining military might with collaboration and peaceful co-existence with 'democratic imperialism'. Loyally adapting themselves to the diplomatic requirements of the Soviet Union, the Communist Parties in the democratic imperialist countries became 'respectable'.
The alliance between the capitalist governments and their domesticated Communist Parties rested on the strategic alliance cemented at the Potsdam and Yalta Conferences in which the world was divided into two domains, and the USA and the USSR each agreed not to interfere in the other’s 'legitimate affairs'.
The post-war revolutionary upsurge was contained on the basis of this agreement between the USSR and imperialism and the pre-eminent military and economic position of the USA among the capitalist powers.
Stalinism did not have a perspective of leading wars of national liberation struggles in the countries such as China and Vietnam where the Communist Parties held the leading position in the national liberation movements. Nor was it the perspective of the Communist Parties in the old capitalist countries to make socialist revolution. This was part of the deal which was intended to guarantee the security of the USSR.
What was the perspective of Stalin in relation to the countries left under its control? It was not to impose 'socialism', but the Menshevik one of forming a bloc with 'all progressive forces' for a peaceful transition through capitalism - 'People’s Democracy'."

http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-1.htm

Red Storm

4th March 2012, 06:12

Well here is the post I wrote as my internet service crashed.....

I just wanted to say that I did not have time after work to be able to continue the line of thought I had intended to carry out in this thread. I have read most of the replies and plan to ask some questions once I have the time to spend on a truly thought out post. I t has been a long day. (edit... so much for that I was able to offer this brief synapses of my thoughts on the subject in general outline below)

@Daft Punk... I thought that was your intention my friend. I just wanted to try to get back into that concept because the very nature of the subject requires careful consideration and deserves objective analysis first and foremost. Yet it appears that it has the potential to lose focus, or turn volatile, due to the various viewpoints etc.. Sometimes it takes a gentle nudge to get it back on topic. I think that perhaps the proper starting point is a historical one. A proper historical analysis requires that we view these events from the historical vantage point of 1917-23 and not limit our mindset to contemporary subjectivity spurred on by events and writings that proceeded these, early, fragile times.

Reading or re-reading the link above will set the table, or set the historical context, for a discussion that shows the practical or even reaction oriented nature of the early Lenin led years. It also shows us that Lenin accepted that there was a need to build through a series of calculated steps as well as where he thought things were intended to go after 1923.

However, theory has the unfortunate aspect of being both untried and unproven and they were truly on their own in their efforts to try to build a new sociological, political, and economic reality for the world's working class in the midst of the First World War. It is also a fact that theory, more often than not, falls short when put into actuality. Few theories become law or science. To make matters worse it is a simple fact that what may not work the first time around may actually work in it's proper historical epoch.

In short, this is why I registered here and picked up Marx, Lenin, etc. once again, because I once again think that this goal of ours is achievable in the very near future and I hope to formulate a correct course of action through thoughtful analysis of the Marxian school of thought. The political climate of our time is slightly lacking at the moment but the economic and sociological areas are ripe for advancing our cause in ways we have not seen for some time. With just the right spark the political climate will be too and our potential may be realized. So we must be ready and we must be prepared mentally, physically, politically, and intellectually to seize the helm if and when such an opportunity may present itself.

Otherwise we may take the historical route of the German communists of 1919. We will fall prey to a State Capitalist Fascist reformation and revival from the within the smoldering ruins of the present day power structures of this bourgeois world. While these comrades were full of good intent, they were ill prepared and unsuited to the tasks of their day. Those simple ideas and practical lessons of socialist history are most important of all and are too often overlooked in favor of weightier loftier ideas.

I will continue this tomorrow...

Red Storm

4th March 2012, 06:48

I agree. Also, the world has no real idea of what a true Socialist state would look like and only make reference to manifestations of state capitalism(both historical and present day examples) as true working models of communism. I think we have to break with the Soviet system as much as any other for obvious reasons. Yet its importance cannot be overlooked and one day we will be able to view it openly and honestly. However, the lessons they learned must be absorbed, digested, and used to avoid similar mistakes in the future. The circumstances would be totally different in today's age anyway. We live in a different nation, with different levels of industrialization, different levels of education, less religion or religious influence, more science, and even more reasons to look at capitalism with extreme pessimism. The world is more aware than ever of the symptoms of the disease itself even if they don't recognize the disease.

Historically, Russia was never ready for it and the revolution was pushed onto that society. It was predestined to fail there if the world in general was even ready for such a leap forward. Now, we have to have an idea of how things may develop, so we can make a loose contingency plan, so that we do not repeat history or worse. We would surely face similar problems to the ones in 1917-23, in addition to more contemporary ones. If we are to be successful in any way we must not mimic these people and their ideas but do it one better. When society and the worker are ready we must be prepared to seize the day. We may not see a chance again for a while.

It seems to me that this was what Marx believed would happen anyway. He said they would build the structure for us, because Imperialism/Capitalism sets the table for us in its dying days. He said we would only need to recognize the power or our unified numbers and realize our value as a class and we would simply take over the existing state structure for the most part. He said we would be able to just take over the state mechanism, because we run most of it anyway, and use the capitalist infrastructure to redistribute the goods and labor.

With that in mind; we should be directing our efforts to tilling the fertile minds of the worker so that this realization of class consciousness can occur and the transfer of power can take place. Then, these lessons from 1917 will be needed and I expect it will, by necessity, require a combination of various ideas, by various authors, for various reasons. At this point sectarianism and the old days of rigid dogma or 'us versus them' mentality will only aid in assuring our demise or failure. At all costs, this must be avoided because the capitalists don't play at revolution and war!

daft punk

4th March 2012, 10:50

Cheers for the posts, some interesting thoughts. You mentioned a link 'above' but I cant see one.

Regarding the Russian revolution being pushed onto a society prematurely, I disagree. The best short explanation of why the revolution happened is here
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

You have to take into account also Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution - if the German revolution of 1919 had succeeded everything could have been a different story.

Red Storm

4th March 2012, 22:26

Thank you very much. I don't think I can add links due to the moderation. Do you know how long that takes? I have reached the point where the posts go right onto the site now but it seems I am still moderated. I will probably have to cut and paste copy it, rather than link it when the need arises.

I think premature is not exactly the word for it though it could be applied. More like that was a necessary step then but the real significant steps are farther into the future. We will have to take steps toward this goal and 1917 was one of the first of many. Stages were necessary after all. If the world was truly 'ready', for lack of a better word, they would not have turned to the capitalists and reformers like they did at the time. The world would have already arrived at Communism. This is why Marx and Engels said they are building Socialism for us and we will simply take it over by force.

The thing is it had not reached the right point sociologically, technologically (infrastructure & industrialization) and even more importantly it did not happen at the right point in the historical narrative of mankind. The point in history where the proletariat was ready to abandon the capitalist ship and try something new, unproven, and unknown. They were tempted by the promise of a better world but not really 'ready' in the grand sense of the term. We lost the fight for hearts and minds.

Russia was not the only country that wasn't ready either. Germany is an even better example. That sentiment ran through society there and in every nation that even had Marxists and Socialists in it. So I ask you, like I asked myself not so long ago, were we truly ready in 1917? Are we prepped now for true Marxist Communism in 2012? I have to say no from what I see around me. If we are not ready, doesn't that require and necessitate some sort of staged progression till that point has arrived? Doesn't this require a government or a state? Isn't this what IS happening and what HAS happened? This does not require Trotsky, Lenin or Marx to see and understand.

My conclusions have helped me to see the predicament that the early Soviet government, comprised of all the Marxists that could arrive, must have found itself in. This is from my vantage point of a pragmatist devoid of excessive ideological trappings. What a tough situation they were in and the heroic way in which they struggled to make it happen.

Everyone had to compromise ideals of some kind for the moment to get a government in place so that change could even be possible at all. Everyone in the room had it all figured out in their own mind and wanted it 'their way' like you see on forums today and some mistakes were made by all of the various parties of people who were involved. The problem is orthodoxy, bureaucracy, personality cults, dogma, alliances, personalities, pseudo science and all sorts of things crept in and the western governments, acting in the name of the industrialists, spent it out of existence in a crazy all out arms race that damned near sent them into the abyss. We cannot let that happen again to humanity if we can help ourselves. This is the silver lining, or one of the many, and Lenin saw it all as it unfolded. He even makes note of it in his speeches to others that knew the details. This is why Lenin's quotes seem to contradict at times. We cannot get caught in arguing which was what all the time.

Yet mistakes were made. Good ideas were ignored, good ideas were not practical at the time and moment that they had to make decisions, and it was so muddied up by the propaganda of both sides and events that we can only hope to understand now. They were on the right path but none of these men and women were godlike and incapable of human error. To hold some of these things to the point it becomes dogma is to fail to allow the natural progression to unfold and success is unobtainable. You become a literal disciple of a particular faith or packaged set of beliefs, with no more or less reasons to inflict your particular view on another. You become a 'Christian crusader' warring in the holy land rather than a tool to achieve a scientific Marxist reality. Whoever disagrees with the faith becomes a heretic and are banished. We cannot lose sight of our goals and the reasons we sought out a new world in the first place.

Marx's moment of perfection was not 1917, it may not be 2012, but when society is ready it will be realized through revolution. Marxism is not dead but we do not live in the age of Marxism either. Until then we have to prepare for that day and moment in time. We may get a hold of the means of production at various points and be able to form a state but it will and does require interim steps and progressions. If for no other reason than the fact that the public must reach true class consciousness, recognize the class war for what it is and be prepared to organize together against the obvious. Otherwise you are forced to drag them forward by the nose and that requires deception and a state mechanism built to drag them by the nose. These progressions and steps are just the result of the materialist dialectic process in action. Nothing more, nothing less.

We are truly between a rock and a hard place but like GI Joe used to say... 'knowing is half the battle'. So what does that mean to us as Marxists? It means we need to stop dividing off into sects and brands of Marxism and understand that it is ALL 'Marxism' at the simplest of levels and these people have all made contributions we can continue to draw from and or learn from. It is all 'Marxist' if for no other reason than that propaganda exists that shackles us to it. Yet this is our reality.

Even more importantly, through studying them all, we can see the situation more clearly and bind together more easily, to make steps forward. We have to take their writings and look at them objectively and honestly. We have to consider that Stalin was no Hollywood monster, like he is depicted now in media, we have to understand that people like him made decisions based on the circumstances at the time and avoid making those kinds of situations and choices when and where we can.

What we cannot do is engage in personal word wars over whose particular flavor of Marxism was right or wrong due to the prejudices, grudges, and personalities of the time. We have to move beyond that and learn from Stalin, not judge him, sentence him, execute and banish him, and at the same time polarize the movement or party of Marxists rendering it incapable of progress. We have to be like Lenin was in that Party Congress speech. We have to say 'Hey we f'ed up on that one and now we are taking the necessary steps to make it better' and 'this stuff happens'. That is paraphrasing needless to say but it was one of the thousands of gems that are in just that one speech. The problem is that Lenin's words and his writings have been made dogmatic, rigid, and restrictive by the men that followed him. Lenin would have been terribly disappointed. As Marx would be etc etc. These are guiding principles with scientific support but we have to continue the work not lock ourselves into yesterdays world and realities.

I could go on and on but I don't want to make this a book in length. My point is, that
as Marxists we have to sort this mess out and move society forward to greener pastures. People have to be made aware of these pastures and there are many sources we can rely on with differing values but we cannot afford to bog down in the extreme dynamics of the subject, with its many various and quite numerous 'right' ways, and polarize or divide up the Marxist thinking world without helping the Capitalists on their way at the very same time.

We have to understand this subject differently than even Lenin or Trotsky and understand their importance and the significance of their work at the very same time. From all the many angles too. We have to carry it forward with new ideas and additions(contributions) that the passage of time allows us to have now but were not available, conceivable, or possible to us, or even them, then at that moment in time. The advances and changes, experiences, scientific developments, and state of human consciousness of today have made what was once right, now wrong, what was once wrong may now be right again and it has made what was once impossible more easily and readily achievable now, so long as we understand them objectively. The fire inside us that drives us to create a better world must not be used to stifle progress or stagnate thought because it places limitations on our development and the realization of Socialism.

Kassad

4th March 2012, 22:29

Socialism in one country for beginners: because if you actually think this is the application of revolutionary Marxism, you will forever have little grasp of what revolutionary politics is in general.