Soviet Russia under Stalin

[Brosip Tito]

Soviet Russia, it's an interesting topic, and one which I'd like to engage you all in conversation about. It's of major importance, and is always a topic of debate and discussion for any communist. Whilst discussing 20th century communism, we come to the invariable conclusion that Stalinism and the whole concept behind the USSR post-Lenin, was a era of revision of Marx, the changing of power from one bourgeoisie to another, the stagnation of progress -- in fact the regression from the gains made by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, and the creation of a new despotism that rivaled that of Tzarism. Whilst we can hail industrial achievements, advancements in the technology and a boost in the standard of living, we cannot ignore the facts. They have to be discussed, analyzed, and made very clear. A direct result of Stalinism is the idea that the truth can be fabricated, and left at that, with no challenge. I choose to challenge the historical revisionism of ML's.

One such fact is the push toward, and achievement of, a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, as opposed to a dictatorship of the proletariat. I say "in the name of" for the simple fact that the working class did not hold political power. The party elite, and more significantly Joseph Stalin, held this power, being the ultimate decider and ruler of the USSR -- we must note that, although a part of the ruling class, the nomenklatura were at high risk of being killed off by Stalin. This revisionism of Marx is one of the most obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head stuck in a book by Stalin, Hoxha, Mao or any other anti-marxist. When we discuss this idea of dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, do we believe the Trotskyist idea that the nomenklatura was a caste, or do we accept Tony Cliff's analysis of the nomenklatura as a new class? I choose neither. I see the nomenklatura as representing the bourgeoisie, but of a more modern and advanced form. The idea of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is still prevalent and describes the situation perfectly. You may say "but the government owned all industry, and the old bourgeoisie have been cast out!". Yes! That's precisely what did happen, however, why do we feel the need to see the bourgeoisie as totally loyal within it's class? Why would one group, who fill the role of new bourgeoisie by removing the old bourgeoisie, be considered anything different when the working class is not in power and the mode of production is still that of capitalism? Getting trapped in this canard of a "new class system", or "it wasn't socialism, but it wasn't capitalism" is both absurd and troubling. It's one reason why I reject Trotskyism, whilst admiring and respecting the man and his ideas, and of course his views on the despotic nature of Stalin and the USSR.

The despotism of Joseph Stalin and his ruling party is another fact that can't be ignored. Whilst a few Stalinites accept this part of Soviet History, and choose to ignore it, we have a majority who believe that the USSR was a dreamland. They view the USSR as a heaven on earth, where social justice prevails, and equality reigns. They are clueless, and play the part of imaginative child, who's mind is outside of reality. What can we say about this despotism? We see the Tzar like status of Stalin, who's personality cult was a crown of gold on his head, and a crown of thorns on the working class. His word was final, his say was the end of the discussion. He controlled dialogue, he made the decisions, and could ignore and silence any popular push from the people. How did he use his power? We know he used it in awful ways, and in ways that are contrary to any Marxist thinker and revolutionary who has any sense. Personal vendettas combined with a threat to his position of power had produced political show trials; Trotksy, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, etc. All of these old Bolsheviks, these Marxist revolutionaries, suddenly became fascist spies and collaborators. They became the enemy of the working class, who wanted power for themselves! Though, the truth of this, is that these trials were a farce, these charges unprovable, evidence was circumstantial at best, and proven fabricated at times -- we see the flight that never happened, the meeting at a hotel that didn't exist. Remove the strongest democratic opposition to your throne, and make yourself look a hero in the process. It was genius, yet abhorrent and disgusting to anyone who is an actual Marxist. These show trials resulted in the murder of many, Stalin's paranoia and thirst for securing his power was a beast who crushed and ceased any opposition, eliminating the chances of democratic power change. Yet, change came in many places outside of Russia, as a direct result of Soviet military adventures.

The social imperialism witnessed under Stalin, is directly contrary to the idea of proletariat revolution and marxism. Stalin, although we know that his motives were not that of spreading socialism, but that of land grabs, of creating a Soviet empire. The invasion of capitalist and semi-capitalist nations to overthrow the governments and install "communist" leaders, had been so blatantly opposite of revolution. How can this revision of Marxist theory go over the heads of these Marxist-Leninists, save for Maoists? Revolution cannot be spread by invasion with a military. Socialism cannot be imported into a nation by the sword. It is an internal struggle, one which has to be conquered by the proletariat, not by the rifles of a military who represent what the proletariat is fighting against. The support of one bourgeois flavour over another, of a nation who is Communist in name alone, has crushed and prevented the rise of many true proletariat revolutions. To ignore this, is to refuse truth, to accept revisionism as right and justifiable.

These are only a few issues, and a few troublesome areas with which I justify my refusal to work with, or support, any Marxist-Leninist party of thinker. What are your thoughts? Any discussion, debate or questions?

Note: This is an excerpt from a blog post I am working on.

[GoddessCleoLover]

While i generally sympathize with your critique of Stalinism, your analysis of the "new class" is a bit puzzling. Do you reject the analysis of Milovan Djilas, and if so, why?

[Brosip Tito]

While i generally sympathize with your critique of Stalinism, your analysis of the "new class" is a bit puzzling. Do you reject the analysis of Milovan Djilas, and if so, why?
I haven't read it! Though, I'll make it a point to do just that. He isn't listed on marxists.org, where can I find his work?

[Ismail]

Djilas was called a dubious Marxist by Stalin, as was Ranković, Tito's second-in-command. Djilas later denounced communism and praised Gorbachev, whereas Ranković was so unpopular in Kosovo that Tito pretended that he was carrying out chauvinist activities there (aka butchering various Kosovar Albanians as "Stalinists" or otherwise "nationalist" elements) without his knowledge and removed him as head of the security service in the mid-60's.

So yeah, Stalin was quite prescient.

As for the actual post, it sounds like every other "I hate Joseph Stalin" post ever made. I'll only note this:


Revolution cannot be spread by invasion with a military. Socialism cannot be imported into a nation by the sword. It is an internal struggle, one which has to be conquered by the proletariat, not by the rifles of a military who represent what the proletariat is fighting against.It's ironic you state that for three reasons.

1. Stalin would agree with you.

"Howard: May there not be an element of danger in the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force its political theories on other nations?

Stalin: There is no justification whatever for such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.

Howard: Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin: We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard: You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin: This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard: A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin: No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.

But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 14. London: Red Star Press Ltd. 1978. p. 137.)

In fact this view was the logical continuation of the Bolshevik line in regards to capitalist states.

"We said to Poland: 'What do you demand? The independence of Poland? We recognize it. Do you fear that we will overthrow the bourgeois government of Warsaw? No, we will not meddle in your internal affairs. The Polish working class will overthrow you when it thinks it necessary."
(Leon Trotsky in 1920, quoted in Thomas T. Hammond (ed). The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1975. p. 97.)

2. The Soviets actually discouraged "Bolshevizing" the Baltics at first.

"During the period of the Winter War, the Soviet Union scrupulously observed the terms of the treaties with the Baltic States. Red Army troops were strictly disciplined and behaved with absolute correctness. Attempts by pro-Communist elements to establish contacts with Russian troops were discouraged, and access to Soviet embassies was officially denied. The Soviet government made no representations when large numbers of Latvian Communists were arrested in January 1940, and in no way interfered in the running of the affairs of the three countries. At the end of October [1939], Molotov denounced as malevolent talk the rumours of the imminent sovietisation of the Baltic States: in December, Stalin spoke with satisfaction of the smooth running of the treaty with Estonia and assured the visiting Estonian military delegation of the continued independence of their country."
(Martin McCauley (Ed.). Communist Power in Europe, 1944-1949. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 1977. p. 26.)

Ditto for Finland, the Soviets only really wanted a government at the time that would be willing to negotiate with it. Once the Finns were beat back they agreed to the negotiated deal that actual Finnish negotiators supported but the reactionary government did not. Thus, as Molotov noted at the time, the USSR could have worked to occupy all of Finland, but didn't.

3. According to most Trots Stalin didn't even want to "communize" Eastern Europe and apparently would have been content with bourgeois leaderships in those states loyal to the USSR. I don't agree with this view (nor do most historians), but at this same time it is also worth pointing out that, although Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and the presence of the Red Army made the conditions for communist takeovers of these states possible, these actual takeovers were accomplished by the CPs themselves. In fact in Czechoslovakia the CP there was so popular it was easily able to "coup" the government in 1948 (as noted in the aforementioned book The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers), while in Albania the communists came to power without a single Soviet soldier taking part in its liberation.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think there are oversimplifications here. As a Marxist-Leninist I am not in the business to be an apologist for any one. A succinct issue by issue analysis is at the very least due to one of the greatest world changing events of the last century. What should be avoided here is a litany of false or western inspired abuses hurled at comrade Stalin. I for one do not hold up any man to be a god. Nor do the MLs that I know. Gripes like social imperialism, purges, forced collectivization and hindering internationalism are better debated on a case by case bases. Comrade Stalin did not govern in a vacuum but he did build country in one.. So questions can not be answered in one. But as Ismail said it does sound like the same stuff over and over again.

[daft punk]

I disagree on two points.

1. Stalinism was a new form of society and was a caste rather than a class, a bureaucratic elite ruling over a workers state.

A political revolution could have transformed it to socialism quite easily.

2. Stalin might have been trying to grab satellite states, but there is very strong evidence that he genuinely wanted to establish bourgeois states outside Russia, to keep the west happy, and that these states, ruled by bourgeois-communist coalitions (Popular Fronts) failed, see this:

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

[CommunityBeliever]

This revisionism of Marx is one of the most obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head stuck in a book by Stalin, Hoxha, Mao or any other anti-marxist.

The content of your post mainly consists of gross exaggerations of the flaws of the USSR. Nonetheless, what is the basis of your assault on Hoxha and Mao, leaders of the anti-revisionist line after Stalin's death? Hoxha accompanied what was the perhaps the hitherto most accomplished socialist state (see this documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_nlWEIWOJA)) and Mao's works adapt Marxism to illuminate the way forward for revolutionaries in the world's new conditions. I wouldn't call Stalin, Hoxha, or Mao anti-Marxist even though I disagree with many of their actions.

[Zulu]

2. The Soviets actually discouraged "Bolshevizing" the Baltics at first.

What do you think of the opinion that Stalin simply didn't want to alert the West to his intentions ahead of time? Same to that interview with Howard: what if Stalin was trying to lull the imperialists into sleep, at the time when the USSR was already beginning to reap the fruits of the industrialization and becoming more able to support its international policy with force?

[Ismail]

What do you think of the opinion that Stalin simply didn't want to alert the West to his intentions ahead of time? Same to that interview with Howard: what if Stalin was trying to lull the imperialists into sleep, at the time when the USSR was already beginning to reap the fruits of the industrialization and becoming more able to support its international policy with force?Obviously the end-goal was to have the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc. go "red" as it were, but the actual Baltic communists of that time had little direction from Moscow by the time the Soviets "occupied" the three countries.

At this same time the Soviets tried really hard to not appear to be "Bolshevizing" the Baltics. From the same source as before:

"There is evidence of Stalin's mistrust of native Communists. In October 1939, he told the Lithuanian Foreign Minister that it was no concern of the Soviet Union how the Lithuanian government dealt with its Communists; and, even more bluntly, he informed the Latvian Foreign Minister: 'There are no Communists outside Russia. What you have in Latvia are Trotsk[y]ists: if they cause you trouble, shoot them.' In the deportations of June 1941, not a few Party members found themselves in trains bound for the interior of the Socialist fatherland.


Lacking instructions from Moscow, the local Communist Parties seemed to have played safe and followed the prevalent popular front line. The Lithuanian Communist Party programme of 1939 urged the mobilisation of all democratic forces to overthrow the Černius government, and the Party sought alliance with the Social Democrats. In common with the Parties of Latvia and Estonia, its programme issued in 1940 was democratic in tone rather than Communist. The governments which were established in June 1940 seemed to offer a genuine opportunity for a reintroduction of democratic liberties, and as such they gained the passive and even active support of many democrats and Socialists who had suffered under the old regimes. The authoritarian regimes which had been set up in the early 1930s in Latvia and Estonia and in 1926 in Lithuania had all shown signs of collapse before the outbreak of war in 1939. They had suppressed political liberties and had failed to replace them with anything other than poor imitations of Austrian Fascism. The percipient comment of the British Minister to Riga on the state of affairs in Latvia is equally applicable to Estonia and Lithuania. The Collapse of the Ulmanis regime, 'literally overnight':


'left a political vacuum which, as the result of M. Ulmanis' totalitarianism, could be filled by no alternative middle-class organisation, and the swing to the left was therefore unduly abrupt, partly no doubt owing to the influence exercised by the USSR but also owing to the absence of any mobilisable political forces to challenge or correct those of the town workers.'
The evidence available would suggest that considerable sections of the urban proletariat, including the Jewish and Russian minorities, supported the new order, whilst many democratic and left-wing intellectuals were prepared to give the new regimes a chance to fulfil their promises. The new governments, composed of left-wing democrats rather than Communists, did indeed appear to represent a fresh wind of change in an atmosphere which had become stagnant during the last years of the dictatorships. All-round wage increases were decreed in June, laws against hoarding and speculation were passed, whilst assurances were given to peasant landholders that their land would not be touched. The bastions of the old order were speedily demolished and replaced by new organisations. In Latvia, for example, the law of 26 June provided for the creation of workers' committees in factories employing more than twenty persons, whilst on 8 July a law establishing the politruk system in the army was passed. The Estonian trade unions, which had managed to preserve much of their independence during the Päts' regime, were taken over by the Communists on 20 June. The Kaitseliit guards were dissolved on 27 June, and replaced by a workers' militia under the direct control of the Communist-dominated Ministry of the Interior. Widespread purges of local government and the bureaucracy occurred in the last days of June and early July, with Communists installed in vital positions. Nevertheless, the lack of Party members in all three countries—and, quite possibly, Soviet mistrust of local Communists—meant that 'progressive elements' willing to serve the regime were used. In rural areas, there appears to have been less change, and appointees of the old regimes remained in office... The left-wing intellectuals who formed the governments of Latvia and Estonia remained in favour and high office until the purges of 1950, when they were accused of bourgeois nationalism and replaced by more reliable Soviet-trained Communists."
(Martin McCauley (Ed.). Communist Power in Europe, 1944-1949. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 1977. pp. 29-31.)

[Grenzer]

The Stalin goon squad is at it again.

It's at best extremely delusional to state that the Soviet Union didn't export "Socialism" at the barrel of a gun to other countries. Ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union along with the ideology Marxism-Leninism was the institutionalization of a revolution degenerated into capitalism and nationalism, the people of the Soviet occupied nations had no choice, and it is at the least a rather extraordinary claim that they just spontaneously decided to accept the brilliance of Marxism-Leninism.

To the OP: I wouldn't discount working with Stalinists all together. White washing of bourgeois dictators and support for nationalist movements aside, they can sometimes be decent revolutionaries on an individual level and have programmes that aren't to bad.



Nonetheless, what is the basis of your assault on Hoxha and Mao, leaders of the anti-revisionist line after Stalin's death? Hoxha accompanied what was the perhaps the hitherto most accomplished socialist state (see this documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_nlWEIWOJA)) and Mao's works adapt Marxism to illuminate the way forward for revolutionaries in the world's new conditions. I wouldn't call Stalin, Hoxha, or Mao anti-Marxist even though I disagree with many of their actions.

Mao is profoundly anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary. Marxism doesn't really need to be adapted, as it is already a dynamic theory as it stands. It's not just New Democracy that sucks, the entire edifice of Maoism is characterized by opportunism and petty bourgeois nationalism at every level. The People's Republic of China has, since its inception, utilized the capitalist mode of production. Mao even took the side of the United States against the Soviet Union in the cold war. Also on a personal level, Mao was a chauvinist, sexist pig. Is the state of Maoism today so bad that they have to give praise to some of their fiercest critics, the Hoxhaists?

"Marxism must be adapted to the realities of our country." = Euphemism for "Yay, Capitalism!"

Also, I don't think anyone gives a shit about Hoxha. If not for Ismail I doubt many people on this board would even know he existed.

[Ismail]

It's at best extremely delusional to state that the Soviet Union didn't export "Socialism" at the barrel of a gun to other countries.I guess the bourgeois sources I quoted (and I can quote others which are just as if not more anti-communist) were all "delusional," then? Again, the "barrel of a gun" argument is rather moot considering that the actual seizure of power was by native Communist Parties. Obviously Soviet presence made their conquest of power possible (exceptions in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Albania where such a presence wasn't necessary), but from 1944-1947/48 all of them except Albania (Yugoslavia had a brief period of "coalition government") were indeed tangible coalition governments in which the Communists only gradually one-upped their bourgeois rivals.

The Marxist Historian can confirm my words as well, and he's one of the most anti-Stalin posters here.


the people of the Soviet occupied nations had no choice, and it is at the least a rather extraordinary claim that they just spontaneously decided to accept the brilliance of Marxism-Leninism.Well the Czechoslovak and Polish CPs were both pretty popular at first. The latter gained such popularity through land reform and other progressive measures (as noted by Constantine Pleshakov in There Is No Freedom Without Bread), whereas the former actually outright won the first postwar elections which avowedly hostile and bourgeois sources have noted were "fair" by their standards (see The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers.) The Bulgarian CP was apparently somewhat popular as well, but I haven't looked into it. The Hungarian and Romanian CPs however were not so popular and struggled to keep afloat and outmaneuver their bourgeois rivals. As for Yugoslavia, the partisans gradually gained popularity, especially among non-Serbs (excepting for Kosovar Albanians, who distrusted Slavs.)

In Albania the 1945 election, although not "fair" by bourgeois standards (the Democratic Front had no other parties except the Communist Party within it), did express the overall views of the majority of the Albanian people, and various works by American and British officers who fought in Albania alongside the partisans note that they did enjoy genuine popularity, especially in the south where the CPA and the National Liberation Front were based.

Besides, the "exporting" of revolutions wasn't unique to Stalin anyway. Red Army troops "exported" revolution to Mongolia and attempted to do it in Poland under Lenin's time.


Also, I don't think anyone gives a shit about Hoxha. If not for Ismail I doubt many people on this board would even know he existed.Good thing RevLeft doesn't equal the actual real-world left, then.

[Zulu]

Stalin doesn't export revolution at the barrel of a gun. Conclusion: he is a butcher of socialism, a monster.

Stalin does export revolution at the barrel of a gun. Conclusion: he is a butcher of democracy, a monster.

That, and he was a
chauvinist, sexist pig too. All it boils down to.

[dodger]

Soviet Russia, it's an interesting topic, and one which I'd like to engage you all in conversation about. It's of major importance, and is always a topic of debate and discussion for any communist. Whilst discussing 20th century communism, we come to the invariable conclusion that Stalinism and the whole concept behind the USSR post-Lenin, was a era of revision of Marx, the changing of power from one bourgeoisie to another, the stagnation of progress -- in fact the regression from the gains made by the Bolsheviks under Lenin, and the creation of a new despotism that rivaled that of Tzarism. Whilst we can hail industrial achievements, advancements in the technology and a boost in the standard of living, we cannot ignore the facts. They have to be discussed, analyzed, and made very clear. A direct result of Stalinism is the idea that the truth can be fabricated, and left at that, with no challenge. I choose to challenge the historical revisionism of ML's.

One such fact is the push toward, and achievement of, a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, as opposed to a dictatorship of the proletariat. I say "in the name of" for the simple fact that the working class did not hold political power. The party elite, and more significantly Joseph Stalin, held this power, being the ultimate decider and ruler of the USSR -- we must note that, although a part of the ruling class, the nomenklatura were at high risk of being killed off by Stalin. This revisionism of Marx is one of the most obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head stuck in a book by Stalin, Hoxha, Mao or any other anti-marxist. When we discuss this idea of dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, do we believe the Trotskyist idea that the nomenklatura was a caste, or do we accept Tony Cliff's analysis of the nomenklatura as a new class? I choose neither. I see the nomenklatura as representing the bourgeoisie, but of a more modern and advanced form. The idea of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is still prevalent and describes the situation perfectly. You may say "but the government owned all industry, and the old bourgeoisie have been cast out!". Yes! That's precisely what did happen, however, why do we feel the need to see the bourgeoisie as totally loyal within it's class? Why would one group, who fill the role of new bourgeoisie by removing the old bourgeoisie, be considered anything different when the working class is not in power and the mode of production is still that of capitalism? Getting trapped in this canard of a "new class system", or "it wasn't socialism, but it wasn't capitalism" is both absurd and troubling. It's one reason why I reject Trotskyism, whilst admiring and respecting the man and his ideas, and of course his views on the despotic nature of Stalin and the USSR.

The despotism of Joseph Stalin and his ruling party is another fact that can't be ignored. Whilst a few Stalinites accept this part of Soviet History, and choose to ignore it, we have a majority who believe that the USSR was a dreamland. They view the USSR as a heaven on earth, where social justice prevails, and equality reigns. They are clueless, and play the part of imaginative child, who's mind is outside of reality. What can we say about this despotism? We see the Tzar like status of Stalin, who's personality cult was a crown of gold on his head, and a crown of thorns on the working class. His word was final, his say was the end of the discussion. He controlled dialogue, he made the decisions, and could ignore and silence any popular push from the people. How did he use his power? We know he used it in awful ways, and in ways that are contrary to any Marxist thinker and revolutionary who has any sense. Personal vendettas combined with a threat to his position of power had produced political show trials; Trotksy, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, etc. All of these old Bolsheviks, these Marxist revolutionaries, suddenly became fascist spies and collaborators. They became the enemy of the working class, who wanted power for themselves! Though, the truth of this, is that these trials were a farce, these charges unprovable, evidence was circumstantial at best, and proven fabricated at times -- we see the flight that never happened, the meeting at a hotel that didn't exist. Remove the strongest democratic opposition to your throne, and make yourself look a hero in the process. It was genius, yet abhorrent and disgusting to anyone who is an actual Marxist. These show trials resulted in the murder of many, Stalin's paranoia and thirst for securing his power was a beast who crushed and ceased any opposition, eliminating the chances of democratic power change. Yet, change came in many places outside of Russia, as a direct result of Soviet military adventures.

The social imperialism witnessed under Stalin, is directly contrary to the idea of proletariat revolution and marxism. Stalin, although we know that his motives were not that of spreading socialism, but that of land grabs, of creating a Soviet empire. The invasion of capitalist and semi-capitalist nations to overthrow the governments and install "communist" leaders, had been so blatantly opposite of revolution. How can this revision of Marxist theory go over the heads of these Marxist-Leninists, save for Maoists? Revolution cannot be spread by invasion with a military. Socialism cannot be imported into a nation by the sword. It is an internal struggle, one which has to be conquered by the proletariat, not by the rifles of a military who represent what the proletariat is fighting against. The support of one bourgeois flavour over another, of a nation who is Communist in name alone, has crushed and prevented the rise of many true proletariat revolutions. To ignore this, is to refuse truth, to accept revisionism as right and justifiable.

These are only a few issues, and a few troublesome areas with which I justify my refusal to work with, or support, any Marxist-Leninist party of thinker. What are your thoughts? Any discussion, debate or questions?

Note: This is an excerpt from a blog post I am working on.

My father who worked in MI6, was told Stalin had 5 roubles in his bank account when he died. Pathetic. They laughed themselves silly. I laughed too, though I could not see the joke. Then again I was only 14yrs old. Does seem he was an abject failure as a Capitalist. Still I enjoyed the steak lunch on my birthday and the watch given to me when I mistakenly entered the Novosti News Agency above my dad's office. Got out of the lift at the wrong floor, when I told them it was my birthday they gave me a watch with a rocket etched on to it. Dad said there was a bug inside. I looked around the open plan office teleprinters, ticker tape, pictures from the four corners. There was a picture of a young Hungarian Pioneer, crisp white blouse and red neckerchief. She was being shaken by the hand of a grateful middle aged man who was saved, mid heart failure, by her prompt intervention. In the other hand a medal.Dad grabbed the picture and slung it in the bin, we can't use that, nothing good comes out of Russia, absolutely nothing. When he wasn't looking I took the picture out, she was very pretty, very pretty indeed. Not at all strange then to hear that still nothing good comes out of Russia. Nothing good at all.

[CommunityBeliever]

Marxism doesn't really need to be adapted, as it is already a dynamic theory as it stands.It is precisely the evolutionary nature of Marxism that allows it to continually evolve through the assimilation new ideas from communist theorists such as Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Besides, anyone familiar with Maoism knows that it was never meant to be a replacement for Marxism. On the contrary, Maoism developed as a response to Soviet revisionism and the distinct conditions of revolutionary China.


Mao even took the side of the United States against the Soviet Union in the cold war. Mao Zedong suffered from motor neuron disease (MND) or amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS) the same thing which Stephen Hawkings is suffering from today. This disease initiated a process of neural degeneration that Mao suffered from throughout the 1970's. By 1974 Mao lost the ability to speak coherently. I think it would be unfair to blame Mao for all the reactionary pro-American foreign policies that occurred during this period of health degeneration.


Is the state of Maoism today so bad that they have to give praise to some of their fiercest critics, the Hoxhaists?I don't know enough to make a sound judgement about Hoxhaists either which way, but as far as I know except for their confusion about China, most of their positions are accurate.


Also, I don't think anyone gives a shit about Hoxha.Although nobody "gives a shit" about Hoxha himself, the revolutionary accomplishments of socialist Albania stand for themselves. Please view the documentary I linked to in order to better understand these accomplishments.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm a Chechen. In 1944, Stalin ordered the deportation of my entire nation, almost 500,000 people because we weren't so pleased about living under the yoke of the Russians for so long. NKVD men rounded up my entire nation - except of course, those who refused to be rounded up, those were shot on the spot and burnt alive in their villages, on Beria's orders - and also the Ingush people, who are a closely related with the Chechens and Kakmycks and others, put them on trains to Siberia and Central Asia, without food, water, heat and just dumped them there, to quite literally, feed on grass and roots, while entire libraries of Chechen history and literature were burned, all of Chechen history and literature in fact, in order to cover up this hideos crime. Half of the entire Chechen and Ingush nations was exterminated, the only regret that Stalin had about it was probably that it was half that perished, and not 100 percent.

So yes, Russia under Stalin was a pretty nice place. Perhaps Ismail can convince me how right and great the Great Stalin was and how my ancestors deserved to be killed by Stalin because they didn't like the Russian yoke.

[Ismail]

Half of the entire Chechen and Ingush nations was exterminated, the only regret that Stalin had about it was probably that it was half that perished, and not 100 percent.Nah, the only regret is that there were so many reports of collaboration. There was no intention to genocide anyone. Unless you think that Stalin wanted to genocide Ukrainians, Finns, Poles, Koreans, and all sorts of other groups that have had claims of "genocide" made against them, that is.

On the deportations in general see: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/All42-Settlements.html


So yes, Russia under Stalin was a pretty nice place. Perhaps Ismail can convince me how right and great the Great Stalin was and how my ancestors deserved to be killed by Stalin because they didn't like the Russian yoke.They seemed to have an affinity for the swastika instead.

Again, there were reports that there was active collaboration with Nazi German forces. Molotov notes this in his memoirs, which I can cite if you'd like. There was no issue of genocide or "we hate Chechens because we are glorious Russians" or whatever.

Grover Furr has a bit (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5042) on this in his book about Khrushchev as well. I will now quote a part of it:

1. Examples of exceptions to the deportations are cited by Pykhalov, from Soviet documents published by N.F. Bugai, the main Russian expert on this question and an extremely anti-Stalin researcher.

2. The military necessity for the deportations was to secure the Red Army's rear. In each of the cases of the deported nationalities, very large parts of the population were either actively or passively aiding the Germans in rebelling against the Soviet government, and constituted a serious danger to Soviet forces. In addition, the Soviets could not be sure that the German armies would not push eastward again in 1944, as they had done in each of the three previous years....

In the case of the Chechen-Ingush and the Crimean Tatars, collaboration with the Nazis was massive, involving most of the population. To try to isolate and punish "only the guilty" would have been to split the nation up, and would likely have indeed destroyed the nationality. Instead, the national group was kept together, and their population grew.

I assume that my readers, like I myself, support punishing individuals for the crimes of individuals. However, the Nazi collaboration of these groups was so massive that to punish the individuals involved would have endangered the survival of these ethnic groups as groups. It would have meant depleting these groups of young men, through imprisonment and execution, leaving very few young men for the young women to marry.

Deportation kept these groups intact. The deportations themselves were almost completely free of casualties. This enabled the populations of these groups to increase in future years, right up to the present. So their cultures and languages, and in fact their existence as peoples, did in fact remain alive. Furthermore, they became so well established in the places of their deportation that many of them never returned to their aboriginal areas when they were permitted to do so.

Here is the conundrum: to punish only the individuals guilty of desertion or Nazi collaboration would have been consistent with Enlightenment views of individual, not collective, punishment -- views that I myself share. But it would also have led to a greater evil: the destruction of these ethnic groups as "peoples" - in short, in genocide! ....

In 1943 there were about 450,000 Chechens and Ingush in the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (CHASSR). This should have meant about 40,000-50,000 men of age for military service. In 1942, at the height of the Nazis' military successes, 14576 men were called to military service, of whom 13560, or 93%, deserted and either hid or joined rebel or bandit groups in the mountains.

There was massive collaboration with German forces on the part of the Chechen and Ingush population. On February 23 2000 Radio Svoboda interviewed Chechen nationalists who boasted proudly of a pro-German anti-Soviet armed rebellion in February 1943, when the German penetration towards the Caucasus was at its greatest.

The problem with this account is that it lies by omission. The revolt in question took place, but it was under a Nazi flag, and with the goal of a Nazi alliance.

Casualties among the deportees during the deportation were low. - 0.25% of those deported, according to Bugai and Gomov.
NKVD records attest to 180 convoy trains carrying 493,269 Chechen and Ingush nationals and members of other nationalities seized at the same time. Fifty people were in the course of the operation, and 1,272 died on the journey. (p. 56)Since it happened in the winter, and during the fiercest war in European, perhaps world, history, that figure does not seem very high.

But that is not our concern here, which is simply to verify or disprove Khrushchev's accusations. Khrushchev claimed: (1) that the national groups were deported "without any exception;" (2) there was no military reason for the deportations; (3) that the collaboration and treason were the "acts of individual persons or groups of persons." All three of these assertions of Khrushchev's are false: (1) exceptions existed; (2) as did military reason; and (3) there was massive, not merely individual, betrayal. Khrushchev's assertions were not truthful.

[daft punk]

It's at best extremely delusional to state that the Soviet Union didn't export "Socialism" at the barrel of a gun to other countries. Ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union along with the ideology Marxism-Leninism was the institutionalization of a revolution degenerated into capitalism and nationalism, the people of the Soviet occupied nations had no choice, and it is at the least a rather extraordinary claim that they just spontaneously decided to accept the brilliance of Marxism-Leninism.



I disagree. Firstly, I think there was huge amounts of support for socialism from the masses. Secondly I think it is highly debatable whether Stalin wanted to export anything, he said they should be capitalists countries, they set up coalition governments, if it was a trick, which is possible, then he was exporting Stalinism which is not capitalism. The only purpose in that case of exporting would be buffer states and materials plus some industry he had his eye on, ie basically a sort of imperialism.

But the official plan, which I believe he wanted to fulfil, was imperialist anyway, his agreement with Churchill. To deliver a shared capitalist eastern Europe. Russia however was to stay Stalinist which is not capitalist.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm a Chechen. In 1944, Stalin ordered the deportation of my entire nation, almost 500,000 people because we weren't so pleased about living under the yoke of the Russians for so long. NKVD men rounded up my entire nation - except of course, those who refused to be rounded up, those were shot on the spot and burnt alive in their villages, on Beria's orders - and also the Ingush people, who are a closely related with the Chechens and Kakmycks and others, put them on trains to Siberia and Central Asia, without food, water, heat and just dumped them there, to quite literally, feed on grass and roots, while entire libraries of Chechen history and literature were burned, all of Chechen history and literature in fact, in order to cover up this hideos crime. Half of the entire Chechen and Ingush nations was exterminated, the only regret that Stalin had about it was probably that it was half that perished, and not 100 percent.

So yes, Russia under Stalin was a pretty nice place. Perhaps Ismail can convince me how right and great the Great Stalin was and how my ancestors deserved to be killed by Stalin because they didn't like the Russian yoke.

Perhaps Borz exaggerates a bit here, but not by much. Of all of Stalin's crimes, his treatment of the Chechens was one of the worst.

He could get away with this in the eyes of the Soviet working class due to the myth that was spread that the Chechens were all Nazi collaborators during WWII. And there were some collaborators, perhaps even more than among other nationalities, given traditional hatred between Russians and Chechens going back to Tsarist times. But that they were all collaborators, something many Russians believe to this day, is a slanderous myth.

-M.H.-

[Omsk]

There were many Ost unit kampf groups.And the fighters were Chechen.They [Chechens] also refused to work with the Red Army.They were in a similar situation like the Volga Germans.And the minimalization of the number of collaborators is not too helpfull too,it only helps nationalists,who will use the examples as an excuse for acts that we should oppose on all grounds.Before the revolution,and even before that,they had their 'golden age' when the many khans, emirs, and sultans dictated their lives,before the Russian Czardom between 17th and 19th centuries took over the territories they now [now as in 1940-1945] inhabit.What were they for?Peacefull coexistance with the other Soviet people?No.Where they supporters of communism?No.When the Nazis 'liberated them' they jumped at the chance to abolish kolkhozes and to reopen mosques.There were many reactionaries back than,and the problem of the Islamic,nationalist and terrorist threat always was there.The Nazis also hoped they would invite Turkey to the war,with the Turkish Pan-Turanians support.For an example,the Crimean Tatars,gladly collaborated with the Germans,alongside the Chechens.

[Imposter Marxist]

Under Stalin, the soviet union was a state capitalist regime with no dictatorship of the proletariat. TBH that phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is so misused by marxists now.

It refers to workers having 100 precent control of their social surplus

[daft punk]

Under Stalin, the soviet union was a state capitalist regime with no dictatorship of the proletariat. TBH that phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is so misused by marxists now.

It refers to workers having 100 precent control of their social surplus

I think degenerated workers state is more accurate. Obviously there was some state capitalism, but to analyse an economy you have to know what class owns the means of production and in Russia it was still the working class. They were ruled by a bureaucratic elite but it wasnt a separate class. Some Trotskyists do acall the USSR state capitalist, not sure why.

[Imposter Marxist]

No way, the bueaucratic elite controled the surplus value, therefore, they were the dictators. Thats how it works dude

[Grenzer]

No way, the bueaucratic elite controled the surplus value, therefore, they were the dictators. Thats how it works dude

The bureaucratic elite controlled the surplus value and the property.. sounds like the same damn thing as the bourgeoisie.

I will never understand the logic behind the leninist insistence on a mythical quasi-socialist mode of production that lies between capitalism and socialism. It doesn't exist. It seems more like a a form of anti-communist opportunism to justify supporting capitalist regimes.

[daft punk]

The bureaucracy was anti-communist but it wasnt capitalist.

I will explain to you why the degenerated workers state description was important at the time. There are 2 sides to revolution, political and social. Political is just regime change, social is class relation, who owns the means of production.

A socialist revolution like October 1917 would do both.

But then Stalin had a political counter-revolution. The social revolution remained intact, ie publicly owned means of production.

2 reasons why it was important to understand this:
1. All it needed to get real socialism was regime change, political revolution, and all that was needed for that was for the workers to become conscious and organised, with a new mass party.

2. With that in mind, the USSR was to be defended against capitalist resoration or attacks from capitalist states.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Many years ago I read Milovan Djilas' THE NEW CLASS and was persuaded by his argument that the Party leadership in fact constituted a social class. They may not exactly be a new bourgeoisie because they don't hold title to state enterprises, but they are a class of oppressors of a new type. I just cannot agree with L.D. Trotsky that the Soviet Union of the 1930s was a workers' state of any type.

[robbo203]

I think degenerated workers state is more accurate. Obviously there was some state capitalism, but to analyse an economy you have to know what class owns the means of production and in Russia it was still the working class. .


Really? And there I was thinking that, from a Marxist viewpoint, the working class is defined by the fact that it is separated from the means of production and hence obliged to sell its labour power for a wage. If the working class "owned" the means of production then by definition it would not be the working class!!!. I take it you are not a Marxist then?


They were ruled by a bureaucratic elite but it wasnt a separate class. Some Trotskyists do acall the USSR state capitalist, not sure why.

Because it exhobited all the primary features of capitalism - above all, generalised wage labour:

"Capital therefore presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence."
(K Marx Wage Labour and Capital ch 6)

In other words, where there is wage labour there is capital and where there is capital -that is, the particular social relation that constitutes capital - there must be capitalism.

In the Soviet Union there was generalised wage labour . Ergo, there was capital and therefore capitalism

Those who controlled the disposal of the economic surplus were by inference the de facto capitalist class - the apparatchiks - since you cannot logically have a working class without a capitalist class. This capitalist class effectively owned the means of production via their absolute control of the state which was the locus of economic decisionmaking.

Recruitment into the Soviet capitalist class may have been via a different roite than what happened in the West where de jure legal entitlement by individual capitalists to equity applied, But unlike idealists like Trotsky who thought there could not be capitalists in the Soviet Union because individuals couldnt own capital, Marxists argue that the superstructural aspects of society are not decisivie and that what counts is really the material-economic basis of society.

Ownership cannot in the end be separated from ultimate control - it amounts to the same thing - and in rreal terms those who exerted ultimate control over the means of production in the Soviet Union were the owners of those means - the capitalist class. The massive economic inequalities prevalent in the Soviet Union provide further evidence of the correctness of this claim

[daft punk]

Many years ago I read Milovan Djilas' THE NEW CLASS and was persuaded by his argument that the Party leadership in fact constituted a social class. They may not exactly be a new bourgeoisie because they don't hold title to state enterprises, but they are a class of oppressors of a new type. I just cannot agree with L.D. Trotsky that the Soviet Union of the 1930s was a workers' state of any type.

So suppose Trotsky's wishes came true, the masses formed a new party intent on going back to the ideas of the Bolsheviks in the good old days, democratic socialism was their agenda.

Trotsky:

"When the proletariat springs into action, the Stalinist apparatus will remain suspended in midair. "

so what would you have after that?

[Imposter Marxist]

Trotsky was wrong, i'd recommend you read Tony Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia to get a better understanding of a Marxist analysis

[daft punk]

Really? And there I was thinking that, from a Marxist viewpoint, the working class is defined by the fact that it is separated from the means of production and hence obliged to sell its labour power for a wage. If the working class "owned" the means of production then by definition it would not be the working class!!!. I take it you are not a Marxist then?

No, you arent. The working class took power in 1917 but classes were not eliminated. In 1924-8 Stalin led the bureacucracy's taking power off the working class.

The working class were a tiny percentage of the population, but they took political power via the Bolshevik party.




Because it exhobited all the primary features of capitalism - above all, generalised wage labour:

"Capital therefore presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence."
(K Marx Wage Labour and Capital ch 6)

In other words, where there is wage labour there is capital and where there is capital -that is, the particular social relation that constitutes capital - there must be capitalism.

In the Soviet Union there was generalised wage labour . Ergo, there was capital and therefore capitalism

Those who controlled the disposal of the economic surplus were by inference the de facto capitalist class - the apparatchiks - since you cannot logically have a working class without a capitalist class. This capitalist class effectively owned the means of production via their absolute control of the state which was the locus of economic decisionmaking.

Recruitment into the Soviet capitalist class may have been via a different roite than what happened in the West where de jure legal entitlement by individual capitalists to equity applied, But unlike idealists like Trotsky who thought there could not be capitalists in the Soviet Union because individuals couldnt own capital, Marxists argue that the superstructural aspects of society are not decisivie and that what counts is really the material-economic basis of society.

Ownership cannot in the end be separated from ultimate control - it amounts to the same thing - and in rreal terms those who exerted ultimate control over the means of production in the Soviet Union were the owners of those means - the capitalist class. The massive economic inequalities prevalent in the Soviet Union provide further evidence of the correctness of this claim

Nah, I'm not buying this. All that was needed was political revolution. Of course people got wages, what do you expect? Just cos Marx wrote that doenst mean you can quote him out of context to prove a bizarre theory. Marx did not expect communism to be achieved overnight.

[daft punk]

Trotsky was wrong, i'd recommend you read Tony Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia to get a better understanding of a Marxist analysis

Yes, the great Tony Cliff, dwarfing Trotsky with his towering intellect. Jesus. Tell me, didnt he say that not paying your poll tax was like not paying your bus fare? He also rejected Trotsky's Transitional Programme. Any other gems?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't see how the workers could have formed such a new party given the pervasive scope of the OGPU/NKVD. In the early 1930s Trotsky seriously underestimated the extent to which the secret police apparatus had placed a stranglehold on the Soviet people. By the late 1930s the effects of the Stalinist Terror were such that Soviet workers were too frightened to form any anti-Stalinist groups of any type. Merely to speak a word of criticism of the "great leader" was to risk one's life. The Stalinist apparatus knew that it must never allow the proletariat to spring into action, and tragically unleashed a reign of terror designed to prevent any such thing.

[Imposter Marxist]

Yes, the great Tony Cliff, dwarfing Trotsky with his towering intellect. Jesus. Tell me, didnt he say that not paying your poll tax was like not paying your bus fare? He also rejected Trotsky's Transitional Programme. Any other gems?

watch your mouth


trotskys transitonal programme was reformist and was bad marxist, I suggest you read some more Cliff

[Rooster]

Nah, I'm not buying this. All that was needed was political revolution. Of course people got wages, what do you expect? Just cos Marx wrote that doenst mean you can quote him out of context to prove a bizarre theory.

Have you read Wage-Labour and Capital? And what about where Marx (in Capital vol 3 I believe) and Engels (in Anti-Duhring) talk about how it's the way that surplus value is extracted that determines the mode of production and not how surplus value is distributed? Why would anyone accept wages when they already own the means of production?

[Imposter Marxist]

Have you read Wage-Labour and Capital? And what about where Marx (in Capital vol 3 I believe) and Engels (in Anti-Duhring) talk about how it's the way that surplus value is extracted that determines the mode of production and not how surplus value is distributed? Why would anyone accept wages when they already own the means of production?

the fact that any sort of wages and state interference with workers control means that there was state capitalism bro, thats stalinism for you. the workers didnt own 100 precent of their surplus value

[daft punk]

I don't see how the workers could have formed such a new party given the pervasive scope of the OGPU/NKVD. In the early 1930s Trotsky seriously underestimated the extent to which the secret police apparatus had placed a stranglehold on the Soviet people. By the late 1930s the effects of the Stalinist Terror were such that Soviet workers were too frightened to form any anti-Stalinist groups of any type. Merely to speak a word of criticism of the "great leader" was to risk one's life. The Stalinist apparatus knew that it must never allow the proletariat to spring into action, and tragically unleashed a reign of terror designed to prevent any such thing.

Very true, unfortunately. Well, I dunno if he underestimated the NKVD or not, the CIA was convinced he underestimated the ability of Soviet spies to penetrate his organisation. He knew the purges were happening so he musta known the NKVD has massive powers. The Trots did fight back, but they had no chance tbh.

This is why sometimes I say it was a bit like Nazi Germany, it was like everyone had to speak the party line of face death. You could get anyone you didnt like killed just by accusing them.

[daft punk]

Have you read Wage-Labour and Capital? And what about where Marx (in Capital vol 3 I believe) and Engels (in Anti-Duhring) talk about how it's the way that surplus value is extracted that determines the mode of production and not how surplus value is distributed? Why would anyone accept wages when they already own the means of production?

so how do you suggest the Stalinist regime should have paid the workers if not in wages?

[A Marxist Historian]

watch your mouth


trotskys transitonal programme was reformist and was bad marxist, I suggest you read some more Cliff

It's hard even to answer this, this is so laughable.

Truly a poster whose brains have turned to spaghetti.

-M.H.-

[Rooster]

so how do you suggest the Stalinist regime should have paid the workers if not in wages?

It could have paid in wages but to call that socialism is laughable.

[Deicide]

This is why sometimes I say it was a bit like Nazi Germany, it was like everyone had to speak the party line of face death

Crazy fear mongering swept through Lithuania too, when the USSR swallowed it up. Neighbours were snitching to the authorities, anything deemed 'anti-communist' activity got you sent to Siberia, people would just make shit up to get others sent there.

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't see how the workers could have formed such a new party given the pervasive scope of the OGPU/NKVD. In the early 1930s Trotsky seriously underestimated the extent to which the secret police apparatus had placed a stranglehold on the Soviet people. By the late 1930s the effects of the Stalinist Terror were such that Soviet workers were too frightened to form any anti-Stalinist groups of any type. Merely to speak a word of criticism of the "great leader" was to risk one's life. The Stalinist apparatus knew that it must never allow the proletariat to spring into action, and tragically unleashed a reign of terror designed to prevent any such thing.

You vastly underestimate the ability of workers to organize themselves and overthrow tyrannical regimes if they want to.

Yes, organizing an underground in the USSR would have been very hard, though no harder than say what South African black workers had to go through to dislodge the incredibly totalitarian apartheid regime in South Africa.

Why did this not happen? Due to the all seeing eye of the Stalinist state, which collapsed like a deflated balloon in 1991?

No.

It was because most workers were generally satisfied with the policies of the Soviet state. This was expressed in the famous "cult of personality," with people genuinely worshipping the ground Stalin walked on. When he died, you had an outburst of mass sorrow that reached such extremes that people were trampled to death in the crowds of mourners. Stalin's last victims. Mere fear of repression can't produce that.

What was the basis for this?

The basis was that under Stalin, despite all the horrors and brutality, an entire society was dragged out of medieval darkness into modernity, with starving peasants becoming factory workers and beginning to have some of the modern conveniences of life, everyone having a job, medical care, and access to college education and moving up in the world if they were talented.

And then tremendously reinforced during WWII, with the USSR sweeping Hitler fascism off the face of the earth, after some 27 million Soviet people had died due to Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, either directly or indirectly.

It was not until the WWII generation retired or died that the USSR collapsed, and this is far, far from accidental.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

It could have paid in wages but to call that socialism is laughable.

Agreed, but calling it capitalism is equally laughable. It was a transitional society in between--transiting in the wrong direction, after Stalin took control.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

...
"Capital therefore presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence."
(K Marx Wage Labour and Capital ch 6)

In other words, where there is wage labour there is capital and where there is capital -that is, the particular social relation that constitutes capital - there must be capitalism....

Your "in other words" reinterpretation of what Marx had to say is completely illegitimate, dragging a sentence out of context to come up with a notion Marx explicitly contradicts elsewhere, in the Communist Manifesto, the Gotha Programme, etc. etc. And indeed, Marx's description of capitalism in that pamphlet is of a society marked by unemployment and a crisis-heavy business cycle with workers regularly being thrown out of work and becoming a reserve army of labor. The very opposite of the Soviet Union.

Did wage labour in the USSR presuppose capitalism? Yes, it did. Before the 1917 Revolution the economy of Russia was indeed capitalist, and wage labour in the Soviet economy reflected the fact that society had previously been capitalist, and had not been completely transformed into a socialist society, at any point in Soviet history.

As Marx explains, in between capitalism and communism or socialism you have a transitional period, during which you have the dictatorship of the proletariat, something that can't exist in a classless socialist society.

The best practical example of Marx's concept of this transitional period we have to work with is the USSR.

-M.H.-

[GoddessCleoLover]

For how long did the dictatorship of the proletariat exist in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? MY view is that the DoP was dealt a serious setback at the 1921 Party Congress and by the 1926 Party Congress the Party had usurped the role of the working class. Vestiges of the DoP may have existed for another ten years (the working classes seemed to genuinely view the Moscow Underground as their own during and after its construction, for example). IMO the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet DoP were the waves of purges and "show trials" that began in 1936 and wound down in 1938-1939. To my mind, the gallant spirit of heroism and sacrifice displayed by the peoples of the Union during the Great Patriotic War were rooted not so much in proletarian internationalism as in traditional patriotic terms, the defense of hearth and home and family and neighbors. Stalin framed his propaganda appeals in traditional patriotic terms because he knew well that his policies had destroyed the spirit of Soviet proletarian internationalism.

[Ocean Seal]

I think that Stalin was being quite silly in his critique of "exporting" the revolution. No, every socialist nation which takes its first breath must realize that world revolution is the only thing that will keep it breathing. Its goal must be to expand the revolution, to bring it to the forefront of every other nations class struggle. Never abandon anyone on national lines. Should we forget that if we hadn't let Finland go we could have saved the lives of a great many Soviet soldiers and perhaps even halted the Nazis much earlier before they could find an ally in Finland.

I don't ask for ground invasions, but if the imperialists are willing to set up camps in revolutionary nations in order to stop their revolution, I think it is the duty of all standing socialist nations to come to the defense of those fighting the oppressor. And moreover, to spread the revolution. Distribute propaganda, finance the communist parties, infiltrate the capitalist mechanisms, slow down production, support riots and workers struggles everywhere.

[Brosip Tito]

The major differences between the DOTP and communism is the abolition of the state, money, and class. The DOTP certainly serves as a transitional period, but not a transitional system with a totally new mode of production, and a totally new class society.
What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes. - Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

We know the USSR was not a DOTP. The worker's were not the party. The party became the bourgeoisie, as we know. The bourgeoisie holding political power means that the state owning the means of production, is still the bourgeoisie owning the means of production.

We all understand what Marx was talking about with his lower phase of communist society, right? When the means of production are in the hands of the workers? Did we miss that?

Was Marx so incompetent in his theory that he missed this invisible stage that so many think existed? Why was Marx's theory incomplete then? Yes, Marx was not infallable, but it seems like this should have easily been forseen, even by those after Marx such as Kautsky, Lenin and Luxemburg. Were they just poor theorists? Was the only way to determine the existence of this non-capitalist, non-socialist mode of production/society is to witness it?

[Brosip Tito]

The content of your post mainly consists of gross exaggerations of the flaws of the USSR.Such as?


Nonetheless, what is the basis of your assault on Hoxha and Mao, leaders of the anti-revisionist line after Stalin's death? Hoxha accompanied what was the perhaps the hitherto most accomplished socialist state (see this documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_nlWEIWOJA)) Hoxha was a dictator, a dictator who ran a state capitalist society, and was batshit enough to ban beards, premarital sex and bananas.


and Mao's works adapt Marxism to illuminate the way forward for revolutionaries in the world's new conditions. I wouldn't call Stalin, Hoxha, or Mao anti-Marxist even though I disagree with many of their actions.Their policies, their actions were totally anti-marxist.

[robbo203]

No, you arent. The working class took power in 1917 but classes were not eliminated. In 1924-8 Stalin led the bureacucracy's taking power off the working class.

The working class were a tiny percentage of the population, but they took political power via the Bolshevik party.

This is fantasyspeak. In what sense did the working class "take power" in 1917. This is a meaningless assertion. Consider what you are saying here. Classes , you admit, were not eliminated which means of course that you still had your private capitalist exploiters. It was in 1918 I believe that a nationalisation decree was issued affecting all enterprises with more than 10 employees and the role of class exploitation increasingly fell to the state - or the "national capitalist" as Engels described the state

What do we see happening then? We see Lenin in 1918 on enthusing - nay, salivating - over top-down authoritarian one man-management as an industrial strategy - hardly a case of the working class exercising power was it it? We see the factory committees being gradually crushed and extinguised. We see your hero, Trotsky, with his despicable anti-working class militarisation of labour programme. We see political opponents being being oppressed banished and eliminated and we see the subordination and assimmiliation of the trade unions into the state structure to become merely an arm of the state to bully and control the workers into producing more surplus value;.

In short, the consolidation of a new ruling class and the huge centralisation of power that went with it, was all well underway long before Stalin got to assume power. Stop blaming Stalin for all the problems. Trots have a habit of doing this and pretending that all was hunky dory before that particular despot came to power

The revolution may have been carried out largely by workers just as the bourgeois French revolution was largely carried out by non bourgeois elements. However, the nature of a revolution is not determined by the class character of its participants but by its historical outcome. Here is Marx writing something in 1847 which could very well be applied to Russia 1917

If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality", 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm).


And here is Lenin in October 1921 instructing the Russian workers in no uncertain terms:
Get down to business all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them, Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running an economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. (Collected Works, Vol. 33 page 72).

The Russian working class took power in 1917??? Dont make me laugh! If they had actually taken power the subsequent emregence of state capitalism would never have happened. The only sense in which workers can be said to "take power" is to abolish themselves as an exploited class - as the working class. By defintion an exploited class cannot take power and remain thus - as an exploited class. Its very character as an exploited class signifies its LACK of power. Once again, Marx from The Holy Family:

"When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property" Collected works, vol 4 , London 1975, p.36).



Nah, I'm not buying this. All that was needed was political revolution. Of course people got wages, what do you expect? Just cos Marx wrote that doenst mean you can quote him out of context to prove a bizarre theory. Marx did not expect communism to be achieved overnight.

So you have asbolutely no serious argument to advance against the various points I made except to feebly exclaim "Nah, I'm not buying this". And then you have the nerve to say I am quoting Marx "out of context" to prove a bizarre theory. Tell you what ,sunshine, you go lay your hands on a copy of Wage Labour and Capital and read the whole thing in context. Then come back and tell me - if you can - that Marx is not saying that generalised wage labour signifies the existence of capital and hence capitalism.

It certainly does and this means, at least from a Marxist standpoint which you are clearly not familiar with, the existence of generalised wage labour throughout the sad and troubled history of the Soviet Union proves without a shadow of doubt its essential (state) capitalist character