Take Power and then What?

[Capitalist Octopus]

Bolsheviks took power in Russia, expecting the world, starting with Germany, to follow suit in the communist path.

This did not happen, Lenin miscalculated.

Yet now, the Bolsheviks control the country. What is to be done?
If you believe socialism in one country can;t exist, what do you recommend for the state where the communists have taken power to do? While it is almost positive that the state will eventually revert back to bourgeois control unless the world wide revolution happens, what should they do until then? Can they prevent it?

Just some thoughts.

[Bostana]

That's the point of Socialism in One Country.

Living in a Capitalist world requires you to focus on maintaining Socialism in your country until a world revolution takes place.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Khrushchev didn't stop Socialism in one country the USSR would still be here and remain a Socialist State.
Same goes with the People's Republic. If they would of practiced Socialism in one Country it would remain a Socialist State.

[Capitalist Octopus]

That's the point of Socialism in One Country.

Living in a Capitalist world requires you to focus on maintaining Socialism in your country until a world revolution takes place.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Khrushchev didn't stop Socialism in one country the USSR would still be here and remain a Socialist State.
Same goes with the People's Republic. If they would of practiced Socialism in one Country it would remain a Socialist State.

Ok but I'm asking more for the tendencies that reject the idea of SIOC

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Set up a Dictatorship of the Proletarian. It isn't socialist, but it works in that direction through direct democratic worker's councils and a small, but well built and militarily defended, state until socialism can be instituted and the classless and stateless society born. This would be what I would expect for an American socialist revolution, but the material circumstances of other countries, like the Bolsheviks in Russia, made them have to take different paths. Sometimes it was justified, sometimes it wasn't.

[Bostana]

Ok but I'm asking more for the tendencies that reject the idea of SIOC

I know,
I am anxious to see what they say as well. But I just had to throw in my rant
:D

[Caj]

At that point, you're just fucked, and no absurd notions like "Socialism in One Country" can change that.

[28350]

Bolsheviks took power in Russia, expecting the world, starting with Germany, to follow suit in the communist path.

This did not happen, Lenin miscalculated.

Yet now, the Bolsheviks control the country. What is to be done?
If you believe socialism in one country can;t exist, what do you recommend for the state where the communists have taken power to do? While it is almost positive that the state will eventually revert back to bourgeois control unless the world wide revolution happens, what should they do until then? Can they prevent it?

Just some thoughts.

Communism is the movement of a class against class, not the decrees of a party that has seized state power. Only the proletariat can build socialism and russia didn't have enough proletarians to level up

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Don't take power in a coup to start with?

Undoubtedly, a successful, worker-led (not vanguard-led!) revolution would have a greater chance of inspiring workers across borders to follow suit and rise up themselves.

By avoiding a cliquey vanguard taking power, you avoid the problems of 'power' in the first place.

[Geiseric]

It was a workers led revolution, I can see why Lenin hated ultra lefts so much. It wasn't a coup, if anything the military had to be persuaded by the Communists to be on their side.

We need to make sure that we keep the purges that Lenin had going on, the ones that kicked out Kulaks and opportunists, like the Centre and Right opposition were in relation to the Old Guard. We need to make sure that non revolutionaries don't get into the party that inevitably leads the revolution. Don't kill them but don't give them any chance at a leading role or to support anybody who would work on their behalf. That is common sense.

Make sure that Communist Parties worldwide don't adopt ultra menshevik or ultra left paths like what happened in China and Germany, respectively. Keep a position that works in whatever direction that leads to organs of workers power being controlled by the working class and its directly elected representatives. Internationally nobody should be made subject to liberals or nationalists in 1st world and 3rd world countries like in Spain and Vietnam, respectivelly. These actions by Comintern were in defiance of everything that built the Russian Revolution.

Everybody is instantly accountable for recall if there's a movement to do so. The vanguard of the revolution, which is supported by the working class, will logically be the ones to guide and direct the new workers state. In the U.S.S.R. the Bureauracy who existed in a huge role in Czarism took too large and important a position in the Bolshevik Party which acted as Thermidors to the Bolsheviks jacobins.

More violence against compradors and opportunists.

[Positivist]

Well this thread changed my perspective on Socialism in one country for sure. In the case that one opposes socialism intoned country than it would be necessary for the revolutionary state to do everything in it's utmost ability to promote revolution in other countries, and when revolutions were successfully instigated, to go to war on behalf of the revolutionary forces. In the case of the USSR, Germany actually was attempting it's own revolution but it was thwarted by the invading Imperialists and crumbling government. The execution of revolutionary leader Rosa Luxembourg also cost the uprising dearly. I'll look for a link on the German uprising.

[KlassWar]

Are we talking Rusia specifically? The Bolsheviks were basically fucked at that point.

If you end up in that situation, the only thing you can do is try to hold on until the next big revolutionary wave. You ought to smash reactionaries, abolish reactionary social restrictions, institute worker control of large sectors of the economy, put the mass media in the hands of hard Left workers' mass organizations, and try to boost production and prepare the defense.

Once the bourgeois, the reactionaries and all sorts of right-wing pigs have been thoroughly suppressed, at least to the point where they can't organize or produce propaganda, the dictatorship should be discarded in favor of a workers' democracy. :cool:

They should try and support revolutionary struggles in places where they can materially support'em, and try and help the revolutionary movements to victory. You shouldn't start a revolution abroad with war (it'll backfire 'cause many locals will oppose the invaders), but once one starts you surely can send in the tanks to make sure the revolutionaries win.


If you get in the Bolsheviks' situation you're basically on the defensive. The main goal is to hold on until the next revolutionary wave. Then you've gotta support it with all your might.

[Positivist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919

http://www.marxists.org/subject/germany-1918-23/index.htm

Both go miles beyond what I have above

[Bostana]

At that point, you're just fucked, and no absurd notions like "Socialism in One Country" can change that.

So then what are you suppose to do?

Just keep waiting till on nations have a revolution at once?

[Caj]

Even if the German Revolution had succeeded, I don't think it would have changed much for Russia. The DotP had already collapsed at least 6 months prior.

[Caj]

Just keep waiting till on nations have a revolution at once?

You know, you M-Ls just make yourselves look completely ignorant of other tendencies when you regurgitate this ridiculous strawman ad nauseum.

[Bostana]

You know, you M-Ls just make yourselves look completely ignorant of other tendencies when you regurgitate this ridiculous strawman ad nauseum.

Oh the Irony!

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So then what are you suppose to do?

Just keep waiting till on nations have a revolution at once?

That is not it at all. Read my above post. That is what we would work towards. To claim that we want to wait till all nations have a revolution at once before we make revolution is just stupid and a misrepresentation of our beliefs.

[Bostana]

That is not it at all. Read my above post. That is what we would work towards. To claim that we want to wait till all nations have a revolution at once before we make revolution is just stupid and a misrepresentation of our beliefs.

Installing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat won't be any different. Still Bourgeois Capitalist influence will be there.
i.e. the Commune De Paris

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Installing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat won't be any different. Still Bourgeois Capitalist influence will be there.

...just like it was there when Stalin was building "Socialism in One Country" huh? I think that is just a swell analogy.

:laugh:

[Bostana]

...just like it was there when Stalin was building "Socialism in One Country" huh? I think that is just a swell analogy.

:laugh:

Actually the most bourgeois Capitalistic influence started when Khrushchev came to power and cut Socialism in One Country
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Ok but I'm asking more for the tendencies that reject the idea of SIOC

Well, I know you do not want to hear the opinions of a big, bad "Stalinist," but maybe I can clear up some misconceptions on Socialism in One Country now that I am here. First of all, as Bostana said, socialism in one country is basically a socialist nation taking the initiative to develop socialism in its own nation while it waits for socialist revolution to spread worldwide. It has nothing to do with wanting to restrict socialism to one nation forever. As Karl Marx himself noted, socialist revolutions are going to spread to different nations according to the material conditions of those individual nations and areas. So, why should a nation that experienced a successful socialist revolution just sit around waiting for the rest of the world to rise in revolution? There are three major solutions to this problem: the Trotskyist solution, which involves spreading socialist revolution worldwide through aggressive means (sort of like how neo-conservatives want to spread “democracy” worldwide) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyims-neoconservatism-t169419/index.html?t=169419&highlight=Trotskyism); the Marxist-Leninist solution, which involves taking that time between your own national revolution and worldwide revolution to just develop socialism in your own nation, eventually making it a strong foothold for the safe spread of socialist revolution; and the left communist solution, which involves just giving the fuck up on socialism, demonstrated by this post by Super Ultra-Leftist Lord, Caj:


At that point, you're just fucked, and no absurd notions like "Socialism in One Country" can change that.


And here is a good quote by Lenin on the matter:



“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”

– Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.



Also, Marxist-Leninists do not really prefer Socialism in One Country over every other hypothetical option. If we could, we would also support worldwide revolutions happening all at the same time period, but material conditions show that that will most likely not happen, just as it also did not happen in the past. So, knowing that time is of the essence, Marxist-Leninists want nations to develop socialism within their own borders so that when material conditions are ripe enough in other nations for revolutions, there will already be strong fighters against worldwide capitalism and imperialism ready to support those revolutions.

Of course, Marxist-Leninists blame revisionism as the cause of the fall of socialist nations. Revisionism is an action that looks to adapt Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism to perceived material conditions, but instead leaves socialist nations wide open to imperialism, careerism within the government and Party, and the introduction of capitalist and imperialist ideals into the workers’ government. But revisionism is a completely different topic and should not be discussed here.

[Geiseric]

In fact MLs are ignorant of Lenin himself when they say that Socialism could exist in one country...

[Rooster]

So then what are you suppose to do?

Just keep waiting till on nations have a revolution at once?


Well, I know you do not want to hear the opinions of a big, bad "Stalinist," but maybe I can clear up some misconceptions on Socialism in One Country now that I am here.


— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm


Originally Posted by Engels

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government at a time when society is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the measures which that domination implies. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the degree of antagonism between the various classes, and upon the level of development of the material means of existence, of the conditions of production and commerce upon which class contradictions always repose. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him or the stage of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to the doctrines and demands hitherto propounded which, again, do not proceed, from the class relations of the moment, or from the more or less accidental level of production and commerce, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus, he necessarily finds himself in a unsolvable dilemma. What he can do contradicts all his previous actions and principles, and the immediate interests of his party and what he ought to do cannot be done. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whose domination the movement is then ripe. In the interest of the movement he is compelled to advance the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with talk and promises, and with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. He who is put into this awkward position is irrevocably lost.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch06.htm

[Geiseric]

Everybody we need to stop replying to the Stalinists when they distract the thread. Just a thought, I honestly think it's pointless. If they bring up a good point then by all means go for it, but we're only encouraging them to bring up strawmans when we reply.

[Bostana]

Everybody we need to stop replying to the Stalinists when they distract the thread. Just a thought, I honestly think it's pointless. If they bring up a good point then by all means go for it, but we're only encouraging them to bring up strawmans when we reply.

Do you do other things on threads besides troll and question dodging?

[Bostana]

In fact MLs are ignorant of Lenin himself when they say that Socialism could exist in one country...

This proves you have no clue about SIOC

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Everybody we need to stop replying to the Stalinists when they distract the thread. Just a thought, I honestly think it's pointless. If they bring up a good point then by all means go for it, but we're only encouraging them to bring up strawmans when we reply.

I agree, and Comrade Commisar I think brought up a good point.

@ Comrade Commisar. I see your point about the Trotskyist approach of forcing revolution and it's similarities with neo-conservatism. That being said, not everyone against Socialism in One Country agrees with that and it is wrong to assume so.

[Deicide]

Actually the most bourgeois Capitalistic influence started when Khrushchev came to power and cut Socialism in One Country
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

So you're an adherent of the ''great man'' theory?

[Rooster]

This proves you have no clue about SIOC


Originally posted by Engels

— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Geiseric]

this proves you know nothing about Lenin, stop saying he was a nationalist or a minimalist. Even left communists mostly agree that he was an internationalist, and you guys promote the bourgeois ideal of what Communism is.

Trotskyists aren't in any way comparible to neo conservatives, our stances are ones that Lenin held during the october revolution. ML stances were held by Mensheviks. ML stances in Germany were inconsistent wholly to ones that happened several years earlier in China, meaning that MLism, or Stalinism, isn't actually a solid ideology, but a string of reactions that formed as an attempt to improve relations with Western countries to the soviet union.

Unless you see Chaing Kai Shek as more progressive than the SPD, Comintern's decisions made no sense.

[Bostana]

So you're an adherent of the ''great man'' theory?

I believe that there is an adherent "Corrupt Man" theory.
i.e. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev......

[Q]

The problem is not so much that the Bolsheviks did what they did in the situation they were in. It - the suspension of elections where Mensheviks or Social-Revolutionaries were again elected, the dissolving of soviets, etc - was indeed most likely the best course of action to prevent to loose everything. The Bolsheviks were obsessed with the French Revolution (the one at the end of the 18th century) and feared a "thermidor"* happening to them.

The main problem however is the fact that the Bolsheviks theorised the thermidor as something that was supposed to be universally applicable. Thus, the Comintern was modeled after the experiences in Russia and prepared to wage a revolutionary civil war throughout Europe and indeed the world. Later on, as this worldwide civil war wasn't going to happen after all, the Comintern was transformed eventually to become the extension of the foreign affairs policy of Moscow, with loyal soldiers worldwide.

This is the legacy we have inherited: The "Leninist" concept of a party that has led to sects almost everywhere we look, the undemocratic concept of "vanguardism" where bureaucracies rule like petty tinpot dictatorships, the programmatic poorness of the left that is nearly universally fighting for economic gains and mostly forgetting the political dimension, the obsession with strikes, the fetish for soviets, the slave like adoration for union bureaucracies... These are all - to a more or lesser degree - aspects of our heritage of 1917 (and later perhaps 1936 in Spain) and it is through this legacy that we must break if we are to move forward.

Will something like the isolation of 1917 occur again in the future? Possibly. Will it have the same character of Russia at the time? Most definitely not as the world context has so radically changed since then in so many ways. What is true though, as it was in 1917, is that we must organise our class on a global level and patiently build up our forces until we can take power as a class on at least a continental level. Europe is a prime target in my view for both its core position in the capitalist system and because of the long history of a militant workers movement in many countries.

*Thermidor is that moment in the development of a revolution when the masses begin to withdraw from active intervention in history and the original leadership of the revolution is replaced by a conservative bureaucracy. The beginning of counterrevolution.

The name "Thermidor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidor)" refers to the 11th month of the French revolutionary calendar. On 27th July 1794 (9th Thermidor), the revolutionary Jacobin government was overthrown and Robespierre and his supporters executed. This event marked the end of the Terror, the end of the second, revolutionary phase of the Revolution, and the beginning of the third, reactionary phase culminating on November 19 1799 (18th Brumaire) with the seizure of power by Napoleon Bonaparte, who proclaimed himself Emperor. (See Marx on 18th Brumaire).

The term “Thermidor” was later used by oppositionists in the Soviet Communist Party to refer to the beginning of a corresponding phase in the Russian Revolution, in which the leaders of the Revolution would be removed and affairs put under the control of a conservative bureaucracy, operating within new property relations created by the Revolution.

[Rafiq]

We aren't fortune tellers...

[Kassad]

This proves you have no clue about SIOC

What is there to know about a bankrupt theory that:
a) Was utterly disproven by history.
b) Stalin literally admitted was totally impossible.
c) Marx, Engels and Lenin never advocated and in fact, stated was not possible.
d) Led to widespread repression and police state tactics in deformed workers' states.

It's called proletarian internationalism for a fucking reason.

[Rooster]

I believe that there is an adherent "Corrupt Man" theory.
i.e. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev......

lol stop ignoring my posts, you revisionist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2403243&postcount=23

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

In fact MLs are ignorant of Lenin himself when they say that Socialism could exist in one country...

We Marxist-Leninist do acknowledge that Lenin was on the fence when it came to the issue of socialism in one country, but read this:



“Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective—the overthrow of capitalism—has been achieved.
We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.
This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.
On the other hand, since the rule of the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the main task is to organise the development of the country.”
– Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 29. 1970. p. 58.


Lenin was, undoubtedly, of the opinion that socialism could only survive with its spread to more advanced nations like Germany, but he also knew that "the main task" was to develop his own socialist nation. Anyways, Lenin is not our God. Everybody makes mistakes on certain theories and Lenin's mistake was thinking that it was absolutely impossible to develop long-lasting socialism in one nation.

[islandmilitia]

So then what are you suppose to do?

Just keep waiting till on nations have a revolution at once?

I don't think there is any revolutionary theorist who thinks it is possible or necessary to have revolutions throughout the world all at the same time. Trotsky was certainly insistent (firstly in 'The Peace Program' and then subsequently in 'The Third International After Lenin') that this would not be the case - he argued that the uneven nature of capitalist development (and in fact all periods of historical development) is what accounts for the fact that the socialist revolution encompasses an entire historical epoch, and that for this reason the construction of socialism can only begin on a national basis.

The original question is a fair one, but it is downright wrong to assume that the only possible course in a context of international isolation should be to pursue the same kinds of concessions and betrayals that were carried out under Stalinism. There is a difference, in other words, between recognizing that revolutions can become isolated and that the building of socialism may have to begin in one country on the one hand, and, on the other, making a virtue out of necessity and accepting all the theoretical falsehoods and practical decisions that were embodied in the Stalinist notion of socialism in one country. The best response, in a situation where revolutionaries have taken power in one country and where there are not any other immediate possibilities for the extension of the revolution, is for all possible measures to be taken to strengthen the social basis of the revolution, through rapid industrialization and the extension of state ownership to all remaining sectors of the economy, along with the reinforcement of the most extensive form of socialist democracy throughout society. It is exactly these kinds of policies that formed the core of the platform of the Left Opposition in the Soviet context - contrary to the myth that the only response of Trotsky was to shrug his shoulders and assume that the revolution had been totally defeated.

[Geiseric]

That is a non sequitor, why is developing Russia more important than causing a revolution in Germany?!?!?!?!?!?!? It makes NO fucking sense why he would ever think that, IN FACT he said that he would sacrifice the Russian Revolution if it meant a Revolution in Germany!

It is impossible, THE FUCKING USSR DISSOLVED AND COLLAPSED! RUSSIA IS NOW CAPITALIST! STALINISM AND EVERYTHING THAT BRANCHED OFF OF THAT IS INVALID ONCE THAT HAPPENED!

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This is somewhat off topic, but while I don't agree with Comrade Commistar on this topic, he is bringing up good points and debating very civilly. It would be a great injustice to blow him off because of his ideology, which seems to be happening.

Just wanted to say that:D

[Kassad]

Lenin was, undoubtedly, of the opinion that socialism could only survive with its spread to more advanced nations like Germany, but he also knew that "the main task" was to develop his own socialist nation. Anyways, Lenin is not our God. Everybody makes mistakes on certain theories and Lenin's mistake was thinking that it was absolutely impossible to develop long-lasting socialism in one nation.

I added a bit of emphasis because I'm really glad you mentioned that. It's something that a lot of revolutionaries fail to grasp. However, your argument is almost self-defeating. If the survival of a revolution relies on other revolutionary uprisings to forge a united international movement against capitalism, yet your primary task is building socialism only in one country, then what's the point? As history showed, isolated revolutions were defeated. Without being an internationalist, you can build socialism in your country all you want, but it isn't going to bring down capitalism on a wide scale.

[Caj]

@Comrade Commistar: That Lenin quote is a complete misrepresentation of the left communist position. We don't believe the proletariat should wait to take state power for revolutions to break out in every other capitalist nation (although the spread of proletarian revolution is essential to avoid degeneration). Instead, we advocate the workers take state power, collectivize the means of production, and continue to combat all internal and external counter-revolution until the revolution spreads. Once the revolution takes place in all countries, then the proletarian dictatorships, having fulfilled their functions, wither away beginning the stage of socialism. Socialism cannot exist in one country. The DotP can initially.


Of course, Marxist-Leninists blame revisionism as the cause of the fall of socialist nations. Revisionism is an action that looks to adapt Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism to perceived material conditions, but instead leaves socialist nations wide open to imperialism, careerism within the government and Party, and the introduction of capitalist and imperialist ideals into the workers’ government.

In short, M-Ls are idealists.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If the survival of a revolution relies on other revolutionary uprisings to forge a united international movement against capitalism, yet your primary task is building socialism only in one country, then what's the point?

I did not say that, Lenin did.

[Grenzer]

Actually the most bourgeois Capitalistic influence started when Khrushchev came to power and cut Socialism in One Country

Post-Stalin USSR still believed in stalinism-in-one-country. Haven't you ever heard of the Krushchevite "Communism in 20 years!" slogan?

[Bostana]

lol stop ignoring my posts, you revisionist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2403243&postcount=23

Sorry I didn't notice you,

Anyway,
You do not have a clue what SIOC is then I assume. The point is to at least try to maintain a somewhat Socialist nation till a world revolution. I do recognize that there can not be a complete Communist or Socialist state without a world revolution, but we have to be practical. We have to maintain a country that can spread Socialism with revolutions but in order to do that the nation itself must have fundamental Communist programs/policies

P.S.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1095&pictureid=9065

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Sorry I didn't notice you,

Anyway,
You do not have a clue what SIOC is then I assume. The point is to at least try to maintain a somewhat Socialist nation till a world revolution. I do recognize that there can not be a complete Communist or Socialist state without a world revolution, but we have to be practical. We have to maintain a country that can spread Socialism with revolutions but in order to do that the nation itself must have fundamental Communist programs/policies

P.S.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1095&pictureid=9065

...this is what the dotp is for.............face palm.

[Bostana]

Post-Stalin USSR still believed in stalinism-in-one-country. Haven't you ever heard of the Krushchevite "Communism in 20 years!" slogan?

Actually Khrushchev advocated "peacefully coexisting" as his slogan; all the while buliding barricades, sending nuclear arms across the world, and invading foreign countries.
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Khrushchev-183990.html


...stalinism-in-one-country...
I have to admit,
that is funny word play

[Q]

P.S.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1095&pictureid=9065

[Grammar Nazi]
It's "You're" not "Your".
[/Grammar Nazi]

[Rules Nazi]
Pictures are not allowed.
[/Rules Nazi]

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Post-Stalin USSR still believed in stalinism-in-one-country. Haven't you ever heard of the Krushchevite "Communism in 20 years!" slogan?

Khrushchev went farther than Stalin by saying that communism could be built "in the main" in the Soviet Union by 1980. Even his phrase, "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism" was the final phrase of the new Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, adopted at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in 1961. This is "communism in one country" and is truely a crazy, anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist, and anti-intelligence ideal. I think that we can all agree that Khrushchev was a fucking loon.

[Bostana]

...this is what the dotp is for.............face palm.

Again the dotp can still have bourgeois influence
*facepalm*

[Bostana]

[Grammar Nazi]
It's "You're" not "Your".
[/Grammar Nazi]
Actually thanks on this because now you gave me a head sup


[Rules Nazi]
Pictures are not allowed.
[/Rules Nazi]
My humble apologies

[Geiseric]

The DotP cannot have bourgeois influence!

That is what makes it a DICTATORSHIP! Of the Proletariat! Not of the Proletariat and the people we just overthrew, or ideological brothers of the people we just overthrew, or anybody who wants to place themselves above the rest of humanity.

[28350]

[Grammar Nazi]
It's "You're" not "Your".
[/Grammar Nazi]

[Rules Nazi]
Pictures are not allowed.
[/Rules Nazi]

[Nazi Nazi]
Nazis are not allowed.
[/Nazi Nazi]

some on topic stuff:
what is the content of a DotP?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

[Grammar Nazi]
It's "You're" not "Your".
[/Grammar Nazi]

[Rules Nazi]
Pictures are not allowed.
[/Rules Nazi]

Nazis are explicitly prohibited from this forum. Do you want to be sent to the RevLeft gulag?

[Geiseric]

Again the dotp can still have bourgeois influence
*facepalm*

No it can't. Thus the term "Dictatorship"! Why would we allow bourgeois influence? Those fuckers lost power for a reason.

[Bostana]

No it can't. Thus the term "Dictatorship"! Why would we allow bourgeois influence? Those fuckers lost power for a reason.

If not then Bourgeois can just force their influence.
i.e. the Commune De Paris

[Geiseric]

What?! The Bourgeois were the counter revolution! They are our enemies! They crushed the Paris Commune, didn't "force their influence."

Mao worked with the Capitalists because he was a fucking scumbag who sold out the Chinese working class. He is worse than the worst Union Beureaucrat ever to live. The only way he gained power was by being the last lackey left after the KMT killed all of the Communists after Stalin let him in Comintern,

But i'm not going to waste any more time explaining this. Good luck with Maoism/Stalinism/Menshevism/Reformism. Whatever suits your needs.

[Bostana]

What?! The Bourgeois were the counter revolution! They are our enemies! They crushed the Paris Commune, didn't "force their influence."
WHAT DO YOU THINK FORCED INFLUENCE MEANS???


Mao worked with the Capitalists because he was a fucking scumbag who sold out the Chinese working class. He is worse than the worst Union Beureaucrat ever to live. The only way he gained power was by being the last lackey left after the KMT killed all of the Communists after Stalin let him in Comintern

That is bull fed by western Media!
Mao was an illegal Communist in nationalist China. He himself was born into peasantry and knew the pain of the proletariat in China. He risked jailment and execution by being the leader of the Communist Party of China. Yet he still maintained the party. Why would he risk his life just to sell out in the end? It would make no sense! Mao was against reforms and didn't want any American corporation to touch the grounds of the People's Republic, but when he died Khrushchev Revisionist influence spread to China. So when Khrushchevist Revisionists who called themselves "communists" took over they reformed the system and betrayed the Proletariat of China.

And what's with the random bashing of Mao?
STOP FLAMING!

[Deicide]

Syd Barret, just so you know, Bostana is a 13 year old tankie. Smashing your head off a brick wall is probably more productive (and fun) than having a ''discussion'' with him/her.

[Bostana]

Syd Barret, just so you know, Bostana is a 13 year old tankie. Smashing your head off a brick wall is probably more productive (and fun) than having a ''discussion'' with him/her.

Thanks for staying on topic. Go troll somewhere else

[Geiseric]

Syd Barret, just so you know, Bostana is a 13 year old tankie. Smashing your head off a brick wall is probably more productive (and fun) than having a ''discussion'' with him/her.

People like him/her motivate me to get to disillusioned people before cultists like Maoists would get the chance.

[Bostana]

Why would someone even bring up Mao in this thread?
It's derailing and if you're not going to stay on topic go somewhere else

[Ostrinski]

Just sit on your ass. You're fucked.

[Bostana]

Okay

[Ocean Seal]

At that point, you're just fucked, and no absurd notions like "Socialism in One Country" can change that.
Thanks brah. All those workers who died bringing about that revolution and preventing the subsequent counter-revolution are glad that you are lending them your support in their struggle against world capitalism.

You have to uphold internationalism errday, the revolution might happen in another nation tomorrow. Giving up because other revolutions are failing seems silly.

PS: I love how everyone is really optimistic right now when we have socialism in 0 countries, and sounds really depressed when they find out we've only made 1 revolution. Seriously, you guys are like bratty kids on Christmas. Wah Wah, I only got one revolution, you said you were going to give me 10 daddy.


Don't take power in a coup to start with?

:laugh:

[Capitalist Octopus]

Looks like I've started quite the convo haha. I'm going to check in tomorrow to read everything, thanks for the answers guys!

[Caj]

Thanks brah. All those workers who died bringing about that revolution and preventing the subsequent counter-revolution are glad that you are lending them your support in their struggle against world capitalism.

Your emotional argument doesn't change the fact that the Russian Revolution degenerated owing to its failure to spread, the detrimental war, and internal and external counter-revolution, leaving the Russian proletariat and the Bolsheviks fucked.

You can hold on to your little ahistorical and idealist account of the Russian Revolution as a successful socialist revolution, but don't tell me that I'm spitting on the graves of the Russian proletariat if you choose to do so.


You have to uphold internationalism errday, the revolution might happen in another nation tomorrow. Giving up because other revolutions are failing seems silly.

It was too late at that point. The DotP had collapsed in Russia around June 1918 at the latest, leaving the bourgeois elements of the revolution to replace it.


PS: I love how everyone is really optimistic right now when we have socialism in 0 countries, and sounds really depressed when they find out we've only made 1 revolution. Seriously, you guys are like bratty kids on Christmas. Wah Wah, I only got one revolution, you said you were going to give me 10 daddy.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[Ocean Seal]

Your emotional argument doesn't change the fact that the Russian Revolution degenerated owing to its failure to spread, the detrimental war, and internal and external counter-revolution, leaving the Russian proletariat and the Bolsheviks fucked.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it should stand as a precedent. Why, you ask? Because if there is another revolution, you should actively attack capitalism regardless of how long it takes for another revolution.



You can hold on to your little ahistorical and idealist account of the Russian Revolution as a successful socialist revolution, but don't tell me that I'm spitting on the graves of the Russian proletariat if you choose to do so.
Again, you are contradicting yourself. You cannot genuinely believe that the revolution failed and that it was not socialist.




It was too late at that point. The DotP had collapsed in Russia around June 1918 at the latest, leaving the bourgeois elements of the revolution to replace it.
If you genuinely believe that, then your first point is moot. Secondly, what is it, 10 months or start from scratch?
The Dotp as other posters would illuminate on, isn't about holding hands in communes or every single group of workers deciding what they feel like producing that day. That exists within the realm of the "anarchy" in capitalist production.



What the fuck are you babbling about?
Do you believe that we have socialism in any country at the moment?
I assume not right? Then why are you optimistic about the coming socialist revolution? Our ideas aren't spreading, maybe were fucked, and should just sit on our asses until revolution comes. I'm applying the same logic that you apply to the "one socialist revolution" scenario. What drives you to do anything, and instead not announce that we should give up? Having only one socialist state seems a lot better than the situation that we are in now.

[Caj]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it should stand as a precedent. Why, you ask? Because if there is another revolution, you should actively attack capitalism regardless of how long it takes for another revolution.

Who's supposed to continue attacking capitalism? The Bolsheviks? The collapse of the DotP rendered the Bolshevik state useless for attacking capitalism. On the contrary, the Bolshevik state eventually developed into the Russian bourgeoisie.


Again, you are contradicting yourself. You cannot genuinely believe that the revolution failed and that it was not socialist.

I never said it wasn't socialist; there were clearly socialistic aspects of the revolution (although there were bourgeois elements as well). What I said was that it was not a successful socialist revolution, i.e., it ultimately failed in creating a DotP and led to the subjection of the proletariat to bourgeois tyranny.


If you genuinely believe that, then your first point is moot.

What is my "first point"? That the degeneration of the revolution was due to isolation, war, and counter-revolution? Why the fuck do you think the DotP collapsed in the first place?


Secondly, what is it, 10 months or start from scratch?

That depends on the material conditions of the respective regions and the level of aggression from the counter-revolution. In Russia, although the soviets existed prior to the Bolsheviks' seizure of power, the developed DotP could be said to have lasted from October 1917 to June 1918 at the latest. So less than 10 months actually, but one must take into account the factors that made its life so short.


The Dotp as other posters would illuminate on, isn't about holding hands in communes or every single group of workers deciding what they feel like producing that day. That exists within the realm of the "anarchy" in capitalist production.

You must have no clue what you're talking about here. What do communes and workers' self-management have to do with the "anarchy" of capitalist production?

You're right in a way though. The only purpose of the DotP is to collectivize the means of production and suppress counter-revolution. For this to work, however, workers must have power.

. . . And how does this relate to my post exactly?


Do you believe that we have socialism in any country at the moment?
I assume not right? Then why are you optimistic about the coming socialist revolution? Our ideas aren't spreading, maybe were fucked, and should just sit on our asses until revolution comes. I'm applying the same logic that you apply to the "one socialist revolution" scenario. What drives you to do anything, and instead not announce that we should give up? Having only one socialist state seems a lot better than the situation that we are in now.

This is a false analogy. The question was what should the Bolsheviks do given their situation, not what should the workers do. The workers should keep fighting. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, were fucked. With the DotP and even most of the proletariat itself destroyed by the war, isolation, counter-revolution, and the Bolsheviks' response to these factors, the Bolshevik regime was nothing more than a bourgeois regime with a rising bureaucracy. What comes next is history.

We shouldn't blame the Bolshevik's for this. The desecration of the Russian proletariat left only the Bolsheviks remaining in state power. With control of the means of production and state power from which the remaining proletarians were alienated, it was inevitable for the Bolsheviks to become the bourgeoisie owing to their acquisition of class interests seperate from that of the proletariat as a whole.

[Q]

It seems like my post #32 was nearly completely neglected. Now that the speed is somewhat out of this topic, I'll point to it again.

[Rooster]

Sorry I didn't notice you,

Anyway,
You do not have a clue what SIOC is then I assume. The point is to at least try to maintain a somewhat Socialist nation till a world revolution. I do recognize that there can not be a complete Communist or Socialist state without a world revolution, but we have to be practical. We have to maintain a country that can spread Socialism with revolutions but in order to do that the nation itself must have fundamental Communist programs/policies


Did you even read what I posted? And also, what are you talking about? Being practical? I love how being practical means that you can drop Marxist theory and compromise. I guess realpolitik is practical if you drop all marxist pretensions. And what is this shit about maintaining a country that can spread socialism with revolutions? Please, explain this to me. What are the mechanisms for this?

[Rooster]

Everybody makes mistakes on certain theories and Lenin's mistake was thinking that it was absolutely impossible to develop long-lasting socialism in one nation.

How can you even say that was a mistake when it turned out to be completely true?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It was a workers led revolution, I can see why Lenin hated ultra lefts so much. It wasn't a coup, if anything the military had to be persuaded by the Communists to be on their side.

We need to make sure that we keep the purges that Lenin had going on, the ones that kicked out Kulaks and opportunists, like the Centre and Right opposition were in relation to the Old Guard. We need to make sure that non revolutionaries don't get into the party that inevitably leads the revolution. Don't kill them but don't give them any chance at a leading role or to support anybody who would work on their behalf. That is common sense.

Make sure that Communist Parties worldwide don't adopt ultra menshevik or ultra left paths like what happened in China and Germany, respectively. Keep a position that works in whatever direction that leads to organs of workers power being controlled by the working class and its directly elected representatives. Internationally nobody should be made subject to liberals or nationalists in 1st world and 3rd world countries like in Spain and Vietnam, respectivelly. These actions by Comintern were in defiance of everything that built the Russian Revolution.

Everybody is instantly accountable for recall if there's a movement to do so. The vanguard of the revolution, which is supported by the working class, will logically be the ones to guide and direct the new workers state. In the U.S.S.R. the Bureauracy who existed in a huge role in Czarism took too large and important a position in the Bolshevik Party which acted as Thermidors to the Bolsheviks jacobins.

More violence against compradors and opportunists.

What about working people who support Socialism, but aren't Marxist-Leninists? Would you just stop them from having any political participation?

Such a farce!

[MotherCossack]

listen guys..... this and many other threads make me wanna jump off the edge of the universe.....
cant we ever have a nice little semi- civilised chat about logistics.....
talk about said power- struggle like we think it might actually happen!
i am hungry for some power games.....
and about the question....
maybe we should discuss the way we are going to get there....
it is like dreaming about what you gonna spend your money on when you get rich.
or like counting your chickens before you have even bought the hens, that will lay the eggs..... that will hatch.....

[Brosa Luxemburg]

[Nazi Nazi]
Nazis are not allowed.
[/Nazi Nazi]

some on topic stuff:
what is the content of a DotP?

Marx thought of the DotP as a transitional state to which the workers would ready themselves for socialism. It is not a dictatorship in the traditional sense of the word. Marx considered capitalist democracy a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and figured that only proletarian democracy, or a "dictatorship of the proletarian" could offset the bourgeoisie and ready society for socialism. He compared the Paris Commune, in which the workers had much power but had not attained socialism, as a close example to the dotp. The workers would rule through direct democratic institutions and there would be a state with a military ready to crush violent counter-revolutionaries, imperialist attack, etc. The means of production would be controlled by the workers yet society would not yet be stateless or classless.

[Khalid]

This site should be renamed as Defeatist Left.

It's just disgusting to see all this "nothing can be done" bullshit.

[Caj]

This site should be renamed as Defeatist Left.

It's just disgusting to see all this "nothing can be done" bullshit.

It's disgusting to see apologism for state capitalism and Socialism in One Country stemming from the belief that anything could have been done.

[Bostana]

Did you even read what I posted? And also, what are you talking about? Being practical? I love how being practical means that you can drop Marxist theory and compromise. I guess realpolitik is practical if you drop all marxist pretensions. And what is this shit about maintaining a country that can spread socialism with revolutions? Please, explain this to me. What are the mechanisms for this?

How can you spread Socialism if you yourself aren't even Socialist? Do you understand what I am getting at?

[Rooster]

How can you spread Socialism if you yourself aren't even Socialist? Do you understand what I am getting at?

No, I don't get it because you're not saying anything coherent. How does one spread socialism?

[Grenzer]

This site should be renamed as Defeatist Left.

It's just disgusting to see all this "nothing can be done" bullshit.

What's even saddder are the people who insist on rehashing the same tired old bullshit that has been tried time and time again and proven to be a failure. If that's not defeatism, then I don't know what is.

It's just disgusting to see all this "let's try the same failed social-democratic strategies" bullshit.

[Geiseric]

Somebody doesn't need to be a Marxist leninist to join or support the revolutionary party, it isn't like a cult. If the party was as undemocratic as you guys say it was, why did Stalin need purges? There were revolutionary currents inside of the bolshevik party, like the Left Opposition, which Stalin had to kill off one by one in order to keep power. They were the ones who were supported by the working class and most soviets. The right opposition supported the remaining bourgeois and the "center" was supported by the Bureaucracy, which doesn't really have any political goal, in any society, than maintaining their position.

The only reason that Collectivisation happened was that the capitalist Kulaks were threatening the cities with starvation since they were allowed to accumulate so much power and ownership of individual farms, and in order for people not to starve the grain had to be taken from the Kulaks. If this process started 4 years earlier, it wouldn't of been so tough. Lenin and Trotsky said to end the N.E.P. 4 years earlier than Stalin started collectivisation. The industrialisation process was tough, but it had to be done at some point to electrify the country.

It is unfair to blame Lenin for the degeneration, nothing he did set any precident for what they did. If he did I would agree with you guys, however everything that was done by the Bureaucracy was alien to Leninism.

[Krano]

At that point, you're just fucked, and no absurd notions like "Socialism in One Country" can change that.
Socialism in one country = Utopian Worldwide sudden Communist revolution = Reality? :lol:

[Bostana]

No, I don't get it because you're not saying anything coherent. How does one spread socialism?

Encourage Revolutions.
i.e. When Lenin spoke out against colonialism he said the USSR will be willing to support the liberation.

[ArrowLance]

Don't take power in a coup to start with?

Undoubtedly, a successful, worker-led (not vanguard-led!) revolution would have a greater chance of inspiring workers across borders to follow suit and rise up themselves.

By avoiding a cliquey vanguard taking power, you avoid the problems of 'power' in the first place.

I hope you aren't saying the Russian Revolution was not inspiring to the working class. The Soviet Union continues to this day as an inspiration to the working class worldwide.

[Ocean Seal]

Who's supposed to continue attacking capitalism? The Bolsheviks? The collapse of the DotP rendered the Bolshevik state useless for attacking capitalism. On the contrary, the Bolshevik state eventually developed into the Russian bourgeoisie.
Yes, it only took 70 years.
The Soviet Union didn't develop socialism or capitalism.


That depends on the material conditions of the respective regions and the level of aggression from the counter-revolution. In Russia, although the soviets existed prior to the Bolsheviks' seizure of power, the developed DotP could be said to have lasted from October 1917 to June 1918 at the latest. So less than 10 months actually, but one must take into account the factors that made its life so short.

Bullshit notion, one man management of the workers councils ultimately didn't leave the workers prey to the "degenerate" workers state as they still had control over their working habits and could get rid of any manager with the snap of their fingers.


You must have no clue what you're talking about here. What do communes and workers' self-management have to do with the "anarchy" of capitalist production?
I put anarchy in quotes not to offend the anarchists as this was not an attack on them. I was merely referring to Marx's notion of the "anarchy in production". How so? Because empowering every little group of workers to the extent where every little group can stop essential production at whim creates a kind of competitive mutualist environment. This in turn creates class and competitive class interests.



This is a false analogy. The question was what should the Bolsheviks do given their situation, not what should the workers do. The workers should keep fighting. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, were fucked. With the DotP and even most of the proletariat itself destroyed by the war, isolation, counter-revolution, and the Bolsheviks' response to these factors, the Bolshevik regime was nothing more than a bourgeois regime with a rising bureaucracy. What comes next is history.
The workers and the communists must do what is necessary to destroy capitalism. Having state power, any useful communist should attempt to prevent its degeneration, and wield state power to at the very least hold back right wing pushes within the party.


We shouldn't blame the Bolshevik's for this. The desecration of the Russian proletariat left only the Bolsheviks remaining in state power.
I really don't care if you blame the Bolsheviks or not.


With control of the means of production and state power from which the remaining proletarians were alienated,
What exactly do you envision for a revolution? Collectivization will lead to state management. As in Spain, Russia, Ukraine, etc.


it was inevitable for the Bolsheviks to become the bourgeoisie owing to their acquisition of class interests seperate from that of the proletariat as a whole.
Again the notion that this happened under Lenin is absurd. The state power of the proletariat degenerated under Stalin, and Khrushchev was the first to implement market capitalism. And the ruling party was not a different class at any point, they were not able to accumulate capital. You are assuming that what you call state-capitalism mirrors the development of capitalism. It does not.



It's disgusting to see apologism for state capitalism and Socialism in One Country stemming from the belief that anything could have been done.
I don't support socialism in one country.

[Grenzer]

The Soviet Union continues to this day as an inspiration to the working class worldwide.

It does?

I thought most workers regard it as a steaming pile of shit to justify their fears of why they shouldn't support communism to begin with. Maybe in your fantasy world where 'workers' is synonymous with 'stalinists', but not in the real world.

[Caj]

Socialism in one country = Utopian Worldwide sudden Communist revolution = Reality? :lol:

Wow. Again with this pathetic strawman? I'll say it again: left communists do not believe proletarian revoutions occur simultaneously in all countries.


Yes, it only took 70 years.
The Soviet Union didn't develop socialism or capitalism.

The Soviet Union was capitalist in the Marxian sense. Wage labor, deprived from the means of production, was exploited through the extraction of surplus value by a class of appropriators that owned the means of production. These basic class relations to the means of production and inter-class social relations between these classes constitute a capitalist mode of production.


Bullshit notion, one man management of the workers councils ultimately didn't leave the workers prey to the "degenerate" workers state as they still had control over their working habits and could get rid of any manager with the snap of their fingers.

The workers held no power after the implementation of war communism in June 1918. Workers' control had been diminished considerably during the months preceding this final coup de grace to the Russian DotP.


I put anarchy in quotes not to offend the anarchists as this was not an attack on them. I was merely referring to Marx's notion of the "anarchy in production". How so? Because empowering every little group of workers to the extent where every little group can stop essential production at whim creates a kind of competitive mutualist environment. This in turn creates class and competitive class interests.

How idealist. Classes aren't created from competition; rather, competition arises from the existence of classes. Classes are based upon differing class relations to the means of production. Workers' control does not lead to divisions in relation to the means of production among the workers.


The workers and the communists must do what is necessary to destroy capitalism.

Of course.


Having state power, any useful communist should attempt to prevent its degeneration, and wield state power to at the very least hold back right wing pushes within the party.

But in the case of the Bolsheviks, they held state power and the means of production from which the proletariat was deprived. This led to the acquisition of class interests among the Bolsheviks that were seperate from that of the proletariat as a whole. As Marxists, we need to recognize that classes, particularly ruling classes who are not subject to the bombardment of false consciousness, often follow their own class interests, i.e., their collective material self-interests, over any personal moralities. We couldn't have expected the Bolsheviks, therefore, to act in the interests of the proletariat following the collapse of the proletarian dictatorship unless we descend into idealism.


I really don't care if you blame the Bolsheviks or not.

My point was that the Bolsheviks were not responsible. The collapse of the DotP occurred in the midst of the war, counter-revolutionary fervor, and the Bolsheviks' (often hasty) responses to these. It was inevitable for the Bolsheviks to take on non-proletarian class interests.


What exactly do you envision for a revolution? Collectivization will lead to state management. As in Spain, Russia, Ukraine, etc.

A dictatorship of the proletariat: Direct control in the form of councils where applicable and demarchy or a representative system of instantally-recallable delegates on larger scales for all administrative and economic functions.


Again the notion that this happened under Lenin is absurd. The state power of the proletariat degenerated under Stalin, and Khrushchev was the first to implement market capitalism. And the ruling party was not a different class at any point, they were not able to accumulate capital. You are assuming that what you call state-capitalism mirrors the development of capitalism. It does not.

What the fuck constitutes "state power of the proletariat" to you? The soviets, the form in which workers' power manifested itself during the Russian Revolution, had dissolved long before the rise of Stalin.


I don't support socialism in one country.

Good. I wasn't referring to you specifically.

[Geiseric]

Did the soviets actually dissolve? Because I remember reading that Stalin killed many heads of soviets that were old bolsheviks, so in that aspect they became totally useless. But the party was the leading party in the soviets, and the ones that the proletariat recognized as its actual representatives, as a result of the revolution, not some coup.

I'm not gonna get started on state capitalism here.

[Caj]

Did the soviets actually dissolve? Because I remember reading that Stalin killed many heads of soviets that were old bolsheviks, so in that aspect they became totally useless. But the party was the leading party in the soviets, and the ones that the proletariat recognized as its actual representatives, as a result of the revolution, not some coup.

I'm not gonna get started on state capitalism here.

Some still existed in a sense after the implementation of War Communism in June 1918, but they no longer had any functions. State power was completely in the hands of the Bolsheviks by that point.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It does?

I thought most workers regard it as a steaming pile of shit to justify their fears of why they shouldn't support communism to begin with. Maybe in your fantasy world where 'workers' is synonymous with 'stalinists', but not in the real world.

That's cute, because most people who support the Soviet Union really support Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and even Gorbachev, not Stalin. Of course, this is because of the anti-Stalin propaganda they were fed from both the socialist camp (with their apologizing for Stalin's "crimes") and the capitalist camp (with them representing Stalin as the worst communist).

[gorillafuck]

At that point, you're just fucked, and no absurd notions like "Socialism in One Country" can change that.that is not an answer. unless what you mean is literally "completely give up power". in which case you're a hypocrite for denouncing others as counter-revolutionary.

I don't want any stalin kids thanking this post and lumping me with them in everyones mind.

[Caj]

that is not an answer.

In what way isn't it?

I think what you meant was that that isn't an answer you like.

[gorillafuck]

In what way isn't it?

I thnk what you meant was that that isn't an answer you like.no, it's not an answer. the question was what do you do. you didn't say what you do.

[Caj]

no, it's not an answer. the question was what do you do. you didn't say what you do.

You're fucked; ergo, you can't do anything. (And by "anything", I mean anything productive.)

Jesus Christ, think it through.

[Grenzer]

Did the soviets actually dissolve? Because I remember reading that Stalin killed many heads of soviets that were old bolsheviks, so in that aspect they became totally useless. But the party was the leading party in the soviets, and the ones that the proletariat recognized as its actual representatives, as a result of the revolution, not some coup.

I'm not gonna get started on state capitalism here.

Yes, the soviets themselves were dissolved in 1919 I think, I can't find any sources off the top of my head; but I'll get back to you once I do.

I think a key thing is to avoid fetishizing democracy; we should be more concerned as to the substance, rather than the form. Is a democratic form the sole possible manifestation of the dictatorship of the proletariat? I don't think it is; the key thing is that the working class is in charge and that the decisions that are being made reflect their interests. However, in Russia, capital was never surpassed and the Russian bureaucracy became unresponsive to the base and formed the nucleus of the new Russian bourgeoisie. I don't think this development has much to do with the lack of democracy; but it's difficult to deny that democracy didn't really exist during war communism and the NEP.

I also agree that state capitalism is bunk, since the state itself is a tool of the bourgeoisie rather than being being a capitalist entity itself. Cliff's state capitalism is just kind of a convenient straw man, but the reality is that at least among many of the users here, it's far from the dominant interpretation.

[Caj]

I also agree that state capitalism is bunk, since the state itself is a tool of the bourgeoisie rather than being being a capitalist entity itself. Cliff's state capitalism is just kind of a convenient straw man, but the reality is that at least among many of the users here, it's far from the dominant interpretation.

What are you saying here exactly? Do you not subscribe to the view that the USSR was capitalist, or are you simply saying that you reject Cliff's arguments in favor of such a view?

[Grenzer]

What are you saying here exactly? Do you not subscribe to the view that the USSR was capitalist, or are you simply saying that you reject Cliff's arguments in favor of such a view?

Well I have seen some interpretations say that the Soviet Union was a society in transition to capitalism, and some that say it was directly capitalist. To the best I can tell, Russian society from the very beginning of the revolution and onwards was capitalist. Capitalist relations of production existed for the entirety of stalinist Russia's history, though for a brief time after the initial revolution the proletariat held power. I reject cliff's argument that the Russian state itself played the role of the capitalist, that is what I see the upper echelons of the bureaucracy doing. The bourgeoisie were the nomenklatura. Though I can see credence to the idea that Russia was a society in transition and that the goals of bourgeois revolution were not fulfilled until 1991.

I think it's just best to ignore Cliff entirely.

Think of the Stalinist doctrine of stalinism in one country and it's stated goal of "building socialism in one country." One of the purposes for the bourgeois stage of development is to develop the productive forces and lay the foundations for socialism. The goal of stalinism and the goal of the bourgeois stage of development were the same, in other words.

[gorillafuck]

You're fucked; ergo, you can't do anything. (And by "anything", I mean anything productive.)

Jesus Christ, think it through.okay. question then. do you consider the idea of socialism in one country counter-revolutionary?

[Caj]

okay. question then. do you consider the idea of socialism in one country counter-revolutionary?

Yes.

[gorillafuck]

Yes.do you consider it to be more or less counter-revolutionary than giving up the revolution, which seems to be what you are implying is the thing to do by saying that the answer is "you're fucked"?

[Caj]

do you consider it to be more or less counter-revolutionary than giving up the revolution, which seems to be what you are implying is the thing to do by saying that the answer is "you're fucked"?

I didn't say the workers should give up. The question was about what should the Bolsheviks do. The fact is that the Bolsheviks were no longer proletarian in nature.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually do think that, while "TEH REVOLUTION" will not be worldwide within a week, it will spread very vast. I didn't really comprehend how fast events travel until around March of 2011, in fact. In that month protests which had originated in a tiny suburb of Tunisia had spread from Mosul, Iraq to Casablanca, Morocco. In a time period of about three months.

Granted, those were pretty much protests related to regional demands regarding political liberalization and the opening up of repressive political spheres. But it still shows how fast ideas can travel. In fact they travelled very fast in previous eras of turmoil as well...1848, 1917-1919, 1968-1971/72, etc. I don't think it's "utopian" at all to think that success of a revolutionary project would be determined in a year or maybe a few years at most.

[ArrowLance]

It does?

I thought most workers regard it as a steaming pile of shit to justify their fears of why they shouldn't support communism to begin with. Maybe in your fantasy world where 'workers' is synonymous with 'stalinists', but not in the real world.

Since when did something have to inspire everyone to be inspiring? I don't know where you get your 'most workers' nonsense from but there are groups and parties worldwide that I'm confident would consider the Soviet Union an inspiration.

Libertarians might like to forget what 'stalinists' have done for the working class movement or even say we have been detrimental but that is their fantasy world, not the real one.

[Q]

I think a key thing is to avoid fetishizing democracy; we should be more concerned as to the substance, rather than the form. Is a democratic form the sole possible manifestation of the dictatorship of the proletariat? I don't think it is; the key thing is that the working class is in charge and that the decisions that are being made reflect their interests.

How else can the working class be "in charge" as a class if not democratically? How else is the working class to emancipate itself if it cannot rule as a class? I think the core of communist politics is exactly the "battle for democracy". Putting a party in charge substituting class rule can act as a very temporary measure in dire situations at best, but the aim should be class rule which can only happen democratically in countries where the working class in a majority within society (note, I'm not talking about third world countries where different conditions apply).