Ryutin Affair

[Bolshevik Feminist]

What were the proposals in the Ryutin platform?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

That Stalin was a ruthless dictator who likes to murder people because they don't agree with him?:)

[Art Vandelay]

Bolshevik Feminist, the quote in your sig is Lenin`s not Stalin. But perhaps he did say that, seeing as how its been stripped of its flow and floral language and jumbled up; not like it would be first time he took something stripped it of its content and passed it off as his own.

The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. - Lenin

[Brosa Luxemburg]

That Stalin was a ruthless dictator who likes to murder people because they don't agree with him?:)

That's pretty much what it was.

[ComradeOm]

Not really. The Platform (to capitalise) was actually a fairly nuanced, if not in language, critique of Stalinism as a whole. It obviously dwelt on the lack of party democracy, the personal role of Stalin, etc, etc but was also built on a cutting economic critique of Stalinist 'super-industrialism' and the devastating effects that this was having on the Soviet population. To quote from it, via Davies:

"The adventurist tempos of industrialisation, involving a colossal reduction in the wages of manual and white-collar workers, intolerable open or concealed taxes, inflation, price increases and the fall in the value of the ruble; adventurist collectivisation supported by incredible force, terror and dekulakisation - in fact directed mainly against the middle and poor peasant masses of the countryside by means of all kinds of imposts and compulsory collections - these have led the whole country to a most profound crisis, appalling impoverishment of the masses and famine in both village and town"

All of which is quite indignant but also a pretty fair representation of the USSR in 1932 and, frankly, an essentially correct analysis

[Ocean Seal]

Bolshevik Feminist, the quote in your sig is Lenin`s not Stalin. But perhaps he did say that, seeing as how its been stripped of its flow and floral language and jumbled up; not like it would be first time he took something stripped it of its content and passed it off as his own.

The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. - Lenin
As I recall it is a Stalin quote, at least that's the only person who I believe to have read the quote from. I know Malcolm X said something similar though.

[A Marxist Historian]

Not really. The Platform (to capitalise) was actually a fairly nuanced, if not in language, critique of Stalinism as a whole. It obviously dwelt on the lack of party democracy, the personal role of Stalin, etc, etc but was also built on a cutting economic critique of Stalinist 'super-industrialism' and the devastating effects that this was having on the Soviet population. To quote from it, via Davies:

"The adventurist tempos of industrialisation, involving a colossal reduction in the wages of manual and white-collar workers, intolerable open or concealed taxes, inflation, price increases and the fall in the value of the ruble; adventurist collectivisation supported by incredible force, terror and dekulakisation - in fact directed mainly against the middle and poor peasant masses of the countryside by means of all kinds of imposts and compulsory collections - these have led the whole country to a most profound crisis, appalling impoverishment of the masses and famine in both village and town"

All of which is quite indignant but also a pretty fair representation of the USSR in 1932 and, frankly, an essentially correct analysis

This was a some 300 page document, which had a hell of a lot more in it than just the above quote, which is of course perfectly correct on the face of it.

Ryutin's analysis essentially was Bukharin's analysis, Ryutin having been the Moscow bureaucrat in charge of beating up Trotskyists in the late '20s. Trotsky did not care for it. Ryutin, like his mentor Bukharin, basically thought that the Trotskyites were the ones pushing industrializing the USSR too fast, and that Stalin had capitulated to Trotskyism with Stalin's "superindustrialization" crash program of the late '20s and early '30s, with its horrible human results.

Which went to such incredible extremes that the above paragraph would have been something Trotsky would have more or less agreed with.

The basic slogan of the Ryutin platform was "down with Stalin," which Trotsky saw as oversimplified and incorrect, and liable to lead to triumph of the Bukharin-Ryutin right wing, which could lead to capitalist restoration.

A rather prophetic analysis on Trotsky's part, as when Bukharinite Gorbachev took the helm in the USSR, this did indeed lead directly to capitalist restoration. Which is what would have happened in the '30s if Ryutin, a fairly important Soviet official, had actually managed to replace Stalin.

Trotsky instead of calling for "down with Stalin" called for a restoration of party democracy, and the return of all the party leaders, left, right and center, to the Politburo and Central Committee.

He changed his mind in 1933, after the blunders of Stalin led to Hitler's victory in Germany and mass starvation in Ukraine, and stopped calling for reforming a no longer reformable Communist Party and started calling for a "political revolution" to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy

-M.H.-

[ComradeOm]

The basic slogan of the Ryutin platform was "down with Stalin," which Trotsky saw as oversimplified and incorrect, and liable to lead to triumph of the Bukharin-Ryutin right wing, which could lead to capitalist restoration

A rather prophetic analysis on Trotsky's part, as when Bukharinite Gorbachev took the helm in the USSR, this did indeed lead directly to capitalist restorationI knew it was those kulaks all along! :glare:

But then labelling Ryutin a Bukharinist is grossly simplistic. The platform drew on both Bukharin's economic critiques (while damning his political surrender) and Trotsky's political analysis (while condemning his 'super-industrialisation'). And of course criticism of the adventurist expansion of industry, and the dire effects of this, was by 1932 hardly limited to the Right


Trotsky instead of calling for "down with Stalin" called for a restoration of party democracy, and the return of all the party leaders, left, right and center, to the Politburo and Central CommitteeI'm confused because the Ryutin document does the exact same thing. It also strips away the pretence of politeness and quite savagely attacks Stalin's character but its fundamental solution, in the political sphere, was a restoration of party democracy. Including the recall and readmission of Trotsky and other exiles

It was certainly not a call for a coup to install Ryutin as dictator or the like; far from being a "fairly important Soviet official", by 1932 he had already been expelled once from the Party and occupied a very minor economic post

[A Marxist Historian]

I knew it was those kulaks all along! :glare:

But then labelling Ryutin a Bukharinist is grossly simplistic. The platform drew on both Bukharin's economic critiques (while damning his political surrender) and Trotsky's political analysis (while condemning his 'super-industrialisation'). And of course criticism of the adventurist expansion of industry, and the dire effects of this, was by 1932 hardly limited to the Right

I'm confused because the Ryutin document does the exact same thing. It also strips away the pretence of politeness and quite savagely attacks Stalin's character but its fundamental solution, in the political sphere, was a restoration of party democracy. Including the recall and readmission of Trotsky and other exiles

It was certainly not a call for a coup to install Ryutin as dictator or the like; far from being a "fairly important Soviet official", by 1932 he had already been expelled once from the Party and occupied a very minor economic post

Of course Ryutin was a Bukharinist, as he would have been the absolute last to deny. Large swatches of it are devoted to defending the Bukharin sem-faction, which Ryutin had been a major figure in before it fell apart. Including all sorts of purely factional stuff in the narrowest sense, like the whole section denouncing Kirov. Saying Ryutin wasn't a Bukharinist is historically absurd, rather like saying James P. Cannon wasn't a Trotskyist.

Basically, Ryutin led those Bukharinists who, unlike Bukharin himself, did not want to capitulate. It's true that his post in 1932 was very minor, but he had ties all over the party, including with people like former Soviet premier Syrtsov. Trotsky's post in 1927 before he got expelled was pretty minor too...

The central slogan was "down with Stalin." My impression is Ryutin was wisely ambiguous on exactly how this was to be accomplished.

Sure, he called for democracy within the party, like any smart politician would. The Stalin party regime was, of course, extremely dictatorial, indeed it was downright Stalinist. That tells you very little.

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Of course Ryutin was a Bukharinist, as he would have been the absolute last to deny. Large swatches of it are devoted to defending the Bukharin sem-faction, which Ryutin had been a major figure in before it fell apart. Including all sorts of purely factional stuff in the narrowest sense, like the whole section denouncing Kirov. Saying Ryutin wasn't a Bukharinist is historically absurd, rather like saying James P. Cannon wasn't a Trotskyist.

Basically, Ryutin led those Bukharinists who, unlike Bukharin himself, did not want to capitulate. It's true that his post in 1932 was very minor, but he had ties all over the party, including with people like former Soviet premier Syrtsov. Trotsky's post in 1927 before he got expelled was pretty minor too...

The central slogan was "down with Stalin." My impression is Ryutin was wisely ambiguous on exactly how this was to be accomplished.

Sure, he called for democracy within the party, like any smart politician would. The Stalin party regime was, of course, extremely dictatorial, indeed it was downright Stalinist. That tells you very little.

-M.H.-
Right. Calling for party democracy did not mean so much coming from the Bukharinists. If you think about the role they played in purging and exiling Left Oppositionists, it is easy to see why Trotsky was not interested in blocking with them. Their program was WORSE than Stalin's in that it would more directly lead to counter-revolution, and they had shown little hesitation using Stalin's intra-party tactics of physical obliteration of political opponents.