Imperialism and the revolution..

[NorwegianCommunist]

"It was the Khrushchevite revisionists, who seized power in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death, that rendered the greatest service to world capitalism in its fight against socialism, the revolution and Marxism-Leninism. The emergence of the revisionist group of Khrushchev was the greatest political and ideological victory for the strategy of imperialism after the Second World War.
The counterrevolutionary overthrow in the Soviet Union caused immense rejoicing among the US imperialists and all the other capitalist powers, because the most powerful socialist state, the bastion of the revolution and the liberation of the peoples, was abandoning the road of socialism and Marxism-Leninism and would be transformed, in theory and practice, into a base of the counterrevolution and capitalism."

This is from Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution.
What is a Khrushchevite Revisionist?
What did Khrushchev do to "abandon the road of Marxism-Leninism"? (Any spesific policies in the USSR etc?

[Brosip Tito]

"It was the Khrushchevite revisionists, who seized power in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death, that rendered the greatest service to world capitalism in its fight against socialism, the revolution and Marxism-Leninism. The emergence of the revisionist group of Khrushchev was the greatest political and ideological victory for the strategy of imperialism after the Second World War.
The counterrevolutionary overthrow in the Soviet Union caused immense rejoicing among the US imperialists and all the other capitalist powers, because the most powerful socialist state, the bastion of the revolution and the liberation of the peoples, was abandoning the road of socialism and Marxism-Leninism and would be transformed, in theory and practice, into a base of the counterrevolution and capitalism."

This is from Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution.
What is a Khrushchevite Revisionist?
What did Khrushchev do to "abandon the road of Marxism-Leninism"? (Any spesific policies in the USSR etc?
Kruschevite revisionist would be a follower of the ideas and man Kruschev. They are similar to Stalinists, but they are a stark more liberal. He's called a revisionist, as to take blame off of Stalin for the failures of the nation to achieve socialism...not like it was Stalin's goal anyway.

The road to "marxism-leninism" is the road to bureaucratic captialist dictatorship. The road to socialism/communism is the road we Marxists strive for, Stalin did not.

If you actually are going to considerlabelling yourself a Marxist-Leninist, I suggest you read the critiques of the ideology, it's leaders, and governments as well. I can provide you with a few via PM.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

^
Are you kidding me?

[Brosip Tito]

^
Are you kidding me?
Not a lick.

[Ocean Seal]

Kruschevite revisionist would be a follower of the ideas and man Kruschev. They are similar to Stalinists, but they are a stark more liberal. He's called a revisionist, as to take blame off of Stalin for the failures of the nation to achieve socialism...not like it was Stalin's goal anyway.

The irony of this post. One great man theory to counter another great man theory.

[Brosip Tito]

The irony of this post. One great man theory to counter another great man theory.The purpose of my post wasn't to say "Stalin alone did this" or "Kruschev alone did that".

It was to point out the fact that Stalin had a personality cult around him, and it was he who took the glory of "building socialism", yet we know his policies and theories were revisionist and strove for nothing of the sort. We know that the USSR was a bureaucratic captialist dictatorship.

To save face, blame was pinned on Kruschev for the USSR not achieving, or "regressing" from, in a ML's opinion, socialism.

Of course material conditions make history, not men, but that's clearly not my point. I am saying that this is what is percieved. The intent of calling Kruschev a revisionist was to avoid those who hold the personality cult of Stalin, or even his ideas and policies, from being seen as wrong or a failure.

[Grenzer]

The purpose of my post wasn't to say "Stalin alone did this" or "Kruschev alone did that".

It was to point out the fact that Stalin had a personality cult around him, and it was he who took the glory of "building socialism", yet we know his policies and theories were revisionist and strove for nothing of the sort. We know that the USSR was a bureaucratic captialist dictatorship.

To save face, blame was pinned on Kruschev for the USSR not achieving, or "regressing" from, in a ML's opinion, socialism.

Of course material conditions make history, not men, but that's clearly not my point. I am saying that this is what is percieved. The intent of calling Kruschev a revisionist was to avoid those who hold the personality cult of Stalin, or even his ideas and policies, from being seen as wrong or a failure.

You are right, "Khrushchevism" is really the continuation and result of the policies of the Soviet Union. Is Stalin personally responsible for the Soviet Union's inevitable liberalism? Of course not, as he is a mere agent of the material conditions. The liberalism of Khrushchev was just a continuation of the degeneration of the Soviet Union in it's march to liberal capitalism.

Most Stalinists adhere to the "Traitor" thesis, in which Khrushchev was just apparently a bad, evil man who conspired to take control of the Soviet Union and turn it to liberalism. A Marxist should understand that Khrushchevism is a direct result of the material conditions of the Soviet Union under Stalin. It may be argued that Khrushchev coming to power represented a qualitative change(I disagree), but the quantitative changes which led up to it occurred while Stalin was alive.

Yes, it is basically a lame, anti-materialist way of saving face and protecting Stalin's reputation from the inadequacy and degeneration of Soviet policy, as if a single man had much to do with it in the first place.

[Omsk]

A Marxist should understand that Khrushchevism is a direct result of the material conditions of the Soviet Union under Stalin.


Oh yes? Than we should also accept that the CCCP in the Stalin period is a direct result of the CCCP in the Lenin period,a continuation.

Everything else would be double-standards.

@NorwegianCommunist: if you want to understand that text better,you should first read this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/index.htm

This chapter in general: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/03.htm

If you have any secondary questions,i will be glad to answer them all.

[Grenzer]

Oh yes? Than we should also accept that the CCCP in the Stalin period is a direct result of the CCCP in the Lenin period,a continuation.

Everything else would be double-standards.

I agree, Stalin is a continuation of Lenin.

The simple fact is that if Lenin had lived twenty years longer that the Soviet Union wouldn't really have been any different. Any view to the contrary would be profoundly anti-materialist; however, this doesn't change the fact that all anti-Stalinist criticisms would still apply. It really doesn't mean much to me because I don't care much for Lenin the man; it's his theoretical and practical contributions that are important, not his person.

Near the end of his life, Lenin did show some right wing degeneration, as a result of the shitty conditions the Soviet Union faced. Most notable is that he entertained the idea of letting peasants join the party. Thankfully for his legacy, he died before things could start really going to hell.

So it would be incorrect to say that Stalin's ideas are Lenin's, or in the same vein as Lenin's. It would be more correct to say that Stalin's policy is the same or similar to what Lenin's would have been, had he lived longer.

[Omsk]

So it would be incorrect to say that Stalin's ideas are Lenin's, or in the same vein as Lenin's


This is wrong,the policies had a clear line of similarity,while the policies of Khrushchov were obviously different.

[Brosip Tito]

I agree, Stalin is a continuation of Lenin.

The simple fact is that if Lenin had lived twenty years longer that the Soviet Union wouldn't really have been any different. Any view to the contrary would be profoundly anti-materialist; however, this doesn't change the fact that all anti-Stalinist criticisms would still apply. It really doesn't mean much to me because I don't care much for Lenin the man; it's his theoretical and practical contributions that are important, not his person.

Near the end of his life, Lenin did show some right wing degeneration, as a result of the shitty conditions the Soviet Union faced. Most notable is that he entertained the idea of letting peasants join the party. Thankfully for his legacy, he died before things could start really going to hell.

So it would be incorrect to say that Stalin's ideas are Lenin's, or in the same vein as Lenin's. It would be more correct to say that Stalin's policy is the same or similar to what Lenin's would have been, had he lived longer.I like where your going in that analysis, but predicting what Lenin would have done, and how the material conditions would have changed had he not died is not a materialist approach.

The question is, how would the material conditions, at the time of and immediately after his death, have affected his decision making, and his policy had he lived? We cannot answer that, but we can give our opinions.

The material conditions could have been ripe for both of these things, not just the singular outcome:

the extending of the proletarian dictatorship (or what was percieved assuch). We don't know if that extension would have survived, or if it would have led to anything else, as the next thing happened.

or the bureacratic capitalist dictatorship, and extermination of the gains of the proletariat.


This is wrong,the policies had a clear line of similarity,while the policies of Khrushchov were obviously different.Such as?

[Omsk]

or the bureacratic capitalist dictatorship, and extermination of the gains of the proletariat.

Feel free to describe to me in detail,what gains were exterminated and everything that changed,im so unimformed.



Such as?

Things like : “collective leadership” , the destruction of the Cominform, the support for reactionaries like Tito, support for anti-communists like Imre Nagy and the destruction of the Marxist-Leninist unity,"social-imperialism" ,liberalism,reformism,a clear nationalist path,the loss of the party as the leading organ of the socialist construction,etc etc.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/progress.gif

[Brosip Tito]

Things like : “collective leadership” , the destruction of the Cominform, the support for reactionaries like Tito, support for anti-communists like Imre Nagy and the destruction of the Marxist-Leninist unity,"social-imperialism" ,liberalism,reformism,a clear nationalist path,the loss of the party as the leading organ of the socialist construction,etc etc.How, did he do these things.

What were the exact policies enacted, that were indeed different from Stalinist policies?

*NOTE: will reply to your other comment shortly.

[Omsk]

What were the exact policies enacted, that were indeed different from Stalinist policies?



The ones i mentioned,the Peoples Republics ceased to be states with a movement for the building of socialism,but became petty dominions,where Nikita can decide who is in charge.The example of this,is the situation in Hungary,whose party was decapitated by Nikita S. and than plunged into chaos,the reactionaries taking controll,and the petty-reformists and anti-communist in the 'government'.

The destruction of the Cominform,which operated as the Comintern.It was one of the worse mistakes he made.

He also openly supported Tito,and supported his purges.

He let fractions breed,he let people like Suslov take command,he accused Stalin of a "cult of personality".

He thought that socialism could be reached and built with 'peace' and 'peaceful means'. He believed that the imperialist power could be 'ignored' and that the CCCP could 'live alongside them'.

[Brosip Tito]

The ones i mentioned,the Peoples Republics ceased to be states with a movement for the building of socialism,but became petty dominions,where Nikita can decide who is in charge.The example of this,is the situation in Hungary,whose party was decapitated by Nikita S. and than plunged into chaos,the reactionaries taking controll,and the petty-reformists and anti-communist in the 'government'.

The destruction of the Cominform,which operated as the Comintern.It was one of the worse mistakes he made.

He also openly supported Tito,and supported his purges.

He let fractions breed,he let people like Suslov take command,he accused Stalin of a "cult of personality".

He thought that socialism could be reached and built with 'peace' and 'peaceful means'. He believed that the imperialist power could be 'ignored' and that the CCCP could 'live alongside them'.
Surely, there are sources you can provide?

[Grenzer]

I like where your going in that analysis, but predicting what Lenin would have done, and how the material conditions would have changed had he not died is not a materialist approach.

The question is, how would the material conditions, at the time of and immediately after his death, have affected his decision making, and his policy had he lived? We cannot answer that, but we can give our opinions.

The material conditions could have been ripe for both of these things, not just the singular outcome:

the extending of the proletarian dictatorship (or what was percieved assuch). We don't know if that extension would have survived, or if it would have led to anything else, as the next thing happened.

or the bureacratic capitalist dictatorship, and extermination of the gains of the proletariat.

It's not so much a prediction, unless one think that a single individual can shape history, which is not materialist. The material conditions were not "ripe" for anything other than what actually happened. It matters little which specific individual was in charge, since it is the conditions, not ideals that determine what they do. Lenin's survival would not have changed anything; there would have been superficial differences, but not anything substantial. Lenin could not sustain proletarian dictatorship through willpower. The Soviet Union had never been a pure proletarian dictatorship in the first place, it was a "joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

As the de facto head of the Soviet Union, he would have done whatever role the material conditions facilitated, which would eventually become suiting the needs of Russian Capital.

[Omsk]

Sources? This is all basic history. (Support for Tito,Imre Nagy,reactionaries,social-imperialism.)

Here is on the issue of 'peaceful co-existance'.

(From Nikita himself.)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1962/10/26.htm (A letter.)

This is a part from another source:



The Soviet Government's position in international affairs remains unchanged. We wish to build our relations with the United States in such a way that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States, as the two most powerful countries in the world, shall engage in sabre-rattling or push their military or economic superiority to the forefront, since that would lead to an aggravation of the international situation, not to its improvement. We are sincerely desirous of reaching agreement, both with you and with other countries of the world, on disarmament and all the other questions whose solution would promote peaceful coexistence, the recognition of every people's right to the social and political systems established by it, genuine respect for the will of the peoples and non-interference in their internal affairs. Only under these conditions can one really speak of coexistence, for coexistence is possible only if States with different social systems obey international laws and recognize the maintenance of world peace as their highest aim. Only in that event will peace be based on firm foundations.


As for his support for Imre Nagy,that is not something controversial,nor a mystery.

Nikita and Tito removed Matyas Rakosi and placed Imre Nagy in his place,but after a struggle,Matyas Rakosi removed Imre and continued with the course,only to be removed and sent to the CCCP by Nikita and Tito (Matyas mocked Tito and Tito hated Matyas.) , in his place,they put Erno Gero,an individual not really able to fight the revisionists,and than,they launched the counter-revolution.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

From what I´ve understood, Khrutschev and followers of the SU post-Stalin are considered revisionist by M-L´s for two main reasons.
The economic policies in the SU during his rule were focused on reducing centralization of the economy, giving more autonomy to individual companies and branches of industry from central planing and control. Many M-L´s see this as an "abandonment of socialism" for state capitalism. However, once the industrialization of the SU was for the most part complete, the need for a highly centralised economy was not considered as primary.
The policy of peaceful coexistance with imperialism is considered an outright betrayal of political principles. Many do argue that Stalin had followed that policy in practice previously, but of course not officially (unless when talking to western diplomats etc).

[Brosip Tito]

It's not so much a prediction, unless one think that a single individual can shape history, which is not materialist. The material conditions were not "ripe" for anything other than what actually happened. It matters little which specific individual was in charge, since it is the conditions, not ideals that determine what they do. Lenin's survival would not have changed anything; there would have been superficial differences, but not anything substantial. Lenin could not sustain proletarian dictatorship through willpower. The Soviet Union had never been a pure proletarian dictatorship in the first place, it was a "joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

As the de facto head of the Soviet Union, he would have done whatever role the material conditions facilitated, which would eventually become suiting the needs of Russian Capital.Do you agree with the idea that man has no path to choose in material conditions? If so, wouldn't it extend to the idea that it is pointless to organize, or agitate for socailism, because material conditions will determine that socialism will occur regardless? It will fall out of the sky, like a flake of snow?

Would it be more accurate to say that mans actions will fail if the material conditions for the circumstance that is being attempted do not exist. However, if the material conditions do exist, and man does not act, that we will not see the change?

In which case, is it possible that the material conditions in Russia were such that, indeed, things could have turned out exactly as they had OR radically different. For instance, the oppurtunity for the proletarianization of the peasantry was there, democratization of the party and not eliminating the soviets, and other such courses could have been taken to actually formulate a pure prolearian dictatorship.

What I'm saying is, in a nutshell, was it not possible that the material conditions allowed for one or the other to occur, but as a result of the inaction (or wrong action) of man (Bolsehviks - Stalin, etc.), that the wrong path was taken?

That famous phrase "Socialism or Barbarism!" comes to mind as an example of my point.

“Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.”

If material conditions determined only a singular outcome is possible, then Engels wouldn't able to infer that the material conditions allowed for "either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism"

[Omsk]

Many do argue that Stalin had followed that policy in practice previously, but of course not officially (unless when talking to western diplomats etc).

Absolutely not,taking a neutral stance or trying to 'normalize' relations is not the same as pacifism and peace with the imperialists as a long-term goal.When Stalin engaged in diplomacy with the imperialists,he usually got the better part of the agreement,and his main intention was the fight against the imperialists.(Do note that Nikita Khrushchov's plans were a long-term peace and 'friendliness' with the imperialists.) Nikita made peace with the imperialists,but fought many People's Democracies.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Absolutely not,taking a neutral stance or trying to 'normalize' relations is not the same as pacifism and peace with the imperialists as a long-term goal.When Stalin engaged in diplomacy with the imperialists,he usually got the better part of the agreement,and his main intention was the fight against the imperialists.(Do note that Nikita Khrushchov's plans were a long-term peace and 'friendliness' with the imperialists.) Nikita made peace with the imperialists,but fought many People's Democracies.
I wasn´t necessarily saying it was so. I was just noting that many consider Khrushchovs peaceful coexistence to be a continuation of Stalins policies. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable. I´m well aware that Khrushchovs explicit aim was more fraternal relations with other imperialist powers, while at the same time having antagonistic and even outright hostile relations with "people´s democracies".

[Ismail]

William Ash gave a pretty good summary of Khrushchev's revisionism:

"At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February, 1956, after three years of preparation, Khrushchev presented in the report of the Central Committee a number of 'new' theses described as 'a creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory' which were in fact a complete departure from Marxism-Leninism. Collaboration with imperialism which he labelled 'peaceful co-existence' was exalted as the general line of the foreign policy of all socialist countries... Khrushchev made it clear that he was prepared to give up international class struggle, renouncing on behalf of the colonial peoples any right to liberate themselves from oppression and reassuring capitalist governments by emphasising 'peaceful transition to socialism' or the Parliamentary road as the only correct line for communist parties everywhere. If only the United States imperialists were given to understand that their economic and military positions all over the world were not to be challenged then they would give up their aggressive designs against the socialist block.

What this really amounted to was an attempt to freeze the world situation just as it was, with all its injustices and inequalities, for the sake of a 'peace' which the two major world powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, would guarantee with their nuclear might. The 'creative development of Marxism-Leninism' which Khrushchev was advancing was simply the division of the world into Soviet and American spheres of influence... 'Then', Khrushchev was to say, 'if any mad man wanted war, we, the two strongest countries in the world, would have but to shake our fingers to warn him off' - and included among the 'mad men', of course, were any popular leaders wishing to take their countries out of imperialist bondage. Instead of challenging the policy of nuclear blackmail which the United States government had used ever since the war to keep the world safe for the operations of monopoly capitalism, Khrushchev was going to use the Soviet Union's nuclear capacity to get in on the act. That this was the case was demonstrated later on when Albania's opposition to the Khrushchev line prompted the threat from Kozlov, a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Party, that 'either the Albanians will accept peaceful co-existence or an atom bomb from the imperialists will turn Albania into a heap of ashes and leave no Albanian alive'....

The basic political question on which Khrushchev's attempt to diverse the whole line of the Soviet Communist Party depended was whether or not class conflict had ceased to exist in the Soviet Union. Lenin always took an absolutely unequivocal stand on this issue, holding that during the entire historical period separating capitalism from the classless society of communism, that is the period designated as socialism, class conflict did continue and therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat remained a political necessity for the development of a socialist society. Indeed, after the assumption of state power by the working class, bourgeois elements would struggle even harder to re-establish themselves...

Furthermore, if class conflict had ceased to exist, the Party and state instead of being the political and governmental expressions of the dictatorship of the proletariat could be designed by Khrushchev as the Party and State of the 'whole people'. But in this formation he departed altogether from anything remotely resembling Marxism. The Marxist view developed by Lenin in such works as 'State and Revolution' ... was that the state always represented the interests of a particular class in a society in which there was still class conflict. Neither the state nor the communist party was above class struggle and they would cease to exist when classes ceased to exist, in 'the withering away of the state' which Marx had only predicated of the classless society of full communism. Therefore a party or a state of the 'whole people' was nonsense from a Marxist point of view; Stalin, in his last theoretical work, 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR', which attacked revisionist ideas in precisely the same terms the Chinese and Albanians were to use in the polemics following the 20th Congress, specifically criticised the 'state of the whole people' concept as an anti-Marxist attempt to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In fact, the denial of any further need for the leadership of the working class in a situation where other classes still existed merely prepared the way for those anti-working class elements to recapture political power and begin diverting the Soviet Union from a socialist course. That this was the intention of Khrushchev and the revisionist clique around him became apparent in the economic changes which accompanied these political manoeuvres The decentralisation of the economy was not a loosening of control from the centre but a change from control by organs responsible to the working people like the state and Party to control by experts, managers and bureaucrats. With this change went a shift in motivation from the socialist incentives of putting collective above personal interests to material incentives no different from those characteristic of capitalist society. The so-called economic liberalisation was simply a move from socialism to state capitalism and, as such, was naturally hailed as a break-through by bourgeois economists everywhere... But it was never intended that such a restoration would threaten the position of the revisionist party hacks and state officials who had brought it about - hence the continuing conflict between bourgeois writers and artists in the Soviet Union demanding the freedom of expression they might have expected in a bourgeois democratic society and the Soviet state apparatus with the same bourgeois values who were prepared to welcome works attacking Stalin and the dictatorship of the proletariat but were not prepared to countenance those criticizing themselves and the bureaucratic dictatorship they had imposed."
(William Ash. Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People. London: Howard Baker Press Ltd. 1974. pp. 183-187.)

There are various other examples, of course, but those are the main issues which emerged immediately after the 20th Party Congress.

[Omsk]

I wasn´t necessarily saying it was so. I was just noting that many consider Khrushchovs peaceful coexistence to be a continuation of Stalins policies. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable. I´m well aware that Khrushchovs explicit aim was more fraternal relations with other imperialist powers, while at the same time having antagonistic and even outright hostile relations with "people´s democracies".


Whoever "they" are - they are wrong.As i have explained.