Stalin & Lenin

[High School Marxist]

Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories, despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?

Also, what major differences do Marx, stalin, and Lenin have in their theories?

(Sorry if I sound ignorant or arrogant, not trying to)

[Lokomotive293]

Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories, despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?

Also, what major differences do Marx, stalin, and Lenin have in their theories?

(Sorry if I sound ignorant or arrogant, not trying to)

I think that, first of all, you should separate the theory from the man. Smart person once told me, you can think about Stalin whatever you want, but he was right about many things.
Second, you should be careful to not believe everything you were told in school or by the media about this or that socialist country. Of course crimes were committed, and mistakes were made, but the "Stalin killed 200 million people and was worse than Hitler" types are just nonsense.
Maybe someone with a little more knowledge of history can explain about democracy in the Soviet Union better than I can, sorry for that.

About Lenin, in what way did Lenin disregard class consciousness? Can you explain that?

And the differences, as I see it, Lenin just interpreted Marx, further developed his theory, and adapted it to the situation of his time. For example, Imperialism. Marx wrote about the tendency of capitalism to create monopolies. Lenin, at the beginning of the 20th century, realized that Marx had been right, the monopolies had become reality and had replaced free competition. Stalin didn't do much theoretical work of his own, he mainly just followed Marx and Lenin, and what he did was, again, an interpretation, further development, and an adaptation to his time and situation.
So, I don't think it quite works to speak of the "differences" between the three.

[High School Marxist]

.

[MuscularTophFan]

Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories,
I don't. I have criticized Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Totsky are all authoritarian fucktards and all where enemies of socilaism. To admire them is to admire bloodly crimminals.



despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?
Lenin ordered hanings and political repression. Lenin and Totsky both caused the famine in Ukriane in 1921 in order to kill off cossack opposition . Totsky wouldn't have been much differant from Stalin if he had taken power after Lenin died he just would have been lighter version of Stalinism.

[ArrowLance]

I don't. I have criticized Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Totsky are all authoritarian fucktards and all where enemies of socilaism. To admire them is to admire bloodly crimminals.

Lenin ordered hanings and political repression. Lenin and Totsky both caused the famine in Ukriane in 1921 in order to kill off cossack opposition . Totsky wouldn't have been much differant from Stalin if he had taken power after Lenin died he just would have been lighter version of Stalinism.

Revolutionary Terror is not criminal. Terror is justice without mercy. Destroying counter-revolution is just.

[Revolution starts with U]

Just or not it is, by definition, "criminal" tho. As in, it is a "crime, ie against the law.

Semantics I know. Just sayin...

carry on

[High School Marxist]

I think that, first of all, you should separate the theory from the man. Smart person once told me, you can think about Stalin whatever you want, but he was right about many things.
Second, you should be careful to not believe everything you were told in school or by the media about this or that socialist country. Of course crimes were committed, and mistakes were made, but the "Stalin killed 200 million people and was worse than Hitler" types are just nonsense.
Maybe someone with a little more knowledge of history can explain about democracy in the Soviet Union better than I can, sorry for that.

About Lenin, in what way did Lenin disregard class consciousness? Can you explain that?

And the differences, as I see it, Lenin just interpreted Marx, further developed his theory, and adapted it to the situation of his time. For example, Imperialism. Marx wrote about the tendency of capitalism to create monopolies. Lenin, at the beginning of the 20th century, realized that Marx had been right, the monopolies had become reality and had replaced free competition. Stalin didn't do much theoretical work of his own, he mainly just followed Marx and Lenin, and what he did was, again, an interpretation, further development, and an adaptation to his time and situation.
So, I don't think it quite works to speak of the "differences" between the three.

I agree that you should separate the theory from the man-to a point. When the man is a mass murdering dictator, well you can't just dismiss that.

From what I understand, Lenin disregarded class consciousness because in order for class consciousness to be achieved, you must have a capitalist system in place. At the time of the revolution Russia was a feudalistic nation, meaning class consciousness wasn't possible. Also Lenin's idea of 'single state socialism' was proven to be flawed when the USSR collapsed.

So why do people still adhere to his, Stalin's, and Mao's ideologies despite the fact that when applied in real life they are proven to be failures?

[Lokomotive293]

I agree that you should separate the theory from the man-to a point. When the man is a mass murdering dictator, well you can't just dismiss that.

Have you read Stalin? And was he a "mass murdering dictator"?


From what I understand, Lenin disregarded class consciousness because in order for class consciousness to be achieved, you must have a capitalist system in place. At the time of the revolution Russia was a feudalistic nation, meaning class consciousness wasn't possible. Also Lenin's idea of 'single state socialism' was proven to be flawed when the USSR collapsed.

But there was capitalism in Russia. Of course a very underdeveloped version of it, but nevertheless enough of it to spark a Proletarian revolution. You can't deny 1917 happened.
How was "socialism in one country" proven wrong by the collapse of the USSR? Yes, in the end, the USSR wasn't strong enough to stand against Imperialism, but does that mean the theory is flawed? I think the achievements of the USSR proved that socialism in one country can indeed work.


So why do people still adhere to his, Stalin's, and Mao's ideologies despite the fact that when applied in real life they are proven to be failures?

Because many people don't think they have been proven failures. Not to sound arrogant, but maybe you should do some further reading on especially Lenin's theories, before you dismiss them so easily.

[High School Marxist]

I realize I have TONS of reading to do, I've hardly just begun to dig into this Marxism stuff.

Stalin ordered the killings of millions of people, thus he is in essence a mass murderer. You can't deny that the purges happened.

Lenin/Mao/Stalin all created totalitarian regimes that were anything but communist, for the means of production rested in the hands of the state and not the working class. It would be a stretch to call the USSR socialist. Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if he knew how Stalin would twist his writings in order to from a police state.

[Peoples' War]

Hyperbole is great...admiring Stalin and Lenin is "admiring criminals"...oh good god. The amount of straw-men I'm reading is fantastic.

Do go on...

[Deicide]

Stalin wasn't a mass murdering dictator :confused:

[ArrowLance]

From what I understand, Lenin disregarded class consciousness because in order for class consciousness to be achieved, you must have a capitalist system in place. At the time of the revolution Russia was a feudalistic nation, meaning class consciousness wasn't possible. Also Lenin's idea of 'single state socialism' was proven to be flawed when the USSR collapsed.

So why do people still adhere to his, Stalin's, and Mao's ideologies despite the fact that when applied in real life they are proven to be failures?

I thought I explained to you that Lenin cared a great deal about class consciousness. Simply reading anything Lenin wrote about the time during or before the revolution should make that clear. The amount of correspondence he had which discussed increasing class consciousness among the workers, the lectures he gave in many different nations, the articles he wrote, and the papers he edited all point to the fact that Lenin gave a great deal of his time to raising class consciousness.

If anything the ideas of Lenin and Mao (Stalin was not much of a theory maker) have been proven the most successful in creating actually existing revolution and socialism.

[Peoples' War]

I thought I explained to you that Lenin cared a great deal about class consciousness. Simply reading anything Lenin wrote about the time during or before the revolution should make that clear. The amount of correspondence he had which discussed increasing class consciousness among the workers, the lectures he gave in many different nations, the articles he wrote, and the papers he edited all point to the fact that Lenin gave a great deal of his time to raising class consciousness.

If anything the ideas of Lenin and Mao (Stalin was not much of a theory maker) have been proven the most successful in creating actually existing revolution and socialism.
Neither Mao nor Stalin had any hand in "creating socialism", because there was never socialism in China or Russia.

They were so successful that the USSR collapsed and China is a capitalist super power today!

Great success if you ask me!

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I thought I explained to you that Lenin cared a great deal about class consciousness. Simply reading anything Lenin wrote about the time during or before the revolution should make that clear. The amount of correspondence he had which discussed increasing class consciousness among the workers, the lectures he gave in many different nations, the articles he wrote, and the papers he edited all point to the fact that Lenin gave a great deal of his time to raising class consciousness.

If anything the ideas of Lenin and Mao (Stalin was not much of a theory maker) have been proven the most successful in creating actually existing revolution and socialism.

I can understand Lenin and Stalin, but how was Mao succesful in creating socialism?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Neither Mao nor Stalin had any hand in "creating socialism", because there was never socialism in China or Russia.

They were so successful that the USSR collapsed and China is a capitalist super power today!

Great success if you ask me!

The collapse of the USSR had absolutely nothing to do with Stalin though.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The collapse of the USSR had everything to do with Stalin. It was the final collapse of the system that Stalin had created. Trotsky, decades earlier, had predicted that the Soviet Union will either have a worker's revolution and restore socialism, that is the working class democratically controlling the means of production, or there would eventually be a capitalist restoration. Trotsky was absolutely right, although his prediction occurred several decades later than he had predicted.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

They were so successful that the USSR collapsed and China is a capitalist super power today!

Great success if you ask me!

In China´s case I guess it is:o

edit: This thread is so full of Great- men explanations.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I agree that you should separate the theory from the man-to a point. When the man is a mass murdering dictator, well you can't just dismiss that.

From what I understand, Lenin disregarded class consciousness because in order for class consciousness to be achieved, you must have a capitalist system in place. At the time of the revolution Russia was a feudalistic nation, meaning class consciousness wasn't possible. Also Lenin's idea of 'single state socialism' was proven to be flawed when the USSR collapsed.

So why do people still adhere to his, Stalin's, and Mao's ideologies despite the fact that when applied in real life they are proven to be failures?

Lenin strongly advocated increasing class consciousness. Anyway there was a complicated symbiosis between the thinking of Lenin and Trotsky.This is difficult to summarize here but, in a nutshell, Lenin originally did not think Russia was ready for socialism.Russia in the early 1900s had a sort of hybrid capitalist/feudalist system. The country was developing rapidly but was dependent on foreign capital-especially from France, and the major Russian business interests were very closely tied to the feudal landowners. There would be limits to Russia's development. A worker's revolution could only go so far in an under developed country. Trotsky pointed out that the Russian capitalist class-the bourgeois, were not strong enough to carry out the historical tasks of the bourgeois.Lenin and Trotsky both came to agree that the working was the only class capable of moving Russia forward at that time.

Of course a successful socialist revolution in Russia presupposed a worker's revolution in Germany and the West. You cannot build socialism in a poor country. By 1923 it was obvious that the German Revolution was over and the SU would be isolated. This explains much of what went on during the Stalin period.

I would agree that, to be blunt, Stalin and Mao were mas murderers.The situation in China was complicated. After the 1949 revolution there were many important gains. Many socialists who are anti-Mao feel the 1949 revolution in China was the second most important event in history, after the REussian Revolution.The Stalinist model which Mao followed had sharp limits, because it did not rely on the democratic control of the economy. The ruling group in China under Deng as forced to restore or create capitalism. I think Trotsky would have understood this process very well.

[Peoples' War]

The collapse of the USSR had everything to do with Stalin. It was the final collapse of the system that Stalin had created. Trotsky, decades earlier, had predicted that the Soviet Union will either have a worker's revolution and restore socialism, that is the working class democratically controlling the means of production, or there would eventually be a capitalist restoration. Trotsky was absolutely right, although his prediction occurred several decades later than he had predicted.
It didn't have "everything" to do with Stalin. Certainly, Stalin played a large role in it, but the material conditions -- the failure of the German revolution is a big part of that -- were all much bigger factors leading to Stalinist Russia.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It didn't have "everything" to do with Stalin. Certainly, Stalin played a large role in it, but the material conditions -- the failure of the German revolution is a big part of that -- were all much bigger factors leading to Stalinist Russia and collapse of the USSR.

What had the failure of the German revolution to do with an event that occured about 70 years later?

@Lenina the collapse was long after Stalin died and it was the results of the ones after Stalin who condemned Stalin and his policies.

[Ocean Seal]

Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories, despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?

Also, what major differences do Marx, stalin, and Lenin have in their theories?

(Sorry if I sound ignorant or arrogant, not trying to)
Don't worry you don't sound arrogant, and I'm happy to answer you questions.

So first off, Lenin never disregarded class consciousness. He just claimed that the proletariat as a whole did not have it and thus a revolutionary party was necessary to take advantage of the workers insurrection. Stalinism, is ironically the tendency which came closest to working and thus gathered the most attention, whereas most other tendencies have merely existed on paper.


Marx doesn't directly refer to the vanguard party, but constantly refers to authoritarianism to take care of the remnants of the capitalist order. Between Leninism and Stalinism (note: theories not practice) there exists the difference of socialism in one country, which neither of them believed in, until Stalin choose it as the only remaining possible theory in the face of Europe's workers not rising.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What had the failure of the German revolution to do with an event that occured about 70 years later?

@Lenina the collapse was long after Stalin died and it was the results of the ones after Stalin who condemned Stalin and his policies.

Yeah, well obviously Stalin died in 1953 and the USSR collapsed in 1991.Its the system Stalin created. Yes,The Dude is correct, "Stalinism" is short hand for the bureaucratically deformed regime created under Stalin which obviously had material causes, most important of which was the isolation of the Soviet Union as exemplified in the failure of the German Revolution 1919-1923.Its not just one individual.

I can't say to what extent Khrushchev and Brezhnev departed from the model created under Stalin. Khrushchev challenged the bureaucracy, but badly got his fingers burnt and alienated most layers supporting the regime.Brezhnev tried reforms under "Liebermanism" but had to back track.Neither leader wanted to rely on the Soviet working classes as a way forward.

The system was facing terminal decline by the 1980s. Gorbachev delivered the coup de grace.

What Is To Be Done is Lenin's masterpiece on the role of the revolutinary party. Lenin felt class consciousness or revolutionary direction would have to be supplied by a group of dedicated activists.

[electrostal]

Lenin ordered hanings and political repression. Lenin and Totsky both caused the famine in Ukriane in 1921 in order to kill off cossack opposition . Totsky wouldn't have been much differant from Stalin if he had taken power after Lenin died he just would have been lighter version of Stalinism. You should first learn that Ukraine is not Ukriane and that Trotsky isn't Totsky ( you obviously don't know this since you made the same error THREE times) , and then share your "opinions" with anyone else.





He just claimed that the proletariat as a whole did not have it and thus a revolutionary party was necessary to take advantage of the workers insurrection.The main point was mobilizing the most class conscious and the most advanced elements of the proletariat.


Between Leninism and Stalinism (note: theories not practice) there exists the difference of socialism in one country, which neither of them believed in, until Stalin choose it as the only remaining possible theory in the face of Europe's workers not rising. Surely someone must have already posted what Lenin wrote on "the United States of Europe" in 1915 ( and so on ) here....

[Mr. Natural]

High School Marxist, Stalin most definitely was a mass-murdering dictator, and worse. He was extradorinarily treacherous, brutal, and cruel. Trotsky expressed it best (I'm not a Trotskyist) when he remarked that Stalin was "a Genghis Khan who had read Marx."

Stalin was also a man of great abilities and an impressive early revolutionary career. Read Young Stalin (2007) by Simon Sebag Montefiore to get a handle on this aspect of Stalin and the roots of his personality.

As to the overwhelming, gagging horror of Stalinism, I recommend several well-authenticated works. These are: Robert Conquest's Great Terror (2008); Montefiore's Stalin:The Court of the Red Tsar (2003), and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands (2010).

You are the ultimate arbiter of Stalin, though, High School Marxist. Do your homework well.

I have a question for the Stalinists who will have hives at this brief post. Why are you so imbued with brutal authoritarianism? Isn't communism a bottom-up process? Didn't the Manifesto proclaim "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."? Aren't anarchism and communism all about the self-liberation of humanity?

My red-green best.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

High School Marxist, Stalin most definitely was a mass-murdering dictator, and worse. He was extradorinarily treacherous, brutal, and cruel. Trotsky expressed it best (I'm not a Trotskyist) when he remarked that Stalin was "a Genghis Khan who had read Marx."

Stalin was also a man of great abilities and an impressive early revolutionary career. Read Young Stalin (2007) by Simon Sebag Montefiore to get a handle on this aspect of Stalin and the roots of his personality.

As to the overwhelming, gagging horror of Stalinism, I recommend several well-authenticated works. These are: Robert Conquest's Great Terror (2008); Montefiore's Stalin:The Court of the Red Tsar (2003), and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands (2010).

You are the ultimate arbiter of Stalin, though, High School Marxist. Do your homework well.

I have a question for the Stalinists who will have hives at this brief post. Why are you so imbued with brutal authoritarianism? Isn't communism a bottom-up process? Didn't the Manifesto proclaim "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."? Aren't anarchism and communism all about the self-liberation of humanity?

My red-green best.

How can you suggest people likeConquest to anyone, as "well-authenticated"?

[hashem]

Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime

what makes you think like this? can you be more specific?

Lenin struggled against Economists and Terrorists for many years. unlike Lenin, both of them disregarded class consciousness and participated in a capitalist government.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't. I have criticized Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Totsky are all authoritarian fucktards and all where enemies of socilaism. To admire them is to admire bloodly crimminals.


Lenin ordered hanings and political repression. Lenin and Totsky both caused the famine in Ukriane in 1921 in order to kill off cossack opposition . Totsky wouldn't have been much differant from Stalin if he had taken power after Lenin died he just would have been lighter version of Stalinism.

Your understanding of Soviet history is sorely lacking. Lenin and Trotsky did not cause the famine in 1921. The political repression during the revolution and prior to Stalin's purges was relatively mild. Any revolutionist that is unwilling to use brute force to defend the revolution has no business leading a revolution in the first place.

Which revolutionary leaders do you admire comrade tard?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Your understanding of Soviet history is sorely lacking. Lenin and Trotsky did not cause the famine in 1921. The political repression during the revolution and prior to Stalin's purges was relatively mild. Any revolutionist that is unwilling to use brute force to defend the revolution has no business leading a revolution in the first place.

Which revolutionary leaders do you admire comrade tard?

Eh, not cool to use the word "tard", but otherwise yeah, good post.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Regarding the OP, I think that Lenin emphasized class consciousness. The problem facing Russia after the revolution was the preponderance of peasants, who once they owned their land were not at all inclined towards the Bolshevik's program and the disintegration of the small proletariat during the civil war. NEP was a response to the LACK of class consciousness on the part of the workers and poor peasants.

Lenin is the single most important revolutionary of his time -- both in his theory and practice. Stalin was brutal and his policies were frequently gross deviations from Marxism and Leninism. I am a Trotskyist -- Trotsky's work was a continuation and expansion of Lenin's.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Regarding the OP, I think that Lenin emphasized class consciousness. The problem facing Russia after the revolution was the preponderance of peasants, who once they owned their land were not at all inclined towards the Bolshevik's program and the disintegration of the small proletariat during the civil war. NEP was a response to the LACK of class consciousness on the part of the workers and poor peasants.

Lenin is the single most important revolutionary of his time -- both in his theory and practice. Stalin was brutal and his policies were frequently gross deviations from Marxism and Leninism. I am a Trotskyist -- Trotsky's work was a continuation and expansion of Lenin's.

Cause everyone is going to trust a trots opinion on Stalin.:rolleyes:

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Eh, not cool to use the word "tard", but otherwise yeah, good post.
Thanks, you are right. I though I was using restraint by not using the F word. I don't like Lenin and Trotsky (or even Che) being called nasty names. Especially backed up by apparent ignorance. I do, however, like to play nicely.:D

[28350]

Of course crimes were committed, and mistakes were made
Whoops!


Revolutionary Terror is not criminal. Terror is justice without mercy. Destroying counter-revolution is just.
Shoot them down like partridges, 4greatJUSTICE!!!!!!!~!

[jookyle]

Your criticisms of Lenin seem to have more to do with certain civil war policies. I won't use this post to condem for defend them but in the context of a civil war, historically speaking(globally), we see policies going into place that would normally not happen and may even be in opposition to the political powers beliefs. Civil wars make everything screwy. You have to look at such decisions in the context they were used in.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks the great purge makes Stalin the biggest revisionist ever?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Cause everyone is going to trust a trots opinion on Stalin.:rolleyes:

I hope not. They should do their own investigation, pulling from many sources, including Trotskyists, Stalinists, and even credible bourgeois historians (e.g., E.H. Carr, Alexander Rabinowich). Who should people "trust" about Stalin? Stalinists? Trying not to have the "was Stalin good" debate on this thread. On the other hand, I always enjoy Comrade Omsk's quotations of obscure Stalinist historians.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I hope not. They should do their own investigation, pulling from many sources, including Trotskyists, Stalinists, and even credible bourgeois historians (e.g., E.H. Carr, Alexander Rabinowich). Who should people "trust" about Stalin? Stalinists? Trying not to have the "was Stalin good" debate on this thread. On the other hand, I always enjoy Comrade Omsk's quotations of obscure Stalinist historians.

Well this thread is kind of about if Stalin and ,in this case, Lenin were good (or not) so might aswell debate about it.
I think we all (Trotskyites and MLs) can agree Lenin was a good guy though.
I also enjoy comrade Omsk's qoutations but probably for different reasons than you do.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I agree that you should separate the theory from the man-to a point. When the man is a mass murdering dictator, well you can't just dismiss that.

From what I understand, Lenin disregarded class consciousness because in order for class consciousness to be achieved, you must have a capitalist system in place. At the time of the revolution Russia was a feudalistic nation, meaning class consciousness wasn't possible. Also Lenin's idea of 'single state socialism' was proven to be flawed when the USSR collapsed.

So why do people still adhere to his, Stalin's, and Mao's ideologies despite the fact that when applied in real life they are proven to be failures?

Lenin was NOT a proponent of "socialism in one country." That was Stalin's "interpretation" of Lenin. And a disastrous one at that. Lenin said that if it was necessary to sacrifice the Russian Revolution in order to have a German Revolution, than that is what they would do. Lenin was an internationalist -- and I cannot emphasize that enough. This is not the place for it, but a very good argument can be made that in spite of everything that went wrong, the USSR was a deeply flawed, but phenomenal success, at least for several decades. Unfortunately, the flaws were ultimately fatal -- and maybe the most fatal flaw was the nationalism of the Soviet bureaucracy -- something that can be traced right back to Stalin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Lenin was NOT a proponent of "socialism in one country." That was Stalin's "interpretation" of Lenin. And a disastrous one at that. Lenin said that if it was necessary to sacrifice the Russian Revolution in order to have a German Revolution, than that is what they would do. Lenin was an internationalist -- and I cannot emphasize that enough. This is not the place for it, but a very good argument can be made that in spite of everything that went wrong, the USSR was a deeply flawed, but phenomenal success, at least for several decades. Unfortunately, the flaws were ultimately fatal -- and maybe the most fatal flaw was the nationalism of the Soviet bureaucracy -- something that can be traced right back to Stalin.

When we are going to discuss SioC, I might aswell give my view in it.
This is what I said on another forum awhile ago, feel free to tear it apart.:rolleyes:



Stalin was an internationalist, he supported the world revolution. But the situation in the 1920's was that every attempt got beaten down, because of many reasons, in other countries. The only country that had triumphed was the Soviet Union.Stalin, Lenin and the others did hope that other more advanced countries would have a socialist revolution, that didn't happen, Now what? What did they have to do? So the Mensheviks aswell as Trotsky who said that it's impossible to have socialism in a backward peasant-country. So they started spreading propaganda against what they called "The theory of socialism in one country". A few years of this propaganda, what did that mean. Well, it basically meant the demobilization and the capitulation, because they couldn't mobilize and enthuse workers or peasants for something that people said of, listen it won't last because we're in a backward country and a backward country alone isn't possible. So it is a absolute achievement of Stalin that he held on to the ideas of Lenin and defended them against all opportunists.
Of course we rather have a quick world revolution, but is that realistic? Of course not, so we have to build up socialism in the countries where the revolution does succeed.

[Eagle_Syr]

I don't. I have criticized Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Trotsky are all authoritarian fucktards and all where enemies of socilaism. To admire them is to admire bloodly crimminals.


I'm not a history expert (at least not 20th century) but how was Che authoritarian? He was a hero. So was Lenin. Trotsky was misguided, and Stalin did what had to be done.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm not a history expert (at least not 20th century) but how was Che authoritarian? He was a hero. So was Lenin. Trotsky was misguided, and Stalin did what had to be done.

I wouldn't call Che a hero, more a ,as I think Hoxha said, left-adventurist.

[electrostal]

I wouldn't call Che a hero, more a ,as I think Hoxha said, left-adventurist. Nonsense.
Che was, in a way, a left-adventurist with "focoism" and what have you but that doesn't make him any less of a hero. Actually that's just what that article by Hoxha says.
Che was most certainly a hero. An extraordinary personality and a man of great bravery.

[Eagle_Syr]

I wouldn't call Che a hero, more a ,as I think Hoxha said, left-adventurist.

He could have lived a comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle as a doctor in Latin America, but spent his last days in a humid Bolivian jungle trying to rally the peasants to fight back against their oppressive government. And he helped Fidel Castro (one of the most brilliant men of our age) liberate Cuba.

How is he not a hero?

[Ostrinski]

Heroes don't exist outside of the scope individual subjectivity.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He could have lived a comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle as a doctor in Latin America, but spent his last days in a humid Bolivian jungle trying to rally the peasants to fight back against their oppressive government. And he helped Fidel Castro (one of the most brilliant men of our age) liberate Cuba.

How is he not a hero?

With these theories, with the dangers and damage they cause, you are better acquainted than we. For instance, Che Guevara was killed. Such a thing is liable to happen, because a revolutionary may get killed. Che Guevara, however, was a victim of his own non-Marxist-Leninist views.

Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.

The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.

We cannot say that Che Guevara and his comrades were cowards. No, by no means! On the contrary, they were brave people. There are also bourgeois who are brave men. But the only truly great heroes and really brave proletarian revolutionaries are those who proceed from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles and put all their physical and mental energies at the service of the world proletariat for the liberation of the peoples from the yolk of the imperialists, feudal lords and others.

We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism. Battista was an obedient flunky of imperialism, who rode roughshod over the Cuban people. The Cuban people, however, fought and triumphed over this clique and over American imperialism at the same time...

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism.
-Enver Hoxha The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm

[Mr. Natural]

Negative Creep wants to know "How [I] can suggest people like Conquest to anyone, as 'well-authenticated'."

Well, Conquest's Great Terror that I referenced has 53 pages of footnotes. That's "well-authenticated" in my book, and in Conquest's.

I answered your question. Would you answer mine: "Why are you so imbued with brutal authoritarianism?" Have you ever asked yourself this question?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Negative Creep wants to know "How [I] can suggest people like Conquest to anyone, as 'well-authenticated'."

Well, Conquest's Great Terror that I referenced has 53 pages of footnotes. That's "well-authenticated" in my book, and in Conquest's.

I answered your question. Would you answer mine: "Why are you so imbued with brutal authoritarianism?" Have you ever asked yourself this question?

It's not about the amount but about it's reliability
from wikipedia (but if you google you can get the same info about this man:

George Robert Acworth Conquest CMG (born 15 July 1917) is an Anglo-American historian and poet best known for his influential works of Soviet history which include The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purges of the 1930s. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, but was employed by the Information Research Department, a bureu under the Brittish Foreign office whos mission was to "collect and summarize reliable information about Soviet and communist misdoings, to disseminate it to friendly journalists, politicians, and trade unionists, and to support, financially and otherwise, anticommunist publications."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest


Nope, not reliable at all.
About the brutal authoritarian thing, I don't see myself as one, however I think every communist should have abit of authoritarianism, to suppress the bourgeois and other reactionaries. Also, I think authoritarian is just another anarchist buzz-word.

[Drosophila]

I don't. I have criticized Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Totsky are all authoritarian fucktards and all where enemies of socilaism. To admire them is to admire bloodly crimminals.

First off, we don't welcome terms like "fucktard" here. Second, whining about "authoritarianism" in a predominantly Marxist forum is pretty dumb. Have fun carrying out a revolution without authority.


Lenin ordered hanings and political repression.Be specific. Lenin led a revolution against a reactionary & anti-Semitic group. Meeting force with force was the correct thing to do.


Lenin and Totsky both caused the famine in Ukriane in 1921 in order to kill off cossack opposition . Totsky wouldn't have been much differant from Stalin if he had taken power after Lenin died he just would have been lighter version of Stalinism.They didn't "induce" a famine. I don't know where you're getting this from.

[electrostal]

Well, Conquest's Great Terror that I referenced has 53 pages of footnotes. That's "well-authenticated" in my book, and in Conquest's.
Goebbels' propaganda has about as much credibility as Conquests' "research". His works are in general recognized as propagandist fabrication even by bourgeois historians and, for communists, his name is basically a synonim for red scare-like anti-Soviet propaganda.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Nonsense.
Che was, in a way, a left-adventurist with "focoism" and what have you but that doesn't make him any less of a hero. Actually that's just what that article by Hoxha says.
Che was most certainly a hero. An extraordinary personality and a man of great bravery.

Well he said: "In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism"
He said that Che was not a coward, and anyone here will agree with that.
But we're getting of-topic so if you want to discuss this, start a new thread.

[Lokomotive293]

Lenin was NOT a proponent of "socialism in one country."

What, then, is this?


A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states(1)

(1) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

[Ostrinski]

He could have lived a comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle as a doctor in Latin America, but spent his last days in a humid Bolivian jungle trying to rally the peasants to fight back against their oppressive government. And he helped Fidel Castro (one of the most brilliant men of our age) liberate Cuba.

How is he not a hero?And I could have gone to Florida to work for my grandfather's lame company but instead chose to stay here and be a lame history student but hey I don't see anyone getting all emotional over me. But what can I say we all have our own glass of beer

[jookyle]

What, then, is this?



(1) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

A call for internationalism. It says the victory in one country must lead to the victory in other countries to unite the world under socialism.

[High School Marxist]

Wow, so many responses! I'm definitely gonna try to get my hands on some of those books you guys mentioned.

A few questions to Stalin's supporters:

Why do you believe such authoritarian government is needed?

Why do you think socialism in one country is a good thing?

Do you believe mass murder is justifiable and why?

Do you believe that the USSR was actually socialist?

[electrostal]

It says the victory in one country must lead to the victory in other countries to unite the world under socialism.
Which Stalin of course recognizes in the "On the final victory of socialism..."

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

When we are going to discuss SioC, I might aswell give my view in it.
This is what I said on another forum awhile ago, feel free to tear it apart.:rolleyes:



Stalin was an internationalist, he supported the world revolution. But the situation in the 1920's was that every attempt got beaten down, because of many reasons, in other countries. The only country that had triumphed was the Soviet Union.Stalin, Lenin and the others did hope that other more advanced countries would have a socialist revolution, that didn't happen, Now what? What did they have to do? So the Mensheviks aswell as Trotsky who said that it's impossible to have socialism in a backward peasant-country. So they started spreading propaganda against what they called "The theory of socialism in one country". A few years of this propaganda, what did that mean. Well, it basically meant the demobilization and the capitulation, because they couldn't mobilize and enthuse workers or peasants for something that people said of, listen it won't last because we're in a backward country and a backward country alone isn't possible. So it is a absolute achievement of Stalin that he held on to the ideas of Lenin and defended them against all opportunists.
Of course we rather have a quick world revolution, but is that realistic? Of course not, so we have to build up socialism in the countries where the revolution does succeed.
Trotsky opposed Stalin/Bukharin's pro-peasant policies that lead to an extreme crisis by the end of 1928 -- pushing Stalin to a crazy-reactive plan of industrialization and collectivization as against the Left Opposition's plans for an orderly and considered transition (for example, there were many collective farms without tractors -- and because of the brutal way collectivization was carried out, peasants killed all of their livestock. Livestock production did not recover until the mid-1950s). The problem about Soic, is that it caused Stalin to view international events through the lens of what was immediately better for the USSR (or rather his regime), rather than what was best for world revolution and socialism. Hence the betrayals of the Chinese and Spanish revolutions and the "popular front" policies that led parties affiliated with the USSR to enter into and even lead governments that were administering capitalism. In the US this meant support to Roosevelt and the US war effort -- support for no-strike pledges in industry and cheering for the nuking of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. This is the legacy of Socialism in one Country.

[ArrowLance]

Trotsky opposed Stalin/Bukharin's pro-peasant policies that lead to an extreme crisis by the end of 1928 -- pushing Stalin to a crazy-reactive plan of industrialization and collectivization as against the Left Opposition's plans for an orderly and considered transition (for example, there were many collective farms without tractors -- and because of the brutal way collectivization was carried out, peasants killed all of their livestock. Livestock production did not recover until the mid-1950s). The problem about Soic, is that it caused Stalin to view international events through the lens of what was immediately better for the USSR (or rather his regime), rather than what was best for world revolution and socialism. Hence the betrayals of the Chinese and Spanish revolutions and the "popular front" policies that led parties affiliated with the USSR to enter into and even lead governments that were administering capitalism. In the US this meant support to Roosevelt and the US war effort -- support for no-strike pledges in industry and cheering for the nuking of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. This is the legacy of Socialism in one Country.

You took that out of hand very quickly.

To say that the USSR simply abandoned international revolution is ridiculous. Often what was best for the revolution was what was best for the USSR.

I don't understand how you get that the USSR supported the strikes on Japan, in fact these strikes were done very likely to prevent Soviet troops from making territorial gains in Asia and supporting the Communists in the civil wars of that area.

The USSR did much to increase the availability of tractors to farmers. This isn't deniable. If you want to say that they did not provide enough tractors, ok, but their reign over increased production was already incredibly brutal.

The industrial plans in the USSR directly lead to their defeat of the nazis. They did this essentially singlehandedly.

[Ocean Seal]

I wouldn't call Che a hero, more a ,as I think Hoxha said, left-adventurist.
Adventurist is perhaps the wrong term? What did Che Guevara do to harm the general workers movement, or allowed for a great repression of the workers movement in places where it had gained quite a large momentum? Did he guide large parties towards their demise? No in fact he guided Cuba to "really existing socialism". Going 1 for 3 in revolutions isn't a terrible record.

[Teacher]

Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories, despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?

Also, what major differences do Marx, stalin, and Lenin have in their theories?

(Sorry if I sound ignorant or arrogant, not trying to)

You sound like you have a lot of reading to do, and by posing the question in this way on the forum you will only get pithy replies from all the differing opinions on the subject.

Why not read different histories of the Russian Revolution or the Soviet Union generally from people who have different perspectives and decide which one you find the most convincing?

Here are some suggestions:

Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution (tyipcal bourgeois historian POV)
Anna Louise Strong, The Stalin Era (a "Stalinist" POV)
John Reed, 10 Days that Shook the World (sympathetic observer's POV)
Leon Trotsky The Russian Revolution (Trotskyist POV obviously)

[Ismail]

Adventurist is perhaps the wrong term? What did Che Guevara do to harm the general workers movement, or allowed for a great repression of the workers movement in places where it had gained quite a large momentum? Did he guide large parties towards their demise? No in fact he guided Cuba to "really existing socialism". Going 1 for 3 in revolutions isn't a terrible record.Cuba's was a progressive, bourgeois-democratic revolution, as Hoxha noted. It was not carried out by a Marxist-Leninist vanguard but by guerrillas who overthrew the state through armed warfare, not through the organized action of the working-class.

Also while we're on the subject of suggested reading, E.H. Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution (from a sympathetic bourgeois point of view) is a great work on the subject.

[Geiseric]

There's much, much more that is similar with stalinism and menshevism than leninism. the Stagism in foreign policy was done in order to aid capitalist governments in the 3rd world, and Socialism in One Country mirrors the Revolutionary defensism that almost killed the Russian Revolution. Marx and Engels spoke out explicitely against defensism, which SoiC is no different from. perminant revolution was always lenin's doctrine, which the Russian Revolution is evidence of.

[Ismail]

There's much, much more that is similar with stalinism and menshevism than leninism. the Stagism in foreign policy was done in order to aid capitalist governments in the 3rd world, and Socialism in One Country mirrors the Revolutionary defensism that almost killed the Russian Revolution. Marx and Engels spoke out explicitely against defensism, which SoiC is no different from. perminant revolution was always lenin's doctrine, which the Russian Revolution is evidence of.Always?

1914:
“At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 20. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. p. 346.)

[Geiseric]

yes the transition to socialism from backwards capitalism is what perminant revolution is. Lenin believed in this by 1917. If he didn't believe in this the russian revolution wouldn't of been supported by him, and he would of been a revolutionary defensist. Stalin believed in PR too untill 1925. However Lenin in 1914 wasn't the same in theory as the one in 1917, same goes for Trotsky. it seems like common sense that lenin wasn't a stagist.

[jookyle]

yes the transition to socialism from backwards capitalism is what perminant revolution is. Lenin believed in this by 1917. If he didn't believe in this the russian revolution wouldn't of been supported by him, and he would of been a revolutionary defensist. Stalin believed in PR too untill 1925. However Lenin in 1914 wasn't the same in theory as the one in 1917, same goes for Trotsky. it seems like common sense that lenin wasn't a stagist.

But, one could argue that the NEP was needed because it wasn't stagiest. There wasn't exactly a whole lot of time between February 1917 and October 1917 for a capitalist mode of production and industrialization to take place.It was Marx after all who said that socialism takes control over the highest mode of capitalist production.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

You took that out of hand very quickly.

To say that the USSR simply abandoned international revolution is ridiculous. Often what was best for the revolution was what was best for the USSR.

I don't understand how you get that the USSR supported the strikes on Japan, in fact these strikes were done very likely to prevent Soviet troops from making territorial gains in Asia and supporting the Communists in the civil wars of that area.

The USSR did much to increase the availability of tractors to farmers. This isn't deniable. If you want to say that they did not provide enough tractors, ok, but their reign over increased production was already incredibly brutal.

The industrial plans in the USSR directly lead to their defeat of the nazis. They did this essentially singlehandedly.

No time to discuss all the specifics here. I do not know what the official soviet response was to the atomic bombings of Japan. The CPUSA ran a cartoon in the Daily Worker with the caption "The Old One-Two" -- depicting the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the USSR's entry into the Pacific War. But you are right, of course, the nukings of Japan were aimed directly at the USSR. The war with Japan was already over.

And yes in a totally idiotic and destructive way, Stalin's plan to collectivize agriculture and industrialize the USSR worked. It just was vastly more costly than necessary. Cost hundreds of thousands of lives and set back agriculture several decades. In spite of that, it was a good thing. If Stalin had continued in line with Bukharin, capitalism would probably have been restored in Russia fifty or more years before the counterrevolution in 1991. My point was that they were forcing farmers into collectives before they had manufactured the tools that made collective farming useful. This is not good planning, to say the least. And they did it such a ham fisted way that farmers burned their crops and killed their livestock, also not so good.

Finally, I agree with you that what was best for the USSR was international revolution. So did Lenin and all the Bolsheviks before 1924, including Stalin, who said, countless times that the Russian Revolution would not survive without a revolution in some advanced industrial countries. Stalin's record on that is abominable, starting from Sioc. It is a natural extension of Sioc. After all, if I can build socialism right here, it is not a necessity to fight for revolution everywhere else, is it?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

But, one could argue that the NEP was needed because it wasn't stagiest. There wasn't exactly a whole lot of time between February 1917 and October 1917 for a capitalist mode of production and industrialization to take place.It was Marx after all who said that socialism takes control over the highest mode of capitalist production.

Just to note that Trotsky did not generalize the idea of Permanent Revolution until the mid-twenties when he realized that China, like Russia, could have no capitalist stage of development. And of course, those that argue that 8 months in Russia constituted an epoch of capitalism are hopeless.

[Geiseric]

There was already capitalism in Russia before februrary. The government was simply autocratic. capitalism developed increadibly fast in the decades leading to WW1, which was the reason that the revolution happened in Russia first. The old dreams of the "papa czar," were in shambles because of the bloodshed of WW1, however simply because the ratio of prole population is less than in more advanced countries doesn't mean that socialism is impossible after a feudal-aristocrat government. In fact, the backwardness of russia and the shock that capitalism gave in such a short time period of development to the young russian proletariat made revolution and class contradictions exponentially more acute! Basically, within 2 generations your familly has been kicked out of the countryside, forced to be employed as a wage slave, and forced to fight in a war to protect your wage slavery. the influx of foreign capital within 50 years to russia made capitalism's foundations weaker, because it was so alien to backward peasants

[ArrowLance]

No time to discuss all the specifics here. I do not know what the official soviet response was to the atomic bombings of Japan. The CPUSA ran a cartoon in the Daily Worker with the caption "The Old One-Two" -- depicting the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the USSR's entry into the Pacific War. But you are right, of course, the nukings of Japan were aimed directly at the USSR. The war with Japan was already over.

And yes in a totally idiotic and destructive way, Stalin's plan to collectivize agriculture and industrialize the USSR worked. It just was vastly more costly than necessary. Cost hundreds of thousands of lives and set back agriculture several decades. In spite of that, it was a good thing. If Stalin had continued in line with Bukharin, capitalism would probably have been restored in Russia fifty or more years before the counterrevolution in 1991. My point was that they were forcing farmers into collectives before they had manufactured the tools that made collective farming useful. This is not good planning, to say the least. And they did it such a ham fisted way that farmers burned their crops and killed their livestock, also not so good.

Finally, I agree with you that what was best for the USSR was international revolution. So did Lenin and all the Bolsheviks before 1924, including Stalin, who said, countless times that the Russian Revolution would not survive without a revolution in some advanced industrial countries. Stalin's record on that is abominable, starting from Sioc. It is a natural extension of Sioc. After all, if I can build socialism right here, it is not a necessity to fight for revolution everywhere else, is it?

There is plenty of time to address specifics. What cost was necessary?

You completely misunderstand Socialism in one Country. Of course it was understood that the Soviet Union could not contain the entirety of the revolution in defiance of the global capitalist system. Stalin would have agreed. However solidifying socialism in the Soviet Union so that at least in that place it could be maintained was the goal of SioC. It came about from necessity and is a direct continuation of Leninist theory.

[Geiseric]

Lenin said several times that he would of sacrificed the russian revolution entirely if it meant a german one. The importance of building a self sustaining "socialist," economy in one backwards country is dwarfed by the importance for a revolution in an advanced country. It is in no way a continuation of Leninism. It's a revival of the Menshevism and the Thermidor of the french revolution, defensist completely in nature. by the way, the only people who benefited from SoiC were the bureaucrats who retained control of the economy untill they restored capitalism, like Stalin was incapible of doing even if he wanted to because of the power the proletariat held over him. He did what he could to help capitalists, along with fucking Bukharin, untill they held him by the throat in 1928, after about 3 years of land consolidation by the big Kulaks. There is no reason to adhere to Stalin's defunct, opportunist, absurd theory other than trying to look "less revisionist." It was what gave fascism time to grow, nada mas.

[ArrowLance]

Lenin said several times that he would of sacrificed the russian revolution entirely if it meant a german one. The importance of building a self sustaining "socialist," economy in one backwards country is dwarfed by the importance for a revolution in an advanced country. It is in no way a continuation of Leninism. It's a revival of the Menshevism and the Thermidor of the french revolution, defensist completely in nature. by the way, the only people who benefited from SoiC were the bureaucrats who retained control of the economy untill they restored capitalism, like Stalin was incapible of doing even if he wanted to because of the power the proletariat held over him. He did what he could to help capitalists, along with fucking Bukharin, untill they held him by the throat in 1928, after about 3 years of land consolidation by the big Kulaks. There is no reason to adhere to Stalin's defunct, opportunist, absurd theory other than trying to look "less revisionist." It was what gave fascism time to grow, nada mas.

That wasn't the situation that the revolution had. There would have been no benefit to sacrificing the Russian Revolution.

[Geiseric]

You're missing my point, Lenin was saying that he'd rather let the russian revolution (which you think is more important for whatever reason) never happen than abandon the prospect of revolution in 1st world countries. Stalin abandoned the prospect of revolution so he could sell oil to mussolini and build Panzers. Thus he wasn't a Leninist, but an opportunist.

[ArrowLance]

You're missing my point, Lenin was saying that he'd rather let the russian revolution (which you think is more important for whatever reason) never happen than abandon the prospect of revolution in 1st world countries. Stalin abandoned the prospect of revolution so he could sell oil to mussolini and build Panzers. Thus he wasn't a Leninist, but an opportunist.

That wasn't the option. Working on the Russian Revolution was not in conflict with other revolutions. Stalin didn't abandon the prospect of revolution and worked quite hard for it.

[marl]

Trotsky was misguided, and Stalin did what had to be done.

ah, yes, the misguided trotsky who was clearly favored by lenin over stalin (but who cares). aye, how dare trotsky?? pesky left opposition got in the way of comrade stalin!

cult of personalities aren't very good (so i apologize for this being such a individual-centric post), but unlike stalin, at least lenin and trotsky contributed to socialism


That wasn't the option. Working on the Russian Revolution was not in conflict with other revolutions. Stalin didn't abandon the prospect of revolution and worked quite hard for it.

world revolution is the option. nationalism is not

[ArrowLance]

ah, yes, the misguided trotsky who was clearly favored by lenin over stalin (but who cares). aye, how dare trotsky?? pesky left opposition got in the way of comrade stalin!

cult of personalities aren't very good (so i apologize for this being such a individual-centric post), but unlike stalin, at least lenin and trotsky contributed to socialism



world revolution is the option. nationalism is not

Trotsky was not favored by Lenin.

Trotsky did contribute a lot to socialism both in his revolutionary actions and theoretical contributions, but was also an opportunist, a careerist, and a traitor.

World revolution was on the mind of the Soviet Union. This is why they supported revolutionary movements around the world.

[Ismail]

ah, yes, the misguided trotsky who was clearly favored by lenin over stalin (but who cares). aye, how dare trotsky?? pesky left opposition got in the way of comrade stalin!

cult of personalities aren't very good (so i apologize for this being such a individual-centric post)I'm pretty sure saying that Trotsky should have succeeded Lenin by virtue of Lenin "favoring" him over Stalin is indicative of a cult of personality around Lenin.

In any case Lenin did not "favor" Trotsky more than Stalin in any significant manner. In the last months of his life Lenin criticized Stalin (along with Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze) based on the limited information he was given by Georgian nationalists who accused the three of bullying them. He also became quite annoyed that Stalin had insulted his wife; these two things led to Lenin claiming that Stalin was "rude," something he said was permissible for any Bolshevik but not for one in the position of General Secretary. At this same time he said that a replacement for Stalin should be found who would be just like Stalin, only better in this regard.

Considering that Lenin criticized Trotsky over the trade unions (saying he "made a number of mistakes bearing on the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat") and other economic affairs, that in 1917 Lenin was willing in the end to forgive Zinoviev and Kamenev for endangering the entire Party by revealing to any literate person Bolshevik plans to lead a socialist revolution, that he was willing to forgive Bukharin and others whose stands threatened the existence of the nascent Soviet Russian state in 1918 in-re Brest-Litovsk, etc., his distrust of Stalin in these two cases seems pretty minor. At this same time Stalin was the man who Lenin requested to see most often in his last months, and at one point even requested that Stalin bring him cyanide (something Lenin had considered for some time), which Stalin, after consulting with other leading Bolsheviks, refused to do.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/lenstal.htm
And: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm

Finally, Trotsky himself voted alongside other Bolsheviks to have Stalin remain at his post as General Secretary.

Lenin didn't particularly favor any Bolshevik over another. Those Lenin named in his "testament" all contributed in their own ways in organizing the party, in preparing and carrying out the revolution, in matters relating to the civil war and the establishment of the Comintern, and so on. They were all pretty much equal in prestige within the Party ranks.

[Mr. Natural]

Some "Marxist-Leninists" are having a lot of trouble with my recommendation of Robert Conquest's Great Terror. Damn straight he's a bourgeois historian and associated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, but his work is also considered definitive as regards the Soviet Union under Stalin. The question is: Does he get his facts right?

I challenge Revleft's various "Marxist-Leninists" to fault the following narrative and statistics taken from The Great Terror concerning the devastating purge of much of the military officer corps in 1937 as WW II loomed.

The first to go were the leading generals of the army--the heroes of the Civil War--who were engaged in modernizing the army in organization and tactics. Eight generals, including Tukhachevsky, were put on trial after confessions were beaten out of them. They were briefly tried by eight other generals, then taken out and shot. Their families were also destroyed. Six of the eight generals who tried them were also to lose their lives in the purge. This trial was pure Stalinist sadism. The charges were clearly bogus.

Here is the toll of top military lives taken by Stalin's purge as presented by Conquest: 3 0f 5 marshalls; 13 of 15 Army Commanders; 8 of 9 Fleet Admirals and Admirals Grade I; 50 of 57 Corps Commanders; 154 of the 186 Divisional Commanders; all 16 Army Commissars; 25 of 28 Corps Commissars; 58 of 64 Divisional Commissars.

Is this list correct? If so, such a regime cannot be defended. Unless, of course, you don't give a damn about truth and Marxism. There's an old movement saying that if Marx had lived under Stalin, he wouldn't have lived long. Marxism is about the bottom-up liberation of humanity, not a bloodthirsty, brutal, top-down suppression of all people under the personalized state control of a tyrant.

I also suggested the OP read Montefiore's Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, his Young Stalin, and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands. Yes, Montefiore and Snyder are bourgeois historians, but are they wrong?

In my opinion, based in history and political philosophy, Stalinism is the mortal enemy of Marxism and Marxists.

My red-green, Marxist best.

[Geiseric]

Ismail, Lenin specifically warned against the Bureaucracy in his last testament, which you guys would call "revisionism," since Krushchev released it. favor is irrelevent, but lenin started the idea of the left opposition before Trotsky did. I know you know this but you're ignoring it. and Stalin was going so far as to suggest denationalizing all of the land in Georgia, something much more real than Zinoviev's breach od democratic centralism, which Lenin voted to ban them for. Btw anybody here who wants to read the purges needs to read The Stalin School of Falsification. beureaucratic centralism had nowhere in Lenin's theory either, there was always inter party democracy when there wasn't a civil war going on. And the trade union issue is one that Trotsky admitted to getting wrong, however I don't think Stalin objected to it at the time, nor did most people.

[ArrowLance]

Some "Marxist-Leninists" are having a lot of trouble with my recommendation of Robert Conquest's Great Terror. Damn straight he's a bourgeois historian and associated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, but his work is also considered definitive as regards the Soviet Union under Stalin. The question is: Does he get his facts right?

Let's see.



I challenge Revleft's various "Marxist-Leninists" to fault the following narrative and statistics taken from The Great Terror concerning the devastating purge of much of the military officer corps in 1937 as WW II loomed.

The first to go were the leading generals of the army--the heroes of the Civil War--who were engaged in modernizing the army in organization and tactics. Eight generals, including Tukhachevsky, were put on trial after confessions were beaten out of them. They were briefly tried by eight other generals, then taken out and shot. Their families were also destroyed. Six of the eight generals who tried them were also to lose their lives in the purge. This trial was pure Stalinist sadism. The charges were clearly bogus."Briefly, Families destroyed, Stalinist sadism, bogus." Nonsense. Stalinism doesn't exist. Who are you to say the charges were bogus. This is full of nonsensical bullshit jargon and rhetoric. You said you were going to be presenting statistics.



Here is the toll of top military lives taken by Stalin's purge as presented by Conquest: 3 0f 5 marshalls; 13 of 15 Army Commanders; 8 of 9 Fleet Admirals and Admirals Grade I; 50 of 57 Corps Commanders; 154 of the 186 Divisional Commanders; all 16 Army Commissars; 25 of 28 Corps Commissars; 58 of 64 Divisional Commissars.

Is this list correct? If so, such a regime cannot be defended. Unless, of course, you don't give a damn about truth and Marxism. There's an old movement saying that if Marx had lived under Stalin, he wouldn't have lived long. Marxism is about the bottom-up liberation of humanity, not a bloodthirsty, brutal, top-down suppression of all people under the personalized state control of a tyrant.More bullshit. I can accept those statistics, I don't deny the purges. I defend them. Stalin was only as much of a tyrant as he was a proletarian tyrant. It isn't up to you to just say a regime cannot be defended, because I do so, others do so, and it makes sense.



I also suggested the OP read Montefiore's Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, his Young Stalin, and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands. Yes, Montefiore and Snyder are bourgeois historians, but are they wrong?

In my opinion, based in history and political philosophy, Stalinism is the mortal enemy of Marxism and Marxists.

My red-green, Marxist best.

And by the same history and in my political philosophy, Marxist-Leninism is a successful revolutionary tendency which led to some of the greatest progresses of the proletariat.

Court of the Red Tsar and even the Black Book of Communism are some of the most useful books. They give great insight into Stalin and the Statistics of Terror in the Soviet Union. Not all of their conclusions are acceptable, and most the statistics are not with any context. This is where Marxist-Leninist's can take a stand and say, "No! You don't understand, you are ignorant, you are against revolution!"

[Ostrinski]

What books do Marxist-Leninists recommend about the Stalin era? I'm curious.

[Teacher]

Conquest is a lying Cold War police agent. J. Arch Getty and Robert Thurston demolished his "research." Many others in Slavic Review also exposed his lies.

[ArrowLance]

What books do Marxist-Leninists recommend about the Stalin era? I'm curious.

I recommend many of the same books as the anti-Leninists do. The court of the Red Tsar is good. But really what is most useful is to cut straight to primary sources and look at Soviet communications. Look at Stalins correspondence, look at Lenins writing and correspondence. Find statistical data and then understand what those numbers mean. Then look at the actual situations that those numbers came from.

There are lies, but we don't just get to point at the things we don't like and call them lies. We must explain them, or admit they shoudn't have happened.

[Teacher]

What books do Marxist-Leninists recommend about the Stalin era? I'm curious.

Getty - Origins of the Great Purges
Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia
Anna Louise Strong - The Stalin Era
Anna Louise Strong - The Soviets Expected It (Strong was very prolific she has tons of great books)
Pat Sloan - Soviet Democracy
Ian Grey - Stalin
Stalin - Kenneth Neill Cameroon
Ludo Martens - Another View of Stalin
John Scott - Behind the Urals
Hewlett Johnson - The Soviet Power
The Webbs - Soviet Communism
Jerome Davis - The New Russia
Anything by Walter Duranty

By far one of the most interesting things to do is read those books and first-hand accounts of the Soviet Union that were written at the time, before Khrushchev and the Cold Warriors were able to distort history. It is really incredible how well those pre-Cold War accounts hold up, even despite the attempts of the post-Soviet government to manipulate the archives for their own purposes. The archives ended up proving the Cold Warriors wrong in most cases. What is remarkable is that the anti-communists still manage to churn out so many lying tomes about the evils of Stalinism despite the evidence.

[Geiseric]

All of those reccomendations are awful, you need to read "the revolution betrayed." it has all of the evidence, support, quotes, statistics, and everything else necessary to understand Stalinism that you need besides common sense. that's something that no amount of "research," can give you. Or read "the stalin school of falsification." Like Arrowlance said, primary sources are very good. I can't think of a better primary source than Trotsky.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

All of those reccomendations are awful, you need to read "the revolution betrayed." it has all of the evidence, support, quotes, statistics, and everything else necessary to understand Stalinism that you need besides common sense. that's something that no amount of "research," can give you. Or read "the stalin school of falsification." Like Arrowlance said, primary sources are very good. I can't think of a better primary source than Trotsky.

Trotsky certainely is un-biased.:rolleyes:

[A Marxist Historian]

Just or not it is, by definition, "criminal" tho. As in, it is a "crime, ie against the law.

Semantics I know. Just sayin...

carry on

Revolution is, by definition, against the law and a crime. Always and everywhere. So truly law-abiding citizens should not be messing around here on Revleft.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Trotsky certainely is un-biased.:rolleyes:

Law One of historical research. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" source, primary, secondary or tertiary.

Everyone has their biases. The only way to be truly "unbiased" is to be too stupid to understand what is going on.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

That wasn't the option. Working on the Russian Revolution was not in conflict with other revolutions. Stalin didn't abandon the prospect of revolution and worked quite hard for it.

It's absolutely true that working to further the Russian Revolution was not in conflict with other revolutions. But Stalin, in the 1930s and during WWII, decided that helping capitalists to suppress revolutions elsewhere in return for their toleration of the survival of the Soviet Union was the way to go.

Thus you had the policy of the "Popular Front," whereby Communists were enjoined to ally with anti-fascist capitalist forces, and if necessary suppress working class revolution so as to keep the liberal capitalists in the alliance. As in Spain.

And abruptly and briefly reversed course during the Hitler-Stalin pact--violated by Hitler not Stalin. During this period Communist Parties returned to using revolutionary rhetoric--while German Communists were being turned over to the Gestapo by Stalin.

And during WWII you had a policy of subordinating absolutely everything to the war effort against the Nazis, and in France and Italy the Communist Parties joined the government after WWII, suppressed strikes, disarmed the Partisans, and in France even supported French imperialism keeping its colonies.

This policy ended only when the Cold War started and communists were kicked out of the coalition governments they had joined. Even in Greece, the KKE had joined British-backed forces in a coalition government and helped suppress worker and peasant rebellion until Churchill decided to wage war against the communists.

Was this class collaborationist policy beneficial to the Russian Revolution? Did it help to defend it? Hardly. The Hitler-Stalin pact led to Operation Barbarossa, which nearly destroyed the Soviet Union. And the postwar coalition governments restabilized capitalism in Europe and tremendously discredited Communist Parties. When Stalin told the CPs to revive revolutionary rhetoric as the Cold War began, the line had changed back and forth so frequently that this was widely--and correctly--seen as hypocritical, and didn't last long.

-M.H.-

[Positivist]

Lenin was NOT a proponent of "socialism in one country." That was Stalin's "interpretation" of Lenin. And a disastrous one at that. Lenin said that if it was necessary to sacrifice the Russian Revolution in order to have a German Revolution, than that is what they would do. Lenin was an internationalist -- and I cannot emphasize that enough. This is not the place for it, but a very good argument can be made that in spite of everything that went wrong, the USSR was a deeply flawed, but phenomenal success, at least for several decades. Unfortunately, the flaws were ultimately fatal -- and maybe the most fatal flaw was the nationalism of the Soviet bureaucracy -- something that can be traced right back to Stalin.

If this was the case then why didn't Lenin sacrifice the Russian revolution for the German revolution?

[A Marxist Historian]

Some "Marxist-Leninists" are having a lot of trouble with my recommendation of Robert Conquest's Great Terror. Damn straight he's a bourgeois historian and associated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, but his work is also considered definitive as regards the Soviet Union under Stalin. The question is: Does he get his facts right?

I challenge Revleft's various "Marxist-Leninists" to fault the following narrative and statistics taken from The Great Terror concerning the devastating purge of much of the military officer corps in 1937 as WW II loomed.

The first to go were the leading generals of the army--the heroes of the Civil War--who were engaged in modernizing the army in organization and tactics. Eight generals, including Tukhachevsky, were put on trial after confessions were beaten out of them. They were briefly tried by eight other generals, then taken out and shot. Their families were also destroyed. Six of the eight generals who tried them were also to lose their lives in the purge. This trial was pure Stalinist sadism. The charges were clearly bogus.

Here is the toll of top military lives taken by Stalin's purge as presented by Conquest: 3 0f 5 marshalls; 13 of 15 Army Commanders; 8 of 9 Fleet Admirals and Admirals Grade I; 50 of 57 Corps Commanders; 154 of the 186 Divisional Commanders; all 16 Army Commissars; 25 of 28 Corps Commissars; 58 of 64 Divisional Commissars.

Is this list correct? If so, such a regime cannot be defended. Unless, of course, you don't give a damn about truth and Marxism. There's an old movement saying that if Marx had lived under Stalin, he wouldn't have lived long. Marxism is about the bottom-up liberation of humanity, not a bloodthirsty, brutal, top-down suppression of all people under the personalized state control of a tyrant.

I also suggested the OP read Montefiore's Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, his Young Stalin, and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands. Yes, Montefiore and Snyder are bourgeois historians, but are they wrong?

In my opinion, based in history and political philosophy, Stalinism is the mortal enemy of Marxism and Marxists.

My red-green, Marxist best.

I'm no Stalinist (pardon me, "Marxist Leninist") but I've got a lot of trouble with your book recommendations too. His book is in no way "considered definitive" among historians. Far, far from it. It was written half a century ago, and knowledge of the "Great Terror" has advanced tremendously since then.

Sure, Conquest is right about the particular details of the Great Terror you narrate, none of which are even controversial really. But overall, the book is wrong. In particular, his claim that twenty million people were killed in the "Great Terror" is just plain wrong, and has been refuted over and over by innumrable subsequent historians.

Also, his picture of the "Great Terror" as a purge of moderates led by Kirov has been thoroughly refuted as well.

And your other book recommendations are even worse. Montefiore is a best-selling sensationalist held in poor repute by real historians. Snyder's Bloodlands is a serious book by a serious historian, unlike Montefiore's stuff, but it is a highly polemical work which engages in quite a bit of distortion to try to equalize Stalin's brutalities on the Eastern Front to the Holocaust. Really, it's a soft-core form of Holocaust revisionism in my book.

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Always?

1914:
“At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 20. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. p. 346.)
Lenin came around to the theory of Permanent Revolution in fact in 1917. When he returned to Russia and had to use a baseball bat to whip the rest of the recalcitrant Bolsheviks into line, he was fighting for PR. That's what the April Theses were about. That should carry a lot more weight than overheated polemics between Trotsky and Lenin in 1912.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

If this was the case then why didn't Lenin sacrifice the Russian revolution for the German revolution?
If he saw a way to do it, I'm sure that he would have. But the point is that Lenin was profoundly against nationalism. Is that somehow not clear?

[Geiseric]

Why would somebody call themselves the follower of a theory made by a nationalist from another country? because that's what Stalin was, he used Russian nationalism and the church to work out socialism in one country. I mean it's stupid to think that his comintern policies were good, the policies that parties took were zigzagging constantly between menshevism and ultra leftism, not the policies taken at the first four congresses which were largely successful in building the parties up in the begining. they completely abandoned bolshevism to make way for awful third periodism and popular frontism.

[Positivist]

If he saw a way to do it, I'm sure that he would have. But the point is that Lenin was profoundly against nationalism. Is that somehow not clear?

I agree that he wasn't a nationalist, I was referencing his decision to withdraw from world war 1 rather than continuing to fight, which would have contributed to the weakening of the German government and bourgiose. I agree with Lenin's decision, as any "revolutionary war" would most likely result in the forfeit of the Russian proletariat's gains.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I agree that he wasn't a nationalist, I was referencing his decision to withdraw from world war 1 rather than continuing to fight, which would have contributed to the weakening of the German government and bourgiose. I agree with Lenin's decision, as any "revolutionary war" would most likely result in the forfeit of the Russian proletariat's gains.

Fair enough. I think that using the Red Army to fight the German bourgeoisie was not appealing for two reasons. First and foremost, the Red/Russian Army was in a state of collapse -- it could not have successfully fought even a weakened German army. Second, Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed that the German proletariat would make their own revolution (and they almost did) -- there was no desire to impose the revolution on bayonets in that particular circumstance.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Wow, so many responses! I'm definitely gonna try to get my hands on some of those books you guys mentioned.

A few questions to Stalin's supporters:

Do you believe mass murder is justifiable and why?

Do you believe that the USSR was actually socialist?
Do you call "murders" the Greek Red Army soldiers that he ordered to fight the Greek Nazis so Greeks today can speak Greek and not German? I think that shows how the Greek communists resisted to Nazis, not even a reason to call them murders for doing so.

And no, USSR was not socialist it was communist.(well until 1950 or so..)

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Wow, so many responses! I'm definitely gonna try to get my hands on some of those books you guys mentioned.

A few questions to Stalin's supporters:

Why do you think socialism in one country is a good thing?


Of course socialism in only one country is not good, the whole world should be socialist!

[High School Marxist]

Do you call "murders" the Greek Red Army soldiers that he ordered to fight the Greek Nazis so Greeks today can speak Greek and not German?

And no, USSR was not socialist it was communist.(well until 1950 or so..)

Communism = A classless, stateless society. So it's impossible for a nation to be 'communist'.

When I say 'murders' I speak of the mass purges.

[Ismail]

Lenin came around to the theory of Permanent Revolution in fact in 1917. When he returned to Russia and had to use a baseball bat to whip the rest of the recalcitrant Bolsheviks into line, he was fighting for PR. That's what the April Theses were about. That should carry a lot more weight than overheated polemics between Trotsky and Lenin in 1912."Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right-wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! That is just like Trotsky! He is always equal to himself – twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can." (Lenin to Inessa Armand, February 1917.)

"Trotskyism: 'No tsar, but a workers’ government.' This is wrong. A petty bourgeoisie exists, and it cannot be dismissed. But it is in two parts. The poorer of the two is with the working class." (Lenin, "The Petrograd City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks)," April 14-22, 1917.)

So not only did he still criticize Trotskyism as wrong after writing the April Theses, but let's not forget he never actually said anything positive about permanent revolution as Trotsky understood the term. The only evidence I've seen was Joffe, one of Trotsky's most ardent supporters, writing in his suicide note addressed to the man himself that he recalled Lenin saying tat Trotsky was right on the issue, and that's it. I don't consider that particularly strong evidence.

@Mr. Natural, actually most bourgeois historians today see the "clearly bogus" charges as part of a disinformation campaign by the Nazis who, so the story goes, provided Beneš' government with false 'evidence' as to a conspiracy in the army. Whatever the case (there's certainly independent evidence of Tukhachevsky being a right-winger (http://msuweb.montclair.edu/%7Efurrg/tukh.html)) I don't see how this is some blow against Marxism. A number of senior army officers, many of them of Tsarist-era vintage, joined the Bolsheviks for various reasons. Outside of probably being skilled commanders I don't see what their deaths in particular have to do with socialism. In Albania lots of veterans of the partisan war became right-wingers later on, and they started out as Party members. Also while we're on the subject Robert Thurston and others have noted that the effect of the purges in the army has been exaggerated in terms of its impact.

[Art Vandelay]

Do you call "murders" the Greek Red Army soldiers that he ordered to fight the Greek Nazis so Greeks today can speak Greek and not German? I think that shows how the Greek communists resisted to Nazis, not even a reason to call them murders for doing so.

And no, USSR was not socialist it was communist.(well until 1950 or so..)

:laugh:

[Ismail]

I think KommounistisGR is confusing talk in the late 40's and early 50's of beginning the construction of communism (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/gosplan.htm) with... something else entirely.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

"Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right-wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! That is just like Trotsky! He is always equal to himself – twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can." (Lenin to Inessa Armand, February 1917.)

"Trotskyism: 'No tsar, but a workers’ government.' This is wrong. A petty bourgeoisie exists, and it cannot be dismissed. But it is in two parts. The poorer of the two is with the working class." (Lenin, "The Petrograd City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks)," April 14-22, 1917.)

So not only did he still criticize Trotskyism as wrong after writing the April Theses, but let's not forget he never actually said anything positive about permanent revolution as Trotsky understood the term. The only evidence I've seen was Joffe, one of Trotsky's most ardent supporters, writing in his suicide note addressed to the man himself that he recalled Lenin saying tat Trotsky was right on the issue, and that's it. I don't consider that particularly strong evidence.


Ah, who knows the context for that quote to Armand (whether it is even authentic). The second quote suggests that Lenin was against a workers' government in Russia in April in 1917 -- doesn't sound right, does it?

I will say it again, because this basic fact seems to be lost on you: Lenin, in pushing forward with proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat was in FACT, carrying out the Permanent Revolution. Lenin saw that the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of fulfilling the tasks of bourgeois revolution and was the most staunch supporter for workers' revolution. So you can pull obscure quotes out of context all you like, comrade. Lenin was fighting against the Mensheviks and SRs that wanted to halt the revolution and let capitalism develop so that conditions could at some later date be ripe for socialism. And the Bolsheviks succeeded, skipping over the bourgeois stage of the revolution and going to the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., Permanent Revolution).

Trotsky was a pillar of support to Lenin's policies during 1917. It was Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamanev that wavered. In March they were willing to conciliate with the provisional government before Lenin's return to Russia. Later Z and K publicly denounced the plan for the Bolsheviks to seize power.

[wsg1991]

mistakes were made
sound like american politicians SKftRlzh2RM

[ArrowLance]

Ah, who knows the context for that quote to Armand (whether it is even authentic). The second quote suggests that Lenin was against a workers' government in Russia in April in 1917 -- doesn't sound right, does it?


http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/feb/19ia.htm

It's authentic. There is the whole letter as well as access to much of Lenin's correspondence. I hope that is enough context for you.

[Ismail]

Ah, who knows the context for that quote to Armand (whether it is even authentic). The second quote suggests that Lenin was against a workers' government in Russia in April in 1917 -- doesn't sound right, does it?Google both and find out. Both to my knowledge are on Marxists.org and have been cited throughout the decades in polemics.


Lenin was fighting against the Mensheviks and SRs that wanted to halt the revolution and let capitalism develop so that conditions could at some later date be ripe for socialism. And the Bolsheviks succeeded, skipping over the bourgeois stage of the revolution and going to the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., Permanent Revolution).And yet in 1905 Lenin was saying that (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/sep/05e.htm) "from the democratic revolution we shall at once, and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half-way." Lenin did not "skip" over anything; the bourgeois revolution discredited itself and demonstrated that it could could only end in the suppression of the socialist movement, not pave the way for its growth.


Trotsky was a pillar of support to Lenin's policies during 1917. It was Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamanev that wavered. In March they were willing to conciliate with the provisional government before Lenin's return to Russia. Later Z and K publicly denounced the plan for the Bolsheviks to seize power.Actually Kamenev and Zinoviev were far worse offenders on this point. The April Theses, as E.H. Carr points out, came as a shock to a great majority within the Bolshevik leadership; only a few like Molotov had hitherto adopted positions similar to Lenin's. Though Stalin was amongst those who thought that the bourgeois-democratic stage was not yet complete, Kamenev openly called for a continuation of Russian involvement in the imperialist world war (which Stalin and others criticized him for) and together with Zinoviev remained skeptical all the way up to the October revolution itself. Stalin's views, however, quickly coincided with Lenin's (as did the majority of the Bolshevik leadership) after the April Theses coincided with actual events and demonstrated Lenin's prescience in regard to the situation at hand.

As I've noted in my last post, Kamenev and Zinoviev did not merely denounce the plan, they publicized it and potentially endangered the Party itself, forcing Lenin back into temporary hiding. Stalin by this point was playing a leading role in defending Lenin's views on the issue.

[Mr. Natural]

A Marxist Historian, I recognize you as a well-informed, conscientious poster, and take any disagreement with you seriously.

The Great Terror I reference is the fortieth anniversay, extensively revised edition (2008).

Your post points to an important problem. I'm not aware of any truly balanced, authoritative work on the Russian Revolution, Stalin, the Soviet Union, etc. All current works seem to have their factual and ideological flaws. What books do you recommend?

I'm also a bit wary of your political "psychology," as indicated by your interest in Sparticist. I had always thought of Spartacist as the "Trotskyist Stalinists." I'm queer, and last I heard, Spartacist would have me in a political re-education camp post-revolution. If I got lucky.

You agreed with Conquest's itemization of the military purges prior to WW II. My position is quite simple: such goings on are deeply murderous and depraved and could not possibly be the actions of anything resembling a decent society, much less socialism.

My red-green best.

[A Marxist Historian]

A Marxist Historian, I recognize you as a well-informed, conscientious poster, and take any disagreement with you seriously.

The Great Terror I reference is the fortieth anniversay, extensively revised edition (2008).

Your post points to an important problem. I'm not aware of any truly balanced, authoritative work on the Russian Revolution, Stalin, the Soviet Union, etc. All current works seem to have their factual and ideological flaws. What books do you recommend?

I'm also a bit wary of your political "psychology," as indicated by your interest in Sparticist. I had always thought of Spartacist as the "Trotskyist Stalinists." I'm queer, and last I heard, Spartacist would have me in a political re-education camp post-revolution. If I got lucky.

You agreed with Conquest's itemization of the military purges prior to WW II. My position is quite simple: such goings on are deeply murderous and depraved and could not possibly be the actions of anything resembling a decent society, much less socialism.

My red-green best.

Unfortunately, such goings on are all too typical in all human societies. Was the USSR under Stalin a "decent" place? A rather vague term, but I'd certainly say no. Was it socialist? You can't build socialism in one country, and what happened in the USSR is graphic proof. Was it a workers state, where capitalism had been abolished, worth defending against capitalist assault? Certainly. Not least being as the capitalist assaulters were the Nazis, but in any case.

For the Bolshevik Revolution, I suppose Rabinowitch's books, which you've probably heard of, come about as close to "balanced and authoritative" as you can find, at least to my tastes.

On the Great Terror, for death tolls, the Ukrainian famine, etc. there is Wheatcroft. If you want a good understanding of what it all meant, its significance etc., from somebody trying awfully hard to be "objective," I'd recommend the dean of Russian historians of the '30s, Oleg Khlevniuk. Several of his books and innumerable of his articles have been translated into English. And he is certainly widely respected by just about all Soviet historians of all persuasions.

The true "objectivist" was E.H. Carr. His lengthy series of books on Soviet history, continued by Robert Davies and most recently by Wheatcroft, are more or less the gold standard for objectivity. Ironical, as Carr's book "What Is History?" is probably the best refutation out there of the idea that history can be "objective."

If you want an easily accessible, much shorter half-decent textbook, there's Ronald Suny's "The Soviet Experiment." He is pro-Menshevik, in particular pro-Georgian Mensheviks, but when off his Georgian hobbyhorse he is surprisingly objective, perhaps because he spends more time arguing with the pro-White folk like Conquest than the very few pro-Bolshevik historians in regular academia.

No doubt Conquest's latest edition cleans out some of his more dubious notions refuted by other historians, but I'm sure it's still problematic. I'm pretty sure from what I've heard that he's still defending his Ukrainian famine ethnic genocide thesis, which has been pretty thoroughly punctured by people like Wheatcroft. Indeed even the Ukrainian government has backed off a bit from that one lately.

-M.H.-

PS: I don't know where you got the idea the Spartacists were anti-gay. Hell, they fused with a communist gay liberation organization back in the '70s, the "Lavender and Red Union." In fact, there's a piece about that in the current issue of their newspaper, so this is not ancient history.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1004/homosexual-oppression.html

[A Marxist Historian]

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/feb/19ia.htm

It's authentic. There is the whole letter as well as access to much of Lenin's correspondence. I hope that is enough context for you.

The letter to Armand is quite authentic. Kollontai misinformed Lenin, as historians of the early CPUSA are all well aware. She herself was a Menshevik as late as 1915, and was going through an ultra-left phase when she wrote the letter to Lenin referenced--a mood she continued into her "Workers Opposition" days.

Ultra-leftism was a serious problem in the early days of the CPUSA. Though Trotsky may not have totally broken yet with his centrist opposition to Lenin's slogan of "revolutionary defeatism" at the time the letter was written, nonetheless Kollontai's position was incorrect, as later developments in the American left demonstrated. The forces Trotsky preferred in the Russian Federarion were better than Kollontai's allies in the Russian Federation, like the famous sectarian Nicholas Hourwich.

As for the second letter, Lenin and Trotsky's positions were converging, and may not have totally and finally converged until later in the spring of 1917. Lenin was incorrect in arguing, based on a misunderstood piece from 1905, that Trotsky's slogan was "no Tsar but a workers government."

So just as Trotsky may not totally have broken with his earlier centrism, trying to occupy a position between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, in February 1917, Lenin himself may not totally have broken with the "old Bolshevism" of Stalin and especially Kamenev which he wasthen excoriating when he wrote that April polemic--if he did that is.

Is there a link on MIA for it?

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Google both and find out. Both to my knowledge are on Marxists.org and have been cited throughout the decades in polemics.

And yet in 1905 Lenin was saying that (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/sep/05e.htm) "from the democratic revolution we shall at once, and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half-way." Lenin did not "skip" over anything; the bourgeois revolution discredited itself and demonstrated that it could could only end in the suppression of the socialist movement, not pave the way for its growth.

Actually Kamenev and Zinoviev were far worse offenders on this point. The April Theses, as E.H. Carr points out, came as a shock to a great majority within the Bolshevik leadership; only a few like Molotov had hitherto adopted positions similar to Lenin's. Though Stalin was amongst those who thought that the bourgeois-democratic stage was not yet complete, Kamenev openly called for a continuation of Russian involvement in the imperialist world war (which Stalin and others criticized him for) and together with Zinoviev remained skeptical all the way up to the October revolution itself. Stalin's views, however, quickly coincided with Lenin's (as did the majority of the Bolshevik leadership) after the April Theses coincided with actual events and demonstrated Lenin's prescience in regard to the situation at hand.

As I've noted in my last post, Kamenev and Zinoviev did not merely denounce the plan, they publicized it and potentially endangered the Party itself, forcing Lenin back into temporary hiding. Stalin by this point was playing a leading role in defending Lenin's views on the issue.

Yes, Stalin pretty quickly went along with Lenin's ideas--up until the Revolution itself, when at the critical moment he once again was playing an "intermediate" position between Lenin and K and Z, which is why he played so little role in the Revolution itself. As all the other Bolsheviks leaders, even Zinoviev and Kamenev following party discipline, were involved in organizing the Revolution through work in the Military Revolutionary Committee that Trotsky headed, Stalin was holed up in the Pravda editorial office writing little centrist editorials.

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And yet in 1905 Lenin was saying that (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/sep/05e.htm) "from the democratic revolution we shall at once, and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half-way." Lenin did not "skip" over anything; the bourgeois revolution discredited itself and demonstrated that it could could only end in the suppression of the socialist movement, not pave the way for its growth.

Actually Kamenev and Zinoviev were far worse offenders on this point. The April Theses, as E.H. Carr points out, came as a shock to a great majority within the Bolshevik leadership; only a few like Molotov had hitherto adopted positions similar to Lenin's. Though Stalin was amongst those who thought that the bourgeois-democratic stage was not yet complete, Kamenev openly called for a continuation of Russian involvement in the imperialist world war (which Stalin and others criticized him for) and together with Zinoviev remained skeptical all the way up to the October revolution itself. Stalin's views, however, quickly coincided with Lenin's (as did the majority of the Bolshevik leadership) after the April Theses coincided with actual events and demonstrated Lenin's prescience in regard to the situation at hand.

As I've noted in my last post, Kamenev and Zinoviev did not merely denounce the plan, they publicized it and potentially endangered the Party itself, forcing Lenin back into temporary hiding. Stalin by this point was playing a leading role in defending Lenin's views on the issue.

Yes K and Z played a notably worse role than Stalin after the February Revolution -- that is exactly right. As for the 1905 quote, comrade, that sounds suspiciously like Permanent Revolution. And I wasn't criticizing Lenin for moving forward with proletarian revolution, quite the contrary. The Russian bourgeoisie were completely incapable of completing the tasks of a bourgeois revolution. It was left to the Bolsheviks to do that, but, thankfully they didn't stop there (maybe left to their own devices Z and K would have let the Constituent Assembly form a government, exclude the Bolsheviks and create a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie). What program did Lenin and the Bolsheviks carry out? Permanent Revolution.

So if Lenin argued against PR and Trotsky at earlier times, he fought tooth and nail for going directly to the d of the p, without passing go or collecting $200. PR was LENIN's program in October 1917.

[Ismail]

Stalin was holed up in the Pravda editorial office writing little centrist editorials.For what it's worth the official 1947 biography of Stalin says (p. 56): "Early in the morning of October 24, Kerensky ordered the suppression of the central organ of the Party, Rabochy Put, and sent a number of armoured cars to the editorial and printing offices of the newspaper to effect the order. But by 10 a.m. a force of Red Guards and revolutionary soldiers, acting on Stalin’s instructions, had pressed back the armoured cars and placed a strong guard over the printing and editorial offices. At eleven o'clock the Rabochy Put came out, with a leading article by Stalin entitled 'What Do We Need?' calling upon the masses to overthrow the bourgeois Provisional Government."

The article in question: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1917/10/24.htm

Doesn't seem "centrist" to me.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think the main difference is Stalin was cuter than Lenin. :wub:

[A Marxist Historian]

For what it's worth the official 1947 biography of Stalin says (p. 56): "Early in the morning of October 24, Kerensky ordered the suppression of the central organ of the Party, Rabochy Put, and sent a number of armoured cars to the editorial and printing offices of the newspaper to effect the order. But by 10 a.m. a force of Red Guards and revolutionary soldiers, acting on Stalin’s instructions, had pressed back the armoured cars and placed a strong guard over the printing and editorial offices. At eleven o'clock the Rabochy Put came out, with a leading article by Stalin entitled 'What Do We Need?' calling upon the masses to overthrow the bourgeois Provisional Government."

The article in question: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1917/10/24.htm

Doesn't seem "centrist" to me.

In that article, after denouncing the government which had just tried to arrest him and calling for its overthrow, Stalin writes:

"If you want this, muster all your forces, rise as one man, organize meetings and elect your delegations and, through them, lay your demands before the Congress of Soviets which opens tomorrow in the Smolny."

Meanwhile, almost literally as he was writing this, workers across Petrograd mustering their forces, not to lobby the the Soviet Congress, but to seize power.

And he goes on to say :

"A new government must come into power, a government elected by the Soviets, recallable by the Soviets and accountable to the Soviets.
Only such a government can ensure the timely convocation of the Constituent Assembly."

Pushed to the left as opposed to editorials on previous days, as he'd had to defend his editorial office arms in hand. But still sounds pretty centrist to me.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

It's rather hard to believe that Stalin wasn't writing on the subject without the prior approval of other Bolsheviks. By calling on the workers to elect delegates the next day I'm pretty sure he was basically just saying that the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets should be sure to legitimize the revolutionary situation that was about to develop without saying as such since the revolution hadn't yet been carried out. You're free to find examples of leading Bolsheviks openly calling for the Petrograd Military-Revolutionary Committee to lead the revolutionary struggle in the days leading up to the actual revolution.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

For the Bolshevik Revolution, I suppose Rabinowitch's books, which you've probably heard of, come about as close to "balanced and authoritative" as you can find, at least to my tastes.

On the Great Terror, for death tolls, the Ukrainian famine, etc. there is Wheatcroft. If you want a good understanding of what it all meant, its significance etc., from somebody trying awfully hard to be "objective," I'd recommend the dean of Russian historians of the '30s, Oleg Khlevniuk. Several of his books and innumerable of his articles have been translated into English. And he is certainly widely respected by just about all Soviet historians of all persuasions.

The true "objectivist" was E.H. Carr. His lengthy series of books on Soviet history, continued by Robert Davies and most recently by Wheatcroft, are more or less the gold standard for objectivity. Ironical, as Carr's book "What Is History?" is probably the best refutation out there of the idea that history can be "objective."

If you want an easily accessible, much shorter half-decent textbook, there's Ronald Suny's "The Soviet Experiment." He is pro-Menshevik, in particular pro-Georgian Mensheviks, but when off his Georgian hobbyhorse he is surprisingly objective, perhaps because he spends more time arguing with the pro-White folk like Conquest than the very few pro-Bolshevik historians in regular academia.

No doubt Conquest's latest edition cleans out some of his more dubious notions refuted by other historians, but I'm sure it's still problematic. I'm pretty sure from what I've heard that he's still defending his Ukrainian famine ethnic genocide thesis, which has been pretty thoroughly punctured by people like Wheatcroft. Indeed even the Ukrainian government has backed off a bit from that one lately.

-M.H.-

PS: I don't know where you got the idea the Spartacists were anti-gay. Hell, they fused with a communist gay liberation organization back in the '70s, the "Lavender and Red Union." In fact, there's a piece about that in the current issue of their newspaper, so this is not ancient history.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1004/homosexual-oppression.html

Ha! I didn't know Ron Suny wrote anything worthwhile. I was in many classes of his as an undergrad. He taught all the good stuff -- seminars on the Russian Revolution, Stalinism, etc. And he got some good speakers, including Rabinowich and the guy who wrote THE book about the Kadet party. He hated me -- he was very touchy-feely with other students, but with me he was demagogic, always trying to punch holes in my arguments by any means. I guess it made me go into class very prepared. The best I could do, usually, was get to a standoff. He hated that I was significantly to his left -- he really did not like Lenin and the Bolsheviks. He was an okay teacher, but a bit of a schmuck.

There are quite a few comrades in the SL that are gay. They are not persecuted but often hold leading positions in the organization. They do, per organizational rules, however, keep their sexual preferences private.

[Comrade Trollface]

The schmucks who deny Stalin's crimes are just as bad as Holocaust deniers. And just as absurd.

[A Marxist Historian]

It's rather hard to believe that Stalin wasn't writing on the subject without the prior approval of other Bolsheviks. By calling on the workers to elect delegates the next day I'm pretty sure he was basically just saying that the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets should be sure to legitimize the revolutionary situation that was about to develop without saying as such since the revolution hadn't yet been carried out. You're free to find examples of leading Bolsheviks openly calling for the Petrograd Military-Revolutionary Committee to lead the revolutionary struggle in the days leading up to the actual revolution.

Your interpretation of his words has the disadvantage that they contradict what he actually said.

Stalin was the editor of the renamed Pravda, and other Bolshevik leaders were too busy organizing the Revolution to micromanage Pravda. Certainly, if he had come out for Z and K's position in public or something like that there would have been a crisis, but as long as he wasn't directly undermining the revolution, which he wasn't, yes he had freedom to write as he wanted.

Ismail, you have an altogether too "monolithic" understanding of how the Bolshevik Party worked.

This wasn't the first time he had edited Pravda, he edited it in 1913 and '14. According to recent researches, as editor he refused to publish some 70 or so of Lenin's contributions as he didn't like them, being as he was with the "conciliationist" wing of the Bolsheviks at that time.

The Revolutionary Military Committee, whose chairman on paper was a left SR but in fact run by Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, issued its revolutionary proclamations in its own name, not signed by anybody.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

This wasn't the first time he had edited Pravda, he edited it in 1913 and '14. According to recent researches, as editor he refused to publish some 70 or so of Lenin's contributions as he didn't like them, being as he was with the "conciliationist" wing of the Bolsheviks at that time.Ian Grey noted it in his 1979 biography.

"Pravda reflected this policy of moderation. Articles received from Lenin were edited, and the abusive references to the provisional government and to the Mensheviks were toned down or cut. According to Shlyapnikov, jaundiced by his summary displacement, the 'editorial revolution was strongly criticized by Petrograd workers, some even demanding the expulsion of Stalin, Kamenev and Muranov from the party.'"
(Ian Grey. Stalin: Man of History. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1979. pp. 89-90.)


The Revolutionary Military Committee, whose chairman on paper was a left SR but in fact run by Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, issued its revolutionary proclamations in its own name, not signed by anybody.Did it issue any explicitly stating it would organize the revolution before it actually did so?


The schmucks who deny Stalin's crimes are just as bad as Holocaust deniers. And just as absurd.Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust. Who denies the Ukrainian famine or the Great Purges? "Stalin did not orchestrate them as part of evil plans" is not the same thing as "they didn't happen."

To quote bourgeois historian J. Arch Getty, responding (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-russia&month=0205&week=a&msg=G9gRj0I/eXnblGCPQyYXlA&user=&pw) to similar claims of "denial," "This is a position that I personally find grotesque, insulting and at least shallow. Nobody is denying the famine or the huge scale of suffering, (as holocaust-deniers do), least of all Tauger and other researchers who have spent much of their careers trying to bring this tragedy to light and give us a factual account of it. Admittedly, what he and other scholars do is different from the work of journalists and polemicists who indiscriminately collect horror stories and layer them between repetitive statements about evil, piling it all up and calling it history."

Getty, it should be noted, compares "Stalinism" to religion and is quite far from praising Stalin.

[Internacional]

Why do a lot of lefties embrace Stalin's theories and Lenin's theories, despite the fact that Stalin was a ruthless dictator whose system failed, and the fact that Lenin completely disregarded class consciousness when he created the new state capitalist regime?

Also, what major differences do Marx, stalin, and Lenin have in their theories?

(Sorry if I sound ignorant or arrogant, not trying to)

I guess I took a liking to Stalin because of his Great Depression work. Look at the USSR circa 1930. One of the strongest economies in the world. The Soviet Union's GDP output was twice that of some other countries. Look at the Weimar Republic then. 6 million unemployment, hyperinflation, etc. etc.

Stalin's system didn't fail. If I recall correctly, De-Stalinazation initiated by Khrushchev and met decline starting from the late 70's onwards, coupled with huge spending on the military by Brezhnev, which dealt a significant blow to the economy, and finally met its demise at the hands of Gorbachev and perestroika. True socialism in my eyes, existed from 1917-1953 in the USSR. After that was state-capitalism.

The most critique I've hard about Lenin is his N.E.P reforms in the '20s. Those were necessary to keep the USSR on life support with a capitalist system (Since the Soviet Union was liberated from a feudal monarchy, not a capitalist, thus not completing the "bridge" between capitalism and socialism), the reversion to a capitalist system was needed to complete the transition, which Stalin continued.

The repression under Stalin was a necessary evil, but I don't think the number of deaths caused is high as 30 million. The people suppressed were either:
A. Reactionary royalty.
B. The rich peasants who had way more than others, thus refusing to give up land for the collective farms, which would've been a further step for socialism. This refusal might explain famine in the Ukraine, as the rich peasants were landowners, but unwilling to give their fair share. While everybody starved, they were doing just fine.

All in all, Marxism differs from Marxism-Leninism as ML is considered "Russian Communism": which is marked by a short return to capitalist systems, primary focus on industry, development on agriculture later on and co-existence, not cooperation, with capitalist neighbors.

[Mr. Natural]

A Marxist Historian, Lev Bronsteinovich, Thanks for your generous, informative replies. That was an interesting Spartacist link. I ran into Spartacist along with the RU, SWP, YSA, Progressive Labor Party, etc. long ago, and I suppose it was PLP that was enthusiastically out to "re-educate" me sexually. However, Spartacist's current requirement that its members keep their sexual orientation ("preference" is inaccurate) private seems Victorian Stalinist.

In any case, I view gay liberation as a subset of human liberation.

As for Robert Conquest, I did some googling, and found more unsavory beliefs and actions. However, I have an excellent nose, I believe, for bourgeois intellectual assassinations of left politics and history, and Conquest gets his facts right, and these facts represent a regime that was the refutation of Marxism and basic humanity. Two works by Khlevniuk (Thanks for the source!) are in the bibliography of his recent edition of The Great Terror (2008).

You two and Ismail and others can swamp me with various informed details of the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, Stalin, etc., but I believe I have a good handle on the general situation, and what I see is appalling. I'm a communist, and communism is all about human liberation, and not about workers/people serving a more efficient state. And Stalinism????

IMO, the Russian Revolution was doomed to failure for at least two reasons: the necessary bottom-up, communist organization of much of society had not happened prior to revolution (life and communist revolution are bottom-up processes); and the horrendous environment in which the revolution occurred inevitably produced a war communism, not a human communism. And then Stalin

I had just finished Rabinowitch's Bolsheviks Come To Power and had begun his Bolsheviks in Power when this thread began. Now I'll keep my eyes out for Khlevniuk, Carr, and Wheatcroft. Thanks again!

My red-green best.

[A Marxist Historian]

Ha! I didn't know Ron Suny wrote anything worthwhile. I was in many classes of his as an undergrad. He taught all the good stuff -- seminars on the Russian Revolution, Stalinism, etc. And he got some good speakers, including Rabinowich and the guy who wrote THE book about the Kadet party. He hated me -- he was very touchy-feely with other students, but with me he was demagogic, always trying to punch holes in my arguments by any means. I guess it made me go into class very prepared. The best I could do, usually, was get to a standoff. He hated that I was significantly to his left -- he really did not like Lenin and the Bolsheviks. He was an okay teacher, but a bit of a schmuck.

There are quite a few comrades in the SL that are gay. They are not persecuted but often hold leading positions in the organization. They do, per organizational rules, however, keep their sexual preferences private.

Unsurprising about Suny. He is after all explicitly pro-Menshevik, so he wouldn't care to have pro-Bolshevik students.

But that puts him to the left of most academics, so his books have a mild leftist edge to them, as he spends more time arguing with folk to his right than his left.

His first book is his very best, the one on the "Baku Commune," written in the atmosphere of the 1960s, before he discovered the wonders of Georgian Menshevism. It is in fact pro-Bolshevik and absolutely excellent.

I met him once about a decade ago, told him how much he liked the book, his comment was "oh, that book," like he'd almost forgotten he'd written it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Baku-Commune-1917-18-Nationality/dp/0691051933

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Ian Grey noted it in his 1979 biography.

"Pravda reflected this policy of moderation. Articles received from Lenin were edited, and the abusive references to the provisional government and to the Mensheviks were toned down or cut. According to Shlyapnikov, jaundiced by his summary displacement, the 'editorial revolution was strongly criticized by Petrograd workers, some even demanding the expulsion of Stalin, Kamenev and Muranov from the party.'"
(Ian Grey. Stalin: Man of History. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1979. pp. 89-90.)

Despite our very sharp disagreements, I must say that I wish all the Stalin defenders here were as willing to recognize established historical fact as you are.


Did it issue any explicitly stating it would organize the revolution before it actually did so?

No, that would have been militarily foolish. But neither was there any nonsense about mass meetings to ... petition the Soviet Congress.

Stalin's conciliatory role towards Zinoviev and Kamenev's "strikebreaking" during the Revolution is all quite well established. The minutes of the Bolshevik Central Committee have been published in English, anyone can check for themselves.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Bolsheviks_and_the_October_Revolutio.html?id=5 4keAAAAMAAJ

I'll just give Trotsky's summary, fully verified by the published minutes.

"In order to be free to spread his views about the insurrection, Kamenev resigned from the Central Committee. The question was discussed at the session of October twentieth. Sverdlov made public Lenin's letter which castigated Zinoviev and Kamenev as strikebreakers and demanded their expulsion from the party. The crisis was unexpectedly complicated by the fact that on that very morning Pravda published a declaration by the editorial board in defense of Zinoviev and Kamenev: "The sharpness of the tone of Comrade Lenin's article does not alter the fact that in the main we continue to share his opinion." The central organ deemed it proper to find fault with "the sharpness" of Lenin's protest rather than with the public stand of two Central Committee members against the party decision on the insurrection....
Stalin's only associate on the editorial board was Sokolnikov ... (he) subsequently declared that he had nothing whatsoever to do with writing the editorial rebuke of Lenin and considered it erroneous... Thus Stalin alone... supported Zinoviev and Kamenev as late as four days before the insurrection....
Stalin went on record against accepting Kamenev's resignation... by five votes, against Stalin and two others, Kamenev's resignation was accepted. By six votes, again against Stalin's, a resolution was passed, forbidding Zinoviev and Kamenev to wage their fight against the Central Committee. The protocol states: "Stalin declared that he was leaving the editorial board." In his case it meant abandoning the only post he was capable of filling in the circumstance of revolution. But the Central Committee refused to accept Stalin's resignation."

Trotsky's Stalin bio, p. 231.

In the rest of this chapter of the book (a fully finished chapter, unlike some others later in the book which were unfinished and have problematic elements, e.g. the Lenin poisoning speculation) Trotsky details the absolute noninvolvement of Stalin in the October Revolution, which he spent hiding in the Pravda office writing his little centrist editorials.


Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust. Who denies the Ukrainian famine or the Great Purges? "Stalin did not orchestrate them as part of evil plans" is not the same thing as "they didn't happen."

Well, we've had quite a few Stalin fans here on Revleft either denying the Ukrainian famine or saying it was a good thing, the Ukrainians peasants deserved it. That you are not one of them is to your credit--though on the Great Purges, better described as the Great Terror (even though Conquest coined that) in which some 800,000 people were executed, that's hardly just a "purge" of some tiny band of conspirators--you verge on that as well.


To quote bourgeois historian J. Arch Getty, responding (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-russia&month=0205&week=a&msg=G9gRj0I/eXnblGCPQyYXlA&user=&pw) to similar claims of "denial," "This is a position that I personally find grotesque, insulting and at least shallow. Nobody is denying the famine or the huge scale of suffering, (as holocaust-deniers do), least of all Tauger and other researchers who have spent much of their careers trying to bring this tragedy to light and give us a factual account of it. Admittedly, what he and other scholars do is different from the work of journalists and polemicists who indiscriminately collect horror stories and layer them between repetitive statements about evil, piling it all up and calling it history."

Getty, it should be noted, compares "Stalinism" to religion and is quite far from praising Stalin.

Neither Getty nor Tauger defend Stalin, as you yourself note. You do.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

A Marxist Historian, Lev Bronsteinovich, Thanks for your generous, informative replies. That was an interesting Spartacist link. I ran into Spartacist along with the RU, SWP, YSA, Progressive Labor Party, etc. long ago, and I suppose it was PLP that was enthusiastically out to "re-educate" me sexually. However, Spartacist's current requirement that its members keep their sexual orientation ("preference" is inaccurate) private seems Victorian Stalinist.

In any case, I view gay liberation as a subset of human liberation.

I think it's just common sense. Not all of America is like Castro Street in SF. If you're going to organize workers, best keep your private life private and nobody's biz but your own. Especially, by the way, if you want to defend gay rights among backward workers.


As for Robert Conquest, I did some googling, and found more unsavory beliefs and actions. However, I have an excellent nose, I believe, for bourgeois intellectual assassinations of left politics and history, and Conquest gets his facts right, and these facts represent a regime that was the refutation of Marxism and basic humanity. Two works by Khlevniuk (Thanks for the source!) are in the bibliography of his recent edition of The Great Terror (2008).

That the Stalinist regime was a refutation of Marxism & basic decency, well, I agree. But firstly, Stalinism is not at all the same thing as Bolshevism, as Conquest by the way documents perfectly well, look at all the Bolsheviks Stalin killed. And secondly, the USSR even under Stalin was a non-capitalist regime where the workers had full employment, free medical care & education, no homelessness & hunger, full ethnic equality most of the time, etc. etc. And it was the Red Army that shoved Nazism into the dustbin of history. Not to be sniffed at.


You two and Ismail and others can swamp me with various informed details of the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, Stalin, etc., but I believe I have a good handle on the general situation, and what I see is appalling. I'm a communist, and communism is all about human liberation, and not about workers/people serving a more efficient state. And Stalinism????

IMO, the Russian Revolution was doomed to failure for at least two reasons: the necessary bottom-up, communist organization of much of society had not happened prior to revolution (life and communist revolution are bottom-up processes); and the horrendous environment in which the revolution occurred inevitably produced a war communism, not a human communism. And then Stalin

Yes, but that's just the way the ball bounces. How can you have a bottom-up communist organization of society under capitalism? You can't, will never happen.

Hopefully the next workers revolution will take place under better conditions. But maybe not, considering what the capitalists are doing to our planet.

As Rabinowitch documents in the book you just read, the Bolshevik Revolution was just about as bottom up a thing as, in practical terms, you can hope for.


I had just finished Rabinowitch's Bolsheviks Come To Power and had begun his Bolsheviks in Power when this thread began. Now I'll keep my eyes out for Khlevniuk, Carr, and Wheatcroft. Thanks again!

My red-green best.

Haven't read Rabinowitch's new book yet, too much time spent on posting to Revleft etc. etc. Hope too soon.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

No, that would have been militarily foolish. But neither was there any nonsense about mass meetings to ... petition the Soviet Congress.

Stalin's conciliatory role towards Zinoviev and Kamenev's "strikebreaking" during the Revolution is all quite well established. The minutes of the Bolshevik Central Committee have been published in English, anyone can check for themselves.This also isn't new, since not only Ian Grey's biography (and E.H. Carr's history) but practically every biography of Stalin dealing with the year 1917 in some manner notes it. Back then Stalin was seen as a "moderate" person who got along with most everyone and was reluctant to endorse expulsions among other things.


In the rest of this chapter of the book (a fully finished chapter, unlike some others later in the book which were unfinished and have problematic elements, e.g. the Lenin poisoning speculation) Trotsky details the absolute noninvolvement of Stalin in the October Revolution, which he spent hiding in the Pravda office writing his little centrist editorials.For what it's worth Ulam in his work Stalin: The Man and His Era points out (pp. 154-155) that:

"But at the time, [Stalin's] absence was taken as quite natural, certainly not as a matter for reproach. Though there was no actual disposition to that effect (the insurrection was far from being a carefully planned and conducted conspiracy) there was undoubtedly a tacit agreement that some Bolshevik leaders should not be directly connected with the armed uprising.

It was disingenuous of Trotsky to write of Stalin in those days, 'The cautious schemer preferred to stay on the fence at the crucial moment.' Each Bolshevik leader had specific task assigned to him. Stalin's was to stay away from the fighting, to be held in reserve. And up to the very last moment the Central Committee was anxious to avoid a too direct identification with the uprising."

Carr himself noted that when Zinoviev and Kamenev showed all Russia that the Bolsheviks were contemplating an uprising that Trotsky quickly denied this was the case to the Petrograd Soviet.


Well, we've had quite a few Stalin fans here on Revleft either denying the Ukrainian famine or saying it was a good thing, the Ukrainians peasants deserved it.And they're evidently wrong. I doubt Soviet officials were saying to themselves, "Oh cool, the food situation of the entire country is threatened and there's mass unrest in the Ukrainian SSR because people are dying of hunger."

[Geiseric]

Still a more careful approach to collectivisation could of happened earlier, when the left opposition was pushing for it, but Stalin said no, being the centrist he was, to obtain an alliance with Bukharin.

[jookyle]

And, to be fair, not everyone should be on the front lines of physical battle. For a successful revolution you don't just need an over throw but people there to help build afterwords. There are many different purposes a person may serve in a revolution. Not everyone is a solider, and by being one may do more harm than good, they would serve better purposes else where.

[Geiseric]

My main problem with Stalin is when he switched his view to SioC in 1925 after supporting Brandler's menshevism in Germany. At that point is when he went to the side of the opportunist defensists, instead of actually adhering to Marxism. from what i understand he came back from prison in 1918 a broken, demoralized man, which I think the foundation for his actions in 1918 came from, however except for a campaign in poland which he messed up after Lenin and Trotsky gave him specific directions contrasting what he decided to do, I think Stalin was overall "loyal," throughout the civil war and the revolution once Lenin chastised Kamanev and Zinoviev. but he did make his role seem alot bigger, putting himself on a pedestal tantamount to Lenin, who he created a cult around. His speech at Lenin's funeral made me sick, as well as his concealment of the Testament. I trust Krushchev's and Trotsky's word over J. Arch Getty or whatever Stalinist author wrote about the Testament to remove stalin and co.from power

[Ismail]

I don't know why his speech at Lenin's funeral would make you "sick." Erik Van Ree has noted that there was already quite a personality cult around Lenin, built up by all the leading Bolsheviks, Trotsky included. Other authors have noted that Trotsky endorsed renaming cities after still-living Bolsheviks. Obviously Stalin's cult was significantly larger, but it had prior foundations.

Also Getty (who, again, is quite anti-Stalin) didn't write about the "testament," nor is it expected that he would since he's entirely focused on 1930's USSR. if I'm recalling right Lars T. Lih (not a "Stalinist" either) in his commentaries in Stalin's Letters to Molotov does note that it was the oppositionists who tended to intrigue more concerning Lenin's "testament," which wasn't "hidden."

Khrushchev claimed that Stalin conducted military operations on a globe during WWII, a claim that's patently false (and noted as such in, for instance, Stalin's Wars by Geoffrey Roberts.) He played a leading role in the Great Purge in the Ukrainian SSR. He's hardly trustworthy for any information concerning Stalin.

[Mr. Natural]

A Marxist Historian, Thanks again. I have a revolutionary disagreement with your following statement, though: "How can you have a bottom-up communist organization of society under capitalism? You can't, will never happen."

Well, Marxist Historian, isn't it well past time to make some communist history? And this certainly can happen--must happen--through a bottom-up, grassroots, communist process of revolutionary organizing. Chaos/complexity theory shows us that the intital organization of systems creates the parameters of their potential development. A Stalinist, dictatorial beginning cannot result in a communist future, and I detect nothing in the fsu that represented communist principles.

But how might we organize a bottom-up revolutionary process in an advanced capitalist country such as the US? Obviously, this hasn't happened and would be a most delicate process. The power of the capitalist state is enormous.

However, as Marx noted, bourgeois democracy represents a potential Achilles heel for capitalism, and the revolutionary process I envision would use American "democracy" to initiate a popular, democratic, communist revolutionary process of aware human beings. This would be anything but a liberal, within-The-System project. There are reformist reforms that stay within The System, and revolutionary reforms that occur within The System but point to the new system to be established.

Now it's time to bring in the transcendently revolutionary tool that makes this possible: Capra's triangle of the organization of life, community, and revolution. You see, life is community; communism is natural; life goes to revolution/evolution all the time. The systemic process of life has a universal pattern of organization that Capra's triangle models to make it possible for regular human beings to "see" life's organization and organize their lives in that pattern--the pattern of communism.

My twelve years of dogged research into the science underlying the triangle has me absolutely convinced that the preceding remarks are essentially correct. Capra's triangle is, imo, easily the most radical, revolutionary mental tool to ever appear. Humans see the things of life but miss their organization. Capra's triangle makes the organization of life and communism popularly "visible" and intelligible and usable.

Capra's triangle is the Marxist materialist dialectic brought to life and potential popular praxis.


The Bolshevik Alexander Bogdanov's Tektology (universal science of organization) seemed to be on this track, but the idea of a universal pattern of organization of the living systems that create and compose the life process might be a brand-new scientificand philosophical concept.

So what would a revolutionary process employing the triangle and bourgeois "democracy" look like? The objective would be to create various forms of "aware community" created by the members of such communities. The point would be to design social systems in the pattern of life/communism that would function as revolutionary reforms that create new, revolutionary ways of living and thinking within an advanced capitalist society.

Humanity currently has a conservative, partial consciousness that perceives things but misses the critical organization of those things. Developing Capra's triangle of the materialist dialectic and bringing it into popular praxis would entail a revolutionary renaissance for the human species. We could have a glorious, realized human future, but to do so we will have to learn to organize our lives in the manner that the rest of life's self-organizing, material systems (people are such systems) organize their lives.

I realize I have tossed a lot of stuff into the wind here. I hope you caught a little bit of it, for I do not know how to present this paradigm shift in consciousness and potential revolutionary processes to the minds of others.

It's really quite simple, though. Life has an organization that we anarchists/Marxists who cannot currently organize must follow. Capra's triangle models that organization.

Life has a bottom-up organization that establishes higher levels of organization as complexity increases. Thus cells become organs that become bodies, and human social individuals form families that become neighborhoods that become towns. Thus communist revolutionary processes must be rooted in the people/workers of a society, and in Tsarist Russia, the revolutionary process didn't sufficiently include the peasantry, for one problem.

I have a well-worked-out red-green theory of life, community, and revolution based on the triangle, but damned if I can figure out ways to present it to others who can not or will not open their minds to see the organization of life and communism.

I truly believe that Marxists are obligated to realize they are stuck in place--capitalism's place--and thereby need to be open to re-revolutionizing revolutionary theory. Marx and Engels would approve.

My red-green best.

[A Marxist Historian]

This also isn't new, since not only Ian Grey's biography (and E.H. Carr's history) but practically every biography of Stalin dealing with the year 1917 in some manner notes it. Back then Stalin was seen as a "moderate" person who got along with most everyone and was reluctant to endorse expulsions among other things.

For what it's worth Ulam in his work Stalin: The Man and His Era points out (pp. 154-155) that:

"But at the time, [Stalin's] absence was taken as quite natural, certainly not as a matter for reproach. Though there was no actual disposition to that effect (the insurrection was far from being a carefully planned and conducted conspiracy) there was undoubtedly a tacit agreement that some Bolshevik leaders should not be directly connected with the armed uprising.

It was disingenuous of Trotsky to write of Stalin in those days, 'The cautious schemer preferred to stay on the fence at the crucial moment.' Each Bolshevik leader had specific task assigned to him. Stalin's was to stay away from the fighting, to be held in reserve. And up to the very last moment the Central Committee was anxious to avoid a too direct identification with the uprising."

Not new to you, but I suspect new info for many of our less sophisticated Trotsky-bashers here on Revleft.

Are you familiar with the Central Committee minutes book I gave a URL for? Turned out I had a copy, fished it out after my posting. Definitely would be worth your while to get a copy and look at it. Reading them doesn't confirm Ulam's notions about Stalin as the guy in reserve in any way. I suspect he simply thought that one up because Ulam doesn't like Trotsky, though he is no great fan of Stalin either, but doesn't want to go along with the usual picture of Trotsky as a central leader of the Revolution and Stalin shoved into the background while the workers were on the march.


Carr himself noted that when Zinoviev and Kamenev showed all Russia that the Bolsheviks were contemplating an uprising that Trotsky quickly denied this was the case to the Petrograd Soviet.

That's Carr at his objectivist slightly cynical worst. As Trotsky explains in the minutes (page 112):

"Comrade Trotsky requests that his statement about the circumstances in whihc he made his statement in the Soviet be entered in the minutes, that is, he was forced into it by Kamenev's statement that he intended to make his resolution public."

Stalin attended the Central Committee meeting the next day after his resignation as editor was rejected, three days before the Revolution, and made a couple of routine motions for this and that. He then absented himself from Central Committee meetings for the next three weeks, while the Revolution was happening.

At one of those meetings a resolution was passed requiring all Central Committee members to stay at the Smolny headquarters of the Military Revolutionary Committee and the Bolshevik CC for the duration, while the revolution was going on. Apparently Stalin simply disobeyed this resolution out of pique.

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

With these theories, with the dangers and damage they cause, you are better acquainted than we. For instance, Che Guevara was killed. Such a thing is liable to happen, because a revolutionary may get killed. Che Guevara, however, was a victim of his own non-Marxist-Leninist views.

Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.

The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.

We cannot say that Che Guevara and his comrades were cowards. No, by no means! On the contrary, they were brave people. There are also bourgeois who are brave men. But the only truly great heroes and really brave proletarian revolutionaries are those who proceed from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles and put all their physical and mental energies at the service of the world proletariat for the liberation of the peoples from the yolk of the imperialists, feudal lords and others.

We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism. Battista was an obedient flunky of imperialism, who rode roughshod over the Cuban people. The Cuban people, however, fought and triumphed over this clique and over American imperialism at the same time...

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism.
-Enver Hoxha The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm
Moderately amusing to read the above from Hoxha, whose current day followers seem to worship him. Amazingly idealistic also -- forget that Castro and Co. completely expropriated the Cuban bourgeoisie. In a fight between the leadership of the International Committee (Worker's Revolutionary Party, UK) and the leadership of what was to become the Spartacist League, The WRP's line was that after 1961 Cuba remained capitalist, but the bourgeoisie was weak. The SL noted that if they were weak, it was probably due to the long swim to Miami. Capitalism was smashed, comrade. It doesn't matter where Castro and his followers started, they made a revolution. That they could only find their way to a somewhat leftist Stalinism is a shame -- but the Cuban revolution was and is to be defended. All this shit about who is a hero is twaddle. To this day, capitalism has not been restored in Cuba. What about Albania? All the heroic righteousness of comrade Hoxa couldn't stay the course? Of course it couldn't because that stuff doesn't matter. Program is decisive. Was Hoxha born quoting Stalin? And the nationalism of Hoxha and Castro was a huge problem. You can't build socialism in one small, poor, backward country. Cuba had some good internationalist impulses, Angola, Granada. . . and Che's guerrila adventurism was definitely misguided.

[Ismail]

Amazingly idealistic also -- forget that Castro and Co. completely expropriated the Cuban bourgeoisie.On the Cuban state-capitalist economy and its formation see: http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm

There is also "Castro's Phoney Communism" by the PLP from the mid-80's, which is a good read. People can PM me with their emails if they want me to send them it.


but the Cuban revolution was and is to be defended.Hoxha agreed for it was a progressive, bourgeois-democratic revolution. See also: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm


And the nationalism of Hoxha and Castro was a huge problem. You can't build socialism in one small, poor, backward country.Especially not if you capitulate to Soviet revisionism and gear the vast majority of your economy towards sugar exports. It seems that you agree more with the present Cuban leadership than you'd admit, since it has recently learned that you gotta be "realistic" and gradually move towards the Chinese road of market capitalism thinly disguised as "socialism."


Cuba had some good internationalist impulses, Angola, Granada. . .The Cuban internationalist mission in Angola, valiantly defending Chevron oil installations from UNITA attacks. Cuban military presence in the country served the interests of both Soviet social-imperialism and most transnational business interests just fine.

Likewise Cuban troops served as mercenaries in the Soviet invasion of Somalia.


All this shit about who is a hero is twaddle.I guess the revolutionaries of Latin America don't actually need to follow the Leninist road to revolution, they just need to assemble some guys, go up in the mountains, and declare "revolution" like countless 19th century rebel leaders before them. If their great leader dies in the process and the entire rebellion naturally goes with it then that somehow accounts for nothing I guess.

[aquaruis15000]

NEP was a response to the LACK of class consciousness on the part of the workers and poor peasants.

So perhaps it wasn't time for a workers revolution? The workers aren't conscious enough for a revolution themselves so let's do it in their name? Yeah, that worked out real well.

[aquaruis15000]

Hoxha agreed for it was a progressive, bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Because the bourgeoisie usually expropriates its self.

[aquaruis15000]

they just need to assemble some guys, go up in the mountains, and declare "revolution" like countless 19th century rebel leaders before them.

Why do you hate Latin Americans?

The Cuban Revolution combined a rural guerrilla war, urban sabotage and a strike movement in the factories to succeed.

[Ismail]

Because the bourgeoisie usually expropriates its self.That's why civil wars happen in bourgeois states all the time, because there's no differences between the interests of the comprador and national bourgeoisie, between competing sections of capital, etc.

It's well-known that the main support Castro had before he took power was from Cuban liberals at home and abroad in the United States, Mexico, etc. It's equally well-known that he condemned communism and had no coherent ideology (just that he was left-wing) until declaring himself a "Marxist-Leninist" in 1961.

The Cuban revolution was not a socialist revolution. The French resistance had urban sabotage and worker unrest as well, so did various other resistance movements and rebellions throughout the 20th century. Cuba's revolution was one of getting rid of Batista and carrying out a series of progressive land reform and social improvement programs. It "radicalized" because of American pressure forcing Castro to look eastwards.

Hoxha and the Albanians had good things to say about Castro, at least until 1968 and onwards when Castro pretty much uncritically endorsed whatever the Soviets did and became the Soviet voice in Latin American affairs.


Why do you hate Latin Americans?The PCdoB in Brazil and PCMLE in Ecuador were both nationally significant and pro-Albania (the PCMLE is still broadly sympathetic to him.)

[aquaruis15000]

It's not so well known that he was reading Lenin's collected works in prison, studying military strategy with a red Spanish civil war veteran, and building an underground network with his brother Raul who was a member of the communist party and Cienfuegos who was a well known anarchist.

Who exactly brought down the Batista state? Liberals in New York or the general strike that swept Havana?

[aquaruis15000]

Hoxha and the Albanians had good things to say about Castro, at least until 1968 and onwards when Castro pretty much uncritically endorsed whatever the Soviets did and became the Soviet voice in Latin American affairs.

Especially when he was sending troops to Africa against the will of the USSR and threatening to nuke America, causing Nikita to poop in his short pants.

[Ismail]

Who exactly brought down the Batista state? Liberals in New York or the general strike that swept Havana?Well considering that the liberals in New York (and Mexico) helped arm Castro's men, I'd say they were pretty significant, no? The Batista regime had discredited itself by 1958, even the Americans wanted Batista to retire in favor of someone like Ramón Barquín. Popular discontent does not suddenly equal a socialist revolution. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of Cubans in 1959-60 did not conceive that they had waged a revolution against capitalism.


Especially when he was sending troops to Africa against the will of the USSR and threatening to nuke America, causing Nikita to poop in his short pants.Orienting Castro's economy almost entirely towards exporting sugar to the Soviet Union (which IIRC actually caused the industrial contribution to Cuba's economic output to decrease) and endorsing the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia = ???

Saying in 1992 that Gorby struggled to "perfect socialism" = ???

Also, again, Hoxha and the Albanians had good things to say about Castro at first. Up to the late 60's Castro was flirting with the Chinese and Albanian line on foreign affairs, which strongly attacked Khrushchev's capitulation in-re the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[aquaruis15000]

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/after-months-of-occupation-of-the-cuiaba-plantation-by-landless-families-the-peasants-celebrate-the-official-expropriation-state-of-sergipe-brazil-1996-630x400.jpg

Yea, these guys had no idea what they were doing. Rascals! What they needed was a strong Marxist-Leninist party to show them the way.

[Ismail]

No, they had no idea what they were doing outside of overthrowing Batista and engaging in land reform and the like, which would be topped off with a bourgeois democracy validated through elections as Castro had publicly called for.

Also the "communist" Raúl is presently leading the way in economic liberalization.

I've always found the whole "OH LOOK CASTRO DISAGREED WITH THE SOVIETS ON X ISSUE" to be pretty lame as a defense. Kim Il Sung annoyed the Soviets on various issues too, e.g. by being more "hardline" domestically and flirting with pro-Chinese positions at times. That doesn't change the fact that Kim was otherwise comfortably pro-Soviet after the early 60's (to the extent that the Chinese wanted to find a way to overthrow him) and praised the USSR as a fraternal socialist state with the CPSU as a fraternal Marxist-Leninist party to the end. Ho Chi Minh sympathized with the Chinese and Albanians but at the same time stressed unity between Soviet revisionism and Marxism-Leninism, with reunified Vietnam adopting a firmly pro-Soviet foreign policy line.

Albania, by contrast, actually did disagree with the USSR on significant issues, and the USSR in turn broke off all relations with it, something the Albanian leadership evidently didn't mind too much since as late as 1989 it proudly stated it would never restore relations with it (or the USA, for that matter.)

[aquaruis15000]

Yes, Cuba was "revisionist" for trying to integrate into a world socialist economy. Communism is all about small, poor, backward countries utilizing forced labor and limiting their products to things like gray ant-suits in order to be self sufficient. The true revolutionary position, as we all know, is complete isolation based on religious-like dogma. That worked out very well for Albania (and the world revolution), and is working out even better for North Korea.

[Ismail]

Yes, Cuba was "revisionist" for trying to integrate into a world socialist economy.A "world socialist economy" based on the Soviet doctrine of the "international socialist division of labor," i.e. Soviet neo-colonialism.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albeconint.htm


The true revolutionary position, as we all know, is complete isolation based on religious-like dogma. That worked out very well for Albania (and the world revolution), and is working out even better for North Korea.Actually the DPRK isn't "dogmatic" at all, the Workers' Party of Korea proudly classifies the Communist Party of China as a fraternal party and China as a socialist state and engages in open trade with it, ditto with Vietnam and Laos, and let's not forget Cuba either.

[aquaruis15000]

Problem is Cuba sent Cuba to Africa and South America and later sent whole armies to Africa against the explicit wishes of the USSR, endangering its fraternal relationship and cooperation in the spirit of internationalism. You won't find anything like that in the rest of the Communist Bloc. So while Cuba traded with the only partners it could possibly have (as did Lenin let us not forget, who was a big proponent of trading with Europe and America on the capitalist world market in order to secure means of production, technology, tractors, you name it - your buddy Stalin followed in those footsteps too!) it also pursued its own line, often contradicting the interests of the Soviet Union and even its own (if we look at things from a narrow perspective of national interests). It would be pretty hard to imagine sending nearly your entire army over the Atlantic Ocean to Africa while a massive imperialist enemy sits armed and deadly only a few kilometers away, but this is exactly what happened!

[aquaruis15000]

Cuba

For its part, Cuba has said it is all alone in the world since the collapse of 1991, but is making a go at it anyway. This all proves the impossibility of socialism in one country. So why do you love it so much?

[Ismail]

I was unaware Lenin and Stalin subordinated the Soviet economy and reduced it to a neo-colonial state. Perhaps you can explain this process which, in fact, did occur in Cuba?


For its part, Cuba has said it is all alone in the world since the collapse of 1991, but is making a go at it anyway. This all proves the impossibility of socialism in one country. So why do you love it so much?Presumably because I'm a socialist and don't think being "all alone in the world" is grounds for emulating China's economy and anti-communist foreign policy, ignoring for a moment that Cuba never actually had a socialist economy to begin with.


You won't find anything like that in the rest of the Communist Bloc.There wasn't a particular shortage of military instructors and security officials from East Germany and other Eastern Bloc countries in Angola and other pro-Soviet states.

I also don't see how sending troops to Angola and such was so harmful for Cuba's national interests. Most Soviet-backed African states unsurprisingly admired Cuba. It isn't like Castro was sending troops to defend an Angolan Hoxha or whatever. Also just because the Soviets weren't consulted on troop deployments doesn't mean much; the Berlin Wall was an East German initiative that wasn't greeted with particular enthusiasm in the Soviet leadership. Evidently the continued presence Cuban troops in Angola served Soviet interests as one of the many bargaining chips between the Soviet Union and USA, just as South African troops in Angola served as such for the Americans.

[aquaruis15000]

I was unaware Lenin and Stalin subordinated the Soviet economy and reduced it to a neo-colonial state.

Reduced would signify going backwards. Cuba moved forward. Producing sugar which it sold at above market prices to gain consumer goods and other things it could not produce itself. At the same time, it increased its production of cement, machinery and more. Also social production, cranking out hundreds of thousands of doctors, teachers and scientists. That's how it's a leading producer of biotechnology today bud.

Stubborn ass Albanian leadership got it isolated from the rest of the world. Then it made up some ideological mumbo jumbo to justify that. Self-sufficiency for dummies. Didn't work. Albania lacked in many things because of it.

Small backward countries can't make everything they need. It wouldn't even be desirable. Redundant work has nothing to do with socialism.


I also don't see how sending troops to Angola and such was so harmful for Cuba's national interests.

Yea right. A criminal is on your front porch with 10 friends with 10 guns and you don't see how sending your guard dog to the house of the old lady down the street to protect her could be harmful? :rolleyes: