Why do some people support Stalinism?

[Comrade #138672]

I wonder why there are still some people who support Stalinism or call themselves Stalinists.

What is it about Stalinism that attracts these people to it? What makes it different from Marxism-Leninism? I know that Stalinists support state capitalism, but isn't there more to it?

Do Stalinists agree with the mass murders caused by Stalin? If so, how can you justify it?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Stalinism is the name the west gives Marxism-Leninism. Marxists-Leninists do not support state-capitalism, the final goal of MLs is communism. Marxism-Leninism is based on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. So if you want to know “if there is more to it” you should read their works.
A good introduction to Marxism-Leninism is:
Foundations of Leninism- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm

Concerning questions of Leninism- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm

History of the CPSU(b)- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/index.htm

Of course, these are only an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, but it gives the basic outline of it. If you want to read more you should get into the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Marxist-Leninist don't think Stalin did mass-murders, we do believe that he suppressed bourgeois-ideology and counter-revolutionaries. We do not deny that there were mistakes, but we think that it was needed to strenghten the Soviet Union.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If gou have more specific questions now or in the future, you can always PM me or other MLs, that'show I got my information when I started getting interested in it.

[Ostrinski]

The user Ismail is the man to go to about all your ML questions. He knows a great deal about its history and ideology and explains it quite well.

[rednordman]

to be honest i think that its a bit to do with their revulsion to Trotskyists and to that end left-communists and anarchists too. Mainly because of their obsession with blaming one man for the whole downfall of the left in general, and then talking about how it was some sort of terrible injustice that their idol didn't get the hot seat, and how he would have done everything right and perfect to a tee. oh and we would be living in a communist society right now...:rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

Stalinism is the name the west gives Marxism-Leninism.

Actually, "Stalinism" is the name the Marxists give to those who mistake state capitalism for socialism and the undemocratic rule of a bureaucratic class with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Stalinism seems to appeal to people who have deep-seated fears of individual freedom and want to impose their will and narrow moralism on other people through the endorsement of authoritarian state control (so psychologically close to that of a policeman) up to and including support for labour camps and state executions of dissenters (on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the official line of the state is a "class enemy"). In short, they're a nasty bunch and should be avoided. Thankfully, they mostly only exist on the internet.

[Ostrinski]

to be honest i think that its a bit to do with their revulsion to Trotskyists and to that end left-communists and anarchists too. Mainly because of their obsession with blaming one man for the whole downfall of the left in general, and then talking about how it was some sort of terrible injustice that their idol didn't get the hot seat, and how he would have done everything right and perfect to a tee. oh and we would be living in a communist society right now...:rolleyes:are you saying Trotskyists and left communists blame Stalin for the downfall of the left?

[Comrade Samuel]

Actually, "Stalinism" is the name the Marxists give to those who mistake state capitalism for socialism and the undemocratic rule of a bureaucratic class with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Stalinism seems to appeal to people who have deep-seated fears of individual freedom and want to impose their will and narrow moralism on other people (so psychologically close to that of a policeman) through the endorsement of authoritarian state control up to and including support for labour camps and state executions of dissenters (on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the official line of the state is a "class enemy"). In short, they're a nasty bunch and should be avoided. Thankfully, they mostly only exist on the internet.

Flamebait much? If you can really back up all of these generalizations and outright lies about hundreds of people with solid facts I'd be really interested to hear it.

[Lokomotive293]

Thankfully, they mostly only exist on the internet.

I wouldn't exactly say the KKE or the PCP, two of the most successful Communist Parties in Europe, who have not fallen to revisionism, "exist only on the Internet", as I'm sure you would define them as "Stalinists". Also, what about Cuba? Wouldn't you call that "Stalinist" as well? You don't have to agree with the views of those parties, but please acknowledge that they exist, and are quite relevant.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Why do some people prefer Pepsi over Coke?

What it boils down to, is the way in which one thinks best to achieve worldwide communism. ML's go for the SIOC route, while Trots go for PR. (Gross simplification, I know)

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why do some people prefer Pepsi over Coke?

What it boils down to, is the way in which one thinks best to achieve worldwide communism. ML's go for the SIOC route, while Trots go for PR. (Gross simplification, I know)

No no no, Socialism in one Country, is by no means a tactic or a thing necessary. We just don't deny that socialism can exist in one country. But saying it is able to exist in one country, doesn't mean that it is our final goal. Our final goal is communism, on a world scale.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Comrade, chill. If you read my post, I stated, clearly, that SIOC was not an end goal, but a way of achieving world wide communism.

[rednordman]

are you saying Trotskyists and left communists blame Stalin for the downfall of the left?not in their entirety, just if they are loosing an argument to capitalism supporters, it tends to go that way.

[Hit The North]

Flamebait much? If you can really back up all of these generalizations and outright lies about hundreds of people with solid facts I'd be really interested to hear it.

Guess I should have said it's based on personal observation. Nevertheless, if you think my typology is in error, tell me where I've got it wrong. I've never met a Stalinist who wasn't morally conservative or failed to cheerlead Stalin's appalling record both nationally and internationally, and the Stalinists on this site are constantly arguing for labour camps, executing the 'lumpen proles', and 're-educating' people who express ideas at odds with their dismal creed.

Face it, you lionise undemocratic police states and make a fetish of uniformed authoritarians. One only has to visit the Marxist-Leninist user group to see that many of its members sport avatars of men in military uniform.

[Hit The North]

I wouldn't exactly say the KKE or the PCP, two of the most successful Communist Parties in Europe, who have not fallen to revisionism, "exist only on the Internet", as I'm sure you would define them as "Stalinists". Also, what about Cuba? Wouldn't you call that "Stalinist" as well? You don't have to agree with the views of those parties, but please acknowledge that they exist, and are quite relevant.

If that bunch of prevaricators called the KKE are Stalinists, it only goes to prove Marx's adage correct that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and second as farce. As for the PCP, which one are you referring to?

I wouldn't call the Cubans Stalinist.

But, yes, if you wish, I'll concede that Stalinists also exist in the real world. But I don't know why that would make anyone feel any better about the world.

[Manic Impressive]

I think there's a few different reasons that people get into Stalinism. The most prevalent is probably because it is the most well known type of communism. Which is why I say to every person who is just starting out to forget everything they think they know about communism. The second is due to the supposed success of the Russian revolution. They were the first to capture the state, that's a big deal. But that's as far as they got. Third reason is the same reason some people become anarchists and some people become Nazi's, to be rebellious maan. There isn't much more of a shocking political statement a teenager can make than saying Fuck you Mom I'm a stalinist. I guess once they get into it they can't admit that they are wrong, a bit like scientologists.

signed
A One Time Stalinist

P.S. my reason was the first one
P.P.S. I stopped being a Stalinist once I read the communist manifesto :p

[Lokomotive293]

Guess I should have said it's based on personal observation. Nevertheless, if you think my typology is in error, tell me where I've got it wrong. I've never met a Stalinist who wasn't morally conservative or failed to cheerlead Stalin's appalling record both nationally and internationally, and the Stalinists on this site are constantly arguing for labour camps, executing the 'lumpen proles', and 're-educating' people who express ideas at odds with their dismal creed.

Face it, you lionise undemocratic police states and make a fetish of uniformed authoritarians. One only has to visit the Marxist-Leninist user group to see that many of its members sport avatars of men in military uniform.

I somehow doubt you've met many "Stalinists" in real life if those are your personal observations. I'm pretty sure you would call me a "Stalinist" (even though I don't share all the views of the "typical Stalinist" you would maybe encounter on this site), and I neither have socially conservative views, nor do I believe labor camps and mass executions are something we should aspire to, and nor do I practice some kind of weird personality cult around Stalin. Instead of making an argument against Marxism-Leninism, as so many other people on this site have done and continue to do, you are just making wild assumptions about people you don't seem to know much about. Please stop.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think there's a few different reasons that people get into Stalinism. The most prevalent is probably because it is the most well known type of communism. Which is why I say to every person who is just starting out to forget everything they think they know about communism. The second is due to the supposed success of the Russian revolution. They were the first to capture the state, that's a big deal. But that's as far as they got. Third reason is the same reason some people become anarchists and some people become Nazi's, to be rebellious maan. There isn't much more of a shocking political statement a teenager can make than saying Fuck you Mom I'm a stalinist. I guess once they get into it they can't admit that they are wrong, a bit like scientologists.

signed
A One Time Stalinist

P.S. my reason was the first one
P.P.S. I stopped being a Stalinist once I read the communist manifesto :p

Or they agree with “stalinism”.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Comrade, chill. If you read my post, I stated, clearly, that SIOC was not an end goal, but a way of achieving world wide communism.

I'm chill as can be. It isn't much a way to achieve it either, the point is that there were people who were in the opinion that backward Russia could only be socialist if the advanced countries got a revolution, of course it helps if those did have a revolution aswell, but I think denying the workers the possibility of building socialism in their country, something which they just fought for in a revolution and later in a civil war, is a defeatist attitude.

[Hit The North]

I somehow doubt you've met many "Stalinists" in real life if those are your personal observations. I'm pretty sure you would call me a "Stalinist" (even though I don't share all the views of the "typical Stalinist" you would maybe encounter on this site), and I neither have socially conservative views, nor do I believe labor camps and mass executions are something we should aspire to, and nor do I practice some kind of weird personality cult around Stalin. Instead of making an argument against Marxism-Leninism, as so many other people on this site have done and continue to do, you are just making wild assumptions about people you don't seem to know much about. Please stop.

I'll stop when you stop defending Stalin's record.

[Lokomotive293]

If that bunch of prevaricators called the KKE are Stalinists, it only goes to prove Marx's adage correct that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and second as farce. As for the PCP, which one are you referring to?

I wouldn't call the Cubans Stalinist.

But, yes, if you wish, I'll concede that Stalinists also exist in the real world. But I don't know why that would make anyone feel any better about the world.

The KKE is one of the European CPs that has kept its Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, and has resisted the opportunism that has destroyed many other European CPs. As a result of this, they remain a strong revolutionary party, deeply rooted within the Greek working class movement.

I'm talking about the Portuguese Communist Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Communist_Party

You claimed "Stalinists" hardly exist outside of the Internet. I disproved your claim with facts. I'm sorry, but I don't really care if that makes you feel better about the world or not.


I'll stop when you stop defending Stalin's record.

Tell me where and when I have defended what record, and I'll decide if I'll stop or not. I don't see, however, how this is going to get us anywhere. The OP wanted to know why people support Marxism-Leninism, not have this thread turn into some endless debate about who Stalin killed or didn't kill, and under what circumstances.

[Comrade Samuel]

Guess I should have said it's based on personal observation. Nevertheless, if you think my typology is in error, tell me where I've got it wrong. I've never met a Stalinist who wasn't morally conservative or failed to cheerlead Stalin's appalling record both nationally and internationally, and the Stalinists on this site are constantly arguing for labour camps, executing the 'lumpen proles', and 're-educating' people who express ideas at odds with their dismal creed.

Face it, you lionise undemocratic police states and make a fetish of uniformed authoritarians. One only has to visit the Marxist-Leninist user group to see that many of its members sport avatars of men in military uniform.


As if I wasn't beating a dead horse when correcting you on the whole "Stalinist" and "Marxist-Leninist" thing, We will just cut the whole argument about semantics and get right to what matters. Firstly what do YOU define as morally conservative? Personally I think it's an oxymoron because generally speaking, conservatives are the some of the most immoral people I've ever met. I'm certan your looking for a better explanation than a cheap joke though, for that please ask some of our poor, non-heterosexual, female and non- caucasian MLs what they think of acting against their own interests, you clearly know more than them about their own belief. When you say we are "cheerleading Stalin's appalling record nationally and internationally" are you talking about how we critique his performance as a leader and attempt to learn from his failures while still thinking that overall we wasn't exactly the demon he was made out to be? This is not cheerleading, this is attempting to come to a logical conclusion about a man who has been dead for 59 years rather than simply buying into what bourgeois historians want us to believe because the passage of time makes it easier to just do that. I don't see people arguing for the past/future use of labor camps or exicutions, perhaps trying put it into perspective why they seemed like a good idea at the time but to say they would actualy support such a thing in the future is blaintently false.

I doubt that every military history enthusiest has an authority fetish but your welcome to keep believing that, especially because since joining I've seen 2, maybe 3 people who do that, but to be frank I think if you see a trend in people's avatars on an Internet forum and you think that somehow characterizes the entire world wide Marxist-Leninist movement you may be deranged.

[RedHammer]

I wonder why there are still some people who support Stalinism or call themselves Stalinists.

What is it about Stalinism that attracts these people to it? What makes it different from Marxism-Leninism? I know that Stalinists supports state capitalism, but isn't there more to it?

Do Stalinists agree with the mass murders caused by Stalin? If so, how can you justify it?

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or what you might call a "Stalinist".

Why do I support Marxism-Leninism? It has a track record, with rigorous theoretical foundation. It is revolutionary. It is genuine.

I'm also an authoritarian. Revolution isn't going to come about if we're all a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot and championing Noam Chomsky. Marxism-Leninism is authoritarian because revolutions are authoritarian acts.

As for the "murders", I am sure that Stalin did murder people. But the vast majority of deaths attributed to Stalin are erroneous; a man could die of syphilis and the mainstream historians will say "Stalin did it".

[Omsk]

These people really are a nasty bunch, them Stalinists... I personally hate them, i have this avatar just to piss them off.

Join the CWI!

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anti-Stalnists call self-described Marxist-Lenninists "Stalinists" because we do not believe thier ideology is genuinely Marxist or Lenninist for a number of reasons.
1. Stalinists confuse the DotP with the lower stage of communism.
2. Stalinists abandon proletarian internationalism.
3. Stalinists are big on something called "social-patriotism", which is just a pretty word for nationalism.
4. Stalinsts subscribe to a great-man theory of history rather than a historical materialist one.
5. Stalinists praise the rule of Stalin, Hoxha, Ho Chi Minh and the like as correct examples of "socialist construction", despite their states practicing generalized commodity production and surplus value extraction (capitalism), and their rule being completely unaccountable to the workers.
6. The revolutionary left must distance itself from 20th century Stalinism if it every hopes to build a mass worker's movement.

[Hit The North]

The KKE is one of the European CPs that has kept its Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, and has resisted the opportunism that has destroyed many other European CPs. As a result of this, they remain a strong revolutionary party, deeply rooted within the Greek working class movement.


Nice sanctimony but we've seen the KKE throw a protective ring around a bourgeois parliament and sit on its hands while the EU throws the Greek working class to the dogs. Meanwhile it continues to organise in a sectarian manner, wishing to impose itself on the movement rather than seeking alliances that could push it forward. But I guess if that's the face of modern Stalinism then at least they're no longer in a position to launch absurd show trials and march people in to gulags.

So they might exist in the real world but that doesn't make them relevant.


Tell me where and when I have defended what record, and I'll decide if I'll stop or not. I don't see, however, how this is going to get us anywhere.
If you consider yourself to be a "ML" (anti-revisionist) then you probably support the same record. This was summed up nicely by another poster in another thread:


BTW why do MLs angrily accuse Trotskyists of being "liberals"? This has never made sense to me.Trotskyists for the most part are the one's who have refused the class collaborationist Popular Frontism, the "bloc of four classes" and relied on working class activism to move things forward.

Stalin's method...Popular Front in France..disaster (I know the PCF was not directly involved but they were part of this)

Popular Frontism in Spain...disaster

Forced alliance between the CCP and the Goumindang..disaster





The OP wanted to know why people support Marxism-Leninism, not have this thread turn into some endless debate about who Stalin killed or didn't kill, and under what circumstances.

Yes, and I gave my opinion on the matter. Don't like it? Tough.

[rednordman]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or what you might call a "Stalinist".

Why do I support Marxism-Leninism? It has a track record, with rigorous theoretical foundation. It is revolutionary. It is genuine.

I'm also an authoritarian. Revolution isn't going to come about if we're all a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot and championing Noam Chomsky. Marxism-Leninism is authoritarian because revolutions are authoritarian acts.

As for the "murders", I am sure that Stalin did murder people. But the vast majority of deaths attributed to Stalin are erroneous; a man could die of syphilis and the mainstream historians will say "Stalin did it".All of this completely. Great post and couldn't agree more.

[Vanguard1917]

Firstly what do YOU define as morally conservative? Personally I think it's an oxymoron because generally speaking, conservatives are the some of the most immoral people I've ever met. I'm certan your looking for a better explanation than a cheap joke though, for that please ask some of our poor, non-heterosexual, female and non- caucasian MLs what they think of acting against their own interests, you clearly know more than them about their own belief.

Sexism and homophobia have been discredited elements of official bourgeois ideology in many Western countries for at least two decades now, so it has not been particularly difficult for modern Stalinist parties in the West to disown their own prejudices. It hardly takes much political courage or radicalism to champion gay rights, for instance, when the bourgeois establishment has itself changed its tune on the matter in similar ways.

If you look at the record of Stalinists in power, however, backward bourgeois ideas concerning sexuality and women were certainly embraced as matters of state policy. From banning abortion and homosexuality to introducing stricter marriage laws, the legacy of Stalinism represented, if nothing else, a backward step from the social vision of Bolshevik revolutionaries.

[Engels]

There’s also the Stalinist fetish for revolutionary terror. With some of them, it’s almost as though the physical liquidation of everything they consider to be counter-revolutionary is their primary reason to grab power.

Not to mention, the absurdity of Socialism in One Country and the nonsense that is socialist patriotism.

[Geiseric]

Why do some people prefer Pepsi over Coke?

What it boils down to, is the way in which one thinks best to achieve worldwide communism. ML's go for the SIOC route, while Trots go for PR. (Gross simplification, I know)

That is wrong comrade, SioC isn't a way of obtaining communism. In fact adopting that policy meant that the west "Might be nicer to us," if we sell out the communists in other countries, or adopt rediculous, pro-bourgeois politics, moreso condemning the revolution to exist only as a dying corpse inside of the U.S.S.R.

[Comrade Samuel]

Sexism and homophobia have been discredited elements of official bourgeois ideology in many Western countries for at least two decades now, so it has not been particularly difficult for modern Stalinist parties in the West to disown their own prejudices. It hardly takes much political courage or radicalism to champion gay rights, for instance, when the bourgeois establishment has itself changed its tune on the matter in similar ways.

If you look at the record of Stalinists in power, however, backward bourgeois ideas concerning sexuality and women were certainly embraced as matters of state policy. From banning abortion and homosexuality to introducing stricter marriage laws, the legacy of Stalinism represented, if nothing else, a backward step from the social vision of Bolshevik revolutionaries.

While it is undeniable that socially, Marxist-Leninist nations of the 20th century where severly lacking (or where just on par with most everywhere else at the time). The modern movement has clearly evolved past such things and that definately doesent mean that every economic, political or theoretical advance made in these countries can be discredited because of it. People often forget that we neither defend every action made by these leaders nor do we ever wish to recreate what they had.

[Hit The North]

While it is undeniable that socially, Marxist-Leninist nations of the 20th century where severly lacking (or where just on par with most everywhere else at the time). The modern movement has clearly evolved past such things and that definately doesent mean that every economic, political or theoretical advance made in these countries can be discredited because of it. People often forget that we neither defend every action made by these leaders nor do we ever wish to recreate what they had.

So what are the things you think are worth preserving?

Let's not forget that whatever these economic, political and theoretical advances were, the USSR was ultimately out-performed by the capitalist nations and they proved themselves to be more politically attractive in the minds of many Soviet citizens. Meanwhile, I can't even think what the theoretical advances might be.

[Robespierres Neck]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or what you might call a "Stalinist".

Why do I support Marxism-Leninism? It has a track record, with rigorous theoretical foundation. It is revolutionary. It is genuine.

I'm also an authoritarian. Revolution isn't going to come about if we're all a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot and championing Noam Chomsky. Marxism-Leninism is authoritarian because revolutions are authoritarian acts.

As for the "murders", I am sure that Stalin did murder people. But the vast majority of deaths attributed to Stalin are erroneous; a man could die of syphilis and the mainstream historians will say "Stalin did it".

Short and sweet! :thumbup:

[Lowtech]

Honestly, the appeal of Stalinism is really that it caters to ones need to feel powerful. Most that support Stalinism have very little grasp of why communism works, why capitalism doesn't or really what communism is and what's necissary for it to occur

If capitalist ideology and the profit mechanism were not introduced, society would naturally be communist. No force nor violence is needed. Infact, the only things perpetuating capitalism is the masses being conditioned to dependence on the market and social constructs of 'might makes right' and ownership

Capitalism is simply a mathematically defunct social construct, it isn't some rival culture that is the enemy of communist "groups"...this isn't our.camp is better than your camp and so we need to "crush you" and erraticate capitalist ideology by force....ideology doesn't sustain capitalism, instead the masses being conditioned to be dependent on a market system and mass ignorrance of our true arrangement with the rich is what perpetuates this broken economic system


Leninism/stalinism is a club where people pretend to be badasses. If you asked a leninist why capitalism fails, they won't tell you that the rich consume more than they produce or that artificial scarcity is created by the retention of value via the profit mechanism...rather they'd give you some excuse for violence...which is not what Marx wrote about

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or what you might call a "Stalinist".

Why do I support Marxism-Leninism? It has a track record, with rigorous theoretical foundation. It is revolutionary. It is genuine.

I'm also an authoritarian. Revolution isn't going to come about if we're all a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot and championing Noam Chomsky. Marxism-Leninism is authoritarian because revolutions are authoritarian acts.

As for the "murders", I am sure that Stalin did murder people. But the vast majority of deaths attributed to Stalin are erroneous; a man could die of syphilis and the mainstream historians will say "Stalin did it".

This is an interesting approach. Marx himself, along with Luxemburg and others, would have responded that Lenin and Stalin had things backwards. A class-conscious proletariat must create revolution, not the other way around. There's no question that revolution imposes something rich bastards don't want, but within the revolutionary current itself there must be democracy and not "vanguardism", or workers won't be the ones controlling the means of production.

I'm all for concrete action and a more enlightened understanding of history than bourgeois historians may offer. The problems start with the antidemocratic structure of Leninism being not just over whatever somehow remains of bourgeois agitators (don't know why they're so threatening post-revolution---who's working for them?), but also over the working class itself until the vanguard clique decides we're all ready for communism some day. No small group, however aware it is and however frustrating this may be, can speed things along---it must be done by the working class itself.

Yeah, to say Stalin, or any single person, murdered millions is insane. To say that a flawed system/ideology (Leninism) resulted in their deaths or even that a group of people carried out executions in the name of said system, however, is accurate. If you admit that people were killed, and recognize that at least some of them were from genuine Marxist currents, then I'd love to hear how you can excuse this and still call yourself a communist.

[Vanguard1917]

While it is undeniable that socially, Marxist-Leninist nations of the 20th century where severly lacking (or where just on par with most everywhere else at the time).

The point is that Stalinism in Russia rolled back the gains of the Russian revolution for sexual freedoms and women's rights. It's not as if it merely adapted to the prejudices of the period - policies which directly contradicted those of Bolshevism were introduced quite consciously by the new bureaucratic rulers. As FTC alludes, the latter were an entirely conservative force in Russia.

[Andropov]

Stalinism seems to appeal to people who have deep-seated fears of individual freedom and want to impose their will and narrow moralism on other people through the endorsement of authoritarian state control (so psychologically close to that of a policeman) up to and including support for labour camps and state executions of dissenters (on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the official line of the state is a "class enemy"). In short, they're a nasty bunch and should be avoided.
This is case and point why Marxist-Leninist's call posters like this Liberals.
This line of argument is quintessential Liberalism.
As Marxist-Leninist's we all know that our consciousness is developed and moulded by our material context. We are born with certain genetic dispositions and also our genetic composition will impact on how we engage and grow in our material conditions but essentially our very consciousness is a product of our material context, how we perceive the world, how we interact with the world, how our cognitive reasoning is moulded. All of these are formed by the billions of variables which compose our experience in our material context, ie our life, essentially think of it all as a scientific equation involving the multitudes of variables which creates you. As such ones "morales" or ethics is only a product of the over-arching socio economic context.
Thus when Marxist-Leninist's seize state apparatus of course they do not pander to the products of a previous mode of economic development.
This molly coddling of "individual opinions" and what not is utter nonsense. In a Revolutionary state you will have numerous people who are against the material interests of the Proletariat and as such must be removed as a threat to the state, how ever that is achieved is up to the time and place.
What is progressive for the Proletariat is what is essential, the pandering to these Liberal ideals which are a product of our current mode of economic development have a lot more to do with Capitalism than they do with Communism.

Thankfully, they mostly only exist on the internet.
A perfect case and point of how this poster's context informs his opinion here.
As it was pointed out this is blatantly incorrect.
In fact the biggest Leftist movements in the world as we speak right now are indeed Marxist-Leninist and are primarily based in the former colony's of the west and the third world.
While as you can see this poster is based in the UK where I don't doubt that there is a far smaller proportion of Marxist-Leninist's to say Trotskyites, Anarchists and Left Communists. One of the major reasons for the prevalence of these Liberal Leftists in Western Countries is as I stated earlier, this is where Liberal sensibilities are at its height. You may ask why are these Liberal sensibilities more attuned in Western Countries? Well that is simply because these Liberal sensibilities are a product of the current socio economic context in which the majority of Western Countries find themselves in.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There's no question that revolution imposes something rich bastards don't want, but within the revolutionary current itself there must be democracy and not "vanguardism", or workers won't be the ones controlling the means of production.

Well, if by democracy you me one person=one vote, why can't this exist with "vanguardism"? Also, why are you fetishizing democracy?


The problems start with the antidemocratic structure of Leninism being not just over whatever somehow remains of bourgeois agitators (don't know why they're so threatening post-revolution---who's working for them?)

The reason that we consider "bourgeois agitators" to be a threat is because, historically, they have been a threat. With every revolution, almost mechanically, the act of a violent counter-revolution shows itself.


No small group, however aware it is and however frustrating this may be, can speed things along---it must be done by the working class itself.

Of course, but we shouldn't dwell into "workerism" and we shouldn't pretend that the proletariat is a perfect class. The proletariat is a exists and is a product of capitalist society and thus can hold highly reactionary views. The party should not allow workers, and anyone else, with reactionary views within the party. So, "small" and "large" parties and organizations really depends on the class consciousness of the proletariat as a whole. Of course, outreach, etc. is important as well, but consciousness and a revolutionary program are important as well.


Yeah, to say Stalin, or any single person, murdered millions is insane. To say that a flawed system/ideology (Leninism) resulted in their deaths or even that a group of people carried out executions in the name of said system, however, is accurate.

This way of looking at things is flawed. You don't take into account the material conditions that existed and instead focus on the ideology (which, in fact, is influenced by material conditions). When the Bolsheviks came to power, they faced massive violent counter-revolutionary sabotage culminating in civil war, invasion by 14 countries, etc. Under these condition, Red Terror and the Cheka was born. It wasn't from Leninism, but from the certain material conditions the Bolsheviks faced. Stalinism represents the defeat of the revolution and the success of the counter-revolution in Russia. While Lenin took upon the task of completing the process of the bourgeois revolution with the rule of the proletariat, Stalinism took upon the task of completing the process of the bourgeois revolution without the rule of the proletariat.


For the people claiming Stalinism has an excellent and well built theory, you are absolutely wrong. Stalinists believe that the market can exist within socialism (Bill Bland wrote a horrible article to try to defend this position), the existence of exchange of equivalent values, the belief in generalized commodity production, the idea that socialism can be achieved in a single country, etc.

[Comrades Unite!]

All of this completely. Great post and couldn't agree more.

Yes, Revolutions ARE Authoritarian acts as Engels stated in his work ''On Authority''

However the Worker can no longer be subdued, The Worker was not the oppressor in USSR, It was the Petty-Bourgeois Party.

One that sub-dued the workers beliefs, one that made decisions without the workers input.

Engels believed that it was Authoritarian because one class subdued another(Worker and Capitalists), not one party subduing everying.

M-L does not have a great track record, most M-L states have changed through a social reconstitution, For example USSR,Mao's China,Vietnam and the like.

[Hit The North]

This is case and point why Marxist-Leninist's call posters like this Liberals.
This line of argument is quintessential Liberalism.


Ah, Andropov.

I actually share a birthday with Yuri Andropov, yeah 15th June. Hopefully this is all I have in common with him.

It is interesting that you name yourself after probably the most hawkish of the ruling party in the USSR. He convinced Kruschev to invade Hungary in '56; ; ; was made Chairman of the KGB in '67 and announced his ambition to "crush dissent in all its forms"; helped to crush the Prague Spring and was the main proponent of "extreme measures".

Yeah, filthy dissent. Let's crush it. Not like those stupid liberals.


As Marxist-Leninist's we all know that our consciousness is developed and moulded by our material context. We are born with certain genetic dispositions and also our genetic composition will impact on how we engage and grow in our material conditions but essentially our very consciousness is a product of our material context, how we perceive the world, how we interact with the world, how our cognitive reasoning is moulded. All of these are formed by the billions of variables which compose our experience in our material context, ie our life, essentially think of it all as a scientific equation involving the multitudes of variables which creates you. As such ones "morales" or ethics is only a product of the over-arching socio economic context.No shit, Sherlock. And the prevailing socio-economic relations of the USSR were supposedly "socialist" - laughable, I know. So why the gulags? why the crushing of all dissent?, why the concentration of all and any kind of legitimation in the hands of a party elite? Until you tankies came along, it was well known, from Marx to Lenin, that socialism was an elevation of individual freedom because it meant, for the first time in human history, that the individual would be in charge of his means of subsistence, rather than its slave. But you lot come along and you argue that socialism isn't this at all, it is its opposite: a grey utopia of regimentation and military uniforms, a state full of policemen and bureaucrats, barbed-wire, walls thrown up to stop people leaving, narrow social conservatism pervading all areas of cultural life. In this society the individual is not elevated and is not set free. The individual doesn't matter.


Thus when Marxist-Leninist's seize state apparatus of course they do not pander to the products of a previous mode of economic development. This molly coddling of "individual opinions" and what not is utter nonsense.
Except we both know that this is just an attempt to thinly rationalise your psychological hunger to CRUSH YOUR ENEMY. Like Yuri Andropov. You know, it is said that Andropov was such a mean-minded and vengeful asshole, that when the ballet dancer Rudolph Nureyev defected to the West, Andropov hatched a plot to have the dancer maimed! :lol:

But, as we all know, in any stratified society, the opinion of the little man is "individual opinion" and may be disregarded as nonsense, whilst the opinion of, let's say, Comrade Stalin, has the stamp of objective knowledge. But this isn't about "molly coddling" individual opinions, its about sending people to labour camps and executioners because they voiced contrary opinions to the brooding and paranoid police state.


In a Revolutionary state you will have numerous people who are against the material interests of the Proletariat and as such must be removed as a threat to the state, how ever that is achieved is up to the time and place.
Of course the limitation of your politics means you fail to realise that the real enemy of the proletariat that worked against its interest was the state.


What is progressive for the Proletariat is what is essential, the pandering to these Liberal ideals which are a product of our current mode of economic development have a lot more to do with Capitalism than they do with Communism.Yeah down with people! Up with history!

History the big crusher. Grrrrr. Let's get crushing!

[Drosophila]

Why do I support Marxism-Leninism? It has a track record, with rigorous theoretical foundation. It is revolutionary. It is genuine.

I'm also an authoritarian. Revolution isn't going to come about if we're all a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot and championing Noam Chomsky. Marxism-Leninism is authoritarian because revolutions are authoritarian acts.


Neither of these are exclusive to Marxism-Leninism, just so you know.

[Igor]

Seriously one big reason in the West seems to be that when they realize much of history and politics they've learned is bullshit and most that they know about Soviet Union etc is pretty much just myths, they react to that. They realize Soviet Union was in many regards a positive force in Russian history, did some good shit and kind of go overboard with that realization, from thinking that it was really just the regular capitalist state to thinkin it's something we actually want to create again. But it still basically boils down to social democracy, even if the achievements were impressive.

[Rafiq]

I wonder why there are still some people who support Stalinism or call themselves Stalinists.

What is it about Stalinism that attracts these people to it? What makes it different from Marxism-Leninism? I know that Stalinists supports state capitalism, but isn't there more to it?

Do Stalinists agree with the mass murders caused by Stalin? If so, how can you justify it?

I don't know of many people who call themselves Stalinists. For most (Of those who support Stalin), they regard Stalin as a genuine proponent of what they describe as Marxism-Leninism, the "supposed" fusion of both Marx and Lenin, or the official state ideology of the Soviet Union beginning in 1928. Stalinism is a term attributed to Marxist Leninist states by many who didn't recognize Marxism Leninism as a genuine manifestation of the works of Marx and Lenin (Trotskyists, etc.), in other words, who regarded Marxism Leninism as a bastardization of what made Lenin great.

[RedHammer]

Honestly, the appeal of Stalinism is really that it caters to ones need to feel powerful. Most that support Stalinism have very little grasp of why communism works, why capitalism doesn't or really what communism is and what's necessary for it to occur

Tell that to Ismail.


If capitalist ideology and the profit mechanism were not introduced, society would naturally be communist. No force nor violence is needed. In fact, the only things perpetuating capitalism is the masses being conditioned to dependence on the market and social constructs of 'might makes right' and ownership

Society never naturally does anything. Human nature is the product of material conditions, and as human beings evolved and established civilization, they had little control over these material conditions. Now we have reached a stage in history where we can overcome the conditions and change them.

Your argument is akin to the "human nature" argument, but in support of communism. It's still just as weak.


Leninism/Stalinism is a club where people pretend to be badasses. If you asked a Leninist why capitalism fails, they won't tell you that the rich consume more than they produce or that artificial scarcity is created by the retention of value via the profit mechanism...rather they'd give you some excuse for violence...which is not what Marx wrote about

You're right. We don't know anything about anything. All of us Marxist-Leninists really just have a fetish for Stalin and Soviet uniforms. *Rawr* :thumbup1:


This is an interesting approach. Marx himself, along with Luxemburg and others, would have responded that Lenin and Stalin had things backwards. A class-conscious proletariat must create revolution, not the other way around. There's no question that revolution imposes something rich bastards don't want, but within the revolutionary current itself there must be democracy and not "vanguardism", or workers won't be the ones controlling the means of production. Class consciousness does come first, but class-conscious workers need a vehicle, an instrument, by which they carry out revolution. The actions which create successful revolutions are not spontaneous.


Yeah, to say Stalin, or any single person, murdered millions is insane. To say that a flawed system/ideology (Leninism) resulted in their deaths or even that a group of people carried out executions in the name of said system, however, is accurate. If you admit that people were killed, and recognize that at least some of them were from genuine Marxist currents, then I'd love to hear how you can excuse this and still call yourself a communist.

You need to understand one critical thing: nobody is trying to create a replica of Stalin's Russia. We, Marxist-Leninists, are not trying to create a replica of Stalin's Russia. Stalin's Russia existed under the unique material conditions of the time, in a brutal inter-war period.

What we do recognize is the fact that these states, such as the Soviet Union, made many accomplishments and, in fact, experienced successful revolutions. We need to examine their track record and plan accordingly. We need to learn from history.

[Peoples' War]

I used to be a Stalinist for the very reason that it was the only Communism I had known. I wasn't educated in Marx's theories, nor Lenin really. I just followed what Stalin said, what Stalinist said.

Now, you Stalinists need to stop making the unecessary point of "Hey, Stalinism is an misnomer, it's really Marxism-Leninism!". Nobody cares that you don't call it Stalinism, or don't want it called Stalinism. We call it Stalinism, get over it.

A point I want to make, is that the most arguments I see from Stalinists, are just quotes from books written by Stalin, or Stalinists. Any other source is bourgeois, Trotksyist, or "ultra-left" propaganda and should not be read or even discussed.

There are many flaws with Stalinism, and one of many concerns I have are the fact that I would certainly be considered a "revisionist" and be purged, exiled, and maybe killed if I were to involve myself with a Stalinist led revolution.

[Andropov]

Ah, Andropov.

I actually share a birthday with Yuri Andropov, yeah 15th June. Hopefully this is all I have in common with him.

It is interesting that you name yourself after probably the most hawkish of the ruling party in the USSR. He convinced Kruschev to invade Hungary in '56; ; ; was made Chairman of the KGB in '67 and announced his ambition to "crush dissent in all its forms"; helped to crush the Prague Spring and was the main proponent of "extreme measures".

Yeah, filthy dissent. Let's crush it. Not like those stupid liberals.
Yes he was that and more, ruthless in his efficiency and an orthodox Marxist-Leninist, a greatly under-appreciate servant of the Soviet Union.
Also it should be noted that under his brief reign as General Secretary of the USSR he indeed started to roll back some of the failings and inefficiencies within the state, some of the achievements he instigated within that brief 15 month reign were remarkable.

No shit, Sherlock. And the prevailing socio-economic relations of the USSR were supposedly "socialist" - laughable, I know.
Of course they weren't.
The USSR was essentially jumping from Feudalism, completely circumventing Capitalism. Hence many of the populace had not even developed past the archaic feudalististic socio economic context not to mention the limited bourgeois within the country who were striving for Capitalism. It was a cess-pit of swirling and competing interests. Even after the successful ousting of the old Feudalistic regime and the liquidation of dissent did not mean that the populace was free from the hundreds of years of Feudalistic conditioning and the more recent burgeoning Capitalistic conditioning. The economic context which imposes itself on a populace may be over-thrown in a matter of days how ever the social imprint that these modes of development leave can last for generations. This is shown throughout history with numerous changes of economic production.

So why the gulags? why the crushing of all dissent?, why the concentration of all and any kind of legitimation in the hands of a party elite?
Because the USSR was not some Socialist Utopia where there were no classes and all were marching under the Proletarian banner.
No, the USSR contained many vested interests who opposed the Revolution, who opposed the Proletariat and as such were enemy's of the state and were treated as such.
A state after Revolution is much like a new born baby, susceptible to illness such as to invasion, terrorism, internal conflict, sabotage etc, and like a new born baby the state must be immunised against such threats.
I know Liberals like yourself find such talk abhorrent, that is to be expected since you cling to Liberal ideals which do not belong around Communism and it also explains why Liberal Leftists like yourself have never had a successful Revolution since you use Liberal standards in a context where they really don't belong, this is class war.

Until you tankies came along, it was well known, from Marx to Lenin, that socialism was an elevation of individual freedom because it meant, for the first time in human history, that the individual would be in charge of his means of subsistence, rather than its slave. But you lot come along and you argue that socialism isn't this at all, it is its opposite:
More Liberalism, your consistent if nothing else.
Communism is about the freedom of the Proletariat. The freedom of one class from the tyranny of the oppressor.
It meant that the Collective class could now control the means of production, not the individual.
Your supremacy of the individual above the collective is yet another by product of the Capitalist socio-economic context, Capitalism remakes the world in its own image and in this case it has imprinted itself on your consciousness.

a grey utopia of regimentation and military uniforms, a state full of policemen and bureaucrats, barbed-wire, walls thrown up to stop people leaving, narrow social conservatism pervading all areas of cultural life. In this society the individual is not elevated and is not set free. The individual doesn't matter.
Another perfect example of how your perspective on Communism is completely warped by your own socio-economic context.
This is where grey and regimentation are somehow negative from your perspective. The interpretation of grey is completely subjective, it could be a positive colour depending on the context, grey is not objectively a negative colour but because of your social conditioning it is perceived as negative.
While regimentation has many positives, efficiency and unity but yet again your Liberal sensibilties cry out at such a picture because regimentation relegates the individual which you value above all else.
Perhaps there will be walls and barbed wire, that would depend on the given context, there is nothing innately negative about a wall or barbed wire.
As for Social Conservatism, I strongly disagree, I do not see Marxist-Leninism consistent with Social conservatism.
In this society there is no individual as such, there is the collective proletariat, through the collective proletariat the class will attain freedom.
Unfortunately your social conditioning from your material context means that such notions are alien to you, indeed even intimidating, when in reality it is liberating to shed the shackles of liberalism and to be a conscious part of a wider collective.

Except we both know that this is just an attempt to thinly rationalise your psychological hunger to CRUSH YOUR ENEMY.
Not at all.
You attribute too much emotive reasoning to myself.
The need to remove threats to the Proletariat stems from a logical conclusion that those whose material interests are in conflict with the Proletariat will not merely surrender their interests because that is in conflict with their material context. Its scientific, not emotive.

Like Yuri Andropov. You know, it is said that Andropov was such a mean-minded and vengeful asshole, that when the ballet dancer Rudolph Nureyev defected to the West, Andropov hatched a plot to have the dancer maimed! :lol:
That is merely conjecture and irrelevant to the debate at hand.

But, as we all know, in any stratified society, the opinion of the little man is "individual opinion" and may be disregarded as nonsense, whilst the opinion of, let's say, Comrade Stalin, has the stamp of objective knowledge. But this isn't about "molly coddling" individual opinions, its about sending people to labour camps and executioners because they voiced contrary opinions to the brooding and paranoid police state.
Enemies of the state will of course be removed.
The USSR was under constant siege, from both within and outside the state.
Even from its enemies within there were many differing variations, some Liberals, some Capitalists, some Nationalists, some Monarchists and many more whose material interests lay in the dissolution of the USSR.
The USSR was no more paranoid than it needed to be, these enemies were very real and were very active. It only lasted as long as it did because of its vigilance.
Any successful revolution will require an efficient and vigilant secret police just as much as it requires an efficient military for if anything Capitalism has shown is that by hook or by crook they will do all in their power to undermine and destroy a Revolution.

Of course the limitation of your politics means you fail to realise that the real enemy of the proletariat that worked against its interest was the state.
Of course not, the Proletariat by seizing the mechanisms of the state was able to protect itself, defend the Revolution and build a more equitable society.

Yeah down with people! Up with history!

History the bigger crusher. Grrrrr. Let's get crushing!
Indeed.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, if by democracy you me one person=one vote, why can't this exist with "vanguardism"? Also, why are you fetishizing democracy?

No, I mean democracy. Rule by the people, both economic and political. I'm "fetishizing" nothing. Democracy is a cornerstone of socialism/communism. Oligarchy, political and/or economic means class society, regardless of whether the oligarchy claims to be working in the interests of the workers.


The reason that we consider "bourgeois agitators" to be a threat is because, historically, they have been a threat. With every revolution, almost mechanically, the act of a violent counter-revolution shows itself.

Yes, but again that has more to do with the fact that these revolutions were not carried out by a class-conscious proletariat in advanced industrialized capitalist societies. Violent resistance to the revolution is a real issue, but after the revolution the bourgeois should no longer be in control of the economy, and it would take more than a few once-wealthy individuals to reverse an actual proletarian revolution.


Of course, but we shouldn't dwell into "workerism"

There's nothing wrong with "workerism"...it's communism ffs.


and we shouldn't pretend that the proletariat is a perfect class. The proletariat is a exists and is a product of capitalist society and thus can hold highly reactionary views. The party should not allow workers, and anyone else, with reactionary views within the party. So, "small" and "large" parties and organizations really depends on the class consciousness of the proletariat as a whole. Of course, outreach, etc. is important as well, but consciousness and a revolutionary program are important as well.

Blatant paternalism. I don't know what a "perfect class" is supposed to be for someone who's goal is ultimately a classless society, but to call the proletariat reactionary? See above, again---there's a reason why it was said any successful socialist revolution would take place in advanced capitalist societies. It's not so difficult a concept---socialist revolution must be carried out by a class-conscious, revolutionary proletariat.


This way of looking at things is flawed. You don't take into account the material conditions that existed and instead focus on the ideology (which, in fact, is influenced by material conditions).

No, you don't take into account the materialist conditions in which the Bolsheviks took power and why this allowed opportunistic paternalism disguised as pragmatism to replace genuine socialism. I never said Leninist ideology was the root of repression. I said that Leninism is an ideology that developed out of certain material conditions not conducive to a class-conscious proletariat and, hence, not to socialism either. The fact is that your position of guiding along an "imperfect" proletariat to socialism is the ideological one.


When the Bolsheviks came to power, they faced massive violent counter-revolutionary sabotage culminating in civil war, invasion by 14 countries, etc. Under these condition, Red Terror and the Cheka was born. It wasn't from Leninism, but from the certain material conditions the Bolsheviks faced.

Again, I don't dispute this, but the problem is that Bolsheviks did not simply "face" these material conditions. They developed out of them, instead of a class-conscious proletariat out of an industrialized capitalism. These conditions were hence also used as an excuse to suppress actual Marxists/communists (during Lenin's as well as Stalin's lifetime). A vanguard party is not needed to oppose counter-revolutionaries if you have the proper material conditions for a socialist revolution.


Stalinism represents the defeat of the revolution and the success of the counter-revolution in Russia. While Lenin took upon the task of completing the process of the bourgeois revolution with the rule of the proletariat, Stalinism took upon the task of completing the process of the bourgeois revolution without the rule of the proletariat.

"Bourgeois revolution with the rule of the proletariat". This just really shows how confused you are...


For the people claiming Stalinism has an excellent and well built theory, you are absolutely wrong. Stalinists believe that the market can exist within socialism (Bill Bland wrote a horrible article to try to defend this position), the existence of exchange of equivalent values, the belief in generalized commodity production, the idea that socialism can be achieved in a single country, etc.

First thing you've said right. :) Since you acknowledge that socialism can't be achieved in a single country, and since the material conditions for a genuine socialist revolution did not exist in 1917 Russia, where does that leave us? When you compromise materialism and socialism for pragmatism, you leave the door open for opportunism.

[#FF0000]

"Stalinist" is pretty much a political slur for marxist-leninists but to be totally fair there is a difference between dumb baby red alert stalin kiddos and marxist leninists who are very much on point on some things.

[Engels]

More Liberalism, your consistent if nothing else.
Communism is about the freedom of the Proletariat. The freedom of one class from the tyranny of the oppressor.
It meant that the Collective class could now control the means of production, not the individual.
Your supremacy of the individual above the collective is yet another by product of the Capitalist socio-economic context, Capitalism remakes the world in its own image and in this case it has imprinted itself on your consciousness.

...

While regimentation has many positives, efficiency and unity but yet again your Liberal sensibilties cry out at such a picture because regimentation relegates the individual which you value above all else.

...

In this society there is no individual as such, there is the collective proletariat, through the collective proletariat the class will attain freedom.
Unfortunately your social conditioning from your material context means that such notions are alien to you, indeed even intimidating, when in reality it is liberating to shed the shackles of liberalism and to be a conscious part of a wider collective.


How amusing that you accuse him of liberalism when this false dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is most often utilised by the Liberal-Right.
Perhaps, you forgot this in your Stalinist haze?


In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Oh look, Marx was emphasising the freedom of the individual. I guess Marx was a liberal too, huh?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No, I mean democracy. Rule by the people, both economic and political.

Well, this could just be semantics, and it may just be a mute point, but I just want to clarify something. We don't seek the "rule of all people" because that is impossible in a class based society. We seek the rule of one section of the "people", the proletariat. Until the abolition of classes (and, by extension, the state) the "rule of all people" is impossible (and if we mean "democracy" as such, then democracy is as well). Any attempt to say otherwise is to "mystify" reality by trying to find a decision-making mechanism that we believe can reconcile class antagonisms (as Jacques Camatte put it).


I'm "fetishizing" nothing. Democracy is a cornerstone of socialism/communism.

No, the abolition of bourgeois society (money, wage labor, the law of value, private property, etc.) is the "cornerstone" of socialism/communism. Democracy (if we mean voting) is simply an effective decision-making mechanism that isn't always applicable in certain material conditions (I would attempt to list out certain material conditions in which it might not be applicable, but these would vary so much it is pointless). The proletariat should take an active role in the administering of their dictatorship but we should not uphold a decision-making mechanism outside of material conditions (fetishize).


Oligarchy, political and/or economic means class society, regardless of whether the oligarchy claims to be working in the interests of the workers.

I would agree. The existence of a state means that classes still exist.


Yes, but again that has more to do with the fact that these revolutions were not carried out by a class-conscious proletariat in advanced industrialized capitalist societies. Violent resistance to the revolution is a real issue, but after the revolution the bourgeois should no longer be in control of the economy, and it would take more than a few once-wealthy individuals to reverse an actual proletarian revolution.

So, violent counter-revolution is a real issue that we need to consider yet we shouldn't worry about it despite the lessons of history? If violent counter-revolution doesn't show itself that would be wonderful, but history has shown over and over this is highly unlikely, no matter if it is a completely backwards nation or an industrialized nation.


There's nothing wrong with "workerism"...it's communism ffs.


Blatant paternalism. I don't know what a "perfect class" is supposed to be for someone who's goal is ultimately a classless society, but to call the proletariat reactionary? See above, again---there's a reason why it was said any successful socialist revolution would take place in advanced capitalist societies. It's not so difficult a concept---socialist revolution must be carried out by a class-conscious, revolutionary proletariat.

I will respond to both of the above comments here so it's not so "wall of text". I do think that there is something wrong with "workerism" (focusing on satisfying the wants of the individual worker). As communists, we seek the liberation of the proletariat as a collectivity historically. The individual proletariat, as a product of bourgeois society, can hold reactionary views (this is different than saying the proletariat, as a collectivity, hold reactionary views which seems to be what you believe I said from your above comment). I don't understand why you think I don't believe that the socialist revolution will be carried out by the revolutionary proletariat because I absolutely agree, as every socialist does. What I am arguing is that there should be a restrictive party that excludes any reactionary elements and organizes the most class conscious and revolutionary.


I never said Leninist ideology was the root of repression. I said that Leninism is an ideology that developed out of certain material conditions not conducive to a class-conscious proletariat and, hence, not to socialism either. The fact is that your position of guiding along an "imperfect" proletariat to socialism is the ideological one.

Leninism did develop out of certain material conditions and because of this some things need to be dropped for industrialized countries (such as I believe with Herman Gorter that we shouldn't participate in bourgeois trade unions and parliaments) yet some things I do think are vital. A vanguard party, made up of the most class conscious and revolutionary proletariat, would be absolutely vital for an industrialized capitalist country.


A vanguard party is not needed to oppose counter-revolutionaries if you have the proper material conditions for a socialist revolution.

I deleted part of the above comment so I am not repeating myself. I actually agree with the above that in certain material conditions a vanguard party may not be needed, but the proletariat dictatorship still will be needed. (I also think in all likelihood a vanguard party will be needed in the dictatorship of the proletariat).


"Bourgeois revolution with the rule of the proletariat". This just really shows how confused you are...

The tasks of the bourgeois revolution (development of the means of production, etc.) are absolutely vital to the creation of a communist society. As a citizen of the United States, obviously this isn't a problem for me (as these tasks have been more than completed) but it is an important question for undeveloped nations. The tasks of the bourgeois revolution can be completed without the bourgeoisie. This is an entirely different conversation though.


First thing you've said right. :)

No, everything I said was right because I am perfect in every way, shape and form. My thoughts, one day, will be written down and studied as the holy scriptures that they are.

[/QUOTE]Since you acknowledge that socialism can't be achieved in a single country, and since the material conditions for a genuine socialist revolution did not exist in 1917 Russia, where does that leave us?[/QUOTE]

Are you asking me what I believe the solution for socialist revolution should be in the third-world? If that is the case, then I would say that third-world revolutionaries should link-up with vanguard elements in other countries (especially industrialized countries). If that isn't an option, then DNZ has some interesting ideas.

If this isn't what you are wondering, can you clarify?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No, everything I said was right because I am perfect in every way, shape and form. My thoughts, one day, will be written down and studied as the holy scriptures that they are.

:laugh:

[Andropov]

How amusing that you accuse him of liberalism when this false dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is most often utilised by the Liberal-Right.
Perhaps, you forgot this in your Stalinist haze?
What the Liberal-Right utilise is of little concern to me, my perspective is informed by Marxist-Leninism.
You may dislike my points and disagree with them as I would expect a lot of posters to do as these points fly in the face of a lifetime of social conditioning and seem alien to many.
But they are there to be dismantled if they are indeed misinformed, so perhaps you might engage in that regard instead of your "Stalinist" swipes.

Oh look, Marx was emphasising the freedom of the individual. I guess Marx was a liberal too, huh?
Free development within the collective, what I have already posted.
They are not isolated islands but all pieces forming a greater collective.

[Geiseric]

The only reason Stalinism happened is because the German Revolution failed! End of story. If socialism in one country wasn't an issue due to isolation, and if the russian proletariat wasn't dismantled, Stalin wouldn't be anything today, just another bolshevik. There isn't reason for Marxist Leninists to exist, if they are actual marxist leninists, because the U.S.S.R. is dissolved and they have nothing left to theoretically support, since SioC failed and the entire ideology is bankrupt by a history of betrayals of gigantic proportions.

[jookyle]

To be honest, I don't consider the term "Stalinist" to be one to be taken seriously to begin with. The only time I would consider someone a stalinist is if they just have unwavering hero worship for the guy. They're not a socialist, they just really like Stalin. Just because one may have a more positive view of Stalin and the USSR under him than the general population, does not make him a stalinist.

Also, I like how people who say socialism in one country could never work go on and on about Stalin but never mention Albania.

[Art Vandelay]

To be honest, I don't consider the term "Stalinist" to be one to be taken seriously to begin with. The only time I would consider someone a stalinist is if they just have unwavering hero worship for the guy. They're not a socialist, they just really like Stalin. Just because one may have a more positive view of Stalin and the USSR under him than the general population, does not make him a stalinist.

Also, I like how people who say socialism in one country could never work go on and on about Stalin but never mention Albania.

Socialism in one country can't work and Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole; there you go :).

[Geiseric]

Albania is capitalist now, so what's your point?

[Engels]

What the Liberal-Right utilise is of little concern to me, my perspective is informed by Marxist-Leninism.

Well then, I still find it very amusing that your perspective is so similar to that of the liberal-Right.


You may dislike my points and disagree with them as I would expect a lot of posters to do as these points fly in the face of a lifetime of social conditioning and seem alien to many.


Are you always this patronising?


Free development within the collective, what I have already posted.
They are not isolated islands but all pieces forming a greater collective.

The issue is that you keep talking about the proletariat as though it is some kind of singular hive mind. Nobody is denying its importance or its historical role as a class. Acknowledging the individual does not automatically lead to denying the collective.

One of the cornerstones of communism has always been liberation for the individual; liberation from the drudgery of alienated labour and the abolition of the distinction between work and leisure. Support for the bureaucratic state capitalist Soviet Union is completely antithetical to this. That was the point ‘Fuck The Clock’ was getting at, which apparently for you is ‘liberal’ when it is anything but.

[Aristophenes McTwitch]

I think Stalinism always had an element of sexism that has always bothered me. Women were usually encouraged to be "Mothers of the nations" and relegated to nurturing roles.

This to me is incompatible with a leftist position.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Socialism in one country can't work and Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole; there you go :).

Don't intend to derail the thread, but the claim that countries like the USSR or Albania were state capitalist is silly. The claim is essentially based on the fact that the surplus labor of workers is extracted for use by the state, yet this is how all societies work. Feudalism as well extracts a portion of the surplus labour for the "profit" of the lord. Just because surplus labor extraction takes on a money-form does not automatically make it "capitalist".


I think Stalinism always had an element of sexism that has always bothered me. Women were usually encouraged to be "Mothers of the nations" and relegated to nurturing roles.

I'd suggest Sheila Fitzpatrick's book Everyday Stalinism. She writes extensively about the dualistic and confusing role women played in Soviet society.

[RedHammer]

Socialism in one country can't work and Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole; there you go.

Can you elaborate? How do you have "state capitalism" without capitalists?

[maskerade]

I actually have no idea why some people are still stalinist. Even after reading this thread I'm still confused.

My personal opinion is that Stalin was a fuckwad and that Stalinist rhetoric most of the time does a disservice to the revolutionary cause and should be abandoned. I've also noticed that if you disagree with a stalinist you're a liberal, which results in Stalinists appropriating the concept of 'revolutionary' and defining it as Stalinist.

[Manic Impressive]

Can you elaborate? How do you have "state capitalism" without capitalists?
The clue is in the question State capitalism. Where the state takes the place of the private capitalist.

[Sheepy]

Stalinists are just a bunch of ignoramus' who are into "Communism" because of video games with Soviet troops in them and like to dress up in ushankas and trench coats to prove their loyalty to their leader, rather than follow any actual egalitarian theory.

It's just state-capitalism, and Stalin was not a man with the interest of the workers in mind. I feel sorry for both his victims and his followers...

[Igor]

Stalinists are just a bunch of ignoramus' who are into "Communism" because of video games with Soviet troops in them and like to dress up in ushankas and trench coats to prove their loyalty to their leader, rather than follow any actual egalitarian theory.

And anarchists are all 14 year old kids who think it's an ideology invented by Sex Pistols. Please, I have no love for M-Ls myself but there's no denying in the fact that their politics have a lot more substance than just being Red Alert kids. This thread was probably not meant for people to take cheap shots at them like this but to actually discuss where its appeal stems from. It, after all, pretty much is the globally most popular form far-left ideology, and I'd say Naxalites would be kinda confused if you told them they've just played too much video games.

[m1omfg]

I somehow doubt you've met many "Stalinists" in real life if those are your personal observations. I'm pretty sure you would call me a "Stalinist" (even though I don't share all the views of the "typical Stalinist" you would maybe encounter on this site), and I neither have socially conservative views, nor do I believe labor camps and mass executions are something we should aspire to, and nor do I practice some kind of weird personality cult around Stalin. Instead of making an argument against Marxism-Leninism, as so many other people on this site have done and continue to do, you are just making wild assumptions about people you don't seem to know much about. Please stop.

Quoted for truth. I don't really fit squarely into any certain tendency, through I feel closest to Marxism-Leninism, and no, I don't support mass violence or murder, and don't have a fetish for Soviet militaria. I know several people in real life who could be said to be "Soviet nostalgics" or "Soviet fetishists" and even through they are not real communists they are actually nice people without any bloodthirstiness and all are over 40 years old (contradicting the "teen rebel" stereotype).

[m1omfg]

Let's not forget that whatever these economic, political and theoretical advances were, the USSR was ultimately out-performed by the capitalist nations and they proved themselves to be more politically attractive in the minds of many Soviet citizens. Meanwhile, I can't even think what the theoretical advances might be.

By which capitalist nations? The "first world" that compromises 13 out of 206 capitalist countries?

[Igor]

By which capitalist nations? The "first world" that compromises 13 out of 206 capitalist countries?

"First world" compromises a lot more countries than just 13, no idea where you're getting that from. Europe alone has more than that, and had during the Cold War era. And really, if socialism can't compete with the most successful capitalist countries, it has no reason for being a thing. If working class people start looking for capitalism to improve their conditions (which really didn't happen though) something's gone wrong and bad.

[m1omfg]

Ah, Andropov.

I actually share a birthday with Yuri Andropov, yeah 15th June. Hopefully this is all I have in common with him.

It is interesting that you name yourself after probably the most hawkish of the ruling party in the USSR. He convinced Kruschev to invade Hungary in '56; ; ; was made Chairman of the KGB in '67 and announced his ambition to "crush dissent in all its forms"; helped to crush the Prague Spring and was the main proponent of "extreme measures".

Yeah, filthy dissent. Let's crush it. Not like those stupid liberals.

No shit, Sherlock. And the prevailing socio-economic relations of the USSR were supposedly "socialist" - laughable, I know. So why the gulags? why the crushing of all dissent?, why the concentration of all and any kind of legitimation in the hands of a party elite? Until you tankies came along, it was well known, from Marx to Lenin, that socialism was an elevation of individual freedom because it meant, for the first time in human history, that the individual would be in charge of his means of subsistence, rather than its slave. But you lot come along and you argue that socialism isn't this at all, it is its opposite: a grey utopia of regimentation and military uniforms, a state full of policemen and bureaucrats, barbed-wire, walls thrown up to stop people leaving, narrow social conservatism pervading all areas of cultural life. In this society the individual is not elevated and is not set free. The individual doesn't matter.

Except we both know that this is just an attempt to thinly rationalise your psychological hunger to CRUSH YOUR ENEMY. Like Yuri Andropov. You know, it is said that Andropov was such a mean-minded and vengeful asshole, that when the ballet dancer Rudolph Nureyev defected to the West, Andropov hatched a plot to have the dancer maimed! :lol:

But, as we all know, in any stratified society, the opinion of the little man is "individual opinion" and may be disregarded as nonsense, whilst the opinion of, let's say, Comrade Stalin, has the stamp of objective knowledge. But this isn't about "molly coddling" individual opinions, its about sending people to labour camps and executioners because they voiced contrary opinions to the brooding and paranoid police state.

Of course the limitation of your politics means you fail to realise that the real enemy of the proletariat that worked against its interest was the state.

Yeah down with people! Up with history!

History the big crusher. Grrrrr. Let's get crushing!

I am disgusted with Andropov's post and I agree with you, so let's say this: not everybody who has a positive opinion on some aspect of the USSR is like Andropov.

[m1omfg]

"First world" compromises a lot more countries than just 13, no idea where you're getting that from. Europe alone has more than that, and had during the Cold War era. And really, if socialism can't compete with the most successful capitalist countries, it has no reason for being a thing. If working class people start looking for capitalism to improve their conditions (which really didn't happen though) something's gone wrong and bad.

It depends on what you count, 1970s Portugal or Spain with their fascism and illiteracy certainly were not "first world" by any sane standard and both were unapologetic NATO members. So was Turkey.

[Andropov]

Well then, I still find it very amusing that your perspective is so similar to that of the liberal-Right.
Very good, but still irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Are you always this patronising?
My intention is not to be patronising or to insult.
I am merely highlighting to many here that for so many the very idea of shedding the cult of individuality and other Liberal sensibilities is alien to so many in the world today because it fly's in the face of everything we are thought and indoctrinated with. It is a wholly alien concept for so many because it is in conflict with generations of liberal conditioning.
It may be perceived as patronising but its only a rational conclusion that this point must be highlighted because it is a logical conclusion that from many posters material contexts such abstract ideas are alien to them.

The issue is that you keep talking about the proletariat as though it is some kind of singular hive mind. Nobody is denying its importance or its historical role as a class. Acknowledging the individual does not automatically lead to denying the collective.
I never denied the existence of the individual, it is just my definition and understanding of the individual is not compatible with the modern Liberal perception of the individual.
As for your hive remark, it yet again demonstrates either a deliberate or unintentional misunderstanding of my point.
The Proletariat just like all classes throughout history are informed by their material contexts and as such move and strive as one for primarily the same goals and ambitions. These material interests are bred from their socio-economic environment so in that regard yes they do act in unison. Obviously other factors will influence their actions but that will only confuse the issue at hand as all variables will inevitably do.
The crux of the matter is that the Proletariat class without outside interference will strive in unison for the liberation of their class purely because of their material interests and in my book that is not a hive, that is dialectical materialism.

One of the cornerstones of communism has always been liberation for the individual; liberation from the drudgery of alienated labour and the abolition of the distinction between work and leisure.
And here in again lies your intrinsic liberalism.
It is this coloured reading of Communism through your liberal perspective that paints this picture of individual liberation and other such cosy liberal sensitivities.
Communism is the liberation of the Proletariat, the advancement of humanity by the Proletariat into a classless society.
Through the unity of action and communal struggle the individual as it exists within the collective will attain freedom. Freedom from the capitalist mode of production and freedom from this individualistic and isolating cult of liberalism.

Support for the bureaucratic state capitalist Soviet Union is completely antithetical to this.
This Ultra-Leftist misnomer is just blatantly incorrect.
Firstly please do detail for me how exactly the Soviet Union was state capitalist?
Secondly what the over whelming majority of all former citizens from the USSR and Eastern Block countries do agree on, even among their own differing political persuasions is that the sense of community and a truly communal society was completely at odds to the rampant individualism that capitalism breeds in these countries today.
Across all branch's of society in these countries it breed a different perspective and a different society to the ones we experience in the west.
Indeed it is still evident to see in the likes of Cuba, the level of community and a warm welcoming disposition of its citizens fly in direct contrast to your assertion.

That was the point ‘Fuck The Clock’ was getting at, which apparently for you is ‘liberal’ when it is anything but.
It stems from Liberalism.
As I have stated multiple times before, this hybrid of liberal leftists we see in western countries is an interesting creation purely from a socially scientific stand point as it highlights that within western societies there are still many who rally against Capitalism but are not completely immune from their own economic contexts and as such attribute liberal sensibilities for an ideology that places the individual very much within the collective, an ideology that is not compatible with this rampant indivdualism that our current mode of capitalist production creates.

[Hit The North]

By which capitalist nations? The "first world" that compromises 13 out of 206 capitalist countries?

I don't get your point. Even if we're talking only 13 individual national economies when they include the USA, Japan, West Germany, France, Italy and the UK, then we're talking about some powerful economic entities.

The key facts are this:

1. The Communist Bloc stagnated economically and could not match its peoples aspirations or keep up its competition with the West without intensifying it already multiplying contradictions.

2. No significant numbers of workers tried to oppose the destruction of these regimes. Apparently the "really existing socialism" had managed to create a working class that didn't much care for socialism.

Now historians may occasionally tell lies, but history does not lie.


I am disgusted with Andropov's post and I agree with you, so let's say this: not everybody who has a positive opinion on some aspect of the USSR is like Andropov.

I think it is possible to have some positive opinions on some aspects of the USSR without having to commit to the idea that it was socialist. But if you don't commit to that idea then you can hardly be considered a Stalinist.

[Crux]

I wonder why there are still some people who support Stalinism or call themselves Stalinists.

What is it about Stalinism that attracts these people to it? What makes it different from Marxism-Leninism? I know that Stalinists supports state capitalism, but isn't there more to it?

Do Stalinists agree with the mass murders caused by Stalin? If so, how can you justify it?
You mean people who explicitly embrace and identify with the label stalinism?
While this would be infinitely more common on the internet than in real life, they do exist. In russia it is mostly intermingled with russian nationalism and also the strong-man appeal, something which I think is a common appeal among nearly all self-identified stalinists. Igor makes a fairly alright point too, that misinformation about the soviet union in school can make some swing over in the other direction.

The defence against a vast fascist-trotskyite-zinovievite-japanese conspiracy.

[RedHammer]

There are "Stalinists" who are, in fact, right-wing reactionaries who look to Stalin as a hero. They are usually Russian nationalists and the like.

If Stalin were alive today, he'd wonder how he got so many reactionaries to laud him.

[ind_com]

I wonder why there are still some people who support Stalinism or call themselves Stalinists.

What is it about Stalinism that attracts these people to it? What makes it different from Marxism-Leninism? I know that Stalinists support state capitalism, but isn't there more to it?

Do Stalinists agree with the mass murders caused by Stalin? If so, how can you justify it?

Yes, there is much more to it. Leave the mass murders and baby-sandwiches for later, concentrate on the real world for once. All of the movements today that hold the potential for achieving proletarian revolutions within the next few decades are Stalinist.

In general it is hard for well off individuals or academics to agree with Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism), This itself can be explained through Marxist class analysis. A poor peasant or a worker will try to do whatever that makes his social position better, or propels his class towards seizing power. So even during the initiation of the movement, every step of the Stalinist parties, from fight for the minimum wage or propaganda against drug addiction to annihilating landlords and redistribution of land, is supported by these classes. On the other hand, an intellectual or a well of semi-bourgeois has nothing to gain from all this. Rather the turbulence of revolution can snatch from him a lot of things he already has. So he will often disguise his class position under a leftist cover and whine about how Stalinist movements are murderous, authoritarian and why workers should surrender to capitalists if they manage to win in one country etc.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I actually have no idea why some people are still stalinist. Even after reading this thread I'm still confused.

The same reason some people are still Trotskyist.


The clue is in the question State capitalism. Where the state takes the place of the private capitalist.

This is still confusing the extraction of surplus value in the context of capitalist relations with the extraction of surplus labor in the form of money.

[Art Vandelay]

The same reason some people are still Trotskyist.



This is still confusing the extraction of surplus value in the context of capitalist relations with the extraction of surplus labor in the form of money.

Ah so a mode of production (which is a global phenomenon after all) can fundamentally change within the confines of a country. Hmmm......

[Prof. Oblivion]

Ah so a mode of production (which is a global phenomenon after all) can fundamentally change within the confines of a country. Hmmm......

Well now you are making an argument from dogma. You apparently are making the absolutist claim that it couldn't have been socialist because that cannot exist within the confines of a country (with which I agree), so therefore it must have been capitalist.

Neither position is correct.

[Art Vandelay]

Well now you are making an argument from dogma. You apparently are making the absolutist claim that it couldn't have been socialist because that cannot exist within the confines of a country (with which I agree), so therefore it must have been capitalist.

Neither position is correct.

So you hold the belief it was a non-mode of production? If so, check out my political profile which is in the stickied thread at the top of the politics section. I concur.

[Prof. Oblivion]

So you hold the belief it was a non-mode of production? If so, check out my political profile which is in the stickied thread at the top of the politics section. I concur.

Well, we can both agree that the extraction of surplus labor does not constitute capitalism, because that has existed since class society has existed.

We can both agree that the existence of money does not constitute capitalism, because that has existed for thousands of years before capitalism.

We can then both agree that the extraction of surplus labor in the form of money does not constitute capitalism, because of the above two propositions.

So if that is the case, then we have to ask the question: If the extraction of surplus labor in the form of money does not necessarily constitute capitalism, then what does?

Regarding the issue of "mode of production," I don't think this is something that we necessarily need to discuss here, but I would like to say that the term is used by Marx much more liberally than the strict formal definition you are according it. Marx referred to religion, for example, as a mode of production.

[Engels]

Very good, but still irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Not really. When liberals mistakenly (or deliberately) accuse communists for wanting to crush individuality in the name of some abstract collective, they point to caricatures such as you. You’re the ideal poster child for anti-communist propaganda. You do communists no favour by spouting absurdities such as "there is no individual as such".


And here in again lies your intrinsic liberalism.
It is this coloured reading of Communism through your liberal perspective that paints this picture of individual liberation and other such cosy liberal sensitivities.
Communism is the liberation of the Proletariat, the advancement of humanity by the Proletariat into a classless society.
Through the unity of action and communal struggle the individual as it exists within the collective will attain freedom. Freedom from the capitalist mode of production and freedom from this individualistic and isolating cult of liberalism.

I am not apologising for bourgeois individualism. It is irrational, as you do, to keep going on about the one-dimensional abstractions of “individualism” and “collectivism”. You make it seem as though they are separate and in a way, irreconcilable. We can only express our individuality socially and we can only be social individually. In other words, there is a synthesis of the two. Marx explained it nicely:


Man, however much he may therefore be a particular individual – and it is just this particularity which makes him an individual totality, the ideal totality, the subjective existence of thought and experienced society for itself; he also exists in reality as the contemplation and true enjoyment of social existence and as a totality of vital human expression.

(Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844)


This Ultra-Leftist misnomer is just blatantly incorrect.
Firstly please do detail for me how exactly the Soviet Union was state capitalist?

Engels, in 1880, explained how private capitalists are not necessary for capitalism as the State is perfectly capable of taking on that role, i.e., it becomes the “national capitalist”. The fact that the State controls and directs production “does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.” Moreover:


The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head.

(Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 1880)


Secondly what the over whelming majority of all former citizens from the USSR and Eastern Block countries do agree on, even among their own differing political persuasions is that the sense of community and a truly communal society was completely at odds to the rampant individualism that capitalism breeds in these countries today.

Across all branch's of society in these countries it breed a different perspective and a different society to the ones we experience in the west.
Indeed it is still evident to see in the likes of Cuba, the level of community and a warm welcoming disposition of its citizens fly in direct contrast to your assertion.

I don’t deny that there may have been a greater sense of ‘community’ in these countries. However, that isn’t really related to the point I was making which was that communism is liberation from alienated labour. I want work to abolished, not some bastardised version of the capitalist work ethic forced on workers by some Party as happened in the 20th century.


It stems from Liberalism.

At least for Marx and Engels, communism has always been about the abolition of work (the distinction between work and play) as we know it.


In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

Incredible, isn’t it? Look at that liberal trying to pass off as a communist!

I apologise to the others for derailing the thread.

[James Connolly]

Incredible, isn’t it? Look at that liberal trying to pass off as a communist!

What substantiates that as 'Liberal,' is the fact that it was a categorical that attempted to give a description of a future Communist society. Note that there weren't any material considerations taken into account when Marx wrote that, rather he wrote it as a bunch of idealistic mish-mash.

Marxists aren't absolutists nor Kantian, which Liberal generally are, so I suggest you retract that quote which was taken out of context.

[James Connolly]

You do communists no favour by spouting absurdities such as "there is no individual as such".
That's a Liberal statement. Claiming there is an objective anything is liberal, with the exception being matter, as Materialists hold that as objective, but claiming it always changes.




You make it seem as though they are separate and in a way, irreconcilable. We can only express our individuality socially and we can only be social individually. In other words, there is a synthesis of the two.
This seems to be where Existentialism has its origins, as Sartre claimed to be a Marxist, but in the end he misunderstood Marx. Marx wasn't referring to individuality, as that itself was formed with antithesis, but rather matter. Humans are bound by material conditions, but they are also free to do anything they wish as long as it doesn't contradict material truths.

"Humans are free to make their own history, but not the conditions they make them in."
-Marx

So we can never be truly free, as matter is the dictator of society, and thoughts and ideas are mere reflections of such material conditions.

Besides that, society is a social structure, which is necessary for individual existence. The individual cannot exist without society, and it also can't think outside the bounds of material conditions. The individual is thus a product of society, and its directions come directly from this.




I don’t deny that there may have been a greater sense of ‘community’ in these countries. However, that isn’t really related to the point I was making which was that communism is liberation from alienated labour. I want work to abolished, not some bastardised version of the capitalist work ethic forced on workers by some Party as happened in the 20th century.
This is idealistic. No one actually cares what you want, as what is necessary will be implemented. And fuck you if you think you're a Marxist!

In the case of the Soviet Union, in 1927, it was roughly 70% peasant with little capitalist development, and a great failure in NEP.

A primitive form of Socialism, which had characteristics of State Capitalism, was implemented and put to the test. It eventually developed the Capitalist stage of production, which is a prerequisite for the achievement of Socialism, so it could become completely Socialist according to Stalin's timeline, which was in the mid-1960s. However, by then Revisionism ended Stalin's progressive policies.




At least for Marx and Engels, communism has always been about the abolition of work (the distinction between work and play) as we know it.
Communism is a later stage of economic development, one that hasn't been properly tested in regards to material capabilities(and frankly it's impossible right now, so come back to the real world).
And no, no, no!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM IS NOT ABOUT THE ABOLISH OF WORK!!!!!!! Read Kapital!

[Harrison20]

As with any icon there is a laziness to peoples perception about them. For example, when I was first introduced to Marxism I didn't see Stalin as a "thinker" or an "intellectual" within the Marxist movement. However, his essays are some of the best thought out and most well articulated of any i've read.

[Engels]

What substantiates that as 'Liberal,' is the fact that it was a categorical that attempted to give a description of a future Communist society. Note that there weren't any material considerations taken into account when Marx wrote that, rather he wrote it as a bunch of idealistic mish-mash.

Marxists aren't absolutists nor Kantian, which Liberal generally are, so I suggest you retract that quote which was taken out of context.

It is precisely the classless nature of communism and the manner in which “society regulates the general production” (e.g. through automation) that frees the individual to fully realise himself and blurs the distinction between work and play as such. That quote was not taken out of context, nor is it ‘idealistic mish-mash’ you fossil.


That's a Liberal statement. Claiming there is an objective anything is liberal, with the exception being matter, as Materialists hold that as objective, but claiming it always changes.


Claim what is objective?


Marx wasn't referring to individuality, as that itself was formed with antithesis, but rather matter.

Individuality itself is formed with antithesis? This makes no sense whatsoever.


Humans are bound by material conditions, but they are also free to do anything they wish as long as it doesn't contradict material truths.

"Humans are free to make their own history, but not the conditions they make them in."
-Marx

So we can never be truly free, as matter is the dictator of society, and thoughts and ideas are mere reflections of such material conditions.

Besides that, society is a social structure, which is necessary for individual existence. The individual cannot exist without society, and it also can't think outside the bounds of material conditions. The individual is thus a product of society, and its directions come directly from this.

Nothing you have written contradicts what I said. Once again, I fully agree with Marx – “Man, however much he may therefore be a particular individual – and it is just this particularity which makes him an individual totality, the ideal totality, the subjective existence of thought and experienced society for itself; he also exists in reality as the contemplation and true enjoyment of social existence and as a totality of vital human expression.”


And fuck you if you think you're a Marxist!

Fine, then I’m not a Marxist. I don’t feel the need to be validated by some nobody on the internet.


...It eventually developed the Capitalist stage of production, which is a prerequisite for the achievement of Socialism, so it could become completely Socialist according to Stalin's timeline, which was in the mid-1960s. However, by then Revisionism ended Stalin's progressive policies.

Oh yes, the reactionary rubbish that is Socialism in One Country. And “revisionism”, the default excuse for Stalinists.


Communism is a later stage of economic development, one that hasn't been properly tested in regards to material capabilities

Are you saying that there has to be a ‘test run’ of communism?


(and frankly it's impossible right now, so come back to the real world).

So says the relic stuck in the previous century.


And no, no, no!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM IS NOT ABOUT THE ABOLISH OF WORK!!!!!!! Read Kapital!

I haven’t read the entire text of Kapital. Expand on this.

[Buttress]

I am not sure how anyone can really support Stalin after the counter-revolutionary bullshit that the USSR pulled in countries like Spain and France. Socialism in one country is fair enough, but to actively discourage and suppress proletarian revolution simply to benefit your own country's proletariat.. That's henious and completely at odds with the emancipation of the working class on a global scale.

Plus the whole gulag thing.. But that's a little more justifiable (but still horrible).

[Andropov]

Not really. When liberals mistakenly (or deliberately) accuse communists for wanting to crush individuality in the name of some abstract collective, they point to caricatures such as you. You’re the ideal poster child for anti-communist propaganda. You do communists no favour by spouting absurdities such as "there is no individual as such".
Well that is just nonsense.
Firstly I do not want to "crush individuality". As I stated before the individual is created by their material contexts and as such exist within a greater collective. So that just doesn't wash.
Secondly what Liberals point to is yet again of little relevance to myself. What they point to is irrelevant, we as Communists must not hide behind some Liberal veneer of respectability. We must be true in all our words and actions. This mentality of hiding our politics because the dominant paradigm in society is in conflict with it is utterly pathetic and is all too common among certain leftists. Trying to appease Liberals is a defeat in itself, we as Communists are never going to appease them and why is that exactly? Because we are in conflict with their material interests, simple as that. They might use one or another line of argument to beat Communists with but that is exactly it, they are just a vehicle for them to attack what rails against their material interests. Liberals are not our allies, they are our enemies, it would be wise to remember that.

I am not apologising for bourgeois individualism. It is irrational, as you do, to keep going on about the one-dimensional abstractions of “individualism” and “collectivism”. You make it seem as though they are separate and in a way, irreconcilable. We can only express our individuality socially and we can only be social individually. In other words, there is a synthesis of the two. Marx explained it nicely:
I never stated that they are irreconcilable. That is your interpretation and misunderstanding of my point. As I stated the individual exists but as part of a greater collective, a piece in a greater picture. When one understands how their material contexts create an individual as such they gain a greater understanding of the position in which "the individual" is to take in society.

Engels, in 1880, explained how private capitalists are not necessary for capitalism as the State is perfectly capable of taking on that role, i.e., it becomes the “national capitalist”. The fact that the State controls and directs production “does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.” Moreover:
If you want we can go into this in another thread, needless to say I disagree with your analysis but for this thread I think we should remain on the topic at hand.

I don’t deny that there may have been a greater sense of ‘community’ in these countries. However, that isn’t really related to the point I was making which was that communism is liberation from alienated labour. I want work to abolished, not some bastardised version of the capitalist work ethic forced on workers by some Party as happened in the 20th century.
Indeed. But you do realise that the USSR was in its infancy? It was not feasible or realistic to completely overhaul all previous forms of labour alienation. The USSR was merely a stepping stone who were striving for Communism while under constant siege and threat by the hostile forces which encircled it.
But as I pointed out in that post it showed a demonstrable advancement with regards to breaking the cult of individuality and creating greater communities and more welcoming societies which Liberalism culls throughout the globe.

At least for Marx and Engels, communism has always been about the abolition of work (the distinction between work and play) as we know it.
Incredible, isn’t it? Look at that liberal trying to pass off as a communist!
I apologise to the others for derailing the thread.
This is not relevant with regards to the point made.
The abolition of work is of course a tenant of communism but it is not relevant to your intrinsic Liberal ideals and emphasis.
The abolition of work as we know it is not an adequate response to your need to place the individual in supremacy over the collective. It does not explain why you cling to certain liberal sensibilities and are alienated against the concept of the greater collective as it would occur in a Communist society.

[James Connolly]

It is precisely the classless nature of communism and the manner in which “society regulates the general production” (e.g. through automation) that frees the individual to fully realise himself and blurs the distinction between work and play as such. That quote was not taken out of context, nor is it ‘idealistic mish-mash’ you fossil.


Then let's hold Marx as a seer who managed to see into the future. Only Nostredame can compete with Marx, and Marxists are really just Cultists the follow the great teachings of the Prophet Marx(not Materialists who attempt to differentiate the concrete from the abstract.)



Claim what is objective? You made the statement that the individual is a REAL entity, while claiming it is absurd to view it any other way. That's called a categorical, and that's the basis of Liberalism.




Individuality itself is formed with antithesis? This makes no sense whatsoever.So when people were slaves or overly dogmatic, in the Middle Ages, they had individuality? Of course not! They were complete tools who followed the direction of the King, the Church, or their owners. Not to mention the pre-manogomous family, which Engels wrote extensively about, where families were the most important entities, and which crafted each member of the group.
The 'individual' first made an appearance during the French Revolution.



Once again, I fully agree with MarxThat quote sounds way too Hegelian, so you've clearly taken it out of context.

He wrote this a few sentences above your quote.

"It is, above all, necessary to avoid once more establishing “society" as an abstraction over against the individual. The individual is the social being. His vital expression – even when it does not appear in the direct form of a communal expression, conceived in association with other men – is therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man's individual and species-life are not two distinct things, however much – and this is necessarily so – the mode of existence of individual life is a more particular or a more general mode of the species-life, or species-life a more particular or more general individual life."



I don’t feel the need to be validated by some nobody on the internet.I have no issue if you don't recognize that, but Marxism is a Materialist ideology. If you're going to ignore that, you aren't a Marxist, you're rather a Liberal...




Oh yes, the reactionary rubbish that is Socialism in One Country. And “revisionism”, the default excuse for Stalinists.It is best to make a distinction between Materialistic Progressivism and Reactionism. What you're suggesting is that since Trotsky, and his thugs, wanted to skip social stages, with no material considerations, then Stalin is somehow Reactionary for his Progressive policies.

"It is nonsense to say that it is impossible in general to leap over stages. A living historical process always leaps."
-Trotsky

"Trotsky’s major mistake is that he ignores the bourgeois character of the revolution and has no clear conception of the transition from this revolution to the socialist revolution."
-Lenin



Are you saying that there has to be a ‘test run’ of communism? No, as Marx said, Communism is a later stage of economic development. Communism can only be had if it is compatible with material realities.

Can we have 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'? No!



I haven’t read the entire text of Kapital. Expand on this.Read up on his Theory of Value.

[RedHammer]

Very good points by Andropov and RedAlert,

I'd like to add that most people who bash Stalin often don't know anything about him and are simply buying into the "common wisdom" regarding the man and the Soviet Union, and I need not point out that this is based on propaganda and outright poor historical understanding.

I'm not saying all are like this, as I'll admit, we Marxists-Leninists are not incredibly popular in the West, but generally I'd wager that most Stalin bashers haven't read a single thorough piece on the man.

[Peoples' War]

Very good points by Andropov and RedAlert,

I'd like to add that most people who bash Stalin often don't know anything about him and are simply buying into the "common wisdom" regarding the man and the Soviet Union, and I need not point out that this is based on propaganda and outright poor historical understanding.

I'm not saying all are like this, as I'll admit, we Marxists-Leninists are not incredibly popular in the West, but generally I'd wager that most Stalin bashers haven't read a single thorough piece on the man.
We have, just not the ones that start off with "Glorious Comrade Stalin". ;)

[Comrade #138672]

Apparently Stalin was living a very luxurious life while many of his people starved (to death). How is any Stalinist able to justify this other than denying it (which seems difficult)?

I've been reading a little of his work and I must say that it certainly seems that he knew what he was talking about. This does not comfort me though. How could he betray his own values like that?

[m1omfg]

Apparently Stalin was living a very luxurious life while many of his people starved (to death). How is any Stalinist able to justify this other than denying it (which seems difficult)?

I've been reading a little of his work and I must say that it certainly seems that he knew what he was talking about. This does not comfort me though. How could he betray his own values like that?

His people did starve in 1932-33 and during WW2 and in the few years immediately after it, however he didn't live a life of luxury at all. This is just typical slander in the style of "luxurious life for the leader = his people starving". Josif Broz Tito was notoriously into luxurious life, limousines and all, yet his people didn't live bad at all and Yugoslavia outperformed pretty much every other " state socialist" country. Stalin lived frugally however this did not prevent him from implementing disastrous agricultural policies that starved millions during the collectivization chaos of the 1930s and the immediate post-war disaster.

So no, in this aspect Stalin, as bad he was, was not Kim Jong Il - he was more similiar to Chairman Yang from the computer game Alpha Centauri rather than any other real life dictator. He lived a near-ascetic life, and so did unfortunately the citizens in his country.

[RedHammer]

Apparently Stalin was living a very luxurious life while many of his people starved (to death). How is any Stalinist able to justify this other than denying it (which seems difficult)?

I've been reading a little of his work and I must say that it certainly seems that he knew what he was talking about. This does not comfort me though. How could he betray his own values like that?

False. In fact, I've heard that Stalin even had to ask for money because of how modestly he lived.

[Comrades Unite!]

False. In fact, I've heard that Stalin even had to ask for money because of how modestly he lived.

Come to think of it, Is there any pictures of Stalin's dacha?

Most Anti-Stalinist's have deluded themselves into thinking Marxist Leninist's want to recreate Stalin's USSR without taking into account of the conditions of that particular era what with the tensions of the inter war period and the outbreak of war.

I'm not one of those people who obsess over Stalin and think he did no wrong, It's always healthy to criticize Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin and Mao.

[jookyle]

Come to think of it, Is there any pictures of Stalin's dacha?

Most Anti-Stalinist's have deluded themselves into thinking Marxist Leninist's want to recreate Stalin's USSR without taking into account of the conditions of that particular era what with the tensions of the inter war period and the outbreak of war.

I'm not one of those people who obsess over Stalin and think he did no wrong, It's always healthy to criticize Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin and Hoxha.

This one of the biggest trends I see by those who oppose Marxist-Leninism. They simply claim that those of the tendency wish to make the world look like the USSR in 30's. Which is silly. No one wants that. And even if someone did, it would be impossible for it to happen. 1930's Russia, is back in 1930's Russia, last time I checked, it wasn't the 1930's.

[Rational Radical]

I object to marxism-leninism because it's an elitist ideology that advocates for all of the power to be handed to a small group of intellectuals that claim to work in the interest of the proletarian. As a open minded anarcho-communist I can't put up a front and denounce some sort of effective way to fight off the counter-revolution which is why I regard genuine Marxists and Communists as comrades even though we may disagree about what to do after that period of time. Also a fair assumption is it will end up in a state managed economy controlled by bureaucrats,which isn't communism/socialism.

[Comrades Unite!]

I object to marxism-leninism because it's an elitist ideology that advocates for all of the power to be handed to a small group of intellectuals that claim to work in the interest of the proletarian. As a open minded anarcho-communist I can't put up a front and denounce some sort of effective way to fight off the counter-revolution which is why I regard genuine Marxists and Communists as comrades even though we may disagree about what to do after that period of time. Also a fair assumption is it will end up in a state managed economy controlled by bureaucrats,which isn't communism/socialism.

Umm, What?

[Rational Radical]

Umm, What?
Please miss me with the BS,I'm referring to the Vangaurd seizing state power in a transitional phase to bring about communism.

[Comrades Unite!]

Please miss me with the BS,I'm referring to the Vangaurd seizing state power in a transitional phase to bring about communism.

The big question. It seems as though many misunderstand the formation and role of the vanguard — either that or I'm misunderstanding it.

We, the workers, shall organize large-scale production on the basis of what capitalism has already created, relying on our own experience as workers, establishing strict, iron discipline backed up by the state power of the armed workers. We shall reduce the role of state officials to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable, modestly paid "foremen and accountants" (of course, with the aid of technicians of all sorts, types and degrees). This is our proletarian task, this is what we can and must start with in accomplishing the proletarian revolution. Such a beginning, on the basis of large-scale production, will of itself lead to the gradual "withering away" of all bureaucracy, to the gradual creation of an order--an order without inverted commas, an order bearing no similarity to wage slavery--an order under which the functions of control and accounting, becoming more and more simple, will be performed by each in turn, will then become a habit and will finally die out as the special functions of a special section of the population.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm#s3

1. Lenin says 'we' a lot in this part of the text, which makes me wonder why the Soviet Union appears to have been such a top-down system. Did the workers actually do any of this or was it purely the party taking matters into its own hands?

2. This, to me, seems to be what most people don't understand about the vanguard:

We shall reduce the role of state officials to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable, modestly paid "foremen and accountants"

Before I ask anything else, does Lenin mean that the role of state officials will be reduced to blah blah blah as soon as the workers' state is put in place, or after it has been established by the professional revolutionaries and the people can begin to control things for themselves?

If Lenin's ideas were to be applied to, let's say, the UK or the US in the present day, how closely would it resemble the USSR when it was supposedly "socialist"? (And by the way, didn't Lenin say in one of his works that Russia was not yet socialist and actually a form of state capitalism that favoured the proletariat? I read this the other day, but can't remember what the text was called.)

Just to point out, I don't label myself with any tendency or side with any particular theories (yet) as I'm not well read enough to wage wars in the name of X, Y and Z. I'll listen to a Marxist-Leninist with the same open mind that I'll listen to an anarchist or a left-com with until I can decide for myself what I think is bullshit and what makes sense.

And by the way, by Marxism-Leninism do we mean Stalin and his era of the Soviet Union, or simply Lenin? I know a lot of "Marxist-Leninists" reject Stalinism and use the term to refer purely to Marx and Lenin. This terminology confusion is a pain in the arse.

[Andropov]

This one of the biggest trends I see by those who oppose Marxist-Leninism. They simply claim that those of the tendency wish to make the world look like the USSR in 30's. Which is silly. No one wants that. And even if someone did, it would be impossible for it to happen. 1930's Russia, is back in 1930's Russia, last time I checked, it wasn't the 1930's.
It is a common deficiency in many leftists.
They fail to analyse the material contexts of situations which is purely criminal.
You cannot divorce something like the Soviet Union from its material context, no wonder so many come to such hairbrained rationalisations when they neglect such a basic tenant of Marxism.

[Ismail]

Socialism in one country can't work and Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole; there you go.Albania was the poorest country in Europe upon independence in 1912. Upon liberation from fascist occupation in 1944 over 80% of the population was illiterate, the life expectancy was 38, there was no university (the only country in Europe to have this problem), tribalism was a dominant force in much of the north, and there was no national railroad system, among various other things.

In fact when the British and Americans funded attempts by Albanian émigrés to overthrow the government in the 1949-1951 period, there was an incident where a plane had no idea where to drop some off by parachute because at night Albania was almost entirely pitch-black, only the capital had any real electricity.

Considering that illiteracy on the part of all persons below 45 was ended by 1955 and basically abolished by the 70's, the life expectancy went up to the early 70's by 1980, the first University came into existence in 1957, etc. not to mention the lowest rents in the world, generous paternity care, free education and health care, and various other amenities, calling it a "shit hole" is not only stupid and chauvinistic but simply inaccurate. Access to food in the 80's was superior to Romania (certainly more of a "shit hole" if we're comparing living standards despite being richer.) Albania in the early 70's became the first country in Europe to have complete electrification across the entire country (to the extent that Greek villages on the border used candles while Albanian villages on the other side had light and radios.)

Besides, wasn't Soviet Russia a "shit hole" too? After all, it certainly wasn't a modernized state by the time Lenin died. It had suffered from a horrendous famine only a few years earlier, to name just one example. Yet no one would call it a "shit hole" and with good reason.

[Comrades Unite!]

Albania was the poorest country in Europe upon independence in 1912. Upon liberation from fascist occupation in 1944 over 80% of the population was illiterate, the life expectancy was 38, there was no university (the only country in Europe to have this problem), tribalism was a dominant force in much of the north, and there was no national railroad system, among various other things.

In fact when the British and Americans funded attempts by Albanian émigrés to overthrow the government in the 1949-1951 period, there was an incident where a plane had no idea where to drop some off by parachute because at night Albania was almost entirely pitch-black, only the capital had any real electricity.

Considering that illiteracy on the part of all persons below 45 was ended by 1955 and basically abolished by the 70's, the life expectancy went up to the early 70's by 1980, the first University came into existence in 1957, etc. not to mention the lowest rents in the world, generous paternity care, free education and health care, and various other amenities, calling it a "shit hole" is not only stupid and chauvinistic but simply inaccurate. Access to food in the 80's was superior to Romania (certainly more of a "shit hole" if we're comparing living standards despite being richer.) Albania in the early 70's became the first country in Europe to have complete electrification across the entire country (to the extent that Greek villages on the border used candles while Albanian villages on the other side had light and radios.)

Besides, wasn't Soviet Russia a "shit hole" too? After all, it certainly wasn't a modernized state by the time Lenin died. It had suffered from a horrendous famine only a few years earlier, to name just one example. Yet no one would call it a "shit hole" and with good reason.
Ismail in the house!!
Setting the record straight!

[Comrade #138672]

Why did Stalin believe in national communism instead of international communism? I still don't understand.

[Andropov]

Why did Stalin believe in national communism instead of international communism? I still don't understand.
He didn't.

[jookyle]

Why did Stalin believe in national communism instead of international communism? I still don't understand.

He did believe in international communism, he simply didn't believe in invading other countries to spread socialism.


Stalin:

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

But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

[Ostrinski]

Underlying attraction to the strongman aesthetic.. Sometimes not so underlying.

[Art Vandelay]

The first rather long winded part of your post could have underwent minor changes and have also been used to describe Cuba post Batista. I don't deny great advancements were not made in Albania, just as in Cuba, but if you think I would hesitate to characterize Cuba (also) as a shit hole then you are mistaken; despite my sympathy with the history and the "revolution." But don't take it personally, its not simply pseudo-socialist countries I describe as shit holes, it's just capitalist countries in general.

But its not surprising to see you attempt to slander my viewpoint as chauvinistic given your history of misrepresenting others arguments; as evidenced by that ******* quote in your sig.


Besides, wasn't Soviet Russia a "shit hole" too? After all, it certainly wasn't a modernized state by the time Lenin died. It had suffered from a horrendous famine only a few years earlier, to name just one example. Yet no one would call it a "shit hole" and with good reason.

I would indeed call it a shit hole. Doesn't mean I don't support the October revolution (up to a certain point) or that I don't think advancements were made; but if you think a country besieged in civil war as well as suffering from a famine is anything but a "shit hole," then I don't know what to say.

[Ismail]

I'm sure Cubans would enjoy being told their country is a "shit hole" that somehow gets envied across the region for its health care services, its ability to end childhood malnutrition within its borders, etc. That's some great materialist analysis you share with reactionaries.


I would indeed call it a shit hole.Except you were clearly trying to insult the poster by calling Albania a "shit hole." It wasn't a somber analysis, it was "ha-ha, you back Albania." For this reason I'd like some examples of you calling any other country a "shit hole" before that post.

Also you can't compare Batista-era Cuba with pre-1944 Albania. As reactionaries are so fond of pointing out, Cuba before Castro was actually one of the "richest" countries in Latin America. It had the second highest life expectancy and the highest literacy rate in the region. Albania under King Zog and before him was, as I noted, in the direct opposite position.

To quote one source: "Agricultural production was very low, and large quantities of grain had to be imported to feed the population. In 1938, for instance, 39,000 tons of wheat were harvested, and wheat yields per hectare were 860 kilos... In 1938 industry accounted for only 9.8 per cent of total production. The per capita output of principal industrial products was the lowest in Europe." (Ramadan Marmullaku, Albania and the Albanians, p. 38.) I seem to recall the Batista-era Cuban economy being "good" by capitalist standards.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm sure Cubans would enjoy being told their country is a "shit hole" that somehow gets envied across the region for its health care services, its ability to end childhood malnutrition within its borders, etc. That's some great materialist analysis you share with reactionaries.

Once again show me where I deny that great advancements have not been made in Cuba? To quote Ignacio Ramonet from his and Fidel's book My Life (a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with):


But despite the unceasing harassment from abroad, this little country, clinging to its sovereignty, has achieved undeniably admirable results in the area of human development: the abolition of racism, the emancipation of women, the eradication of illiteracy, a drastic reduction in infant mortality rates, a higher level of general knowledge...In questions of education, health, medical research and sports, Cuba has achieved results that many developed nations would envy.

However this does not stop Cuba from being another bourgeois nation and it does not stop it from having lower living standards (of which I realize there are reasons for) than I would care for, as well as a lack of political freedoms; this was the criteria I was using to describe it as a "shit hole," all capitalist nations are to me.


Except you were clearly trying to insult the poster by calling Albania a "shit hole." It wasn't a somber analysis, it was "ha-ha, you back Albania." For this reason I'd like some examples of you calling any other country a "shit hole" before that post.

There aren't any cause the topic had never been brought up before. It was honestly meant as an off hand remark made in jest.


Also you can't compare Batista-era Cuba with pre-1944 Albania. As reactionaries are so fond of pointing out, Cuba before Castro was actually one of the "richest" countries in Latin America. It had the second highest life expectancy and the highest literacy rate in the region. Albania under King Zog and before him was, as I noted, in the direct opposite position.

What are you talking about? You are quite clearly uninformed about the living standards in Cuba pre-Castro, or else are attempting to use the same bullshit "reactionary" arguments you seem to be associating with me. Second "richest" countries in Latin America, are you kidding? For who?


To quote one source: "Agricultural production was very low, and large quantities of grain had to be imported to feed the population. In 1938, for instance, 39,000 tons of wheat were harvested, and wheat yields per hectare were 860 kilos... In 1938 industry accounted for only 9.8 per cent of total production. The per capita output of principal industrial products was the lowest in Europe." (Ramadan Marmullaku, Albania and the Albanians, p. 38.) I seem to recall the Batista-era Cuban economy being "good" by capitalist standards.


Since when are we fond of capitalist standards Ismail?

[Ismail]

Once again show me where I deny that great advancements have not been made in Cuba?I never said you denied them, I'm saying the word "shit hole" is devoid of content and chauvinistic.


There aren't any cause the topic had never been brought up before. It was honestly meant as an off hand remark made in jest.Well yeah, certain people make jokes about poor countries all the time, much like they make jokes about different ethnic and cultural groups. Or rape. Doesn't stop them from being bad both as jokes and as reflective on the people who make them.


You are quite clearly uninformed about the living standards in Cuba pre-Castro, or else are attempting to use the same bullshit "reactionary" arguments you seem to be associating with me. Second "richest" countries in Latin America, are you kidding? For who?I don't think you read what I wrote. Go over and read it again. It was indeed the second "richest" country in Latin America by capitalist standards, and in some statistical standards (e.g. life expectancy and literacy) was better than most other countries in the region. You can find various sources on this. You made the comparison between Batista-era Cuba and pre-1944 Albania, not me.


Since when are we fond of capitalist standards Ismail?Since you seem to be associating yourself with it. You're judging countries as "shit holes" based on "rich" and "poor," yet to quote one source on socialist-era Albania, "one finds that the standard of living of the lowest-paid stratum of the Albanian working people is now [1988] higher than that of the lowest-paid stratum of the British working class. But, of course, comparison with other countries with a long history of developed industry, are not really relevant to the Albanian workers. For them, the relevant question is: has the standard of living improved and will it continue to improve?" (Perspectives on Albania, 1992, p. 135.)

[Art Vandelay]

I never said you denied them, I'm saying the word "shit hole" is devoid of content and chauvinistic.

It wasn't meant to have any content; it was simply in jest.

Also you also don't know what chauvinism is, or else you are simply purposely mis-representing my argument. Did you miss the part where I said all capitalist countries are shit holes to me? How does that infer some sort of exaggerated patriotism on my part? Either back up that claim, or quit slandering me.


Well yeah, certain people make jokes about poor countries all the time, much like they make jokes about different ethnic and cultural groups. Or rape. Doesn't stop them from being bad both as jokes and as reflective on the people who make them.

Cool. As I have stated before (on this board) I feel that under certain circumstances, there is no topic off limits when it comes to humor. Feel free to draw whatever conclusions about my or my personality you wish from that.


I don't think you read what I wrote. Go over and read it again. It was indeed the second "richest" country in Latin America by capitalist standards, and in some statistical standards (e.g. life expectancy and literacy) was better than most other countries in the region. You can find various sources on this. You made the comparison between Batista-era Cuba and pre-1944 Albania, not me.

In the sense that both were developing nations with a low standard of living, indeed, the comparison still stands in my opinion. Whether or not Cuba was the second "richest" country in the region is irrelevant. If you think that the average Cuban citizen had a good lot under Batista be free to make your case. We all know the situation in Cuba pre-Castro, so your attempts at somehow making it seem much better off than Albania is farcical, let alone that that claim has to be propped up by appealing to "capitalist standards."


Since you seem to be associating yourself with it.

You brought it up, not me.


You're judging countries as "shit holes" based on "rich" and "poor,"

Back this up, with a quote. Since when did I say a country was a shit hole based on whether it was "rich" or "poor" (I like the quotation marks too by the way, care to show where I used either of these words in the sense you seem to be implying)? In fact I actually explicitly stated the opposite.

You really are sinking to a new low here Ismail. It's pretty god damn blatant from this thread how you purposely misrepresent others arguments. By applying quotation marks around words I have never used, to somehow justify your unsubstantiated claims about positions I don't hold. By repeatedly slandering me as a chauvinist (a frankly serious allegation among radicals, one I don't take lightly) without a shred of evidence and in the face of my own explicit statements to the contrary. Your not fooling anyone but the little Hoxha lovers who worship you on the site.


yet to quote one source on socialist-era Albania, "one finds that the standard of living of the lowest-paid stratum of the Albanian working people is now [1988] higher than that of the lowest-paid stratum of the British working class. But, of course, comparison with other countries with a long history of developed industry, are not really relevant to the Albanian workers. For them, the relevant question is: has the standard of living improved and will it continue to improve?" (Perspectives on Albania, 1992, p. 135.)

Once again, your missing the point. I have never denied advancements that were made by any pseudo-socialist nations.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I wonder why there are still some people who support Stalinism or call themselves Stalinists.

It's hot.


What is it about Stalinism that attracts these people to it?

Military, totalitarian and or nostalgia fetishes coupled with an over-arching theory to provide justification would be my immediate guess which ranges from sane, somewhat sane, nerdy, weird, off their rocker, zealous, cultic, etc.


What makes it different from Marxism-Leninism?

Depends on whom you ask. Me personally, I would say Stalinism is perhaps merely Leninism taken to it's logical extreme.


I know that Stalinists support state capitalism, but isn't there more to it?

Not necessarily but yeah.


Do Stalinists agree with the mass murders caused by Stalin?

Apparently, even the most objective evidence regardless of source is the result of bourgeois, Allied propaganda.


If so, how can you justify it?

If they don't outright deny X event they usually say they were all counter-revolutionaries or reactionaries, typically.

[Ismail]

It wasn't meant to have any content; it was simply in jest.If it was in jest you wouldn't need to be talking about how every country is a "shit hole" after all or making all these excuses. It does in fact remind me of some racists who say "oh, I hate everyone equally" or something after being called out on their racism.


Also you also don't know what chauvinism is, or else you are simply purposely mis-representing my argument. Did you miss the part where I said all capitalist countries are shit holes to me? How does that infer some sort of exaggerated patriotism on my part? Either back up that claim, or quit slandering me.It's easy to say "all capitalist countries are shit holes" when your claim that Albania is a "shit hole" was pointed out as not reflecting too well on your views of poorer countries.


Cool. As I have stated before (on this board) I feel that under certain circumstances, there is no topic off limits when it comes to humor. Feel free to draw whatever conclusions about my or my personality you wish from that.My conclusions aren't too good, considering you seem quite upset that ******* was banned and are implying that you share a similarly jesting attitude towards rape and other "un-PC" jokes as he did, the same ones that got him banned in the first place.


Whether or not Cuba was the second "richest" country in the region is irrelevant.Which was my point in general that you're now appropriating.


If you think that the average Cuban citizen had a good lot under Batista be free to make your case.Good thing I never claimed that.


We all know the situation in Cuba pre-Castro, so your attempts at somehow making it seem much better off than Albania is farcical,It was better off, unless you think a 77% literacy rate is inferior to one of 10-20%, or a life expectancy of 58 inferior to 38. Almost half a million Cubans were employed in the industrial sector in 1959 (Castro's Cuba, 1962, p. 101) versus about 7,500 in Albania in 1938 (History of the Party of Labor of Albania, 1971, p. 24.) The point is that, again, you made the comparison between Cuba and Albania. I am simply pointing out that Cuba was indeed one of the "richest" countries in Latin America, whereas Albania was the poorest in Europe.


Back this up, with a quote.On what basis do you call countries "shit holes" then? It clearly isn't entirely in jest if you have to elaborate and go "oh, but all countries are 'shit holes,' maybe even industrially-developed ones now that you mention it!"


Once again, your missing the point. I have never denied advancements that were made by any pseudo-socialist nations.And yet you continue to use a ridiculous word to refer to them.

[Questionable]

It's hot.

I won't argue with that.


Military, totalitarian and or nostalgia fetishes coupled with an over-arching theory to provide justification would be my immediate guess which ranges from sane, somewhat sane, nerdy, weird, off their rocker, zealous, cultic, etc.

This is merely strawman building without any real theoretical content. I could make the same generalizations about anarchists.


Apparently, even the most objective evidence regardless of source is the result of bourgeois, Allied propaganda.

This is what I really wanted to get to. I don't know of any Marxist-Leninist that flat-out denies that there were deaths. We just don't believe that it was Stalin doing it because it gave him a big sloppy boner.


If they don't outright deny X event they usually say they were all counter-revolutionaries or reactionaries, typically.

Could you be more specific on this one?

[Ismail]

Apparently, even the most objective evidence regardless of source is the result of bourgeois, Allied propaganda.Considering that J. Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Erik Van Ree and others would fall into the "objective" camp, I'd say you're quite wrong here. In fact it is Trots and anti-communists who tend to accuse these persons of being "sympathizers" of "Stalinism."

[Art Vandelay]

If it was in jest you wouldn't need to be talking about how every country is a "shit hole" after all or making all these excuses. It does in fact remind me of some racists who say "oh, I hate everyone equally" or something after being called out on their racism.

Likening me to a racist now are we?


It's easy to say "all capitalist countries are shit holes" when your claim that Albania is a "shit hole" was pointed out as not reflecting too well on your views of poorer countries.

My claim was that Albania was a "state-capitalist shit hole." I then went on to clarify that all "capitalist countries" are shit holes. My point was that Albania was a pseudo-socialist country. It had nothing to do with poor vs rich countries. And yet once again you seem to reiterate this point without backing up your statement, after I called you out on your bullshit slander.


My conclusions aren't too good, considering you seem quite upset that ******* was banned and are implying that you share a similarly jesting attitude towards rape and other "un-PC" jokes as he did, the same ones that got him banned in the first place.

You would try and take this in that direction you delusional scumbag. I won't even go down that road with you, but for the record since I could easily see you trying to get me banned (given your past behavior) I do not support any of the jokes that ******* got banned for.


Which was my point in general that you're now appropriating.


How the fuck was that your point? I was the one saying it was irrelevant, you were the one saying that it showed how much better off they were then Albania.


Good thing I never claimed that.

No but you seem to be trivializing the standards of living they were subjected to by appealing to "capitalist standards" and the fact that they were the "second richest" country in one of the most underdeveloped regions of the world.


On what basis do you call countries "shit holes" then? It clearly isn't entirely in jest if you have to elaborate and go "oh, but all countries are 'shit holes,' maybe even industrially-developed ones now that you mention it!"

I consider a country a shit hole when it has a capitalist class which collects the surplus value from the broken backs of workers, ie: Albania was a state capitalist shit hole.


And yet you continue to use a ridiculous word to refer to them.

Yeah that is because as a communist, I don't have much sympathy for capitalist nations or the construct which is the nation state. I don't deny the achievements brought about by capitalism, in any of its manifestations.

[Art Vandelay]

I also like how you totally side stepped addressing any of the points I raised where you clearly purposely misrepresented my opinion, ie: putting quotation marks around words I never used, etc.

[Ismail]

Likening me to a racist now are we?If you say so.


My claim was that Albania was a "state-capitalist shit hole." I then went on to clarify that all "capitalist countries" are shit holes.
Socialism in one country can't work and Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole; there you go :).I don't see anything about "clarifying," which only happened after the fact that I replied that the word is, in fact, pretty chauvinistic.


My point was that Albania was a pseudo-socialist country. It had nothing to do with poor vs rich countries.It should be reasonably obvious to anyone that saying "shit hole" in relation to a country is meant to denigrate it on account of economic backwardness.


I won't even go down that road with you, but for the record since I could easily see you trying to get me banned (given your past behavior) I do not support any of the jokes that ******* got banned for.You only think that they're not "off limits" instead. Not very reassuring.


How the fuck was that your point? I was the one saying it was irrelevant, you were the one saying that it showed how much better off they were then Albania.My point was that "shit hole" Albania was Europe's poorest country throughout its entire existence yet under socialism had living standards in most ways better than those of a number of European countries. One source, as I noted, even claimed that the poorest inhabitant of Britain was worse off than the poorest inhabitant of Socialist Albania.

You then made the comparison to Cuba. Cuba under Batista was considered a well-off country by the average American of the time obviously ignorant as to the conditions of the average Cuban. Albania was always associated with poverty and backwardness. Cuba was considered one of the "best" Latin American countries, malaria-infested Albania one of the worst not just in Europe but pretty much in the world. To the average American Cuba wasn't a "shit hole," Albania was. This ties into my first point that using the word "shit hole" (which you were not using in jest, despite your denials) is "not only stupid and chauvinistic but simply inaccurate."


I also like how you totally side stepped addressing any of the points I raised where you clearly purposely misrepresented my opinion, ie: putting quotation marks around words I never used, etc.Alright, here you go: you're wrong and I haven't done this.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm done discussing this with you Ismail, one because discussing Albania is boring as fuck and two because you have continually proven yourself incapable of not engaging in a misrepresentation of my opinion. Anyone else can re-read what I have said and see if I am indeed a "chauvinist" or whatever you were trying to label me as when bringing up my alleged support for *******s rape joke.

[Ismail]

one because discussing Albania is boring as fuckWhy? Because it's too small to be interesting? You seem to have no problem talking about Cuba which is gradually becoming a miniature China in the economic field (and which responded to the threat of US intervention by becoming a neo-colony of Soviet social-imperialism.)

[Andropov]

I'm done discussing this with you Ismail, one because discussing Albania is boring as fuck and two because you have continually proven yourself incapable of not engaging in a misrepresentation of my opinion. Anyone else can re-read what I have said and see if I am indeed a "chauvinist" or whatever you were trying to label me as when bringing up my alleged support for *******s rape joke.
Its blatantly obvious your off the cuff remark about Albania being a "shit hole" is from your own chauvinistic tendencies.
And now we get to read through a whole thread of your hollow retroactive justifications for it.
If you do indeed apply the term "shit hole" to all "Capitalist" countries then feel free to post a link to where you said it, surely there must be at least one example from your hundreds of posts, surely?
I wont hold my breath.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Apparently Stalin was living a very luxurious life while many of his people starved (to death). How is any Stalinist able to justify this other than denying it (which seems difficult)?

I've been reading a little of his work and I must say that it certainly seems that he knew what he was talking about. This does not comfort me though. How could he betray his own values like that?

Maybe it has been already said, but that is just simply untrue.
A thing even people like Conquest don't deny:

**“Stalin's own material demands were modest; his flat, furniture, pictures, clothes were simple and inexpensive.* His salary simply accumulated in a drawer. "
Conquest, Robert. Stalin: Breaker of Nations.

A few more quotes:

“Often he spent days at a time in the big room with the fireplace.* Since he didn't care for luxury, there was nothing luxurious about the room except the wood paneling and the valuable rug on the floor.
Alliluyeva, Svetlana. Twenty Letters to a Friend.

“* He is a quiet man....* There is little to be said about his personal life since the Soviet leaders do not consider their personal lives something to be spread over the front pages.* As a result fantastic rumors have spread throughout the world that Stalin loves luxury and lives amid great splendor and pomp.* Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing can give such a misleading idea of the man and his aims.* The fact is that Stalin does not care for money, is extremely modest and simple in his dress, in his habits, and in his home.* He has a small four room apartment in the Kremlin.* When his children were small one of them slept on a sofa in the dining room.* Except for the worst period of the winter Stalin lives in Gorky in the little house where Lenin lived before his death.”
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power.

“Stalin was very frugal.* He had no clothes in which to be buried.* He was buried in his old military suit which had been cleaned and repaired.... ”
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers.

*“Among party leaders in the '20s Stalin was known for the ascetic simplicity of his personal life, and echoes of that lifestyle persisted.* For example, at his dacha in Kuntsevo there was hardly any furniture in the rooms he used for leisure or sleep.* There was a clothes closet, a shelf with a small number of books (his main library was at his Kremlin apartment), a plain lamp without a shade, and a bed.... ”
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge.

I can go on forever, but you get the point I think.

[Art Vandelay]

Its blatantly obvious your off the cuff remark about Albania being a "shit hole" is from your own chauvinistic tendencies.
And now we get to read through a whole thread of your hollow retroactive justifications for it.
If you do indeed apply the term "shit hole" to all "Capitalist" countries then feel free to post a link to where you said it, surely there must be at least one example from your hundreds of posts, surely?
I wont hold my breath.

I don't need to justify my comment to a bunch of M-L's on the internet. Think whatever you want about me; it's blatantly obvious that the only reason I am having this accusation hurled at me is because I chose to single out Albania, and we all know how there is a group of posters on this site with a bit of a man crush on ole Enver. Had that comment been made about modern day China, which indeed I would classify as a shit hole, then would I be being called chauvinistic? Would you still be repeating the same nonsense that the comment was made to make fun of "economic backwardness." Give it a break already. No I have never labeled any other countries specifically as "shit holes" before on the site, but if you look up any threads on fascism on revleft where I participated you we'll see (repeated over and over) that there are no quantitative differences (in my opinion) between any of the manifestations capital takes (ie: liberal democracy, fascism, state capitalism). I'm not wasting anymore more of time on this and am surely not digging through old threads to find some quote. Go look for yourself, or else ask anyone who is familiar with the position I have repeatedly stated (and caught flack for by some posters) in the threads I mentioned above.

What this comes down to has nothing to do with rich vs poor countries (still haven't dealt with the fact you wrapped quotation marks around those words in an attempt to attribute them to me, in one of your many attempts at misrepresenting me Ismail) but with the fact that you all view Albania as socialist and me as another strain of capitalism. If you don't think, for working class people, living in the U.S.A. (hardly an example of economic backwardness) or even Canada (where I am from) is living in a shit hole; then your simply unframiliar with the plight of the poor in 1st world countries. Now no, I am not saying that the living standards are identical to the conditions faced by the proles in either Albania or Cuba (or even comparable), but that wasn't the criteria I used.

Edit: This is no different then when Ismail attempted to slander Rafiq as a supporter of Juche ( a ridiculous claim)....I wonder what was the reason Ismail was so upset...oh yeah...I'm pretty sure it was the thread where Rafiq went on a rant about Enver and Albania. Hmmm....I'm starting to see a pattern. If I am so chauvinistic...as you two like to claim...I would like to see you show one other example ("surely there must be one through my hundreds of posts") of where I state anything along the lines of a chauvinistic comment.

The irony is almost palpable, the jingoist Ismail attempting to slander me (an internationalist) as a chauvinist :laugh:.

[Andropov]

I don't need to justify my comment to a bunch of M-L's on the internet. Think whatever you want about me; it's blatantly obvious that the only reason I am having this accusation hurled at me is because I chose to single out Albania, and we all know how there is a group of posters on this site with a bit of a man crush on ole Enver. Had that comment been made about modern day China, which indeed I would classify as a shit hole, then would I be being called chauvinistic? Would you still be repeating the same nonsense that the comment was made to make fun of "economic backwardness." Give it a break already. No I have never labeled any other countries specifically as "shit holes" before on the site, but if you look up any threads on fascism on revleft where I participated you we'll see (repeated over and over) that there are no quantitative differences (in my opinion) between any of the manifestations capital takes (ie: liberal democracy, fascism, state capitalism). I'm not wasting anymore more of time on this and am surely not digging through old threads to find some quote. Go look for yourself, or else ask anyone who is familiar with the position I have repeatedly stated (and caught flack for by some posters) in the threads I mentioned above.
You are being referred to a chauvinist because your statement on Albania was chauvinistic.
Now you can throw the rattle out of the pram and hurl some slander at my direction, that is fine, but it does not for a second take away from the fact that you have not used the term "shit hole" on any other "capitalist" nation.
Using that term within this context just exposed your own chauvinistic tendencies, some may have conceded that point by now but then some do not like to concede to their own flaws gracefully.
You can attempt to muddy the debating waters by suggesting I look at some thread in the anti-fascist forum where you say that you have stated..

that there are no quantitative differences (in my opinion) between any of the manifestations capital takes
But that is not what the debate at hand is here.
Until you can provide some evidence from your hundreds of posts that you use this term "shit hole" in relation to all capitalist manifestations that you perceive well then the only logical conclusion to assume is that you are a chauvinist.
Don't cry if the shoe fits.

If I am so chauvinistic...as you two like to claim...I would like to see you show one other example ("surely there must be one through my hundreds of posts") of where I state anything along the lines of a chauvinistic comment.
I never claimed that you are "so chauvinistic".
I stated that using that chauvinistic term within that context is what one would define a chauvinist.
Your claim that now the burden of proof is on us to find more of your inherent chauvinism is absurd.
You have been called out on a chauvinistic remark. Your defence was and I quote..

I consider a country a shit hole when it has a capitalist class which collects the surplus value from the broken backs of workers
We have then called you out on that and asked you to provide some evidence to validate that justification for using that term.
You have so far failed to provide said evidence.
Hence why the accusation of your chauvinism stands.
Its really not that complicated.
Also as an aside before your next attempt to slander me and deflect the issue at hand I do not call myself a Hoxhaist, not because I disagree with Hoxha but simply because I am not informed enough on the topic to come to a decision either way.

[Ismail]

This is no different then when Ismail attempted to slander Rafiq as a supporter of Juche ( a ridiculous claim)I'd say arguing that Kim Il Sung adopted Juche because he "understood" the "necessity" of doing so, that unlike "orthodox Stalinism" it was in line with the "material conditions" of Korea (i.e. family cults and other obscurantist doctrines), and attacking anyone who opposes Juche as an "idealist" opposed to Marxism constitutes tacit support for Juche, yes. Just like I attacked Trots (and Rafiq too) who said "oh, we don't support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan... but if they left the Mujahidin would win!" Or Sparts who rant about "Stalinism" in China yet in the final analysis argue that it hasn't been capitalist since 1949.


The irony is almost palpable, the jingoist Ismail attempting to slander me (an internationalist) as a chauvinist.Calling me "jingoistic" makes literally no sense and indicates you don't know what words mean.

[Zealot]

Stalinists are just a bunch of ignoramus' who are into "Communism" because of video games with Soviet troops in them and like to dress up in ushankas and trench coats to prove their loyalty to their leader, rather than follow any actual egalitarian theory.

Yes indeed. We spend a great part of our time reading Communist theory, we have led countless revolutions in the past, the present and, no doubt, the future, and thousands upon thousands of dedicated comrades have given up their lives doing this all so that we can dress up in trench coats and ushankas and play red alert. I heard that game was popular with the dirt-poor tribal people in India's Red Corridor where armed revolution is being waged right now.

[Peoples' War]

The problem I see, as well, is when Stalinists claim that their flawed vision of Marxist theory is based on the material conditions of today, and then fail to precisely describe which material conditions, and why they allow for whatever revision it is -- socialism in one country for instance.

Red Godfather, the number of revolutions "led" by Stalinists is irrelevant. If you think it is relevant, you must also take into account how many of them had failed -- all of them. Let's look at a couple of the more popular Stalinist "led" revolutions. Mao's revolution was a peasant revolution, with little to no proletariat involvement. Castro's was a middle class revolution with no proletarian involvement, and up until April of 1961, Castro had never called it a socialist revolution.

Lastly, I fail to see how what Comrade NRZ was Chauvinist. Do you even know what Chauvinism is? Is it Chauvinist to point out that Ethipoia has a horrible standard of living compared to Sweden? If we use Ismail/Red Godfathers/Andropov's logic, yes.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes indeed. We spend a great part of our time reading Communist theory, we have led countless revolutions in the past, the present and, no doubt, the future, and thousands upon thousands of dedicated comrades have given up their lives doing this all so that we can dress up in trench coats and ushankas and play red alert. I heard that game was popular with the dirt-poor tribal people in India's Red Corridor where armed revolution is being waged right now.

"Countless" would imply more revolutions than can be counted. We should also clarify that these revolutions succeeded in doing little other than turning the species against you, outside of the occasional angry peasant movement.

To be fair though, this type of arrogance was what led me to Stalinism at a less developed stage of political consciousness. The need to be perceived as being on a winning team is a big factor in human life. Although it takes a significant effort to delude yourself into believing that a society that couldn't even survive a full century is some kind of historic victory.

[Igor]

Lastly, I fail to see how what Comrade NRZ was Chauvinist. Do you even know what Chauvinism is? Is it Chauvinist to point out that Ethipoia has a horrible standard of living compared to Sweden? If we use Ismail/Red Godfathers/Andropov's logic, yes.

There's quite the difference between pointing out that and saying Ethiopia's a "shit hole". Just comparing the standards of living is one thing, but you seriously can't pretend "shit hole" isn't a hella loaded term, and not in a good way.

[Peoples' War]

There's quite the difference between pointing out that and saying Ethiopia's a "shit hole". Just comparing the standards of living is one thing, but you seriously can't pretend "shit hole" isn't a hella loaded term, and not in a good way.It depends on the context of the term.

In NRZ's case, it was "Albania is a shithole" because of capitalism, and the traitors of the revolution. Not simply, "Albania is a shithole, because it's Albania, and I live in a gloriously superior US of A". or something.

[Andropov]

In NRZ's case, it was "Albania is a shithole" because of capitalism, and the traitors of the revolution. Not simply, "Albania is a shithole, because it's Albania, and I live in a gloriously superior US of A". or something.
That was only a retroactive justification after being called out on it.
This has all been dealt with in previous posts.

[Peoples' War]

That was only a retroactive justification after being called out on it.
This has all been dealt with in previous posts.
Which I've read, and neither you nor Ismail have provided sufficient evidence that NRZ meant it as Albania was a shithole because it's Albania and inferior to his nation, as opposed to Albania was a shithole because of material conditions.

[Engels]

Then let's hold Marx as a seer who managed to see into the future. Only Nostredame can compete with Marx, and Marxists are really just Cultists the follow the great teachings of the Prophet Marx(not Materialists who attempt to differentiate the concrete from the abstract.)

Marx didn’t attempt to provide a blueprint for communism. An exact outline of what liberated society might look like would be presumptuous and impractical. All Marx did was attempt to make sense of its nature and the possibilities that may arise out of those material conditions.

It’s just so incredibly funny that you, a Stalinist, accuse Marx of idealism, that too simply because he said something you dislike. When shown that it isn’t so, you resort to silly attempts at sarcasm.


You made the statement that the individual is a REAL entity, while claiming it is absurd to view it any other way. That's called a categorical, and that's the basis of Liberalism.

I have never mentioned individuals abstracted from social relations. Maybe you should stop calling me liberal long enough to actually read what I write:

"Marx explained it nicely:
Man, however much he may therefore be a particular individual – and it is just this particularity which makes him an individual totality, the ideal totality, the subjective existence of thought and experienced society for itself; he also exists in reality as the contemplation and true enjoyment of social existence and as a totality of vital human expression."


That quote sounds way too Hegelian, so you've clearly taken it out of context.

Your logic is incredibly screwed up. That something is “too Hegelian” is not a reason to conclude that I have taken something out of context or reject it, particularly considering Hegel’s impact on Marx. Maybe the reason it sounds “too Hegelian” is because it is in fact, “Hegelian”.

Maybe we should dismiss dialectical materialism too. It’s too Hegelian. In fact, lets dismiss the entirely of his writings since it’s obvious that dialectics played a huge part in Marx’s method.



He wrote this a few sentences above your quote.
...

That quote does not in any way contradict anything I have said or what Marx wrote following it.


I have no issue if you don't recognize that, but Marxism is a Materialist ideology. If you're going to ignore that, you aren't a Marxist, you're rather a Liberal...


I’m definitely not foregoing a materialist outlook and I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over the fact that some Stalinist implied that I wasn’t a Marxist. In fact, I’m still laughing at the irony.


Can we have 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'? No!

Obviously, that won’t be possible unless capitalism is overthrown.


Read up on his Theory of Value.

You’ll have to give a more detailed reply. What of his Theory of Value? How does it go against replacing work with free activity?

[Engels]

This mentality of hiding our politics because the dominant paradigm in society is in conflict with it is utterly pathetic and is all too common among certain leftists. Trying to appease Liberals is a defeat in itself, we as Communists are never going to appease them and why is that exactly? Because we are in conflict with their material interests, simple as that. They might use one or another line of argument to beat Communists with but that is exactly it, they are just a vehicle for them to attack what rails against their material interests. Liberals are not our allies, they are our enemies, it would be wise to remember that.

I wasn’t very clear with what I meant regarding this. I didn’t mean to suggest that liberals are allies or that they should be ‘appeased’. I was looking at it from the point of propaganda; it would be beneficial to communists to not keep repeating this dichotomy of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’.


If you want we can go into this in another thread, needless to say I disagree with your analysis but for this thread I think we should remain on the topic at hand.


OK. There’s already an extensive thread on the nature of the Soviet Union. I doubt we would bring anything new to that discussion.


Indeed. But you do realise that the USSR was in its infancy? It was not feasible or realistic to completely overhaul all previous forms of labour alienation.

But a variation on the capitalist work ethic isn’t some kind of improvement. The point is to get rid of it altogether.


The USSR was merely a stepping stone who were striving for Communism while under constant siege and threat by the hostile forces which encircled it.

That alone should tell you that the conditions were not ripe for change. Besides what do you mean it was ‘striving for communism’? Communism is a process undertaken by the international working class not a bourgeois state in the existing international system.


The abolition of work is of course a tenant of communism...

According to RedAlert1999, you’re wrong.


The abolition of work as we know it is not an adequate response to your need to place the individual in supremacy over the collective.

I’m not placing “the individual in supremacy over the collective”. I haven’t mentioned individuals abstracted from social relations. None of Marx’s writings (which I quoted and agree with) do so.


It does not explain why you cling to certain liberal sensibilities and are alienated against the concept of the greater collective as it would occur in a Communist society.

Marx himself placed an emphasis on individual self-realisation; this can be seen throughout his writings. If you want to call me a ‘liberal’ because I find this aspect of Marx appealing, then that’s fine, go ahead.

[Ismail]

In NRZ's case, it was "Albania is a shithole" because of capitalism, and the traitors of the revolution. Not simply, "Albania is a shithole, because it's Albania, and I live in a gloriously superior US of A". or something.Least believable retroactive justification ever, and unless "traitors" refers to the events of 1990-1991, ridiculous for the reasons I gave in an earlier post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2501767&postcount=100). And since it doesn't refer to that, then what "traitors of the revolution"? Albanian Trots either held that fascism was objectively progressive because it was "creating a proletariat" and that the communists should simply work within the fascist-built apparatuses in order to "struggle" against it, or called for a "Soviet Albania" which was a slogan easily exploited by said fascists. It was the "Stalinists" who founded the Communist Party and led the national liberation war, and who carried out every single social and economic change.

[Peoples' War]

Least believable retroactive justification ever,First off, it's not some "retroactive justification", you and the other ML's have created a retroactive condemnation, taking what he said out of context and labeling him a Chauvinist based on your deification of anything Stalinist. If he had said that Somalia was a shithole, you wouldn't be saying he was a Chauvinist, you'd be agreeing with him, because the free market, cartel run system, does make it a shit hole.


and unless "traitors" refers to the events of 1990-1991, ridiculous for the reasons I gave in an earlier post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2501767&postcount=100). Traitors to any working class motives. I'm fairly certain Enver Hoxha never intended on doing anything but creating a state capitalist Albania.


And since it doesn't refer to that, then what "traitors of the revolution"? Albanian Trots either held that fascism was objectively progressive because it was "creating a proletariat" and that the communists should simply work within the fascist-built apparatuses in order to "struggle" against it,I don't care what Trots did. Jesus Christ mate, it's irrelevant. It's like a child saying "but but he did something bad too!" to get out of trouble.


or called for a "Soviet Albania" which was a slogan easily exploited by said fascists. It was the "Stalinists" who founded the Communist Party and led the national liberation war, and who carried out every single social and economic change.Sure, and it's liekly they were progressive and for the better. Doesn't mean it was socialist, or was a workers revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

Calling me "jingoistic" makes literally no sense and indicates you don't know what words mean.

I know full well what the words means.

[Art Vandelay]

First off, it's not some "retroactive justification", you and the other ML's have created a retroactive condemnation, taking what he said out of context and labeling him a Chauvinist based on your deification of anything Stalinist. If he had said that Somalia was a shithole, you wouldn't be saying he was a Chauvinist, you'd be agreeing with him, because the free market, cartel run system, does make it a shit hole.

This.

Also my exact words were: Albania was a state capitalist shit hole. Perhaps if I had said Albania was a shit hole, or Albania is a shit hole, then just maybe, just maybe, you'd have a leg to stand on; but I didn't I clearly stated in the sentence that it was state capitalist.....which was my justification for using the term. Simply cause I haven't ever used those exact words to describe other capitalist countries on the site before means fucking nothing is frankly laughable, it shows how much you two have to grab at straws to slander me.

[Comrades Unite!]

How did this thread go from why people support Stalin, to discussion on Albania?

[Prof. Oblivion]

The problem I see, as well, is when Stalinists claim that their flawed vision of Marxist theory is based on the material conditions of today, and then fail to precisely describe which material conditions, and why they allow for whatever revision it is

Trotskyists do this, too.

[Hit The North]

That's a Liberal statement. Claiming there is an objective anything is liberal, with the exception being matter, as Materialists hold that as objective, but claiming it always changes.


Given that you are determined to reduce all things to matter then you have to concede that the biologically constituted individual human being is also an objective thing (and perhaps always changing). According to Marx man is an objective creature. Is he only objective in the form of the social classes he inhabits? Certainly not! Otherwise, the communist future would not only hail the end of social classes, but also the end of man as an objective creature. And I doubt you would want to concede to that.

In fact, in the German Ideology, Marx argues thus:


The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2

So if the individual was a creation of the French revolution as you so woefully and ignorantly insist, what do you suppose Marx is referring to when he writes about real human individuals being the starting point of all rational inquiries into human history?


So we can never be truly free, as matter is the dictator of society, and thoughts and ideas are mere reflections of such material conditions.
This phrase is so abstract as to be utterly empty and meaningless. Rather than proceeding from the precepts of historical materialism you proceed from the crude materialism that Marx criticises in his 3rd thesis on Feuerbach:


The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself....

The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm



You made the statement that the individual is a REAL entity, while claiming it is absurd to view it any other way. That's called a categorical, and that's the basis of Liberalism.


If he did argue this then, as I have already shown, that puts him in agreement with Marx and the first premise of historical materialism, whilst you are in disagreement - unless you can show where Marx claims the individual is not a real entity and some kind of illusion.


So when people were slaves or overly dogmatic, in the Middle Ages, they had individuality? Of course not! They were complete tools who followed the direction of the King, the Church, or their owners.
With all due respect, I'd suggest that the "complete tool" is yourself. A tool of Stalinist demagogy.


Not to mention the pre-manogomous family, which Engels wrote extensively about, where families were the most important entities, and which crafted each member of the group.
So what do families consist of? If not human individuals, then what?


"It is, above all, necessary to avoid once more establishing “society" as an abstraction over against the individual. The individual is the social being. His vital expression – even when it does not appear in the direct form of a communal expression, conceived in association with other men – is therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man's individual and species-life are not two distinct things, however much – and this is necessarily so – the mode of existence of individual life is a more particular or a more general mode of the species-life, or species-life a more particular or more general individual life."
The part of the quote I highlight above is interesting because this is exactly what you and the Stalinist school of the falsification of Marxism do: they establish society as something that can be abstracted from real human individuals, so that they can best establish the domination of 'society' over human individuals. But, of course, for the Stalinists, this is not far enough. They must also transform this abstract society into the concrete repression of the state. The state, steered by the Party under the genius of Stalin or Hoxha or whatever other poster-boy for bureaucratic dictatorship they choose, becomes the 'proxy for 'society' or 'history' and the sovereign power over all individuals under its sway. In The Holy Family, Marx warns against this tendency among the Young Hegelians but it can equally be applied to the Stalinists:


Just as, according to the earlier teleologists, plants exist to be eaten by animals, and animals to be eaten by men, history exists in order to serve as the act of consumption of theoretical eating — proving. Man exists so that history may exist, and history exists so that the proof of truths exists. In this Critically trivialised form is repeated the speculative wisdom that man exists, and history exists, so that truth may arrive at self-consciousness.

That is why history, like truth, becomes a person apart, a metaphysical subject of which the real human individuals are merely the bearers.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06.htm

And, as we know, for you Stalinoids, it is the Party that is the bearer of 'truth' and the people are only privy to this 'truth' inasmuch as they are in agreement with the Party. To this end, you must downgrade the reality of the individual, who pales in the face of the greater reality of history.

Of course, the actual material interests that underpin these convoluted philosophical positions, where the collective is everything and the individuals that make up the collective are nothing, are the material interests of economic accumulation, best served by a regime where the mass of individuals can be exhorted or forced to labour for the 'greater good' of the state (now cast as the real conscious agent of history).

This has proved to be an effective method of accelerating economic development but it is not socialism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is merely strawman building without any real theoretical content. I could make the same generalizations about anarchists.

It's not a straw-man because I'm not really making a formal argument. These are merely my opinions and how I chose to answer the questions. I think me speaking in generalizations is obvious and goes without saying.


This is what I really wanted to get to. I don't know of any Marxist-Leninist that flat-out denies that there were deaths.

I've met/talked to several.


Could you be more specific on this one?

Virtually anything whatsoever negative is typically denied or down played or excused with rhetoric in my personal experience. I mean even if I said something simple like how did the Romani community fare under Stalin? The only answer I can get is "oh, well, it was pretty much shitty for you guys the entire time, not just the Stalin era." Or if I mention any famine, or again, anything negative during the Stalin era. I understand my answer above is rather vague and purposely so as I don't really want to have a long and drawn out discussion about this.

[Ismail]

If he had said that Somalia was a shithole, you wouldn't be saying he was a Chauvinist, you'd be agreeing with him, because the free market, cartel run system, does make it a shit hole.No I wouldn't, I don't use that word.


Traitors to any working class motives. I'm fairly certain Enver Hoxha never intended on doing anything but creating a state capitalist Albania.If so he certainly didn't act it. His thousands of pages of diary entries attacking revisionism (whether it be of the Soviet, Chinese, Romanian, Korean, Cuba, Yugoslav, Eurocommunist, etc. varieties), refusal to go along with the post-Stalin "reforms" in the Soviet economy, the inverse occurring with attempts to strengthen the socialist economic order (at a time when Hungary, Poland, Romania, etc. were joining the IMF and giving increased concessions to the countryside, Albania's 1976 constitution banned foreign investments and debt, and Hoxha announced in 1981 moves to do away with completely with small private plots on the collective farms—an unprecedented step in the Eastern Bloc), his complete refusal (which his successors continued until 1990) to establish any relations whatsoever with the USA or USSR, etc. are not the mark of an opportunist.


I don't care what Trots did. Jesus Christ mate, it's irrelevant.Then there's no revolution that the "Stalinists" "betrayed." In the USSR you supposedly had the "Stalinists" betraying the path of "Lenin and Trotsky," in Spain you had the "Stalinists" supposedly sabotaging the "revolution" led by anarchists and endorsed by the POUM.

[Zealot]

"Countless" would imply more revolutions than can be counted. We should also clarify that these revolutions succeeded in doing little other than turning the species against you, outside of the occasional angry peasant movement.

To be fair though, this type of arrogance was what led me to Stalinism at a less developed stage of political consciousness. The need to be perceived as being on a winning team is a big factor in human life. Although it takes a significant effort to delude yourself into believing that a society that couldn't even survive a full century is some kind of historic victory.

Actually, you've completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't being "arrogant" because I felt the need to be on the "winning team" but because someone has tried to boil Marxism-Leninism down to trench coats and ushankas, which is demonstrably not true.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Coming from someone who refers to himself as a Stalinist, the correct name for the theoretical framework to which such people adhere is, as has already been mentioned, called Marxism-Leninism. Those who trace their ideological lineage to Lenin not through Stalin but through Trotsky also, at least in some instances, refer to their politics as Marxist-Leninist (or, in other cases, Bolshevik-Leninist). It feels like the question you're actually asking is why would someone view Stalin in a positive light, given the deaths and oppression commonly associated with the man. Trotsky's criticisms of the Stalin regime and that era of the Soviet Union fall flat, not for lack of internal consistency within themselves, but for lack of an overall materialist framework and consistency with historical fact. Tony Clark's What is Trotskyism? makes for good reading on the subject.

As for the various atrocities attributed to Stalin and his supposed paranoia and megalomania, the actual historical evidence suggests an entirely different picture of the man. It is undisputed that innocents were judicially murdered during Stalin's time as General Secretary of the C.P.S.U., just as it is undisputed that there were major starvation conditions in the Ukraine and in other places during collectivization. That Stalin himself had deliberately launched a paranoid campaign against his own comrades to secure some absolute power and had deliberately engineered a genocide of the Ukrainian people, putting his personal death toll from anywhere between ten million and twenty million, is absurd. The threats of opportunistic subterfuge, counter-revolutionary activity including but not limited to foreign espionage, and theoretically unsound policy-making due to lack of political education were all quite real in Stalin's time, and in the cases of those who were innocent of any crime, many were released and rehabilitated. Those who were judicially murdered had cases built against them not by Stalin himself, but by opportunists within the Party who ingratiated themselves to Stalin. The kernel of the "cult of personality" that surrounded Stalin is found, also, in opportunists openly ingratiating themselves to Stalin and secretly plotting against him. It is said Yezhov died with Stalin's name on his lips, and yet he had prepared a case against Stalin not dissimilar to the accusations later levied against the deceased leader by Khrushchev, himself quite the ardent "Stalinist" while within earshot of the man. Stalin himself was actually highly suspicious of this "cult" where it involved prominent Soviet political figures, and history has shown that this is hardly a "paranoid" attitude. Grover Furr, Mario Souza, and especially Douglas Tottle have written on these subjects, but, while their books are helpful and informative, nothing surpasses the analysis of objective historical fact. Examination of the objective facts of Soviet history, free from the conjecture, speculation, and surmise of state-endorsed professionals like Robert Conquest (who, it is worth noting, would later recant his views of the "Holodomor" being a deliberately engineered genocide), is absolutely the most complete route to an understanding of Stalin's Soviet Union and its place in the history of socialism.

As for the proletariat themselves, it was hardly unreasonable for them to express their admiration for the man as they did. He was responsible for the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, as well as its rapid industrialization and a monumental rise in the standard of living for the working class of the country. From a theoretical point of view, it is important to avoid the pitfall of exalting the individual to the point of ignoring the essential role the proletariat plays as a historically determined class in the revolutionary construction of socialism. Still, a materialist view acknowledges that the vestiges of the old society will persist for some time during the construction of the new society. That the masses of working people wouldn't generally be well-acquainted with Marxist-Leninist theory, especially since Lenin himself was a fairly recent memory at the time, is not unreasonable.

In summation, despite the popular, bourgeois-political conception of Stalin, he is, if anything can be said about a single individual in the continuum of human history, one of the most important figures in the development and practice of the science of history and society, the science of revolutionary proletarian socialism, of communism and of Marxism-Leninism (the others including, in the opinion of certain Leninists: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Enver Hoxha of Socialist Albania). It is not unreasonable, but instead necessary to apply criticism from a solid theoretical standpoint to Stalin's own theoretical contributions to Marxism-Leninism. What makes so-called "Stalinism" so powerful is that it endures sound criticism and survives the continuous onslaught of spurious criticism from all sides.

And that, dear comrade, is why I call myself a Stalinist.

[Andropov]

Which I've read, and neither you nor Ismail have provided sufficient evidence that NRZ meant it as Albania was a shithole because it's Albania and inferior to his nation, as opposed to Albania was a shithole because of material conditions.
The term "shit hole" is a loaded term in the given context.
It does not indicate any analysis of material conditions, it is merely a derogative term for what some perceive as a "backward" place.
His statement was clear...

Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole
We do not require any more evidence to suggest that Neue Rheinische Zeitung was being chauvinistic since when using such a loaded term with regards to a country is chauvinistic.
The burden of proof is now on him to invalidate our claims and as of yet he has not contributed anything which would justify his using that term in this context.

[Andropov]

I wasn’t very clear with what I meant regarding this. I didn’t mean to suggest that liberals are allies or that they should be ‘appeased’. I was looking at it from the point of propaganda; it would be beneficial to communists to not keep repeating this dichotomy of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’.
No and your not very clear here either.
Please do elaborate why it would be "beneficial to communists to not keep repeating this dichotomy of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’."

But a variation on the capitalist work ethic isn’t some kind of improvement. The point is to get rid of it altogether.
Firstly there was demonstrable improvements for the working class in the USSR, it was not just a variation but in many incidents would be the matter between life and death, these advances were tangible.
And of course the point is to get rid of it altogether, but within the material conditions the USSR found itself it was restricted in how much could be achieved in a given space of time.

That alone should tell you that the conditions were not ripe for change.
Of course the conditions were ripe for change, hence why you had a Revolution there.
The material conditions Tsarist Russia found itself was a breathing ground for change, a cauldron of radicalism because of the material context.
The proof was in the pudding.
Successful Revolutions do not occur divorced from a radical context.

Besides what do you mean it was ‘striving for communism’? Communism is a process undertaken by the international working class not a bourgeois state in the existing international system.
Firstly the USSR was not a bourgeois state.
It was a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Secondly to suggest that the USSR somehow was not capable of under going a transition to Communism because Revolutions in other countries failed is absurd.
The USSR was limited to its material context it found itself in, unfortunately the USSR found itself isolated because of the failings elsewhere and had to strive for Communism within its own context. To suggest that it was somehow ideologically impure or incorrect by how it pursued this goal because of the failings of Revolutions elsewhere is just downright disingenuous.

According to RedAlert1999, you’re wrong.
Do show me where he stated that?

I’m not placing “the individual in supremacy over the collective”. I haven’t mentioned individuals abstracted from social relations. None of Marx’s writings (which I quoted and agree with) do so.
You stated...

The issue is that you keep talking about the proletariat as though it is some kind of singular hive mind.
Which clearly alludes to a revulsion to a collective.
As for the Marx quotes you provided they are irrelevant to the debate at hand since they pertain to a Communist society that is free from class contradictions, they are not relevant to the material context we are debating here.

Marx himself placed an emphasis on individual self-realisation; this can be seen throughout his writings. If you want to call me a ‘liberal’ because I find this aspect of Marx appealing, then that’s fine, go ahead.
I have already dealt with the context of said Marx writings which you are using out of context.
The problem at hand is your inherent liberal sensibilities. You emphasise an aspect of Marxism which is not relevant to the material context we are debating.
Your blatant hierarchy of importance demonstrates your intrinsic liberalism.
Your need to liberate the individual is just a bastardised form of Liberalism and really has little relevancy to Communism.

[Hit The North]

Trotsky's criticisms of the Stalin regime and that era of the Soviet Union fall flat, not for lack of internal consistency within themselves, but for lack of an overall materialist framework and consistency with historical fact.


Yet more abstract claims devoid of any detail from these Stalinoids! What aspects of Trotsky's analysis lacked an "overall materialist framework" and how did it depart from "historical fact"?

Maybe you should deal in specifics rather than dull-minded sloganeering.


As for the proletariat themselves, it was hardly unreasonable for them to express their admiration for the man as they did. He was responsible for the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, as well as its rapid industrialization and a monumental rise in the standard of living for the working class of the country.


And here we have it: the cult of personality in full pomp! It was not the proletariat, acting as the ruling class in society, that created socialism, it was the Great Genius Comrade Stalin. It was not the proletariat, through its immense collective effort and productive power, that industrialised and electrified the Soviet Union and raised itself up economically, it was the Great Helmsman, the Flower of Humanity, the Great God Stalin wot done it.

Honestly, it is like listening to the self-aggrandising Western bourgeoisie who, in their own accounts, take the credit for the development of modern society and its immense wealth; proving that even in the mythos of Stalinism, it is the bureaucracy of state capitalism that takes on the historical role of the bourgeois capitalist in bourgeois capitalism.


In summation, despite what the popular, bourgeois-political conception of Stalin, he is, if anything can be said about a single individual in the continuum of human history, one of the most important figures in the development and practice of the science of history and society, the science of revolutionary proletarian socialism, of communism and of Marxism-Leninism (the others including, in the opinion of certain Leninists: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Enver Hoxha of Socialist Albania). It is not unreasonable, but instead necessary to apply criticism from a solid theoretical standpoint to Stalin's own theoretical contributions to Marxism-Leninism. What makes so-called "Stalinism" so powerful is that it endures sound criticism and survives the continuous onslaught of spurious criticism from all sides.

Once again, I invite you to abandon your dogmatic sloganeering and embark upon a detailed account of what Stalin's "powerful" theoretical contributions were. It will be fun shooting them down.

[Peoples' War]

Trotskyists do this, too.
First, I have never come across this at all. Surely you can give an example.

Second, WHY THE FUCK DO ANY OF YOU THINK I CARE WHAT TROTS DO?

Jesus Christ mate, it's like talking to a child who then says "but he did it too! Why isn't he in trouble!"


The term "shit hole" is a loaded term in the given context.
It does not indicate any analysis of material conditions, it is merely a derogative term for what some perceive as a "backward" place.
His statement was clear...That's 100% bullshit, and you know it. I had figured the Stalinists on this website were above such petty things. The ones I know here in Wales, and the ones I've met in London are.

You, and the other MLs, are making it a loaded statement. It's very clear he meant it as a shithole because of the material conditions. You can deny it all you want, and keep playing these petty games, but nobody else is going to take you seriously.


We do not require any more evidence to suggest that Neue Rheinische Zeitung was being chauvinistic since when using such a loaded term with regards to a country is chauvinistic.I detect a whiff of historical Stalinist attitude here. "We need no more evidence to condemn him, other than his poor phrasing which leaves open the tiny possibility that it was chauvinism."

Stop taking the piss.


The burden of proof is now on him to invalidate our claims and as of yet he has not contributed anything which would justify his using that term in this context.There's no burden of proof on him to prove he isn't a chauvinist, just a burden of proof to show how the living conditions of Albania constitute a shithole. It's not like any of you will take a non ML source seriously. It'll either be bourgeois, ultra left, trot or fascist propaganda anyways.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yet more abstract claims devoid of any detail from these Stalinoids! What aspects of Trotsky's analysis lacked an "overall materialist framework" and how did it depart from "historical fact"

Maybe you should deal in specifics rather than dull-minded sloganeering.

Hello, comrade. I'm more than a little surprised to have been met with so much hostility, especially since I wasn't initiating a debate so much as I was explaining my own reasoning behind my personal support of Stalin. Recall that I mentioned one Tony Clark's What is Trotskyism? with regards to this subject. A detailed analysis of Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin and the Soviet Union during his time as General Secretary are really beyond the scope of this post, and Tony Clark articulates these points much better than I could.


And here we have it: the cult of personality in full pomp! It was not the proletariat, acting as the ruling class in society, that created socialism, it was the Great Genius Comrade Stalin. It was not the proletariat, through its immense collective effort and productive power, that industrialised and electrified the Soviet Union and raised itself up economically, it was the Great Helmsman, the Flower of Humanity, the Great God Stalin wot done it.

The above comes off a bit silly, don't you think? You'll find that elsewhere in my posts I emphasize the role of the proletariat in the construction of socialism, but it didn't occur to me that Stalin himself was a prominent individual figure in the construction of Soviet socialism would have been under dispute.


Honestly, it is like listening to the self-aggrandising Western bourgeoisie who, in their own accounts, take the credit for the development of modern society and its immense wealth; proving that even in the mythos of Stalinism, it is the bureaucracy of state capitalism that takes on the historical role of the bourgeois capitalist in bourgeois capitalism.

Again, I'm a little surprised because it never occurred to me that Stalin should have played an important individual role in the construction of Soviet socialism was disputed. Also, I don't think it's appropriate to seize upon the notion of a cult of personality at the mere mention of an individual's role in the course of history. It is true that classes are the moving force behind historical social transformations, but one wouldn't say, for instance, that Marx did not play a quite significant role in articulating revolutionary proletarian socialism and a theoretical framework for understanding history.


Once again, I invite you to abandon your dogmatic sloganeering and embark upon a detailed account of what Stalin's "powerful" theoretical contributions were. It will be fun shooting them down.

It was never my intent to initiate debate, but even now that I've been invited to engage in one, I'd have to decline. The tone of your response to my original post strikes me as quite hostile, and your wording in the above quoted passage leads me to consider that isn't so much an even exchange of ideas in which you're interested so much as it is "shooting down" ideas with which you'll likely disagree. My sincerest apologies if I've misinterpreted your post. Perhaps we can work well together in future exchanges.

[Hit The North]

No and your not very clear here either.
Please do elaborate why it would be "beneficial to communists to not keep repeating this dichotomy of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’."


For a start, it would be beneficial for you to not sound like you don't know what you're talking about. In Marxism there is no dichotomy between the individual and the collective as this would imply a separation between the two, which Marx rejects. Instead the individual and the collective is shown to be in a dialectical relation.


Firstly there was demonstrable improvements for the working class in the USSR, it was not just a variation but in many incidents would be the matter between life and death, these advances were tangible.

There were tangible improvements for the working class of the bourgeois powers in this period, also. What does it prove?


And of course the point is to get rid of it altogether, but within the material conditions the USSR found itself it was restricted in how much could be achieved in a given space of time.

Ah, finally the penny drops!


It was a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Specifics, please. How did the proletariat implement its dictatorship over society, as an independent social power?

[Камо́ Зэд]

In Marxism there is no dichotomy between the individual and the collective as this would imply a separation between the two, which Marx rejects. Instead the individual and the collective is shown to be in a dialectical relation. Comrade Clock makes an excellent point in the above quoted passage. Classes are the primary movers of historical social change, but this does not preclude the contributions made to history by talented or otherwise prominent individuals. Consider Alexander the Great, to whom is attributed one of the greatest ancient empires. It is difficult to say whether his ancient imperialist ambitions would have been manifest in a similar fashion had he, the individual, never existed, as he is clearly a product of his ancient class. That he is regarded to have played a prominent leadership role in these conquests, however, is undisputed. It is important to analyze the material conditions and the historically determined classes that yield individuals to whom great historical significance has traditionally been assigned, but it is also important to consider what role the individual plays in this ongoing dialogue between individual and collective.

[Engels]

Do show me where he stated that?

You stated:
"The abolition of work is of course a tenant of communism..."

RedAlert1999 stated:
"And no, no, no!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM IS NOT ABOUT THE ABOLISH OF WORK!!!!!!! Read Kapital!"



You stated...

Which clearly alludes to a revulsion to a collective.

Revulsion to your crude understanding of Marx’s views on the individual and society, not to the concept of the ‘collective’ as such.



As for the Marx quotes you provided they are irrelevant to the debate at hand since they pertain to a Communist society that is free from class contradictions, they are not relevant to the material context we are debating here.

Don't dance around the subject. They are very relevant since they demonstrate that Marx far a far more nuanced understanding of the individual and society than you, and that individual self-realisation was important for him.

His writings on how the individual and society are viewed in a dialectical manner apply to any society, not just communism.


I have already dealt with the context of said Marx writings which you are using out of context.

None of them are used out of context. Try again.


The problem at hand is your inherent liberal sensibilities. You emphasise an aspect of Marxism which is not relevant to the material context we are debating.
Your blatant hierarchy of importance demonstrates your intrinsic liberalism.
Your need to liberate the individual is just a bastardised form of Liberalism and really has little relevancy to Communism.

Now you’re just wasting my time, throwing around words and supposed slurs like that other muppet. You just don’t like the fact that Marx clearly emphasised the freedom of the individual in a liberated society. Don’t hide behind ‘material conditions’ – that didn’t work for RedAlert1999, it won’t work for you.

[Zanthorus]

I haven’t read the entire text of Kapital. Expand on this.

"The labour-process, resolved as above into its simple elementary factors, is human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to human requirements; it is the necessary condition for effecting exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase."

From chapter seven, section one. I don't particularly think that summing up Marx's thought with a phrase like 'abolish work' is particularly appropriate given statements like the above, and in fact summing up Marx in terms of phrases is generally a bad idea at any rate, given that he was himself a bit of an antagonist of phraseology. That kind of practice usually falls to those who are more interested in lazy semantics than genuine analysis, and generally isn't all that helpful, even when you're discussing with people who are also caught up in phrases enough to think that the existence of biologically distinct human individuals is some kind of bourgeois fiction. The point of discussion is to uncover the truth, not to trade phrases in an empty attempt to win some kind of invisible trophy.


No and your not very clear here either.
Please do elaborate why it would be "beneficial to communists to not keep repeating this dichotomy of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’."

This gets right to the heart of Marxist analysis though, doesn't it? I mean, in general terms the great achievment of philosophy from Kant to Hegel, to paraphrase Hegel himself, was to work out the reality of the the opposition between the universal and particular as it manifested itself in the various realms of thought as the conflict between duty and individual feeling, freedom and necessity, the abstract and the concrete, reason and passion, spirit and nature, content and form, and so on and so forth. The great failure of that philosophy was it's attempt to reconcile all these contradictions through philosophy itself. Marx's contribution is the grounding of these contradictions in the reality of a particular social form, to show the antagonisms as the reflection of the real antagonisms between concrete and abstract labour, labour which is both labour for the pursuit of private individual ends, and labour which is the satisfaction of a social need, or if you like, between the bourgeoisie as a class which comes to represent society and the social wealth, and the proletariat as the class which is objectively impoverished and cut off from the enjoyment of the social wealth.

Bourgeois thought is not a singular entity, and we can see even at an abstract level that, both in reality and for Marx and Engels, it has a tendency towards dualism, between liberal and conservative, rationalist and romanticist or even between idealist and materialist (Lest we forget that all the original champions of materialism were men of the enlightenment). The point for Marxists is not to emphasise either of these sides. I mean, for example, what does it say that Marxism is a form of collectivism? The 'collective' or 'society' are empty abstractions, society is always some particular form of society. Capitalism itself is a social form, a kind of society, and movements to oppose it have often been accused of attacking society itself, breaking up the 'unity of the nation' and so on. Workers on strike are often accused of being greedy individualists, thinking primarily of themselves rather than social harmony in the mainstream press, and this is all true in a sense. The proletariat moves not out of a sense of duty, not out of an affinity with the collective in the abstract, but out of an immediate, pressing, particularistic and it's own way individual need, and yet in doing so it also moves unconsciously for a higher form of society. Here it has already in a way overcome the dichotomy between the individual and society in practice, theory finds it's reality and the solution to it's antagonisms in the movement of the proletariat against existing society.

[Geiseric]

The USSR wasn't bourgeois, and could of been fixed if Stalin and the bureaucracy were purged instead of the vanguard of the working class. The problem with the USSR was solely the degenerated state which had interests opposing those of the world proletariat. It wasn't capitalist although, the law of use value was what determined the economy when it was being planned. Exchange value as we see in capitalist countries didn't exist in the USSR, since there was no profit motive from the bureaucrats. The way they worked was by stealing commodities and trading them with other bureaucrats, they didn't extract profits due to ownership. Money was only worth anything inside of the U.S.S.R. and if anything was simply an exchange token. It couldn't be re-invested, or invested at all.

There was no private ownership in the U.S.S.R. however Stalinists need to understand that the bureaucracy which evolved into today's capitalists had that power because of Stalinism.

[Камо́ Зэд]

There was no private ownership in the U.S.S.R. however Stalinists need to understand that the bureaucracy which evolved into today's capitalists had that power because of Stalinism.

As a Stalinist, I can say that we typically attribute the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union to the "infiltration" of revisionist ideas and attitudes into the C.P.S.U. and Soviet policy. This restoration is succinctly manifest in the Liberman/Kosygin reforms that restored private ownership of enterprise and the tyranny of the market. Having read Stalin's own political and economy theory, however, I'm skeptical that Stalin's ideas had opened the door for such revisionism. Perhaps, though, to what you were referring was not so much Stalin's socioeconomic theory as much as it was his method of leadership? I don't dispute that the purges and executions probably eliminated potentially ingenuous communists and most definitely fostered an environment of fear within the Party. I do, however, disagree that Stalin was solely at fault for these mistakes, and I believe he was being fed, at least on a few occasions, false information by opportunists already working within the Party. I'd also disagree that Stalin didn't make an effort to democratize the Party and move it away from bureaucracy and administration towards persuasion and debate.

I don't mean to enter into a debate so much as I mean to merely elucidate the position typical of Stalinists such as myself. The matter of historical fact is indeed disputed here, but please consider that Stalinists refer to a different historical account. This isn't so much about a cult of personality as much as it is that we refer to an opposing collection of accounts that we feel have explanatory power with regards to what we can observe about the world and its history. As for what these accounts actually are, if you're interested, there's actually an entire WordPress blog dedicated in part to such histories called The Espresso Stalinist. The Red Phoenix, published articles and essays by the American Party of Labor, also makes for a fairly comprehensive online resource regarding Marxist-Leninist theory in the tradition of Stalin-Hoxha.

[Art Vandelay]

As a Stalinist, I can say that we typically attribute the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union to the "infiltration" of revisionist ideas and attitudes into the C.P.S.U. and Soviet policy

Thanks for letting us know you're an idealist.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Thanks for letting us know you're an idealist.

Hello, comrade. This is actually an objection with which I'm quite familiar. It isn't so much that revisionist ideas exist in some vacuum, of course, as any given idea has its material basis. That being said, I don't think this at all discounts the importance that ideas have on policy-making. There were certain material conditions that gave rise to the attitudes that prevailed in the Soviet Union shortly before Stalin's death, to be sure, but those material conditions did in fact give rise to attitudes that influenced policy in a profound way. I assume a similar sequence of events (matter-attitude-policy) is meant when comrades refer to "Stalinism" as being responsible for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. That matter should have primacy over the idea does not mean that the idea neither exists nor has the potential to influence the material world.

[Art Vandelay]

Hello, comrade. This is actually an objection with which I'm quite familiar.

As I am also, with the one you are about to state below.


It isn't so much that revisionist ideas exist in some vacuum, of course, as any given idea has its material basis. That being said, I don't think this at all discounts the importance that ideas have on policy-making. There were certain material conditions that gave rise to the attitudes that prevailed in the Soviet Union shortly before Stalin's death, to be sure, but those material conditions did in fact give rise to attitudes that influenced policy in a profound way.

What you are claiming, is that with the death of Stalin and the enacting (through policy) of new ideas results in a fundamental change in the mode of production. You can posture about the material conditions which lead to these ideas all you want, but don't associate that garbage with materialism.


I assume a similar sequence of events (matter-attitude-policy) is meant when comrades refer to "Stalinism" as being responsible for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. That matter should have primacy over the idea does not mean that the idea neither exists nor has the potential to influence the material world.


Stalinism represented the counter revolution, in reaction against October. The restoration of capitalism in the USSR (as any materialist would claim) was not due to the ideas known as stalinism, but due material conditions and the failure of the revolution to spread.

[Камо́ Зэд]

What you are claiming, is that with the death of Stalin and the enacting (through policy) of new ideas results in a fundamental change in the mode of production. You can posture about the material conditions which lead to these ideas all you want, but don't associate that garbage with materialism.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. I should think that policy would indeed influence the mode of production if productive administration fell under the jurisdiction of the policy-making bodies in question. I may have misunderstood, and I apologize if I have.


Stalinism represented the counter revolution, in reaction against October. The restoration of capitalism in the USSR (as any materialist would claim) was not due to the ideas known as stalinism, but due material conditions and the failure of the revolution to spread.But wouldn't the ideas of Stalinism have influenced the material conditions of the Soviet Union through policy regarding production? And wouldn't reactionary ideas necessarily influence the failure of the revolution to have been spread throughout the more developed countries? I tend to think of matter and human thought as being in a kind of dialectic of their own; though matter has primacy, it can be said that conceptualizations influenced by material conditions can in turn influence material conditions. Consider the advent of agriculture, being a model of how human thought, conditioned by the material world, in turned influenced the material world. If human thought were not engaged in such a dialectical relationship with the material world, I'm skeptical our species would have become as sophisticated as it is.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not sure I understand your objection. I should think that policy would indeed influence the mode of production if productive administration fell under the jurisdiction of the policy-making bodies in question. I may have misunderstood, and I apologize if I have.

But wouldn't the ideas of Stalinism have influenced the material conditions of the Soviet Union through policy regarding production? And wouldn't reactionary ideas necessarily influence the failure of the revolution to have been spread throughout the more developed countries? I tend to think of matter and human thought as being in a kind of dialectic of their own; though matter has primacy, it can be said that conceptualizations influenced by material conditions can in turn influence material conditions. Consider the advent of agriculture, being a model of how human thought, conditioned by the material world, in turned influenced the material world. If human thought were not engaged in such a dialectical relationship with the material world, I'm skeptical our species would have become as sophisticated as it is.I

I'm too drunk to really want ot respond to this right onw, but i'll edit out my comment tmro and respond.

[Ismail]

Hoxha in 1966, from his Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 38-44:

"The seizure of power by the Soviet modern revisionists from within, without using weapons or violence, is so to speak, a new phenomenon. We think that in fact Stalin had not envisaged this, for the Soviet Union least of all....

He was convinced that if some anti-party hostile activity emerged within the party, this might be developed and organized in the usual ways, but he was also firmly convinced that this activity would be attacked and liquidated by the same methods and forms that had been used to expose and liquidate all such activities in the past...

We think that there were contradictions and frictions in the leadership of the Soviet Union and we cannot accept the absurd thesis of the Khrushchevites that none of the leaders could open his mouth to express his opinion for fear of Stalin. From what we have heard, Stalin called Khrushchev a narodnik, criticized Voroshilov, Molotov and others. Hence, on the one hand we must conclude that Stalin was not politicaly short-sighted while on the other hand, that he did not always use bullets and terror as his enemies claim, but on the contrary used conviction and exchange of opinions.

Although we have no access to the internal documents which would verify many things, it is a fact that Stalin did not detect the danger posed by the traitors Khrushchev, Mikoyan and others, and that the Patriotic War exercised a great influence in this direction. If there is anything for which we can blame Stalin it is the fact that after the war, and especially in the last years of his life, he did not realize that the pulse of his Party was not beating as before, that it was losing its revolutionary vigour, was becoming sclerotic and, despite the heroic deeds of the Great Patriotic War, it never recovered properly and the Khrushchevite traitors took advantage of this. Here, if I am not mistaken, is where we must seek the origin of the tragedy that occurred in the Soviet Union.

The construction of socialism in the Soviet Union and the fight against both external and internal enemies were carried out by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Stalin who led it in a lofty revolutionary spirit. The merciless blows justly dealt to the Trotskyites, the Bukharinites and others were the logical conclusion of this great class struggle.

All this complex, many-sided struggle rightly enhanced the authority of Stalin and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik). This was positive, but the methods and forms of work which were used in the leadership of the Party had an opposite result.

If a minute analysis is made of the political, ideological and organizational directives of Stalin on the leadership and organization of the Party, the struggle and work, generally speaking, no errors of principle will be found, but we shall see that little by little the Party was becoming bureaucratized, that it was becoming overwhelmed with routine work and dangerous formalism which paralyze the party and sap its revolutionary spirit and vigour. The Party had been covered by a heavy layer of rust, by political apathy and the mistaken idea spread that only the head, the leadership, acted and solved everything. It was this concept of work that led to the situation in which everybody, everywhere, said about every question: «The leadership knows this», «the Central Committee knows everything», «the Central Committee does not make mistakes», «Stalin said this and that's the end of it». Many things which Stalin may not have said at all were attributed to him. The apparatuses and officials became «omnipotent», «infallible», and operated in bureaucratic ways, misusing the formulae of democratic centralism and Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism which were no longer Bolshevik. There is no doubt that in this way the Bolshevik Party lost its former vitality, it lived by correct formulae, but only formulae; it carried out orders, but did not act on its own initiative.

In such conditions, bureaucratic administrative measures began to prevail over revolutionary measures. After the adoption of these bureaucratic methods and forms of work, the correct revolutionary measures taken against the class enemy achieved an effect opposite to that desired and were used by the bureaucrats to spread fear in the Party and the people. The revolutionary vigilance no longer operated, because it had ceased to be revolutionary, although it was advertized as such. It was being transformed from a vigilance of the party and the masses into a vigilance of the bureaucratic apparatuses and, if not in all aspects, at least in form, into a vigilance of the security organs and the courts.

It is understandable that in such conditions, sentiments and views which were non-proletarian, not of the working class, took root and developed in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in the ranks of the communists and in the consciousness of many of them. Careerism, servility, charlatanism, cronyism, anti-proletarian morality, etc. developed and eroded the Party from within, smothered the spirit of the class struggle and sacrifice and encouraged the hankering after a «good», comfortable life with personal privileges and gain, and with the least possible work and toil. «We worked and fought for this socialist state and we won. Now let us enjoy it and profit from it. We are untouchable, our past covers everything.» This was the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois mentality which was being created in the Soviet Union and the great danger was that this was developing in the old cadres of the Party with an irreproachable past and of proletarian origin, cadres who ought to have been examples of purity for the others. Many of those who used beautiful words, the revolutionary phrases and theoretical formulae of Lenin and Stalin, who reaped the laurels from the work of others and who set and encouraged the bad example, were in the leadership, in the apparatuses. A worker aristocracy made up of bureaucratic cadres was being created in the Communist Party of the USSR.

Unfortunately, this process of degeneration developed under the «happy» and «hopeful» slogans that «everything is going well, normally, within the norms and laws of the Party» which in fact were being violated under the slogans that «the class struggle goes on», that «democratic centralism is preserved», that «criticism and self-criticism continue as before», that «a steel unity exists in the party», that «there are no more factionalists and anti-party elements», that «the Trotskyite, Bukharinite groups are a thing of the past», etc., etc."

Pages 46-47:

"Molotov and his comrades were old revolutionaries, honest communists, but were the typical representatives of that bureaucratic routine, that bureaucratic «legality», and when they made feeble attempts to use it against the evident plot of the Khrushchevites, it was already too late. Instead the bureaucracy and the bureaucratic «legality» were used by the traitors who covered up their palace intrigue with this «legality» and manoeuvred through their network and the entire stratum of bureaucrats of proletarian, and not kulak, capitalist or feudal, origin to seize the reins of the Party and the organs of state power.

Immediately after the death of Stalin, the Khrushchevite plotters manoeuvred deftly with this «legality», with the «rules of the party» and «democratic centralism», with their crocodile tears over the loss of Stalin, while gradually preparing to torpedo his work, his figure and Marxism-Leninism, until all their activity was crowned with success at the 20th Congress and in the crematorium where the body of Stalin was burned. This is a period full of lessons for us Marxist-Leninists, because it highlights the bankruptcy of bureaucratic «legality» which is a great danger to a Marxist-Leninist party, brings out the methods which the revisionists use to turn this bureaucratic «legality» to their advantage, shows how honest leaders, who have experience but have lost their revolutionary class spirit, fall into the traps of conspirators and make concessions, submit to the pressure and retreat in face of the blackmail and demagogy of revisionist traitors disguised with revolutionary phraseology."

[Geiseric]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Ismail]

What does that have to do with anything?I'd figure someone describing himself as a "Hoxhaist" would want to have Hoxha's own views on how revisionism became ascendant in the USSR, particularly since said person does seem rather new.

[Hit The North]

Hoxha's account is very revealing is it not? In his account of the triumph of revisionism and the overturning of the supposed socialist mode of production, there is no counter-revolution involving active social classes, only the manoeuvring of party bureaucrats. Indeed, the Russian proletariat only makes an appearance in this account in order to be chastised for its lack of vigilance and its love of comfort! At no point is it suggested that the workers are the active rulers of Soviet society. In its own way this account has impeccable logic: the overturning of socialism from above is accomplished through the mendacity of those at the top of society. But, of course, for genuine Marxists, 'socialism from above' is no socialism at all.

[Ismail]

Of course Hoxha did note at other times a lack of input by the everyday worker contributing a great deal to what happened in the USSR. 1966 was the same year the Cultural and Ideological Revolution was begun in a conscious effort to not repeat what happened.

For instance, from the Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha, from 1983, pages 99-102:

"Among the fundamental lessons which our Party has drawn from the bitter experience of the Soviet Union, where liberalism has engendered the indifference of the masses, and bureaucracy has stifled their initiative, is that the working class and the masses should seize the destinies of socialism in their hands and concern themselves constantly about the conducting of affairs according to the line of the Party.

For this purpose the Party has had to work persistently in two main directions:

On the one hand, for the communist education of the working class and the working masses, taking them as they are, as Comrade Enver Hoxha instructs, and making them as they should be...

And, on the other hand to create all the possibilities for the masses to take an actual part in the administration of the country and to be trained everyday, for this purpose. «The entire life of our country,» says Comrade Enver Hoxha, «the organization and management of the state, the economy. education, culture and defence has been constructed in such a way as to ensure and require the active participation of the working masses.» Therefore, all the people elected to the elected organs, all state organisms from above down below, must, first of all, work as efficiently as possible to combat formalism and not allow the people of the administrations to act as it suits them...

As early as the first years of the construction of socialism the great Lenin forcefully stressed the need for the direct control of the working class and the working peasantry and left this as one of his more important instructions.

Our Party has applied this instruction of Lenin's creatively and successfully. «The Party [said Enver Hoxha at the 7th Congress of the PLA in 1976] regards this control, which is exercised under its leadership over all state and social activity, as a universal and permanent principle of our socialist society in all its spheres and links, as an expression of the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the working class in alliance with the peasantry. Worker control is one of the vital aspects of the class struggle to ensure the triumph of socialism, to prevent the degeneration of the socialist order, and is a great school for the revolutionary education of the working class and the other working masses.» ...

The bitter experience of the revisionist countries in the degeneration of which the degeneration of cadres and their isolation from the masses has played a particular role, prompted our Party, among other things, to work out and take a series of measures to preserve the cadres and maintain them always revolutionary."

Of course bureaucracy was obviously an enduring problem in Albania, e.g. an anti-communist commentator, Anton Logoreci, notes in his work The Albanians: Europe's Forgotten Survivors that in the late 60's definite steps were taken to reduce the size and strength of the bureaucracy, but that within a few years it came back in force despite continuing articles and campaigns attacking it.

On a related subject, it should be noted that when the Soviet revisionists seized power (and it wasn't entirely peaceful, considering that Zhukov basically threatened to coup the government if Khrushchev was removed by the "Anti-Party Group") they began a series of demagogic maneuvers, e.g. that "communism" would be reached by 1980, that socialism is all about material abundance, how the USSR would compete in terms of consumer goods with the USA, how the dictatorship of the proletariat had run its course and that the state and Party were now representative "of the whole people" rather than the working-class, etc. They were also able to take advantage of the fruits of industrialization as living standards rose in the 50's and 60's.

The whole idea of the Soviet revisionists was that Stalin's theories were all aberrations from Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by them; class struggle continuing under socialism was attacked, the dictatorship of the proletariat continuing until communism was attacked, the inevitability of world wars so long as imperialism existed was criticized as "dogmatic," the necessity of seizing and smashing the bourgeois state was likewise criticized (in favor of the communists working to "democratize" the bourgeois state apparatus through pressure from below—something the CPUSA today brings to its logical conclusion.) In effect, the Soviet revisionists said that all the hard times were over and there was no need to continue to revolutionize society because communism was only a few decades away and that most everything had been done to ensure the Soviet state stood on the path to it.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Consider that, indeed, revolutionary proletarian socialism begins from the bottom, but the mechanisms of capitalist production begin at the top. Socialism is the endeavor to resolve the contradictions inherent in capitalism, but Marx explained that the seed of socialism existed within these contradictions. In other words, that capital and ownership are highly centralized necessarily means that the foundations for national productive endeavors are themselves highly centralized. This centralization, as Marx explained, is actually what congeals the proletariat, what creates a massive, united, and revolutionary class of working people. It is the work of a vanguard party, as elucidated by Lenin, to facilitate an understanding of the continuum of human history and of revolutionary practice. Empowered by this understanding, the proletariat as a class can keep in check the machinations of productive administration.

Marx and Engels empowered us with an understanding that history, for all its revolutionary transformations, does not occur in a perfect, clean progression from one epoch to the next. Indeed, the conditions that facilitated a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the foundation of the Soviet Union may also have been conditions that did not yet allow for the time to sufficiently empower the proletariat to guard against the infiltration of non-proletarian elements into the political work of the administrative sphere. That Lenin and the Bolsheviks should have seized the opportunity to overthrow the old regime when it presented itself is reasonable given that there is no certainty at what point such an opportunity would present itself again. Biding time for the oppressed peoples to be empowered by education would have meant the continued oppression and suffering of these peoples, as well as possibly creating difficulties with the facilitation of such education. If the Communists were to seize power, then, there would be no bourgeois regime to impede the education of the working masses. The process of democratizing the Party was an absolutely necessary endeavor given the conditions of administration determined by history; indeed, this process is probably one that would never be "complete" until the advent of world communism. Still, the proletariat were not empowered enough at this time to collectively sense and correct the infiltration of non-proletarian elements into the political work of the Party. Consider also the coming of the Great Patriotic War, compounding complications created by the maneuvering of opportunists. Looking back on history, it's possible to reach such an understanding of the concrete conditions of the Soviet proletariat and the political work being done in that country. "Revisionism" is not an ideological deviation that exists in a vacuum; it is a condition of perception affected by the material interests of the non-proletarian classes. (Consider, though, that Marx figured it possible for non-proletarians to adopt revolutionary attitudes in so much as it is in their material interests to survive their transfer into the proletariat.)

[ComingUpForAir]

I've been reading Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" lately... as a new communist I'm still learning about the various tendencies.. there's a video where Noam Chomsky defens Left-Communism as true Marxism while contending that both Trots and Stalinists are not communist. What would be a Marxist-Leninists reply to someone who claims that The Revolution Betrayed is true an accurate? What do Stalinists say to Left-Communists or those who believe a vanguard party inevitably leads to a bureacracy? Just some simple replies to help me to understand these distinctions would be appreciated... I'm kind of curious about Stalinism but hear only the worst things about it, having initially approached the question from Trotskyism..

[Камо́ Зэд]

I've been reading Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" lately... as a new communist I'm still learning about the various tendencies.. there's a video where Noam Chomsky defens Left-Communism as true Marxism while contending that both Trots and Stalinists are not communist. What would be a Marxist-Leninists reply to someone who claims that The Revolution Betrayed is true an accurate? What do Stalinists say to Left-Communists or those who believe a vanguard party inevitably leads to a bureacracy? Just some simple replies to help me to understand these distinctions would be appreciated... I'm kind of curious about Stalinism but hear only the worst things about it, having initially approached the question from Trotskyism..

Hello, comrade. I'll answer some of your questions as best as I can. I haven't read Betrayed, to be fair, but I have read Lenin's own criticisms of Trotsky's methodology. The core of the criticism is that, within the Trotskyist methodology, there is a separation between the abstract and the concrete, such as does not exist in Marxism-Leninism. You may have noticed, from earlier in this thread, criticisms regarding the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the collapse of Soviet socialism and its supposed idealistic character. Notice that the emphasis of these criticisms is that, since Marxist-Leninist attribute the collapse of Soviet socialism to the infiltration of major revisionist elements in the politics of the C.P.S.U., Marxist-Leninists must necessarily attribute the collapse to thoughts over material conditions and are thus formulating a non-materialist criticism. My response to this is that these criticisms of the Marxist-Leninist analysis are themselves non-materialist in that they assert a separation of idea and matter, that ideas exist in a vacuum or otherwise independently of the material world and so do not influence the material world in any kind of dialectical relationship. These criticisms likewise presuppose that Marxist-Leninists do not consider the material conditions that gave rise to the infiltration of revisionist attitudes or otherwise attribute the successes of socialism to adherence to a correct ideology. These presuppositions come from a place of expecting idea and matter to be two separate things, which is a misinterpretation of materialism. Indeed, no idea exists independently of matter, as an idea is a product of a physical brain. Idea and matter are thus in a kind of dialectical relationship in that thoughts and conceptualizations influence the behavior of the mind's owner, and the concrete actions undertaken by the owner influence the material world.


The concrete, material conditions that gave rise to the infiltration of revisionist attitudes within the politics of the C.P.S.U. are related to the problems of bureaucracy that occur naturally within a vanguard party. In a previous post, I noted that, ideally, there would be sufficient time before the moment of the revolutionary seizure of power to arm the proletariat with a solid Marxist theoretical framework through education that the class be able to dialectically influence the vanguard party and defend its politics against the infiltration of non-proletarian political elements. However, Marx and Engels noted that the transition between epochs are neither clean nor smooth, and the predicament in Russia was that this kind of education had been consistently hindered so that, at the moment when the opportunity to seize power for the proletariat presented itself, the proletariat were not sufficiently armed in a theoretical sense. (Consider, also, that literacy was relatively uncommon among the oppressed classes at the time.) The seizure of political power was not a mistake, though, in that the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship would immediately address the issue of oppression and would open the door to comprehensively educating the people in revolutionary socialist theory. The maneuvering of opportunists within the party presented difficulties in this endeavor, and these difficulties were compounded during the spread of the revolution, the task of facilitating Soviet economic development, and the coming of the Great Patriotic War later.


A vanguard party is necessary in the seizure of political power by the proletariat due to the character of bourgeois society; power is highly concentrated. Bureaucracy is a natural obstacle that arises from the tendency to administrate rather than debate and persuade, as in a democratic structure. When the bullets are flying, action is prioritized over debate as a matter of necessity, but unfortunately this tends to persist into the time of socialist construction. This is especially true of the Soviet predicament, as the country was surrounded on all sides by enemies.


As for "Stalinism," there really isn't any such thing; the proper name is Marxism-Leninism. On the one hand, the term was used derisively to refer to Stalin's supposed deviation from Marxism. On the other, opportunists attempting to ingratiate themselves to Stalin typically referred to "Stalinist vigilance" and the like. Khrushchev, in fact, would refer to himself as a Stalinist frequently when within earshot of the man. Nowadays, the term is still used derisively and not so much in reference to any particular theoretical contribution of Stalin's so much as it is to the concept of an Orwellian state. Some of us Marxist-Leninists, however, like to appropriate the term as a means of indicating our defense of Stalin as a good Communist and leader. We may also do it to differentiate ourselves from Trotskyists, who have, in some cases, referred to themselves as Marxist-Leninist (or, as I've seen at least once, Bolshevik-Leninist). Stalin made some contributions to the overall theoretical framework of Marxism-Leninism (such as socialism in one country and the aggravation of class struggle under socialism), but he wasn't so much a pioneer of its development (like Lenin was) as much as he was a defender of the theory.

[Hit The North]

Hello, comrade. I'll answer some of your questions as best as I can. I haven't read Betrayed, to be fair, but I have read Lenin's own criticisms of Trotsky's methodology.

So, without having read Trotsky yourself, you assume that he employed the same methodology throughout his life, so that the criticisms of his early work by Lenin would still be relevant to a work written by the mature Trotsky, well after Lenin's death?

I wonder what Lenin would make of your methodology?


The core of the criticism is that, within the Trotskyist methodology, there is a separation between the abstract and the concrete, such as does not exist in Marxism-Leninism.

References to this critique would be useful. And more detail, otherwise we might think that your method of critique simply involves invoking Lenin as the authority and proof, regardless of applying any thinking on your own part. So which part of Trotsky's thought separates the abstract and the concrete and what does this mean in terms of the results of his analysis?


You may have noticed, from earlier in this thread, criticisms regarding the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the collapse of Soviet socialism and its supposed idealistic character. Notice that the emphasis of these criticisms is that, since Marxist-Leninist attribute the collapse of Soviet socialism to the infiltration of major revisionist elements in the politics of the C.P.S.U., Marxist-Leninists must necessarily attribute the collapse to thoughts over material conditions and are thus formulating a non-materialist criticism.

More precisely the argument is whether it is sensible to argue that an entire mode of production can be dissolved and replaced with another mode of production on the basis of a political elite changing its policies. If you think this is the case then massive social revolution is unnecessary to overthrow capitalism and create socialism, all we need is a political coup. Now I can understand how this is an attractive argument for those who want to support those regimes who have claimed to create socialism in the absence of a workers revolution, but is this a Marxist argument?

So actually, your response which is nothing but a restatement of the dialectical relationship between thought and material conditions is really not relevant as no one here has argued against it.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not sure I understand your objection. I should think that policy would indeed influence the mode of production if productive administration fell under the jurisdiction of the policy-making bodies in question. I may have misunderstood, and I apologize if I have.

A mode of production is a global phenomenon; capital is a global phenomenon; therefor it would follow that capital must be surpassed globally. The policies enacted in the USSR, under both Stalin and the "revisionists" were both simply different policies for managing capital. An increase in the productive forces and living conditions does not constitute socialism.


But wouldn't the ideas of Stalinism have influenced the material conditions of the Soviet Union through policy regarding production? And wouldn't reactionary ideas necessarily influence the failure of the revolution to have been spread throughout the more developed countries? I tend to think of matter and human thought as being in a kind of dialectic of their own; though matter has primacy, it can be said that conceptualizations influenced by material conditions can in turn influence material conditions. Consider the advent of agriculture, being a model of how human thought, conditioned by the material world, in turned influenced the material world. If human thought were not engaged in such a dialectical relationship with the material world, I'm skeptical our species would have become as sophisticated as it is.

While indeed the relationship between matter and thought is of a dialectical nature, you are correct in saying matter has primacy. I've been accused of being a vulgar materialist before, but the thoughts and ideas which gained supremacy in the USSR were simply in accordance with the increase of the productive forces.

[Камо́ Зэд]

So, without having read Trotsky yourself, you assume that he employed the same methodology throughout his life, so that the criticisms of his early work by Lenin would still be relevant to a work written by the mature Trotsky, well after Lenin's death?

I wonder what Lenin would make of your methodology?

Comrade, I note the tone of hostility hasn't changed much since our last encounter. Please consider that I had specifically mentioned having not read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed; I am familiar with Trotsky's theoretical work as a whole, from the days of the famous trade union dispute with Lenin up until his death at the hands of Ramon Mercader.




References to this critique would be useful. And more detail, otherwise we might think that your method of critique simply involves invoking Lenin as the authority and proof, regardless of applying any thinking on your own part.I'll indulge this last favor, but in the future, I expect you to be more civil, otherwise I will not respond. Note the following:


" . . . highbrow, abstract, "empty" and theoretically incorrect general theses which ignore all that is practical and business-like." (This is in reference to Trotsky's conclusions during the aforementioned trade union dispute.)


"All his theses are based on 'general principles,' an approach which is in itself fundamentally wrong." (This is an earlier remark by Lenin regarding the same dispute.)

In Trotsky's later work, he would vilify a perceived resurgence of degenerative bureaucracy under Stalin, but Lenin pointed out, since having said that the "old bureaucratic apparatus" had been "smashed from top to bottom" (V. I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. 32; p.351, April 21, 1921), that there indeed was a "revival" of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union shortly after the revolution (V.I. Lenin: Ibid.; Eighth Congress of the RCP(b), March 18-19, 1919). Lenin would attribute this revival, during the trade union dispute, to none other than the Trotskyist-run Tsektran, about which Lenin was of the opinion that Trotsky and his cohorts were running the body using learned militaristic-administrative habits. That Trotsky would ignore this problem throughout his own theoretical works and instead attribute bureaucratic degeneration almost entirely to his opponent Stalin suggests that his methodology in fact degenerated over time, rather than improved. I say this because Trotsky's politics in the early days, despite being incorrect, seem to have come from a place of genuine interest in the development of proletarian socialism. In his later days, he strikes me as bitter over his political defeat by Stalin and desperate to legitimize himself in the eyes of Communists all over the world. Still, even while Lenin was still alive, he would characterize Trotsky's theses as reactionary and as "bureaucratic projecteering" (V.I. Lenin: Ibid.; p.30).


So which part of Trotsky's thought separates the abstract and the concrete and what does this mean in terms of the results of his analysis?Consider The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. Lenin's critique of the pamphlet began:


Trade unions are not just historically necessary; they are historically inevitable as an organization of the industrial proletariat, and, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, embrace nearly the whole of it. This is basic, but Comrade Trotsky keeps forgetting it; he neither appreciates it nor makes it his point of departure, all this while dealing with The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions, a subject of infinite compass.

Lenin would go on to enumerate several mistakes within the pamphlet based on a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Trotsky of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but consider the above quoted passage. It represents the central problem with Trotsky's own analysis, which is that he addresses the issues of trade unionism in the abstract, in a sense of "principle," without looking at it through a paradigm of practical work and historical condition. Lenin would go on to say:


[Trotsky] seems to say that in a workers' state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a "workers' state." May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers' state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: "Since this is a workers' state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?" The whole point is that it is not quite a workers' state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes.

Trotsky asserted that, since the Soviet Union had seen the seizure of political power by the proletariat, it was thus necessarily a workers' state without any bourgeois elements left, and so trade unionism as a means of representing the interests of the proletariat was entirely vestigial. In the abstract, this is reasonable, but it ignores the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union at the time, in which it was wholly necessary for the proletariat's interests to be represented through unionism.


More precisely the argument is whether it is sensible to argue that an entire mode of production can be dissolved and replaced with another mode of production on the basis of a political elite changing its policies.I'd like to note, here, that the wording "political elite" presupposed a separation of the vanguard party and the proletariat, rather than acknowledging their dialectical relationship with one another. It is fair to say that contradictions existed between the party and the proletariat, but suggesting that the party existed in a vacuum or some stratum a world above the working class at the time ignores the dialectic going on between the two during the time. It applies the general principles in the abstract of bourgeois politics to the conditions of the Soviet Union shortly after the revolution. Trotsky wouldn't begin to speak of any such separation until he began his posturing as an anti-bureaucrat during his conflicts with Stalin.



If you think this is the case then massive social revolution is unnecessary to overthrow capitalism and create socialism, all we need is a political coup. Now I can understand how this is an attractive argument for those who want to support those regimes who have claimed to create socialism in the absence of a workers revolution, but is this a Marxist argument?You're right in that it absolutely isn't a Marxist argument, but the premise comes from a place of presupposing conditions in the Soviet Union which, at the time, simply did not exist, and this presupposition comes from a place of applying principles in the abstract to very concrete, historically determined conditions. I note, with some concern, that you suggested the Bolsheviks "claimed to create socialism in the absence of a workers [sic] revolution." If I've misinterpreted your comment, I apologize.


So actually, your response which is nothing but a restatement of the dialectical relationship between thought and material conditions is really not relevant as no one here has argued against it.No one came out in opposition to the idea specifically, to be sure, but my response was to those whose analyses came from a place that did not acknowledge the dialectical relationship between idea and matter. While no person explicitly argued against this point, I'm a little miffed that you would say it's "not relevant," especially given that I contextualized this response to demonstrate that I was referring to the nature of the analyses in question.

[Камо́ Зэд]

A mode of production is a global phenomenon; capital is a global phenomenon; therefor it would follow that capital must be surpassed globally. The policies enacted in the USSR, under both Stalin and the "revisionists" were both simply different policies for managing capital. An increase in the productive forces and living conditions does not constitute socialism.

This analysis strikes me as applying a principle in the abstract where it would be more effective to understand the specific conditions in which capital affects the working class of the world. Capital isn't so much a static thing as much as it is a process; I'm reminded of Marx's formula money-commodity-money, which observes that capital is invested into production for the sake of acquiring more capital. Marx observed, further, that, in a poetic sense, it's really capital that owns the capitalist. In any case, while capital is a global phenomenon, it occurs in less global iterations or manifestations. When we speak of global capitalism, we're observing the interconnectedness, the dialectic of non-global instances of capitalism. In a broad, abstract sense, capital is to be overcome globally, to be sure, but, practically speaking, overthrowing capitalism all at once strikes me as utopian. It makes sense to struggle against the iterations of capitalism on a non-global level until such time as enough quantitative change has occurred throughout the world that the revolutionary qualitative change of a decisive strike against capitalism has occurred. All this said, socialism, although used rather interchangeably by Marx and Engels with the term communism, is best thought of, if considered separate from the goal of world, classless, stateless communism, as the process of struggling against capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat to eliminate class and develop a socialist mode of production where possible.


While indeed the relationship between matter and thought is of a dialectical nature, you are correct in saying matter has primacy. I've been accused of being a vulgar materialist before, but the thoughts and ideas which gained supremacy in the USSR were simply in accordance with the increase of the productive forces.

This strikes me as a very abstract notion, and I don't know that it really has a satisfying explanatory power. This analysis also seems to suggest that, had there been no such increase in the productive forces and the standard of living had remained relatively constant for the proletariat, non-proletarian, revisionist attitudes would not have occurred. The vestiges of class inequalities persist during the socialist endeavor to eradicate them, and that the masses of working people, in their dialectical relationship with the Party, were unable to correct the infiltration of non-proletariat elements into the Party's politics suggests that efforts to empower the proletariat in a concrete sense were not comprehensive enough to prevent revisionism from gaining prominence. This is attributable to the historical conditions of the Soviet Union, where the struggle to empower the proletariat materially was protracted due to the need for intense economic development, compounded by problems stemming from outside antagonism culminating in the Great Patriotic War.

[Prof. Oblivion]

A mode of production is a global phenomenon

I disagree with this on a few grounds.

First, "mode of production" has a variety of meanings in Marx's writings, to the extent that he even used the term to refer to things such as religion, family, state, etc.

Second, even in the "traditional" use of the term, this isn't true. The transition from feudalism to capitalism, for example, was not a single global event. You're being too categorical.


The policies enacted in the USSR, under both Stalin and the "revisionists" were both simply different policies for managing capital. An increase in the productive forces and living conditions does not constitute socialism.

Capital requires capitalist social relations which did not exist in the Soviet Union.

[Камо́ Зэд]

First, "mode of production" has a variety of meanings in Marx's writings, to the extent that he even used the term to refer to things such as religion, family, state, etc.

Second, even in the "traditional" use of the term, this isn't true. The transition from feudalism to capitalism, for example, was not a single global event. You're being too categorical.

It could be argued that religion, family, the state, etc. are global phenomena, as well, and that, while the transition from feudalism to capitalism was not a clean transition, the transition was eventually experienced on a global scale in a very broad sense.

[Art Vandelay]

I disagree with this on a few grounds.

First, "mode of production" has a variety of meanings in Marx's writings, to the extent that he even used the term to refer to things such as religion, family, state, etc.

You have stated this before, but I think it was clear as to what I was talking about.


Second, even in the "traditional" use of the term, this isn't true. The transition from feudalism to capitalism, for example, was not a single global event. You're being too categorical.

I never claimed that it was a "single global event," nor did I claim that the transition from capitalism to socialism would be identical to the one from feudalism to capitalism.


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

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

Engels; Principles of Communism; 1847.

[Peoples' War]

Engels; Principles of Communism; 1847.
Be prepared to receive the:

"Well, Stalin said the material conditions at the time allowed for it!"

Then you can ask:

"What material conditions, and what about them allowed for SioC?"

Then you will receive:

"..."

[Камо́ Зэд]

Be prepared to receive the:

"Well, Stalin said the material conditions at the time allowed for it!"

Then you can ask:

"What material conditions, and what about them allowed for SioC?"

Then you will receive:

"..."

Hello, comrade. I'm a little disturbed by the want for civility prevailing in this thread. As for the simultaneous, worldwide communist revolution, note that the revolutionary transition, the qualitative "leap" into a global communist civilization occurs all at once, but this does not preclude the seizure of political power by the proletariat in one country at a time, thereby initiating a protracted struggle against the oppression and suffering caused by the contradictions of capitalism. Socialism in one country is this struggle. While Marx and Engels would use the words communism and socialism rather interchangeably, Lenin developed the theory that the transition into the communist epoch will at first take place in a stage of socialist struggle. (Thus, the Leninist use of the word socialism does not refer to a classless, stateless civilization, but instead refers to the endeavor to empower the proletariat before such a civilization occurs.) This is in accordance with Marx's dialectic: quantitative changes accumulate gradually, whereas qualitative changes erupt into being all at once. World communism will occur in a rather simultaneous, global transformation, a worldwide revolution, but the endeavor to struggle against the contradictions of capitalism will build in strength gradually. I'm sure not one Marxist in this forum, Leninist or otherwise, believes that it is their task to sit idly by while the workers of the world are oppressed, waiting for the conditions for a world communist revolution to simply occur of their own volition. There are certain material conditions prerequisite of the global communist revolution, to be sure, but we are not powerless.

[Peoples' War]

Hello, comrade. I'm a little disturbed by the want for civility prevailing in this thread. Don't be.


As for the simultaneous, worldwide communist revolution, note that the revolutionary transition, the qualitative "leap" into a global communist civilization occurs all at once, but this does not preclude the seizure of political power by the proletariat in one country at a time, thereby initiating a protracted struggle against the oppression and suffering caused by the contradictions of capitalism. Are you referring to the establishment of a Workers state, or "Dictatorship of the proletariat"?


Socialism in one country is this struggle.No, it isn't.


While Marx and Engels would use the words communism and socialism rather interchangeably,They did.


Lenin developed the theory that the transition into the communist epoch will at first take place in a stage of socialist struggle. (Thus, the Leninist use of the word socialism does not refer to a classless, stateless civilization, but instead refers to the endeavor to empower the proletariat before such a civilization occurs.) No...no he never.

Have you even read State and Revolution?


This is in accordance with Marx's dialectic: quantitative changes accumulate gradually, whereas qualitative changes erupt into being all at once. World communism will occur in a rather simultaneous, global transformation, a worldwide revolution, but the endeavor to struggle against the contradictions of capitalism will build in strength gradually.Okay...


I'm sure not one Marxist in this forum, Leninist or otherwise, believes that it is their task to sit idly by while the workers of the world are oppressed, waiting for the conditions for a world communist revolution to simply occur of their own volition. There are certain material conditions prerequisite of the global communist revolution, to be sure, but we are not powerless.What does this have to do with anything?

I never once suggested against a workers vanguard party.

Seriously, I doubt you've even read Lenin before.

[Камо́ Зэд]

No...no he never.

Have you even read State and Revolution?

In Chapter Five of The State and Revolution, Lenin frequently uses the term socialism to refer to a first phase of communism in which certain vestiges of the old bourgeois system persist and are to be struggled against.

Please consider the following passage from the same:


Accounting and control--that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts.

And this leads the reader into a footnote:



When the more important functions of the state are reduced to such accounting and control by the workers themselves, it will cease to be a "political state" and "public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions" [referencing an earlier chapter detailing Marx's and Engels's controversy with the anarchists]

Throughout this work, Lenin suggests, supporting himself with quotes by Marx and Engels, that the state will persist during this lower phase of communism, during the socialist endeavor. He does not seem to suggest at any point that this state will necessarily be a global state achieved through simultaneous revolutionary activity all across the world.

This will be my only contribution to this particular exchange until such time as it can develop some semblance of civility. Until then, it is my hope we can work well together in the future, comrade.

[Peoples' War]

In Chapter Five of The State and Revolution, Lenin frequently uses the term socialism to refer to a first phase of communism in which certain vestiges of the old bourgeois system persist and are to be struggled against.Correct. Marx calls them the "birthmarks of the old society".


Please consider the following passage from the same:

And this leads the reader into a footnote:Yes.


Throughout this work, Lenin suggests, supporting himself with quotes by Marx and Engels, that the state will persist during this lower phase of communism, during the socialist endeavor. He does not seem to suggest at any point that this state will necessarily be a global state achieved through simultaneous revolutionary activity all across the world.The state does persist in the lower phase, but not as it the sense that it had before. Not only that, he does not mention that it will be a global state, because it is widely accepted by Marxists, and Lenin, that there will be no socialism without a world revolution.

Terry Eagleton, in his book "Why Marx Was Right", says:

'So power survives from the capitalist present to the socialist future --but not in the same form. The idea of power itself undergoes a revolution. The same is true of the state. In one sense of the word "state", "state socialism" is as much a contradiction in terms as "the epistemological theories of Tiger Woods". In another sense, however, the term has some force. For Marx, there is still a state under socialism; only beyond socialism, under communism, will the coercive state give way to an administrative body. But it is not a state we ourselves would easily recognize as such, It is as though someone were to point to a decentralised network of self-governing communities, flexibly regulated by a democratically elected central administration, and announce "There is the state!," when we were expecting something altogether more imposing and monumental --something, for example, along the lines of Westminster, Whitehall and the mysteriously enigmatic Prince Andrew'

This does not mean that Lenin saw that Socialism could be achieved in one country, nor does it suggest that socialism regardless of Lenin's opinion, could be achieved in one country.

The state you suggest exists under socialism, is not the state that existed under the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin says:

"The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary."

This highly suggests the fact that the state is no longer the state of the DOTP. The state exists merely as bourgeois laws which have yet to be abolished in this initial phase of communism.


This will be my only contribution to this particular exchange until such time as it can develop some semblance of civility. Until then, it is my hope we can work well together in the future, comrade.I'm being fairly civil, I don't see the issue.

It's not like I'm saying "Well, I don't want to work with you or talk to you, because you would have me purged and killed or exiled for not being a Stalinist" -- which I have no trouble believing the MLs of this site would partake in.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm being fairly civil, I don't see the issue.

It's not like I'm saying "Well, I don't want to work with you or talk to you, because you would have me purged and killed or exiled for not being a Stalinist" -- which I have no trouble believing the MLs of this site would partake in.

That you don't see any kind of dissonance between those two statements is unsettling. But consider that you said the following not very many posts after I'd submitted several passages extensively quoting Lenin's Collected Works:


Seriously, I doubt you've even read Lenin before.

I will address your counter-arguments when the time comes that we can work together in a manner more civil than our exchanges have been up to this point.

[Peoples' War]

That you don't see any kind of dissonance between those two statements is unsettling. But consider that you said the following not very many posts after I'd submitted several passages extensively quoting Lenin's Collected Works:



I will address your counter-arguments when the time comes that we can work together in a manner more civil than our exchanges have been up to this point.
That's a cop-out, and you know it. This exchange has been extremely civil, especially compared to the majority of Trot v. Stalin debates on here.

[Камо́ Зэд]

That's a cop-out, and you know it. This exchange has been extremely civil, especially compared to the majority of Trot v. Stalin debates on here.

I'm not going to engage you in a "yuh-huh/nuh-uh" of whether this exchange has been civil. I've found this exchange wholly uncivil, and if you feel that this is a cop-out, take it as a cop-out, and take this message as a concession of the argument to you, comrade.

[Positivist]

It is quite dogmatic to suggest that, working on Lenin's definition of socialism as a society where planning and public ownership begin to be introduced in the backdrop of retained capitalist features, socialism can only be implemented globally. I am curious as to why it is impossible. Obviously any revolution short of global in scope will be confronted by military opposition, and short-falls in trade, but I fail to see how it would be impossible to surmount these obstacles, especially if the revolution occurs across a region or regions which collectively possess a significant supply of resources. Furthermore, to suggest that there will ever be a revolution which sweeps across the entire world simultaneously is deeply idealistic.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that it is idealistic to expect a simultaneous global revolution, and therefore have never considered myself a Trotskyist. OTOH it seems at least equally idealistic to believe that socialism could be constructed in poor and economically undeveloped countries such as Russia and China, let alone small and isolated poor countries such as North Korea, Romania, Albania, Cuba etcetera. The failure of Stalinism is manifest, certainly to workers. Anyone who doubts this ought to tear themselves away from RevLeft and talk to real world workers about Stalin.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I agree that it is idealistic to expect a simultaneous global revolution, and therefore have never considered myself a Trotskyist. OTOH it seems at least equally idealistic to believe that socialism could be constructed in poor and economically undeveloped countries such as Russia and China, let alone small and isolated poor countries such as North Korea, Romania, Albania, Cuba etcetera. The failure of Stalinism is manifest, certainly to workers. Anyone who doubts this ought to tear themselves away from RevLeft and talk to real world workers about Stalin.

Hello, comrade. Many working class people with whom I've come into contact are convinced that the success potential of laissez-faire capitalism is readily apparent or "common sense," as they like to say. In fact, many of these same people believe that Ayn Rand is one of the greatest political philosophers to have ever walked the earth. I'm saying that the proletariat are not inherently armed with accurate theoretical understanding. In fact, empowering them with such is part of the work of Communists. That "Stalinism" should have reached the Soviet Union when, in the words of Churchill, it had nothing but a plow and left it with atomic power really suggests the success of Marxism-Leninism, and that the Soviet Union should have persisted through class struggle, collectivization, rapid industrialization, the Great Patriotic War, and the infiltration of non-proletarian theoretical elements into the political work of the C.P.S.U. well until the time of Gorbachev suggests that Marxism-Leninism is a fairly strong theoretical framework.

[GoddessCleoLover]

My experience is that Ayn Rand is much more popular among the petit-bourgeoisie than among workers. With respect to Churchill's quote on Soviet progress, I would be inclined to give more credit to the working people of the Union than did Churchill. While I am not trying to say that Soviet Communist party leadership was worthless, on balance it seems that the negative outweighed the positive. While the party leadership may have led the Union to attain atomic power, the daily lives of Soviet workers with respect to basic things of life such as food, clothing, etcetera was lacking. Not to mention the basic disempowerment of the Soviet worker. I appreciate the comradely tone of your post and hope that we can agree to disagree agreeably.

[Камо́ Зэд]

My experience is that Ayn Rand is much more popular among the petit-bourgeoisie than among workers. With respect to Churchill's quote on Soviet progress, I would be inclined to give more credit to the working people of the Union than did Churchill. While I am not trying to say that Soviet Communist party leadership was worthless, on balance it seems that the negative outweighed the positive. While the party leadership may have led the Union to attain atomic power, the daily lives of Soviet workers with respect to basic things of life such as food, clothing, etcetera was lacking. Not to mention the basic disempowerment of the Soviet worker. I appreciate the comradely tone of your post and hope that we can agree to disagree agreeably.

Thank you, comrade. It's my hope that we can work well together. I think we can agree to disagree, particularly with regards to the condition of the daily lives of Soviet workers.

[Art Vandelay]

It's like constant caricatures of the opinions of those who disagree with socialism in one country. Show me where anyone ever in this thread stated that global revolution must be literally simultaneous? One example. You can't find one, because no one would be dumb enough to think so. All that Engels quote said was that the socialist revolution would spread quicker than past revolutions due to globalization and would indeed need rapid developments in a few highly industrialized nations (not a backwards Russia, just entering the throngs of capitalism). So either one or two things, either you all are incapable of understanding the arguments being presented (incompetence), or are simply being intellectually dishonest. I don't care which one it is, but quit it with these fucking strawmen. It is those claims which hinder intellectual discussion on this site about this topic. I mean really, slander us as idealists all you want, but all you are doing is showing your own inability to have properly read the first Marxist document ever written. They address the issue of whether or not sioc is possible and it is a one word answer: no.

Call it the DOTP, then fine, but don't fucking call it socialism cause any Marxist would ridicule that for the farce it is; or else at least admit to being revisionists.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am quite familiar with the theory of permanent revolution and IMO while it may have been a reasonable hypothesis back in 1920, continuing to adhere to it today seems unreasonable. The importance of revolution in at least some advanced industrial countries is evident in not just the writings of Marx and Angels, but Lenin as well. While I agree that SIOC was a serious error, IMO the Soviets were faced with an unenviable dilemma in the early 1920s when it became clear the the revolution would not spread to Germany.

[Art Vandelay]

I am quite familiar with the theory of permanent revolution and IMO while it may have been a reasonable hypothesis back in 1920, continuing to adhere to it today seems unreasonable. The importance of revolution in at least some advanced industrial countries is evident in not just the writings of Marx and Angels, but Lenin as well. While I agree that SIOC was a serious error, IMO the Soviets were faced with an unenviable dilemma in the early 1920s when it became clear the the revolution would not spread to Germany.

No one argues otherwise! Just don't fucking pander off your shitty (uh oh now Ismail is going to call me a chauvinist again) country as being socialist. Don't revise basic Marxist principles. The October revolution implemented a genuine dotp; Lenin even admitted that it took the form of state capitalism, to then claim (given isolation) that it developed into socialism, is a complete break with Marxism. Partake in whatever mental gymnastics you wish to get over that fact, but it's simply laughable to Marxists.

[Камо́ Зэд]

It's like constant caricatures of the opinions of those who disagree with socialism in one country. Show me where anyone ever in this thread stated that global revolution must be literally simultaneous? One example. You can't find one, because no one would be dumb enough to think so. All that Engels quote said was that the socialist revolution would spread quicker than past revolutions due to globalization and would indeed need rapid developments in a few highly industrialized nations (not a backwards Russia, just entering the throngs of capitalism). So either one or two things, either you all are incapable of understanding the arguments being presented (incompetence), or are simply being intellectually dishonest. I don't care which one it is, but quit it with these fucking strawmen. It is those claims which hinder intellectual discussion on this site about this topic. I mean really, slander us as idealists all you want, but all you are doing is showing your own inability to have properly read the first Marxist document ever written. They address the issue of whether or not sioc is possible and it is a one word answer: no.

Call it the DOTP, then fine, but don't fucking call it socialism cause any Marxist would ridicule that for the farce it is; or else at least admit to being revisionists.

Comrade, I don't appreciate your tone in the least, and I find your characterization of the debate, at best, lacking. The arguments against socialism in one country have not been misrepresented by those who support the idea. Personally, I've done nothing if not quote Lenin extensively with regards to his theories, based on direct quotes from Marx and Engels (including the Collected Works and Lenin's The State and Revolution), and the Marxist-Leninist conclusion is that the socialist endeavor can indeed be undertaken and developed on within the territory of a single country. The first stage of communism, what Lenin would call socialism, is that endeavor to struggle against the contradictions of capitalism under proletarian political power, wherein vestiges of bourgeois society persist (not limited to the persistent of national-state borders). It is very clear that this is what Lenin means, and he has been quoted extensively on this issue. Lenin was quoted, also, as describing this attitude that this endeavor could not be undertaken in an underdeveloped country as nonsensical and counter-revolutionary, in other words bourgeois. This would not be the case if the participants arguing in favor of socialism in one country were being intellectually dishonest or, as you say, merely incompetent. If the arguments against socialism in one country are not that a simultaneous global revolution (or at least revolution in all industrialized countries) is an absolute prerequisite for the struggle against the contradictions of capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat, then we're not really disagreeing, are we?

[Prof. Oblivion]

I never claimed that it was a "single global event,"

I never said as such. I was disagreeing with your reasoning that leads you to conclude that the USSR was "capitalist".

You asserted that "a mode of production is a global phenomenon".

I rebutted this by pointing to the most obvious example of why this is incorrect, the transition from feudalism to capitalism, which was a time in which two modes of production existed simultaneously.

If a mode of production is global, then this could not happen.

We have already discussed in another thread (or earlier in this one? I cannot remember) why the USSR was not capitalist (or "state capitalist").

[Positivist]

@ NRZ simultaneously isn't being used to literally mean occurring all at the same exact time, it is being used to characterize all at the same relative time, something which opponents of SiOC absolutely do adhere to. You have said it yourself that revolution must spread rapidly if it is to succeed. This is what, I at least, am contesting. I am skeptical that revolution actually will spread rapidly, and on the contrary I expect a drawn out protracted revolutionary transition. This will inevitably involve isolated revolutions within single countries or regions. Do I believe that there is potential for the rapid spread of revolution? Absolutely, and I even expect that revolutions will spread rapidly across particular regions, or zones of economic similarity. This being said, I also expect some socialist revolutions to fail while others succeed. Assuming that this will happen, the revolutionary potential of the countries were the revolution was defeated will be set back significantly and the ability and will of workers to revolt may not progress to the necessary level for many years, possibly several decades. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is sufficient support for the assertion that the socialism described by Lenin is impossible on anything less than a global scale.

[jookyle]

The point is to be an internationalist with out invading other countries. People hear the term "socialism in one country" and talk about it as if the term defines itself. They propose that people who are in favor the idea want an isolated socialist country, which isn't true at all. To be honest, it's getting a bit tiring. Stalin himself was an internationalist and I have quoted him in an earlier post in this thread interview where he says as much. Socialism in one country is not opposed to internationalism, it is opposed to imperialism under a socialist banner.

[Камо́ Зэд]

The point is to be an internationalist with out invading other countries. People hear the term "socialism in one country" and talk about it as if the term defines itself. The people who are in favor the idea want an isolated socialist country. To be honest, it's getting a bit tiring. Stalin himself was an internationalist and I have quoted him in an interview where he says as much. Socialism in one country is not opposed to internationalism, it is opposed to imperialism under a socialist banner.

I don't know that the part in bold in the above quoted post is necessarily true of all advocates of socialism in one country. I could see this being true, though, of some revisionist political lines claiming to be "descended" from Stalin's own theoretical contributions, particularly Kimilsungism.

[jookyle]

I don't know that the part in bold in the above quoted post is necessarily true of all advocates of socialism in one country. I could see this being true, though, of some revisionist political lines claiming to be "descended" from Stalin's own theoretical contributions, particularly Kimilsungism.

LOL, I actually left out the first part of that sentence, which changes it's meaning completely. I'll edit it now.

edit: I've fixed it

[Камо́ Зэд]

LOL, I actually left out the first part of that sentence, which changes it's meaning completely. I'll edit it now.

Oh, good. The comment did seem a little out of character for you, comrade. But it is true to some extent that there may be those political lines claiming "descent" from "Stalinism" that advocate isolationism or even nationalism. Not only does Juche come to mind, but there are those who call themselves socialists who advocate a kind of ethnocentric "socialism" as being "natural." Nazbol lunatics are among their number, as is one Ryan Towne of whom you may have heard.

[jookyle]

Oh, good. The comment did seem a little out of character for you, comrade. But it is true to some extent that there may be those political lines claiming "descent" from "Stalinism" that advocate isolationism or even nationalism. Not only does Juche come to mind, but there are those who call themselves socialists who advocate a kind of ethnocentric "socialism" as being "natural." Nazbol lunatics are among their number, as is one Ryan Towne of whom you may have heard.

Well that's really the point. People who oppose the concept, perhaps because of a lack of understanding, like to act as of those are of a positive disposition towards SiOC want to repeat North Korea. It's simply doesn't make sense. But, in general, it seems when it comes to Stalin, and anything associated with him, that people make up their minds from the get go. And I'm not accusing any one person on this site of doing so. It is a general statement which includes people who do not belong to this forum.

[Art Vandelay]

@ NRZ simultaneously isn't being used to literally mean occurring all at the same exact time, it is being used to characterize all at the same relative time, something which opponents of SiOC absolutely do adhere to.

Could you expand on this? I may just be a little juiced, but am having a tough time understanding just what you are trying to say.


You have said it yourself that revolution must spread rapidly if it is to succeed. This is what, I at least, am contesting.

So in other words, you think the revolution won't spread rapidly? I am not saying you are wrong, just that this is a revision of basic Marxist principles. Now I am far from the type of Marxist who takes the word of M&E as gospel (in fact I rountinely say that as materialists, they would want to be seen as men of their time; with the same historical restrains put on their thought, as any men), but given the phenomenon of globalization, I think Engels was right in the PoC, when he stated that socialist revolution would progress at an unprecedented rate, as compared to past revolutions.


I am skeptical that revolution actually will spread rapidly, and on the contrary I expect a drawn out protracted revolutionary transition.

Again while I think that there is historical precedent for this viewpoint, I think that it is not in accordance with the material conditions which will be present when socialist revolution becomes possible, comrade.


This will inevitably involve isolated revolutions within single countries or regions.

Undoubtedly, but don't call this socialism. Yes I realize that Lenin revised the term, but it is one of my points of contention with him; socialism is a stateless classless society.


Do I believe that there is potential for the rapid spread of revolution? Absolutely, and I even expect that revolutions will spread rapidly across particular regions, or zones of economic similarity.

Which is exactly what I was arguing; not that the world must be simultaneously engulfed in revolution, but that at the very least a region of advanced capitalist countries would need to experience revolution.


This being said, I also expect some socialist revolutions to fail while others succeed. Assuming that this will happen, the revolutionary potential of the countries were the revolution was defeated will be set back significantly and the ability and will of workers to revolt may not progress to the necessary level for many years, possibly several decades. Furthermore, I do not believe that there is sufficient support for the assertion that the socialism described by Lenin is impossible on anything less than a global scale.

Once again, as a Leninist, I would have to say that I don't agree with Lenin's vision of what constituted socialism.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Once again, as a Leninist, I would have to say that I don't agree with Lenin's vision of what constituted socialism.

Consider, though, that where Marx and Engels used the word "socialism" interchangeably with "communism," they, too, considered the development of capitalist society into a communist society to occur in two stages. Lenin would simply differentiate between the two stages by assigning the word "socialism" to the "lower" of these two stages and "communism to the "higher." Consider also the nature of materialist dialectic, and the interaction between quantitative change and qualitative change. Marx would describe this dialectic of the quantitative and qualitative thus: that quantitative changes accumulate gradually and qualitative changes, once sufficient quantitative changes have accumulated, erupt into being all at once. I believe a common analogy for this process is the transition of water from liquid to solid. Pure water with an even and consistent temperature throughout itself will only transition from liquid to solid (ice) at zero degrees Celsius. The temperature can drop by fractions of a degree at a time, to be sure, but the transition from liquid to solid does not occur so gradually. It does not exist in a state of matter between solid and liquid at any point during its drop from, let's say, room temperature to freezing temperature. The global socialist endeavor, the lower phase of communism occurs as a somewhat quantitative transition. To be sure, the changes that include the seizure of political power through revolution by the proletariat are rather qualitative, but capitalist development is uneven, so it follows that the development of socialism across the globe would be uneven as well. The lower phase of communism builds up quantitatively until it erupts qualitatively into the higher phase of communism.

[Ismail]

The October revolution implemented a genuine dotp; Lenin even admitted that it took the form of state capitalism,"The picture which Lenin drew was of a vast country far behind western Europe in its economic development. There were no less than five different types of economy existing side by side in it. First came [I]patriarchal or natural, self-sufficient, economy, characteristic of the most remote tribal life... petty commodity production, i.e. tiny, self-sufficing peasant production... private capitalism - the village capitalist or kulak... There was State capitalism - the State monopoly of the grain trade, the State regulation of privately-owned industry and commerce, the petty-bourgeois co-operative trading now passing under Government direction. And there was a small and still weak section of economy which could be described as Socialist: those branches of economy which had been nationalized without compensation to the large shareholders. The final objective must be to bring up all the economic activities which could be classified under the first four heads to the level of the fifth; but that would be a long and difficult task. State capitalism itself was an immense advance on the first three forms of economy: it brought society up to the threshold of an advance to Socialism."
(Andrew Rothstein. A History of the U.S.S.R. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1951. p. 72.)

I've already sent you a 1980 compilation of Lenin's speeches on the subject. You ought to read them.

[Peoples' War]

"The picture which Lenin drew was of a vast country far behind western Europe in its economic development. There were no less than five different types of economy existing side by side in it. First came [I]patriarchal or natural, self-sufficient, economy, characteristic of the most remote tribal life... petty commodity production, i.e. tiny, self-sufficing peasant production... private capitalism - the village capitalist or kulak... There was State capitalism - the State monopoly of the grain trade, the State regulation of privately-owned industry and commerce, the petty-bourgeois co-operative trading now passing under Government direction. And there was a small and still weak section of economy which could be described as Socialist: those branches of economy which had been nationalized without compensation to the large shareholders. The final objective must be to bring up all the economic activities which could be classified under the first four heads to the level of the fifth; but that would be a long and difficult task. State capitalism itself was an immense advance on the first three forms of economy: it brought society up to the threshold of an advance to Socialism."
(Andrew Rothstein. A History of the U.S.S.R. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1951. p. 72.)

I've already sent you a 1980 compilation of Lenin's speeches on the subject. You ought to read them.
Indeed, the transition economy in Lenin's mind would take shape first as a form of state capitalism, and as the capitalist mop was phase out and replace with a socialist mop, the transition would begin to change again toward socialism.

However, beyond this notion, we disagree on whether the transition was successful, and we disagree on the question of political power.

[Positivist]

Could you expand on this? I may just be a little juiced, but am having a tough time understanding just what you are trying to say.

So in other words, you think the revolution won't spread rapidly? I am not saying you are wrong, just that this is a revision of basic Marxist principles. Now I am far from the type of Marxist who takes the word of M&E as gospel (in fact I rountinely say that as materialists, they would want to be seen as men of their time; with the same historical restrains put on their thought, as any men), but given the phenomenon of globalization, I think Engels was right in the PoC, when he stated that socialist revolution would progress at an unprecedented rate, as compared to past revolutions.

Well its less that I don't think that revolutions will spread rapidly within particular regions, or even across the whole world, it is more that I anticipate some, perhaps many of these revolutions to be defeated. Assuming that this does happen, in countries were the revolution is defeated, the revolutionary potential of the proletariat will be significantly regressed. While it may only be a year or two before this potential is restored, it seems more likely that this will not occur for many years. Assuming this is the case, and that this continues to reproduce itself through multiple revolutionary waves, then the global victory of the proletariat will only be achieved through a proactive process.

On other points, in my first sentence I was stating my skepticism that successful revolutions would necessarily spread rapidly throughout the world, though looking back at it I kinda worded it weird. Well it was late and I was high, oh well. As for not using Lenin's definition than yes, if you do not accept that definition than socialism in one country/region/alliance/etc. is not possible.

On your last statement though, I am a little confused. Assuming that we are not operating on the Lenin definition of socialism, than how would it be possible to have it in a particular region of advanced capitalist countries? I for one think that at the point which revolution spread to a substantisl enough portion of the world, that it would be possible to have a near communist society, but a fully communist society cant really exist on anything other than a global stage (this last paragraph is using socialism and communism interchangeably, rather than distinguishing between the two.)

[Art Vandelay]

Well its less that I don't think that revolutions will spread rapidly within particular regions, or even across the whole world, it is more that I anticipate some, perhaps many of these revolutions to be defeated. Assuming that this does happen, in countries were the revolution is defeated, the revolutionary potential of the proletariat will be significantly regressed. While it may only be a year or two before this potential is restored, it seems more likely that this will not occur for many years. Assuming this is the case, and that this continues to reproduce itself through multiple revolutionary waves, then the global victory of the proletariat will only be achieved through a proactive process.

I agree with all of this.


On other points, in my first sentence I was stating my skepticism that successful revolutions would necessarily spread rapidly throughout the world, though looking back at it I kinda worded it weird. Well it was late and I was high, oh well. As for not using Lenin's definition than yes, if you do not accept that definition than socialism in one country/region/alliance/etc. is not possible.

Agreed.


On your last statement though, I am a little confused. Assuming that we are not operating on the Lenin definition of socialism, than how would it be possible to have it in a particular region of advanced capitalist countries?

It wouldn't; this would still be the DOTP. However all I was trying to say, with that Engels quote, is that without the revolution spreading (to begin with) to at least a few highly industrialized capitalist countries, the revolution will stagnate and the reaction creep in.

[Hit The North]

Comrade, I note the tone of hostility hasn't changed much since our last encounter. Please consider that I had specifically mentioned having not read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed; I am familiar with Trotsky's theoretical work as a whole, from the days of the famous trade union dispute with Lenin up until his death at the hands of Ramon Mercader.


Hostile or not, my prodding has at least given you the opportunity to expand on your argument, rather than just assert it. However, it is strange that you would be familiar with Trotsky's writings from 1922 up to his death and yet not have read his defining analysis of the Soviet Union in The Revolution Betrayed. Given your interest in defending Stalin's USSR as being authentically socialist you should perhaps take time out to read it.


I'll indulge this last favor, but in the future, I expect you to be more civil, otherwise I will not respond. Note the following:
[...]
Lenin would go on to enumerate several mistakes within the pamphlet based on a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Trotsky of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but consider the above quoted passage. It represents the central problem with Trotsky's own analysis, which is that he addresses the issues of trade unionism in the abstract, in a sense of "principle," without looking at it through a paradigm of practical work and historical condition.

Trotsky asserted that, since the Soviet Union had seen the seizure of political power by the proletariat, it was thus necessarily a workers' state without any bourgeois elements left, and so trade unionism as a means of representing the interests of the proletariat was entirely vestigial. In the abstract, this is reasonable, but it ignores the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union at the time, in which it was wholly necessary for the proletariat's interests to be represented through unionism. Yes, the trade union question is certainly a good example of where Trotsky’s thinking was clumsy and in error. In fact, in his critique, Lenin expresses his surprise at how poor Trotsky’s arguments are. However, I think it is worth noting that whatever Lenin’s and Trotsky’s differences were, it did not lead to a breach between the two men. The manner in which this dispute was later caricatured by the Stalinists as an attempt by the “Trotskyists” to take over the party from the “Leninists” is certainly not evident in Lenin’s perception of events. Nor does Lenin presume that Trotsky’s errors in regard to the trade union question are a recursive feature of his methodology.

But regardless, the subject of this thread bears upon the record of Stalin and why anyone would support it, and, secondarily, Trotsky’s critique of Stalin. Therefore it would be more to the point for you to offer a critique of Trotsky’s writing on this subject, rather than his differences with Lenin over the trade union question.

But shall we take a look at the state of the trade unions under Stalin, from the 1930s onwards where they were increasingly stripped of their power to represent workers and incorporated into the state apparatus (the very thing over which Lenin and Stalin correctly argued against Trotsky)? The by-passing of collective decision-making through the troika in favour of one-man management in economic enterprises ? The laws between 1938-40 to tighten labour discipline? All of this to increase accumulation, to subordinate consumption to production and, therefore, subordinate the workers to the means of production.

One reason why socialism can only be established on the basis of a high level of economic development is because if the demands of rapid accumulation and the drive to industrialisation (such as with the 5 year plans) require that the workers must be whipped to produce value, they cannot at the same time be the rulers of society. In other words, the requirements to build up the means of production to a level that could support socialism, requires that the dictatorship of the proletariat is dismantled because why would the workers subject themselves to the forced labour and rates of exploitation that such immense accumulation requires? So Russia, because of its isolation and backwardness, was caught in a huge contradictory trap where all efforts to construct the material basis for socialism, undermined the social basis for socialism. So in the end, once these large state apparatuses fell apart, all that was left was an atomised and alienated working class unwilling to defend 'socialism' in any great numbers.


I'd like to note, here, that the wording "political elite" presupposed a separation of the vanguard party and the proletariat, rather than acknowledging their dialectical relationship with one another. It is fair to say that contradictions existed between the party and the proletariat, but suggesting that the party existed in a vacuum or some stratum a world above the working class at the time ignores the dialectic going on between the two during the time. It applies the general principles in the abstract of bourgeois politics to the conditions of the Soviet Union shortly after the revolution. No it doesn't.

The point is that when power becomes more centralised and concentrated at the top, the relationship between the toilers and the state becomes transformed, due to the actual separation that occurs as workers become denuded of their rights and subjected to managerial and administrative control.

But it is an empty catechism to talk about the dialectical relationship between the party and the masses, because this exists in any social formation. The bourgeois Conservative Party in the UK does not act in supreme isolation from other social forces either. No party of government truly can. So it is not enough to invoke the dialectic (which is really just invoking the existence of a complex and changing relationship) we must understand what those relations are in practice.

I'll note, however, that the conspiratorial nature of the revisionist scenario does give the impression that a motivated elite can impose its will and overthrow a higher mode of production (socialism) in favour of a lower one (capitalism) - moreover, that this can be achieved without the proletariat rising up to defend their gains under socialism. I don't find it a very convincing scenario.


I note, with some concern, that you suggested the Bolsheviks "claimed to create socialism in the absence of a workers [sic] revolution." If I've misinterpreted your comment, I apologize.
I didn't say the Bolsheviks did, but I implied that other "Marxist-Leninist" regimes did.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yes, the trade union question is certainly a good example of where Trotsky’s thinking was clumsy and in error. In fact, in his critique, Lenin expresses his surprise at how poor Trotsky’s arguments are. However, I think it is worth noting that whatever Lenin’s and Trotsky’s differences were, it did not lead to a breach between the two men. The manner in which this dispute was later caricatured by the Stalinists as an attempt by the “Trotskyists” to take over the party from the “Leninists” is certainly not evident in Lenin’s perception of events. Nor does Lenin presume that Trotsky’s errors in regard to the trade union question are a recursive feature of his methodology.

Consider the following:


Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.


Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one's transfer to Paris except Trotsky's (the scoundrel, he wants to 'fix up' the whole rascally crew of 'Pravda' at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.


In the very first words of his resolution Trotsky expressed the full spirit of the worst kind of conciliation, "conciliation" in [quotations], of a sectarian and philistine conciliation, which deals with "given persons" and not the given line of policy, the given spirit the given ideological and political content of Party work. . . . It is in this that the enormous difference lies between real partyism; which consists in purging the Party of liquidationism and otzovism, and the "conciliation" of Trotsky and company, which actually renders the most faithful service to the liquidators and otzovists, and is therefore an evil that is all the more dangerous to the Party the more cunningly, artfully, and rhetorically it cloaks itself with professedly pro-Party, professedly anti-factional declamations.


The struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism is . . . a struggle over the question whether to support the liberals or to overthrow the hegemony of the liberals over the peasantry. Therefore to attribute [as did Trotsky] our splits to the influence of the intelligentsia, to the immaturity of the proletariat, etc, is a childishly naive repetition of liberal fairy-tales.

. . .

Trotsky distorts Bolshevism, because he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution.

. . .

Therefore, when Trotsky tells the German comrades that he represents the 'general Party tendency' I am obliged to declare that Trotsky represents only his own faction and enjoys a certain amount of confidence exclusively among the otzovists and the liquidators.


It is an adventure in the ideological sense. Trotsky groups all the enemies of Marxism, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who detest the "Lenin-Plekhanov" bloc, as they like to call it. Trotsky unites all those to whom ideological decay is dear; all who are not concerned with the defense of Marxism, all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the 'hero of the hour' and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.



It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest caliber.


Trotsky's dirty campaign against Pravda is one mass of lies and slander . . . This intriguer and liquidator goes on lying right and left.



But the liquidators and Trotsky . . . who tore up their own August bloc, who flouted all the decisions of the Party and dissociated themselves from the "underground" as well as from the organized workers, are the worst splitters. Fortunately, the workers have already realized this, and all class-conscious workers are creating their own real unity against the liquidator disrupters [sic] of unity.


Trotsky is very fond of using with the learned air of the expert pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since 'numerous advanced workers' become "active agents" of apolitical and Party line which does not conform to Trotsky's line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand these advanced workers are "in a state of utter political bewilderment," whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently "in a state" of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line! . . . And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism, parochialism, and the efforts of the intellectuals to impose their will on the workers! . . .

Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself. – is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?


The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof except "private conversations" (i.e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), classifying the "Polish Marxists" in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg . . .

Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.



What a swine this Trotsky is – Left, phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!


There is also a letter from Kollontai who . . . has returned to Norway from America. N. Iv. and Pavlov . . had won Novy Mir, she says . . . but . . . Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once ganged up with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldists! That's it! That's Trotsky for you! Always true to himself, twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can . . .

Consider, also, how Lenin would insult Trotsky in his various letters, telegrams, and articles: pustozvon ("bell", a man who talks much and does nothing), svin'ya (pig), podlec iz podlecov (scoundrel of scoundrels), iudushka (Judas), politicheskaya prostitutka (political prostitute) and, my personal favorite and a Russian proverb, pizdit kak Trotskiy - "to lie like Trotsky."


But regardless, the subject of this thread bears upon the record of Stalin and why anyone would support it, and, secondarily, Trotsky’s critique of Stalin. Therefore it would be more to the point for you to offer a critique of Trotsky’s writing on this subject, rather than his differences with Lenin over the trade union question. I shall take the time to read Betrayal, then, but understand that, given everything that's ever been said about the man, particularly by Lenin himself, I haven't got much faith in Trotsky's methodology.


But shall we take a look at the state of the trade unions under Stalin, from the 1930s onwards where they were increasingly stripped of their power to represent workers and incorporated into the state apparatus (the very thing over which Lenin and Stalin correctly argued against Trotsky)? The by-passing of collective decision-making through the troika in favour of one-man management [SIZE=2]in economic enterprises ? The laws between 1938-40 to tighten labour discipline? All of this to increase accumulation, to subordinate consumption to production and, therefore, subordinate the workers to the means of production.[/QUOTE]Comrade, you've requested of me on more than one occasion to support my assertions with citations and specifics. I can reasonably expect you to do the same, particularly with regards to how the above mentioned is attributable directly to Stalin's own policies or theory. Further, I feel that we're of different opinions with regards to Trotsky's own intentions with regards to the trade unions. Trotsky was not pushing for the absorption of the trade unions into the state apparatus; the problem was with Trotsky's attitudes with regards to their bureaucratic character, a problem which arose long before the time you assert at which the unions were to be absorbed into the state under Stalin. Lenin's criticism was of the Trotskyist method of military-style administration rather than democratic persuasion, which gave rise to the bureaucratic character of the Tsektran. Stalin himself made efforts to democratize the Party and combat bureaucracy within the state, so it follows that the struggle against bureaucracy doesn't end with any body's absorption into the state apparatus, particularly if that apparatus exists under the dictatorship of the proletariat.


One reason why socialism can only be established on the basis of a high level of economic development is because if the demands of rapid accumulation and the drive to industrialisation (such as with the 5 year plans) require that the workers must be whipped to produce value, they cannot at the same time be the rulers of society.[
In other words, the requirements to build up the means of production to a level that could support socialism, requires that the dictatorship of the proletariat is dismantled because why would the workers subject themselves to the forced labour and rates of exploitation that such immense accumulation requires? So Russia, because of its isolation and backwardness, was caught in a huge contradictory trap where all efforts to construct the material basis for socialism, undermined the social basis for socialism. So in the end, once these large state apparatuses fell apart, all that was left was an atomised and alienated working class unwilling to defend 'socialism' in any great numbers.This analysis is lacking. It doesn't follow that the endeavor to industrialize the Soviet Union would undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat. It doesn't follow that workers were "forced" into their labor for the development of the country nor does it follow that they were "exploited" simply because rapid accumulation occurred. Exploitation occurs as a result of an owner's appropriation of the value of the worker's labor, to put it in simplified terms. Where owner and worker are one in the same, however, it stands to reason that the workers in question can elect to allow for those conditions necessary to see the rapid industrialization of the country. And, in any case, what would the alternative have been? I will not assert that you are suggesting that the proletariat and the Bolsheviks should have awaited for a sufficient economic development of the Russian Empire to have occurred before seizing power; Lenin himself would have called such a position nonsensical at best and, at worst, a bourgeois betrayal. I will also not assert that you are suggesting that the Soviet Union, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, should have allowed economic development to have occurred at a snail's pace when the Union was surrounded by hostility and eventually saw the coming of the Great Patriotic War. It seems that Lenin's own New Economic Policy and Stalin's endeavors to industrialize the Union were collectively the most logical course of action in the construction of socialism in that country.


The point is that when power becomes more centralised and concentrated at the top, the relationship between the toilers and the state becomes transformed, due to the actual separation that occurs as workers become denuded of their rights and subjected to managerial and administrative control.Again, my criticism stands that this inappropriately applies an abstracted principle to an analysis of concrete conditions that are not congruent with the premise of the analysis. This ignores the role the dictatorship of the proletariat played in the industrialization of the Union. Given that you have criticized me for supposedly attributing the development of socialism solely to the individual Stalin, it strikes me as odd that you would ignore the role the proletariat played in the building up of their motherland.


But it is an empty catechism to talk about the dialectical relationship between the party and the masses, because this exists in any social formation. The bourgeois Conservative Party in the UK does not act in supreme isolation from other social forces either. No party of government truly can. So it is not enough to invoke the dialectic (which is really just invoking the existence of a complex and changing relationship) we must understand what those relations are in practice.It follows, then, that we should consider the actual predicament in the Soviet Union rather than applying general principles to our analysis of it.


I'll note, however, that the conspiratorial nature of the revisionist scenario does give the impression that a motivated elite can impose its will and overthrow a higher mode of production (socialism) in favour of a lower one (capitalism) - moreover, that this can be achieved without the proletariat rising up to defend their gains under socialism. I don't find it a very convincing scenario.You've then misinterpreted the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the infiltration of revisionist elements into the Party's politics, which has been explained again and again in great detail in this thread. That the proletariat should not be able to defend themselves from exploitation and reaction in the capitalist world does not suggest a conspiracy of individual movers so much as it suggests a concrete predicament of want for theoretical empowerment on the part of the working class. It is true that the efforts of industrialization saw a necessary implementation of administrative metholodogy; this is not disputed. However necessary it was in the course of the development of socialism in the Union, the problem of the lack of theoretical empowerment was compounded at first in the original seizure of power that did not allow for sufficient time to correct the problem, given at what point the opportunity for revolution presented itself, and later during the Great Patriotic War at which point an administrative methodology was absolutely necessary for the continued survival of the Union against the Nazis. Given the concrete conditions of the Union at the time, what other practical course of action could have been taken that would not have postponed revolution and socialist development in favor of continued bourgeois oppression?


I didn't say the Bolsheviks did, but I implied that other "Marxist-Leninist" regimes did.I can't disagree with you there, so long as you're not talking about Albania. In colonial-type countries wherein the revolution occurs in a bourgeois-democratic stage and then a socialist stage, it stands to reason that those countries halted at the former would not yet have experienced a socialist revolution, despite all their rhetoric with regards to Marxism-Leninism (China and Korea come to mind).

[ind_com]

I can't disagree with you there, so long as you're not talking about Albania. In colonial-type countries wherein the revolution occurs in a bourgeois-democratic stage and then a socialist stage, it stands to reason that those countries halted at the former would not yet have experienced a socialist revolution, despite all their rhetoric with regards to Marxism-Leninism (China and Korea come to mind).

A precise material analysis supporting your position would be appreciated, specially when most popular works dealing with this topic, including Hoxha's 'Imperialism and Revolution', seem to badly echo Trotskyite critiques of the USSR.

[Hit The North]

Consider the following:

Yeah, yeah, and none of this bad attitude prevented Lenin from working closely with Trotsky in the execution of the October seizure of power, entrusting Trotsky with the Brest-Litovsk negotiatons, endorse him as the commander of the Red Army or refer to him, shortly before his death, as the most talented member of the central Committee. So whatever hackneyed Stalinist slurs you wish to chuck around, I could care less. Besides, this is still irrelevant to an assessment of Stalin's record or the identity of the USSR during his rule.


Comrade, you've requested of me on more than one occasion to support my assertions with citations and specifics. I can reasonably expect you to do the same, particularly with regards to how the above mentioned is attributable directly to Stalin's own policies or theory.All the things I mention are a matter of public record - whether they stem from Stalin's own policies or theories is not certain or particularly relevant. We can certainly supose that he was not against them. What is certain is that institutional and legal means were arranged to subordinate independent shopfloor organisation to the demands of the economic planners.


This analysis is lacking. It doesn't follow that the endeavor to industrialize the Soviet Union would undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat. It doesn't follow that workers were "forced" into their labor for the development of the country nor does it follow that they were "exploited" simply because rapid accumulation occurred. Exploitation occurs as a result of an owner's appropriation of the value of the worker's labor, to put it in simplified terms. Where owner and worker are one in the same, however, it stands to reason that the workers in question can elect to allow for those conditions necessary to see the rapid industrialization of the country.This is just wordplay based on poor assumptions, the chief one being the idea that ownership means anything, except a judicial mirage, when it is divorced from control. The policies enacted from 1928 onwards were toward a loosening of control by the direct producers over the means of production, through the imposition of one-man management and a diminution in the powers of the trade union and laws more severely punishing absenteeism and restricting the ability of workers to move from one enterprise to another. Meanwhile, it does not take a leap of the imagination to see the State and its representatives stepping into the role of the individual capitalist vis a vis the workers and the disposal of surplus value.


And, in any case, what would the alternative have been?Who knows? Certainly, alternatives were discussed by various interested parties. The point is that if there was no alternative to these policies, if they were completely essential for the survival of the regime, this does not at all distract from the point that this movement mitigated against workers' power and the drive toward socialism (if socialism is defined as the control over the means of production by the direct producers).


Again, my criticism stands that this inappropriately applies an abstracted principle to an analysis of concrete conditions that are not congruent with the premise of the analysis. This ignores the role the dictatorship of the proletariat played in the industrialization of the Union. Given that you have criticized me for supposedly attributing the development of socialism solely to the individual Stalin, it strikes me as odd that you would ignore the role the proletariat played in the building up of their motherland.It is your application of the concept of the DOP that is an abstraction. Why would acknowledging the central role played by the proletariat in building up the means of production of the USSR be any different to acknowledging the same achievement of the proletariat in any other nation? Even in capitalist America, it is the working class that have built up its material wealth. In what ways were workers under the supposed DOP of the USSR better off than workers in capitalist France, for instance? Did they work less? Enjoy more the fruits of their labour? Have greater access to the levers of political power?

Besides, socialist workers don't have motherlands, they have international brother/sister/hoods.


It is true that the efforts of industrialization saw a necessary implementation of administrative metholodogy; this is not disputed. However necessary it was in the course of the development of socialism in the Union, the problem of the lack of theoretical empowerment was compounded at first in the original seizure of power that did not allow for sufficient time to correct the problem, given at what point the opportunity for revolution presented itself, and later during the Great Patriotic War at which point an administrative methodology was absolutely necessary for the continued survival of the Union against the Nazis. Given the concrete conditions of the Union at the time, what other practical course of action could have been taken that would not have postponed revolution and socialist development in favor of continued bourgeois oppression?
All of the above suggest you are admitting two things: that the Russian proletariat was not, at any stage, sufficiently developed to become the rulers of society (and therefore required a proxy in the shape of the Party); and, secondly, that the USSR faced such extreme and unpromising conditions of isolation and backwardness that the conditions were not favourable to the creation of a truly socialist society. However, you appear to simultaneously hold the notion that socialism was nevertheless created in the Soviet Union from such unpromising material - in fact, flying in the face of these tragic material conditions. Truly a victory of human will over the dead weight of material reality.


I can't disagree with you there, so long as you're not talking about Albania. In colonial-type countries wherein the revolution occurs in a bourgeois-democratic stage and then a socialist stage, it stands to reason that those countries halted at the former would not yet have experienced a socialist revolution, despite all their rhetoric with regards to Marxism-Leninism (China and Korea come to mind).
No, I'm also including that Stalinist concentration camp, Albania - another example of 'revolution from above'.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yeah, yeah, and none of this bad attitude prevented Lenin from working closely with Trotsky in the execution of the October seizure of power, entrusting Trotsky with the Brest-Litovsk negotiatons, endorse him as the commander of the Red Army or refer to him, shortly before his death, as the most talented member of the central Committee. So whatever hackneyed Stalinist slurs you wish to chuck around, I could care less. Besides, this is still irrelevant to an assessment of Stalin's record or the identity of the USSR during his rule.

Comrade, it's disturbing that you're so willing to ignore Lenin's consistent and unabashed characterization of Trotsky as a liar and an opportunist. That he had talent in military organization doesn't alter in the slightest that Lenin was nothing if not highly critical of Trotsky's administrative and theoretical methodologies, and the issue of Lenin's last will and testament are a point of contention. This is quite relevant to Stalin's record in that criticism of Stalin's role in the development of Soviet socialism, in this case, comes from Trotsky's own method of formulating political critique, which, as has been demonstrated, did not inspire confidence in the most important individual figure in the Soviet Union's history.


All the things I mention are a matter of public record . . .

Not to come across as hostile, comrade, but if they are a matter of public record, then it should be a relatively simple task for you to provide citation.


. . . whether they stem from Stalin's own policies or theories is not certain. What is certain is that institutional and legal means were arranged to subordinate independent shopfloor organisation to the demands of the economic planners.

Then by what measure is this a criticism of Stalin's own policies and theories if we are not even certain either of those things had anything to do with what we're talking about?


This is just wordplay based on poor assumptions, the chief one being the idea that ownership means anything, except a judicial mirage, when it is divorced from control. The policies enacted from 1928 onwards were toward a loosening of control by the direct producers over the means of production, through the imposition of one-man management and a diminution in the powers of the trade union and laws more severely punishing absenteeism and restricting the ability of workers to move from one enterprise to another. Meanwhile, it does not take a leap of the imagination to see the State and its representatives stepping into the role of the individual capitalist vis a vis the workers and the disposal of surplus value.

Comrade, dismissal of another comrade's argument by labeling it "wordplay" is hardly any kind of counter-argument at all. And, again, you've requested, nay, demanded of me that I provide concrete, specific examples of my assertions. It would therefore have been reasonable of me to have expected you to do the same, but you have failed to do so. Instead, what you have done is vaguely suggest that there were policies that existed in some broad scope of time that might have done what you're suggesting they had done.


Who knows? Certainly, alternatives were discussed by various interested parties. The point is that if there was no alternative to these policies, if they were completely essential for the survival of the regime, this does not at all distract from the point that this movement mitigated against workers' power and the drive toward socialism (if socialism is defined as the control over the means of production by the direct producers).

It absolutely does, actually, in that these procedures were necessary in order to develop socialism. However, we still haven't surmounted the problem of these policies being merely ethereal suggestions on your part. That isn't to say that you cannot provide citation of these policies in your next post; it's just that you have failed to do so in the posts that you have made so far.


It is your application of the concept of the DOP that is an abstraction. Why would acknowledging the central role played by the proletariat in building up the means of production of the USSR be any different to acknowledging the same achievement of the proletariat in any other nation? Even in capitalist America, it is the working class that have built up its material wealth. In what ways were workers under the supposed DOP of the USSR better off than workers in capitalist France, for instance? Did they work less? Enjoy more the fruits of their labour? Have greater access to the levers of political power?

What Soviet workers enjoyed under their own dictatorship is their representative control over their productive endeavors.


Besides, socialist workers don't have motherlands, they have international brother/sister/hoods.

I disagree in that I think there can be a motherland of socialism, but this isn't really a point I'd care to argue on, mostly because it's semantic.


All of the above suggest you are admitting two things: that the Russian proletariat was not, at any stage, sufficiently developed to become the rulers of society (and therefore required a proxy in the shape of the Party); and, secondly, that the USSR faced such extreme and unpromising conditions of isolation and backwardness that the conditions were not favourable to the creation of a truly socialist society. However, you appear to simultaneously hold the notion that socialism was nevertheless created in the Soviet Union from such unpromising material - in fact, flying in the face of these tragic material conditions. Truly a victory of human will over the dead weight of material reality.

Comrade, this betrays a rather misanthropic or otherwise grossly fatalistic attitude on your part. Materialism does not mean that human beings are helpless and at the mercy of conditions beyond their control with regards to their development. And, indeed, the issue of their development in spite of the conditions has been addressed already. No alternative has yet been proposed that would not have allowed the proletariat of the Russian Empire to continue to wallow in oppression even after the opportunity for revolution presented itself. No alternative has yet been proposed that would not have left the Soviet Union so grossly underdeveloped that it would have immediately been overtaken by capitalist-imperialist or fascist forces from outside. Granted, there were problems with bureaucracy and underdevelopment in the Soviet Union, but the implied alternative solution to these problems is to have had the Bolsheviks sit idly by while the proletariat wallowed in exploitation and oppression until such time as the Russian Empire's economic development reached some arbitrary level of sufficiency determined by someone, somewhere, somehow, with no guarantee that during that time the Empire would not have degenerated into such reaction as to facilitate the rise of fascism or have become so thoroughly capitalist that we should not have seen any socialist endeavor in that part of the world or, indeed, anywhere in Eastern Europe or Asia or even South America even today.


No, I'm also including that Stalinist concentration camp, Albania - another example of 'revolution from above'.

The above is grossly uncivil in that it uses extremely charged language completely devoid of any citation or factual support. That this is a consistent trend in your posts makes me question why it is I continue to indulge you in this debate.

[Hit The North]

Comrade, it's disturbing that you're so willing to ignore Lenin's consistent and unabashed characterization of Trotsky as a liar and an opportunist.

However, I'm not disturbed that you would ignore the rapprochement between the two leaders during the lead up to October and beyond, and that you ignore that Lenin and Trotsky were comrades in action, in favour of clinging to disagreements and ill tempered admonishments in the factional disputes of Russian socialism. I'm not disturbed by this because it is a typical tactic used to smear Trotsky by the Stalinists.


Not to come across as hostile, comrade, but if they are a matter of public record, then it should be a relatively simple task for you to provide citation.I could cite sources from Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed and from Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia but I assume that you would view these as "contentious" as you always do when there is criticism of Stalin (even the mild criticism in Lenin's Last Testament), so I don't feel it would be worth my time.


Comrade, dismissal of another comrade's argument by labeling it "wordplay" is hardly any kind of counter-argument at all.
I notice that you have a liking for the niceties of debate, which is very touching in a Stalinist who would, if he had the chance, send me, a dirty Trot, to a gulag or have me tortured and executed. But instead of quibbling over niceties why don't you address the criticism I made, that to talk of ownership when there is no control is mere cant.


What Soviet workers enjoyed under their own dictatorship is their representative control over their productive endeavors.
What does that even mean?



The above is grossly uncivil in that it uses extremely charged language completely devoid of any citation or factual support. That this is a consistent trend in your posts makes me question why it is I continue to indulge you in this debate.
So don't bother. And while you are at it, stop calling me 'comrade'. I am not your comrade.

[Камо́ Зэд]

So don't bother. And while you are at it, stop calling me 'comrade'. I am not your comrade.

You've made that abundantly clear through your absolute refusal to adopt any semblance of civility or even engage in debate (which I say noting that my requests for citations have gone unheeded, despite my willingness to cite for my own assertions). I would typically express my hope that we could work well in the future, but I'm awfully pessimistic.

[Ostrinski]

I like how Zanthorus just gets ignored.

[Peoples' War]

You've made that abundantly clear through your absolute refusal to adopt any semblance of civility or even engage in debate (which I say noting that my requests for citations have gone unheeded, despite my willingness to cite for my own assertions). I would typically express my hope that we could work well in the future, but I'm awfully pessimistic.
Is this the part where you tell comrade Fuck the Clock:

"Until you can be civil, I will not respond to your actual arguments."

So, you're telling us, that as a sympathizer of Trotsky (myself) and as a Trotskyist (FTC), you would not have us purged, exiled or sent to a labor camp if there was a ML revolution with you at the top?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Is this the part where you tell comrade Fuck the Clock:

"Until you can be civil, I will not respond to your actual arguments."

So, you're telling us, that as a sympathizer of Trotsky (myself) and as a Trotskyist (FTC), you would not have us purged, exiled or sent to a labor camp if there was a ML revolution with you at the top?

Comrade, don't compound the problem of the lack of civility in this debate by insisting I haven't addressed his arguments. I have, and I have made requests that he provide citation for his historical assertions, which is something he demanded of me but elected not to do himself.

On the question of purging Trotskyists, I find it rather immaterial to speculate on some hypothetical scenario in which I'm General Secretary or something. However, F.T.C. has made it perfectly clear he has no intention, at this time, of cooperating in a civil and reciprocal debate. He is thus no comrade of mine.

[Art Vandelay]

Comrade, don't compound the problem of the lack of civility in this debate by insisting I haven't addressed his arguments. I have, and I have made requests that he provide citation for his historical assertions, which is something he demanded of me but elected not to do himself.

On the question of purging Trotskyists, I find it rather immaterial to speculate on some hypothetical scenario in which I'm General Secretary or something. However, F.T.C. has made it perfectly clear he has no intention, at this time, of cooperating in a civil and reciprocal debate. He is thus no comrade of mine.

The reason why none of see you as a comrade (Myself, FTC, Httt; I feel its safe to say I can accurately speak for all of us), to be blunt, is that Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism, I know, but I refuse to call it that) to us, is a bourgeois ideology; it represented the reaction against the genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, the reaction against October.

[Камо́ Зэд]

The reason why none of see you as a comrade (Myself, FTC, Httt; I feel its safe to say I can accurately speak for all of us), to be blunt, is that Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism, I know, but I refuse to call it that) to us, is a bourgeois ideology; it represented the reaction against the genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, the reaction against October.

You may not regard me as your comrade, and that is a shame, because it has been my intent to work together with the disparate elements of the left that we might come to some unity under a common goal: the resolution of the contradictions inherent in capitalism. I have approached discussions with the intent to subject my own positions to criticism, as well as to articulate and improve my understanding of the positions I hold through criticism and debate. I have been willing to subject my assertions to a level scrutiny demanded by those with whom I have debated, and I have happily found that, in most instances, my comrades of different tendencies are glad to hold their own arguments to the same standards.

This has generally not been true of those with whom I have debated questions regarding Marxism-Leninism.

If it isn't that demands are being made of my arguments that are not being made of others' counter-arguments, then it is that I am met with snark remarks implying or otherwise overtly insisting that it is my desire to ignore debate in favor of exile or judicial murder or purge. Worse yet, when I have engineered meticulous arguments and citations to address the assertions of others on this issue, I have been accused of ignoring debate entirely, my (empty) threats of putting a premature end to debate due to lack of civility cited as my "excuse." I have been met with sarcasm for my insistence on maintaining the civility one could reasonably suspect of any debating society. I have been called "cultish" and uncritical of Stalin, despite the contrary being demonstrably true. And, again, this has not been my experience in any other subject.

Now, you, specifically, Comrade N.R.Z., haven't done these things. I don't recall the specifics of my exchanges with you right now, but I don't feel like they've been as lousy as have been my exchanges with others regarding this subject. You may not consider me your comrade, but I consider you mine in that it is my hope that we can work together and, through criticism and self-criticism, achieve an improved understanding of history and of theory and of the modern condition. I can say with confidence that I'm willing to do that with civility and by honoring the standards of debate. It is my hope that you will express a similar willingness.

[Marxaveli]

Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism, I know, but I refuse to call it that) to us, is a bourgeois ideology; it represented the reaction against the genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, the reaction against October.

I have to agree strongly with this. I think it is vital that contemporary Communists, and revolutionary leftists of ANY stripe, distance themselves as far as they can from Stalinism. No matter what good he may have done, like it or not, it will forever have a negative stigma attached to it (and rightfully so) in the eyes of both Marxists and anti-Marxists alike, if for different reasons. Too many people today conflate Stalinism with Marxism (or Communism in general), which is frustrating because they have a preconceived notion and assumption that all Commies are blood-thirsty dictators, and even though much of this is due to over 60 years of anti-Communist propaganda, a lot of it stems from Stalinism (and Maoism also) and the horrors that occurred under his leadership. Stalinism REALLY set the Socialist movement back substantially IMO, and Marxism-Leninism, even being looked at separately from Stalinism, is dangerous because it can lead to the latter, as history has shown. I'm sure most ML's will dismiss me as leftist scum, but frankly I don't give a fuck. The whole point of being a Marxist is to be a revolutionary leftist, not a revolutionary authoritarian. As far as Lenin goes, I greatly respect him as an intellectual and his contributions to Marxist thought, and in general I think he meant well (I don't believe this to be true of Stalin, and I consider him a traitor of the Socialist movement). That said, I don't agree with the idea of the Vanguard Party (that could change, but for now, no) and I am skeptical that it is truly in the interests of the Proletarian to support one.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I have to agree strongly with this. I think it is vital that contemporary Communists, and revolutionary leftists of ANY stripe, distance themselves as far as they can from Stalinism. No matter what good he may have done, like it or not, it will forever have a negative stigma attached to it (and rightfully so) in the eyes of both Marxists and anti-Marxists alike, if for different reasons.

I don't buy into this line of reasoning, especially given that this stigma is true of communism and socialism in general among those who aren't leftists. The efforts of opportunists and more overt anti-communists alike to demonize important historical figures like Stalin are not themselves the source of these sentiments, but are rather symptomatic of them. I imagine that, for all Trotsky's posturing as an anti-bureaucrat during his later years, the similarities between his own hypothetical leadership of the Soviet Union and Stalin's actual leadership would be much more striking than the differences. For those who have decided on the Soviet Union and socialism in general as their "counter-example" to what they believe is right, any old excuse will do, really. Remove Stalin from the picture altogether and you haven't really changed much of anything.


Too many people today conflate Stalinism with Marxism (or Communism in general), which is frustrating because they have a preconceived notion and assumption that all Commies are blood-thirsty dictators, and even though much of this is due to over 60 years of anti-Communist propaganda, a lot of it stems from Stalinism (and Maoism also) and the horrors that occurred under his leadership.

I'm growing a little more frustrated each time that Marxism-Leninism is discussed without acknowledging the difference in historical conception with regards to Stalin, particularly those investigations done into claims made about Stalin, prevalent in the West, with regards to the supposed atrocities for which he was responsible. That the death toll attributed to the starvation conditions in the Ukraine should fluctuate anywhere from a few thousand to forty million should at least raise some red flags (pun very much intended).


Stalinism REALLY set the Socialist movement back substantially IMO, and Marxism-Leninism, even being looked at separately from Stalinism, is dangerous because it can lead to the latter, as history has shown.

But what is the theoretical framework that characterizes Stalinism? What actually is Stalinism?


I'm sure most ML's will dismiss me as leftist scum, but frankly I don't give a fuck. The whole point of being a Marxist is to be a revolutionary leftist, not a revolutionary authoritarian.

Comrade, the very nature of the transition from capitalism to communism is inherently authoritarian. The dictatorship of the proletariat demands, as Marx himself put it, "despotic inroads" to ensure the expropriation of capitalists and the suppression of anti-socialist efforts. Marx and Engels were nothing if not abundantly clear that the efforts to bring communism to the world are inherently authoritarian. You cannot be a Marxist without being authoritarian, at least with regards to the pre-communist endeavor.


As far as Lenin goes, I greatly respect him as an intellectual and his contributions to Marxist thought, and in general I think he meant well (I don't believe this to be true of Stalin, and I consider him a traitor of the Socialist movement). That said, I don't agree with the idea of the Vanguard Party (that could change, but for now, no) and I am skeptical that it is truly in the interests of the Proletarian to support one.

Marx and Engels themselves explained the need for a political vanguard in the revolutionary proletarian socialist endeavor. Lenin merely elucidated the concept. Marx's and Engels's conception of party vanguard occurs even in the Manifesto, Chapter 2:


The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Granted, Marx and Engels would come to a higher understanding of materialism and thus communism over the years since the publication of the Manifesto, but the principle of the Communist Party did not change during this time. Statements made at the First International corroborate this.

[Marxaveli]

I don't buy into this line of reasoning, especially given that this stigma is true of communism and socialism in general among those who aren't leftists. The efforts of opportunists and more overt anti-communists alike to demonize important historical figures like Stalin are not themselves the source of these sentiments, but are rather symptomatic of them. I imagine that, for all Trotsky's posturing as an anti-bureaucrat during his later years, the similarities between his own hypothetical leadership of the Soviet Union and Stalin's actual leadership would be much more striking than the differences. For those who have decided on the Soviet Union and socialism in general as their "counter-example" to what they believe is right, any old excuse will do, really. Remove Stalin from the picture altogether and you haven't really changed much of anything.

Regarding the Capitalist class, I would agree that removing Stalin from the picture will make little difference. Communism is against the interests of their class, so they will have a natural contempt for it regardless of what synthesis or tendency represents it. But regarding Proletarians who haven't achieved class consciousness yet, and are still ideologically under the control of ruling class propaganda, I have to disagree. Too often, the horrors of Stalinism are used as propaganda by the ruling class to paint a grim picture of Communism to deceive the Proletarian so they do not act in the interest of their class position. Sure, there are lots of other ways the Bourgeois imposes its will, but there can be little question that using Stalinist propaganda is one of the common and most effective ways of doing so.


I'm growing a little more frustrated each time that Marxism-Leninism is discussed without acknowledging the difference in historical conception with regards to Stalin, particularly those investigations done into claims made about Stalin, prevalent in the West, with regards to the supposed atrocities for which he was responsible. That the death toll attributed to the starvation conditions in the Ukraine should fluctuate anywhere from a few thousand to forty million should at least raise some red flags (pun very much intended).

It is very possible that the numbers are very inflated - I haven't done enough research to hold a viable conclusion on the number of people who died in the Stalinist regime. But even if we estimate on the low end, the number is still quite high. Stalin, in general, was a very dogmatic, paranoid, and power-hungry individual with many characteristics of being Bourgeois himself - hardly the virtues or characteristics that any self-respecting Communist should have. I was even reading an article the other day on the dwindling of biodiversity in the worlds food supply, and a Russian botanist by the name of Nickolay Vavilov, that founded many potential cures for famine by preserving certain types of seeds he found on expeditions was mentioned briefly. Stalin labeled this "bourgeois science" and repaid him by sticking him in a Gulag camp, where he starved to death. Uff.


Comrade, the very nature of the transition from capitalism to communism is inherently authoritarian. The dictatorship of the proletariat demands, as Marx himself put it, "despotic inroads" to ensure the expropriation of capitalists and the suppression of anti-socialist efforts. Marx and Engels were nothing if not abundantly clear that the efforts to bring communism to the world are inherently authoritarian. You cannot be a Marxist without being authoritarian, at least with regards to the pre-communist endeavor.

I think you are misinterpreting Marx. The DotP is DEMOCRATIC, since it is the seizing of power by the majority, from the minority - this would be democracy, not authoritarianism. Who is it authoritarian for, the Capitalists? Fuck them. Nowhere does it state that Marx considered bring Communism to the world to be authoritarian, and furthermore, any Marxist knows that he valued true democracy above all else. In fact, to quote Marx, "Democracy is the road to Socialism". You have it all wrong, comrade, as Stalinists always have.


Marx and Engels themselves explained the need for a political vanguard in the revolutionary proletarian socialist endeavor. Lenin merely elucidated the concept. Marx's and Engels's conception of party vanguard occurs even in the Manifesto, Chapter 2:

Granted, Marx and Engels would come to a higher understanding of materialism and thus communism over the years since the publication of the Manifesto, but the principle of the Communist Party did not change during this time. Statements made at the First International corroborate this.

A revolutionary Proletarian class is a very different thing from a Vanguard Party or "professional revolutionaries" that in theory, act on behalf of the working clas. The Vanguard has the danger of seizing power for itself and thus creating a new class system, as seen in the USSR. This isn't to say that a Vanguard Party can NEVER work, but given its shaky history, the reasons to be skeptical of it are indeed legit. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere does Marx state any sort of professional revolutionaries carrying out the class interests of the working class, other than the working class ITSELF? This was all a product of Lenin, and not mentioned anywhere in the works of Marx and Engels.

[Peoples' War]

I don't buy into this line of reasoning, especially given that this stigma is true of communism and socialism in general among those who aren't leftists.The point is that it is a result of Stalin's reign.


I imagine that, for all Trotsky's posturing as an anti-bureaucrat during his later years, the similarities between his own hypothetical leadership of the Soviet Union and Stalin's actual leadership would be much more striking than the differences.How do you figure?


For those who have decided on the Soviet Union and socialism in general as their "counter-example" to what they believe is right, any old excuse will do, really. Remove Stalin from the picture altogether and you haven't really changed much of anything.No, the material conditions paved the way for what happened. Stalin just so happened to take the helm, and what he did was eliminate workers power, and introduce capitalistic policies.


I'm growing a little more frustrated each time that Marxism-Leninism is discussed without acknowledging the difference in historical conception with regards to Stalin, particularly those investigations done into claims made about Stalin, prevalent in the West, with regards to the supposed atrocities for which he was responsible. That the death toll attributed to the starvation conditions in the Ukraine should fluctuate anywhere from a few thousand to forty million should at least raise some red flags (pun very much intended).Even Soviet statistics on these deaths are rather high, closer to a midway between the lowest and highest numbers.


But what is the theoretical framework that characterizes Stalinism? What actually is Stalinism?Marxism-Leninism...that is Stalinism. Those who espouse Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are Maoists.

Hoxha is just irrelevant. They are just Stalinists who glorify a tyrant.


Comrade, the very nature of the transition from capitalism to communism is inherently authoritarian. The dictatorship of the proletariat demands, as Marx himself put it, "despotic inroads" to ensure the expropriation of capitalists and the suppression of anti-socialist efforts. Marx and Engels were nothing if not abundantly clear that the efforts to bring communism to the world are inherently authoritarian. You cannot be a Marxist without being authoritarian, at least with regards to the pre-communist endeavor.The DOTP is authoritarian insofar as it is authoritarian to the old order, to capitalists. This "suppression, is not against workers, but against the bourgeoisie. Stalin used it on anyone who opposed his every whim.


Marx and Engels themselves explained the need for a political vanguard in the revolutionary proletarian socialist endeavor. Lenin merely elucidated the concept. Marx's and Engels's conception of party vanguard occurs even in the Manifesto, Chapter 2:Yes. Indeed so.

[Ismail]

Those who espouse Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are Maoists.

Hoxha is just irrelevant. They are just Stalinists who glorify a tyrant.Hoxha is irrelevant? Really? The PCdoB, PCMLE, the party in Benin, in the Ivory Coast, in Burkina Faso and elsewhere; in these countries the pro-Albanian parties played leading roles insofar as communist movements were concerned. In the 1980's pro-Albanian parties were, in terms of practical influence, not much less influential than Maoist ones.

As Hoxha wrote in a letter to one of his closest friends, Hysni Kapo, in 1979:

"Maoism as an anti-Marxist 'theory' is in agony. It will face the same fate as other theories which have been devised by global capitalism and imperialism in decay."
(Enver Hoxha. Letra të zgjedhura Vol. 1. Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 1985. p. 401.)

In fact the whole letter is amusing, and I shall quote it at some length, in which he denounces the Chinese bureaucracy and Mao's personality cult:

The Communist Party of China, especially Mao Zedong, who has been an idealist dreamer and visionary, without general culture (except that of Chinese antiquity) have followed the course of the history of mankind as the most xenophobic diletantes. Their ideological, political and organisational principles, especially since the time of the founding of the Communist Party of China and onwards, are principles of a pronounced pragmatic philosophy, which interest China alone and with clear aims of transforming 'eternal' China into a superpower to dominate the world, to make the law, to dictate its will and culture.

In the analysis that we have made of their actions, we have come up against this Chinese ideology and we have seen and see that the forms of their organisation and action are concentrated in the direction of this ideology which they want to make 'universal.'

The figure of Mao Zedong has been inflated into a divine figure of a Chinese Emperor. And in fact this modern emperor operates with all omnipotence over his courtiers who have created a swollen and terrible bureaucracy which applies the 'ideas of genius' of the 'great helmsman.' He has subjugated the CPC and whenever he 'deems' it necessary according to the 'dialectical development of the opposites,' seen from the angle of Maoism, topples people from power, attacks and liquidates the party, carries out the occasional 'revolution,' balances the power of courtesans. He explains all this with allegedly revolutionary formulas, but which are nothing other than more 'cultured' actions than those of the Emperor Bokassa, of the Shah of Iran and the King of Nepal whom Mao Zedong loved so much. . .

Mao Zedong should not be described as a 'prophet' of the revolutions, but a 'prophet of the counterrevolutions.' He represents the type of an anarchist who has confusion in his blood, chaos, the undermining of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism, but on the condition that this permanent anarchy be led by him or by his typical Chinese anarchist ideology. Mao Zedong is a Chinese Bakunin. The cultural revolution was an illustration of the ideas and actions of this Chinese Bakunin.

In these conditions, with these concepts the CPC could never be a Marxist-Leninist party.

The philosophy which guided it was idealist bourgeois, retrograde, because China itself, its society despite its democratic bourgeois revolution, has remained a closed society, with old beliefs and mentality dominated by mysticism and by philosophical and organisational state principles archaic in essence but which have allegedly evolved superficially. We can see this in the construction and form of the state, in the development of the economy, in the way the education and cultural system has been built, in the organisation of the army, etc. Everything bore the specific Chinese seal, from ideological literature down to the slogans.

The slogans had their source and everyone in China from the youngest to the eldest had to repeat them without making the slightest mistake in any letter or comma. This was a struggle to benumb the creative thinking, this trampled underfoot every form of democracy, this was nothing other than the cult of the 'helmsman' and the domination of bureaucracy. Such an aberrant development at given moments could and will only suffer defeat, which Mao has preached as 'revolutions and counterrevolutions' in every 7 years. . . .

Terrible storms have and will pass over the Chinese people, but the day will come when, even there the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin will triumph. The present and coming generations of China will understand and will say: "The Party of Labour of Albania opened our eyes, it acted correctly, it exposed Mao Zedong thought because it loved the Chinese proletarian revolution, because it wanted to dispel the destructive myths created in China, which hindered the happiness of this great people, who want to live in genuine socialism."

[Leo]

Yes, very amusing indeed. Even more so, in fact, when another letter, written less than ten years ago is taken into consideration, where Hoxha says:

"May Chairman Mao, great leader, great Marxist-Leninist and the closest friend of the Albanian people, live as long as the mountains!"

In fact it is so amusing that I will also quote more extensively from the letter (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1969/04/29.htm):


The Ninth Congress marks a brilliant page in the long history of the great Communist Party of China, which is full of heroic and legendary struggles. It affirmed the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line of Chairman Mao and the decisive victory of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It firmly held and raised higher the red banner of revolution and socialism. It further strengthened and tempered the Party, its unity of thought and action on the basis of the invincible thought of the great Marxist-Leninist Comrade Mao Tse-Tung (...) We are exceptionally glad that the historic Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China unanimously elected, in an ardent revolutionary atmosphere, the Party leadership with Comrade Mao Tse-Tung, the founder and great leader of the Communist Party of China, the outstanding Marxist-Leninist and the strategist of genius of revolution, as its leader (...) We heartily greet the new Central Committee elected by the Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China. This Central Committee is made up of revolutionaries tested in fierce class battles and in the flames of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and boundlessly faithful to Chairman Mao Tse-Tung and to his invincible thought (...) The Albanian Party of Labour and the entire Albanian people wholeheartedly wish that the Communist Party of China and the great Chinese people, armed with all-conquering Mao Tse-Tung thought and under the wise and far-sighted Marxist-Leninist leadership of Mao Tse-Tung, will achieve new and ever greater successes and victories on the bright road of socialism established by the Ninth National Congress. Long live the great and glorious Communist Party of China! May Chairman Mao, great leader, great Marxist-Leninist and the closest friend of the Albanian people, live as long as the mountains! May the unbreakable friendship and militant unity between our two Parties and peoples last forever and grow with each passing day! Hoxha served Mao well, when it suited his interests.

[Ismail]

Hoxha served Mao well, when it suited his interests.One can also find Mao praising Hoxha in similar terms. It's basically not much more than diplomatic formalities. You can find similar letters where Khrushchev praises Hoxha and vice-versa as late as 1960, when it is quite obvious that in private they were already attacking each other. In fact as late as 1976, 1977 and probably even the early months of 1978 the Albanians were praising China even though everyone in the outside world knew a split was impending; at the 7th Congress of the PLA in 1976 Hoxha simultaneously repeated Albanian denunciations of the "Three Worlds Theory" (just not mentioning the Chinese by name) and praised China in the same report.

Of course by the time of Mao's death he was complaining that the Albanians were attacking him, while for decades the Albanians had various reservations and criticisms of Chinese policies. In fact Hoxha's opinion of his first (and only) visit to China in 1956 was recorded negatively in his diary at the time.

Thus in 1964 the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania sent a letter to its Chinese counterpart protesting China's decision to focus on relatively unimportant territorial disputes with the Soviets over the far more important issue of Soviet revisionism. A more strongly worded letter was made when Nixon visited Beijing.

Thus in 1971 Hoxha noted at the 6th Congress of the PLA that one could not oppose one imperialism by relying on another, an obvious referenced picked up by everyone of Albanian criticism of China's increasingly pro-Western foreign policy. It was also in the early 70's that, as Hoxha later noted, a Chinese-backed plot was foiled in the Albanian military. The Albanians similarly refused to follow the Chinese advice of forming a Balkan "pact" with Yugoslavia and Romania, both on increasingly good terms with the Chinese.

Then there is Hoxha's diary, of which two whole volumes were published (as Reflections on China) detailing from 1962-1978 the mostly negative analyses Hoxha made of Chinese politics and foreign policy.

And yet, on issues of principle, Hoxha said that the Albanian defense of the Chinese against Soviet revisionism in the 1957-1961 period was correct, and that the Chinese arguments against Soviet revisionism at that time and for a number of years afterwards were, on the whole, correct as well.

Hoxha also noted (and this is made apparent in his diary entries) that the Albanians had only limited contact with the Chinese and did not have a full understanding of what was occurring in China in many cases, even with the benefit of being China's only ideological ally in Europe. Since you quote from Marxists dot org, I will do so as well; case in point, a 1966 speech in which Hoxha analyzes the beginning of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" and demonstrates quite clearly that the Albanians had only a limited understanding of what was going on, and that they didn't much like what they did see: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1966/10/01.htm

Two quotes from his diary are also in order, both from 1976; the first (Vol. II, p. 236), "We considered post-liberation China a state of people's democracy, led by a glorious Communist Party, at the head of which was a great Marxist-Leninist, who was called Mao Tsetung. Like all our countries which were liberated and established the order of people's democracy, China, too, was closely linked with the Soviet Union and Stalin." The second (pp. 263-264):

At some stage, when the truth about what Mao really was comes out clearly, the question will be raised as to why we have described him as "a great Marxist-Leninist"? It is true that we have said this, but not with complete conviction. Then have we not been opportunists? No, we have always sought to do our best for the Chinese people and the Communist Party of China, which openly defended Stalin, and have had the best of intentions towards Mao personally.

The Chinese and Mao fought, but their line after liberation had pronounced opportunist, liberal features. We thought that these stands would be temporary. After the death of Stalin, Mao appeared "moderate" in his criticisms of Stalin but enthusiastic towards the deeds of Khrushchev. Later, he sounded the bugle against Khrushchev and we thought that he had come round to a stand of principle, but these actions were carried out for other, pragmatic, ideological motives which impelled him to this volte-face. When the Cultural Revolution began, our Party considered that we had to defend China and Mao with all our strength because they were threatened by reaction and the revisionists. We continued to call him "a great Marxist-Leninist" but we were against the exaltation of his cult which was trumpeted by the Chinese in a sickening way...

Especially after the Cultural Revolution, the foreign policy of China and other actions of the Communist Party of China came into opposition to our line. We had adopted a correct tactic, and proclaimed our line publicly on every problem. This came into opposition to the line of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese state, and Mao. Everybody saw this divergence, but with this we thought we would influence China for the better, that it would change its stand. We also wrote official letters to Mao Tsetung, but he did not reply to us at all. On the contrary, the Chinese reduced their aid to the minimum, while with catchwords and slogans they want to give the impression that nothing has occurred in the relations between our two parties and countries, whereas in fact something major has occurred, but the Chinese are proceeding with us according to the tactic of "reel in but don't break the line".

So in conclusion, quoting a customary "we recognize the occasion of X event in a friendly matter" letter doesn't amount to much. Maoists did it too to show how "hypocritical" Hoxha was, as if poster-card material mattered more than analyses and actions.

[Камо́ Зэд]

The point is that it is a result of Stalin's reign.

Note that my counter-assertion was that it is not the result of Stalin's reign so much as it is a predictable of opportunism and bourgeois propaganda.


How do you figure?I figure because the policies of the time were enacted in alignment with the material conditions that necessitated them. I don't have much confidence in Trotsky's own theoretical methodology, but, if he were to have had the presence of mind to respond to situations practically, the results of his own individual actions would have likely had striking similarities, specifically with regards to responding to threats of counter-revolution and espionage.


No, the material conditions paved the way for what happened. Stalin just so happened to take the helm, and what he did was eliminate workers power, and introduce capitalistic policies.I'm not sure what the first sentence is arguing against, if indeed it is meant to argue against anything. But as for eliminating workers' power and introducing capitalistic policies, I'd be interested in what specific measures were actually taken to do the former and to what specific policies you refer in the latter.


Even Soviet statistics on these deaths are rather high, closer to a midway between the lowest and highest numbers.I'd be interested in the specific statistics, then, because the statistics that come directly from the Soviet archives are the lowest numbers. For example, the most common citations for Stalin's Gulag death toll come from Robert Conquest, who asserted that there were nine million political prisoners alone in the labor camps in the year 1939 and that, in the period between 1937 and 1939, three million of them died in the camps. However, the American Historical Review explains that the Soviet records demonstrate that, in the year 1939, there were only 1,317,195 total prisoners in the camps, and only 454,432 were charged with counter-revolutionary crimes. Between 1937 and 1939, only 166,424 prisoners in total died in the Gulag labor camps. From the period of 1934 to 1953, this number is just over one million. So, in almost seven times the length of time in which Conquest asserts that three million political prisoners died in labor camps, only about a third of that estimate actually did, and this includes non-political prisoners. Correct my math in the following if it needs it, but doesn't this make Robert Conquest's own estimates off by close to at least two thousand percent? I can't think of any respected historian who has been anywhere near that wrong, but I can name one who screwed up even worse: Alexander Solzhenitsyn asserted that as many as sixty million political prisoners died in the camps from 1934 to 1953. There isn't a word in any human language for how ridiculous that number is, so I am tasked with creating one: bananafucked. Conquest would claim, too, that in 1953 there were twelve million political prisoners in the labor camps, when in fact the total number of prisoners at that time was less than two million. Now, it's reasonable to say that the Soviet figures themselves represent far too many incarcerations and deaths than a Communist should be comfortable with, but that's a different debate.


Marxism-Leninism...that is Stalinism. Those who espouse Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are Maoists.Not to be rude, comrade, but that tells me exactly zero things about what the people who use the term "Stalinist" derisively are actually referring to in terms of theory.


The DOTP is authoritarian insofar as it is authoritarian to the old order, to capitalists. This "suppression, is not against workers, but against the bourgeoisie. Stalin used it on anyone who opposed his every whim.I still don't mean to be rude, comrade, but I'd be more interested in dealing with specific facts rather than popular caricatures.


Yes. Indeed so.All of the above can apply as a response to Comrade Rosa's~Dream, as well. I apologize for not taking the time to craft a separate response, but similar points were made. As for her analysis of authoritarianism, there really isn't much to which I feel compelled to respond, since authoritarianism does not preclude the democratic nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat and we seem to be splitting hairs over what a vanguard party is. I'm sure we don't disagree that you can't have the entirety of a whole class acting as the directing body of revolution; the role the proletariat plays, not separate from its party, is the impetus of revolution itself. But to have every individual member of the class conspire in the planning of the decisive revolutionary blow to the old order is impractical, as well as expecting every single economic decision come to a class-wide vote every single time. I'm sure this isn't even a point of contention.

[ind_com]

Hoxha is irrelevant? Really? The PCdoB, PCMLE, the party in Benin, in the Ivory Coast, in Burkina Faso and elsewhere; in these countries the pro-Albanian parties played leading roles insofar as communist movements were concerned.

How are these parties any more advanced than Trots or Tankies nowadays, as far as organizing the working class for revolution is concerned?

[Ismail]

How are these parties any more advanced than Trots or Tankies nowadays, as far as organizing the working class for revolution is concerned?Obviously after 1991 most communist parties that hadn't disintegrated into nationalism and reformism were hit hard, but for what it's worth French media have reported on the present-day activities of the Ivorian party, of whom some of its members have been murdered by government supporters and which has some influence in the trade-unions.

[ind_com]

Obviously after 1991 most communist parties that hadn't disintegrated into nationalism and reformism were hit hard, but for what it's worth French media have reported on the present-day activities of the Ivorian party, of whom some of its members have been murdered by government supporters and which has some influence in the trade-unions.

It is not at all obvious to me why a communist party that considered the USSR to be revisionist, anti-communist and hence an enemy, would be hit hard in 1991. And what are the activities of the Ivorian party? Political murders can take place within revisionist parties as well, and trade unions can be tools of the bourgeoisie too. What exactly is the Ivorian party doing to organize a revolution?

[Ismail]

It is not at all obvious to me why a communist party that considered the USSR to be revisionist, anti-communist and hence an enemy, would be hit hard in 1991.Well first off, the fall of the Eastern Bloc was seen as the "fall of communism" to a large number of Maoists and pro-Albanian persons, along of course with a number of Trots. Most people expected workers to rise up for socialist revolution in these countries, not "counter-revolutions within the counter-revolutions" (as the Albanians termed it.) The issue was not the Soviet Union per se, but of communism itself, which was proclaimed "dead."

Ask any Maoist who was politically active in 1989-1991 if their activities were negatively impacted by the events in Eastern Europe and the USSR, and I guarantee every one of them will reply in the affirmative.

The second issue was the fall of Socialist Albania itself, which as one might imagine had a large impact on pro-Albanian parties.


And what are the activities of the Ivorian party? Political murders can take place within revisionist parties as well, and trade unions can be tools of the bourgeoisie too. What exactly is the Ivorian party doing to organize a revolution?What do you think it should be doing? I'd say building up a trade union presence in conditions of clandestine activity isn't too bad. Better than waging a "protracted people's war."

[ind_com]

Well first off, the fall of the Eastern Bloc was seen as the "fall of communism" to a large number of Maoists and pro-Albanian persons, along of course with a number of Trots.

Maoism is heavily characterized by its opposition to state-capitalist USSR and PRC. So no, Maoists don't consider that to be the fall of communism. Can't speak for Trots or Hoxhaists though.



Most people expected workers to rise up for socialist revolution in these countries, not "counter-revolutions within the counter-revolutions" (as the Albanians termed it.) The issue was not the Soviet Union per se, but of communism itself, which was proclaimed "dead."

Ask any Maoist who was politically active in 1989-1991 if their activities were negatively impacted by the events in Eastern Europe and the USSR, and I guarantee every one of them will reply in the affirmative.

Sorry, your guarantee didn't work. The fall of the USSR was actually favourable for Maoist movements in countries whose ruling classes were supported by the USSR.


The second issue was the fall of Socialist Albania itself, which as one might imagine had a large impact on pro-Albanian parties.

How did the fall of such a tiny country have any impact on any party? And why did socialism fall in Albania in the first place, if we set aside the age-old Trotskyite story of "bad men taking over"?


What do you think it should be doing? I'd say building up a trade union presence in conditions of clandestine activity isn't too bad.

Do they have anything beyond that? A military programme for seizing power perhaps? Or are they waiting for their energies to align, akin to Trotskyites who will wait till eternity for the army to revolt?


Better than waging a "protracted people's war."

If they want to pose as communist revolutionaries and save their hides from the wrath of the capitalist state, yes. It's best to be clandestine and not declare war against the exploiting classes, if that is the case.

[Ismail]

Maoism is heavily characterized by its opposition to state-capitalist USSR and PRC. So no, Maoists don't consider that to be the fall of communism. Can't speak for Trots or Hoxhaists though.You misread what I wrote. The fall of the Eastern Bloc was presented as a great victory for the West and capitalism. The "end of history" had now come to the fore, Marxism was now "discredited" and thus communism was now "dead." Very few leftists no matter what the ideology had expected the events of 1989-1991 to occur. Maoists, Trots and pro-Albanian persons expected a communist revolution in the USSR, not the opposite.

Already after 1976 a number of Maoist parties and persons became increasingly defeatist because Maoist China was turning into Dengist China. A number of them decided that the USSR was socialist all along and that its foreign policy was somehow still one of proletarian internationalism, so you had figures like Al Szymanski, Harry Haywood (although he died shortly after his turn) and other ex-Maoists being apologists for the Soviets. Because Socialist Albania seemed stable and wasn't succumbing to rightist tendencies anywhere, there was no problems on that front for those who were pro-Albanian in orientation.

When the "East European revolutions" of 1989 occurred, obviously neither pro-Albanian types nor Maoists saw them as literally the "fall of communism." In January 1990 Ramiz Alia made this clear and stated that, "The unfortunate thing about it is that the peoples of these countries saw the revisionist regime, its bureaucracy, violence, economic stagnation and technological backwardness as a product of the socialist system and of Marxism-Leninism, which they now refuse to accept." (The Deepening of the Revolutionization of the Life of the Party and Country, 1990, p. 33.)

Of course on this same occasion, the 9th Plenum of the CC of the PLA, there began in all but words the process of capitalist restoration in Albania. The point is that there was clearly a pretty large morale hit in the years 1989-1991 as, again, Western propaganda kept on insisting that capitalism had "won" the battle with "communism." Lots of people couldn't adjust to the fact that the countries they admired and upheld no longer existed in the same way as before, so just as some Maoists latched onto the USSR in the 70's-80's after Mao's death, some pro-Albanian parties latched onto Cuban and other revisionisms (e.g. Hardial Bains' CPC-ML.) Many others simply dropped out of the communist movement altogether and either retired from politics or became social-democrats.


Sorry, your guarantee didn't work. The fall of the USSR was actually favourable for Maoist movements in countries whose ruling classes were supported by the USSR.Name one.


How did the fall of such a tiny country have any impact on any party?Generally when you consider a country a bastion of socialism, have fraternal ties with the Party at the head of it, translate and print materials from the country in question, and more or less seek advice and direction from it, then it shouldn't be shocking when the demise of all of that leads to disorientation.


And why did socialism fall in Albania in the first place, if we set aside the age-old Trotskyite story of "bad men taking over"?Well for instance, in 1989 the army chain of command for foodstuffs broke down, so soldiers no longer could expect to be given food, and thus they had to share goats and such with collective farmers. A year later mining was basically shut down as an industry since there was no dynamite to use. Stuff like that basically made running the country increasingly impossible since the Constitution of 1976 had forbidden seeking foreign credits and any actual trade with the West was difficult since said West linked increased trade to Albanian commitments towards "democracy" and the liberalization of the economy. Living standards kept on declining, existing industries began declining in efficiency due to old technologies and equipment starting to break down, etc.

[Geiseric]

For the record Trotskyism is pretty important in Algeria, the 2nd largest oil producer in Northern Africa. The PT there which is a mass party has more or less trotskyist tendencies.

[ind_com]

You misread what I wrote. The fall of the Eastern Bloc was presented as a great victory for the West and capitalism. The "end of history" had now come to the fore, Marxism was now "discredited" and thus communism was now "dead." Very few leftists no matter what the ideology had expected the events of 1989-1991 to occur. Maoists, Trots and pro-Albanian persons expected a communist revolution in the USSR, not the opposite. Sorry, my bad then. Thank you for explaining.


Already after 1976 a number of Maoist parties and persons became increasingly defeatist because Maoist China was turning into Dengist China. A number of them decided that the USSR was socialist all along and that its foreign policy was somehow still one of proletarian internationalism, so you had figures like Al Szymanski, Harry Haywood (although he died shortly after his turn) and other ex-Maoists being apologists for the Soviets. Because Socialist Albania seemed stable and wasn't succumbing to rightist tendencies anywhere, there was no problems on that front for those who were pro-Albanian in orientation.

When the "East European revolutions" of 1989 occurred, obviously neither pro-Albanian types nor Maoists saw them as literally the "fall of communism." In January 1990 Ramiz Alia made this clear and stated that, "The unfortunate thing about it is that the peoples of these countries saw the revisionist regime, its bureaucracy, violence, economic stagnation and technological backwardness as a product of the socialist system and of Marxism-Leninism, which they now refuse to accept." (The Deepening of the Revolutionization of the Life of the Party and Country, 1990, p. 33.)

Of course on this same occasion, the 9th Plenum of the CC of the PLA, there began in all but words the process of capitalist restoration in Albania. The point is that there was clearly a pretty large morale hit in the years 1989-1991 as, again, Western propaganda kept on insisting that capitalism had "won" the battle with "communism." Lots of people couldn't adjust to the fact that the countries they admired and upheld no longer existed in the same way as before, so just as some Maoists latched onto the USSR in the 70's-80's after Mao's death, some pro-Albanian parties latched onto Cuban and other revisionisms (e.g. Hardial Bains' CPC-ML.) Many others simply dropped out of the communist movement altogether and either retired from politics or became social-democrats.

You are probably classifying all supporters of the Chinese camp as Maoists. However, Maoism is a line that consolidated only in the 80s and 90s, with the advances made by the people's wars in those decades. The term was coined first by Lin Biao during the Cultural Revolution, but is really something against what Maoists struggled in the later years. The first declaration of Maoism that is acknowledged by Maoist parties of now, was given by the Communist Party of Peru, in the 80s. Hence, ever since its recognition as a qualitative development over Marxism-Leninism, Maoism has been opposed to the capitalist restoration in China. The supporters of the Chinese camp that accepted Dengism did not consider the development and generalization of the Chinese people' war-line to be applicable in all the neo-colonies.


Name one.

India.


Generally when you consider a country a bastion of socialism, have fraternal ties with the Party at the head of it, translate and print materials from the country in question, and more or less seek advice and direction from it, then it shouldn't be shocking when the demise of all of that leads to disorientation.

Depends on the amount of disorientation. If a party really had a well-defined revolutionary line, and was not merely a satellite of its mother-party, then there should not be much disorientation or confusion in it.


Well for instance, in 1989 the army chain of command for foodstuffs broke down, so soldiers no longer could expect to be given food, and thus they had to share goats and such with collective farmers. A year later mining was basically shut down as an industry since there was no dynamite to use. Stuff like that basically made running the country increasingly impossible since the Constitution of 1976 had forbidden seeking foreign credits and any actual trade with the West was difficult since said West linked increased trade to Albanian commitments towards "democracy" and the liberalization of the economy. Living standards kept on declining, existing industries began declining in efficiency due to old technologies and equipment starting to break down, etc.

Are these very normal for a socialist society?

[PetyaRostov]

I would just like to point out that this whole "shit-hole" debacle is a pretty good example of bureaucratic oligarchy at its finest. To answer OP questions, some people are Stalinists because they want to BE him.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I would just like to point out that this whole "shit-hole" debacle is a pretty good example of bureaucratic oligarchy at its finest. To answer OP questions, some people are Stalinists because they want to BE him.

What an inauspicious first post.

[PetyaRostov]

What an inauspicious first post.

I play to lose.

I just thought the whole thing was pretty absurd that's all

[Ismail]

India.I don't really see what the downfall of the USSR had to do with the Indian Maoists' gaining in popularity.


Are these very normal for a socialist society?They were "normal" for a society which the entire world preferred to see not exist and which had to rely mainly on its own forces for its survival. The Albanians did the best they could under the quite unfavorable circumstances.

[ind_com]

I don't really see what the downfall of the USSR had to do with the Indian Maoists' gaining in popularity. The pro-USSR forces in India were revisionist parties like the CPI(M) that used to portray the USSR as a socialist country in order to gain support from the urban students and youth. After the fall of the USSR, a portion of this base was disillusioned with the parliamentary revisionists and joined the Maoists. Around 1993-1994 the Maoists were able to build organizations in some big cities due to this. There was no sudden increase in popularity, but the conditions did become somewhat more favourable.


They were "normal" for a society which the entire world preferred to see not exist and which had to rely mainly on its own forces for its survival. The Albanians did the best they could under the quite unfavorable circumstances.

Okay, a defeat for socialism in one country then? Even without an external invasion?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Okay, a defeat for socialism in one country then? Even without an external invasion?

I see much of this kind of criticism levied at the idea of socialism in one country. It makes me curious, though, as to what the alternative would have been. It seems to me like s.i.o.c. panned out much better than permanent revolution did.

[ind_com]

I see much of this kind of criticism levied at the idea of socialism in one country. It makes me curious, though, as to what the alternative would have been. It seems to me like s.i.o.c. panned out much better than permanent revolution did.

That criticism is quite the opposite. It shows that the Hoxhaist claims regarding the fall of socialism in Albania are compatible with Trotsky's opposition to socialism in one country. This shows Hoxhaism's closeness with Trotskyism.

[Камо́ Зэд]

That criticism is quite the opposite. It shows that the Hoxhaist claims regarding the fall of socialism in Albania are compatible with Trotsky's opposition to socialism in one country. This shows Hoxhaism's closeness with Trotskyism.

That doesn't make any sense. And still, how would Trotsky's alternative of permanent revolution have been put into practice?

[Property Is Robbery]

"Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism. However if you hear someone refer to themselves as a "Marxist and a Leninist but not a Marxist-Leninist" then they are a silly Trot.

[ind_com]

That doesn't make any sense.

That means, no matter how much you claim to defend Marxism-Leninism, as soon as you give the depletion of resources or any other equally silly reason for the fall of socialism in Albania, you abandon SIOC. Permanent Revolution claims that socialism cannot succeed in any country without some materially advanced imperialist country (Trotsky counted on Germany) itself becoming socialist and aiding it. By considering the depletion of resources as a valid and sufficient reason for the fall of socialism in Albania, you automatically agree with the Trotskyite notion of the inevitable failure of socialism in materially non-advanced countries.

However, the true supporters of SIOC will not agree with such crazy explanations of the fall of socialism in Albania or any other country. We hold that the proletariat is an incredibly powerful class and has the capability of defending socialism in any country, no matter how poor or small or resourceless it might be. The only factor that can defeat socialism in any country is the defeat of the proletariat in internal class-struggle, which is preventable. Denying this means succumbing to Trotskyism.


And still, how would Trotsky's alternative of permanent revolution have been put into practice?

That is for you to decide if you agree with Hoxhaism and hence Trotskyism. At least I don't care about any of their counter-revolutionary theories.

[Камо́ Зэд]

That means, no matter how much you claim to defend Marxism-Leninism, as soon as you give the depletion of resources or any other equally silly reason for the fall of socialism in Albania, you abandon SIOC. Permanent Revolution claims that socialism cannot succeed in any country without some materially advanced imperialist country (Trotsky counted on Germany) itself becoming socialist and aiding it. By considering the depletion of resources as a valid and sufficient reason for the fall of socialism in Albania, you automatically agree with the Trotskyite notion of the inevitable failure of socialism in materially non-advanced countries.

Socialism in one country is the tactic of developing socialism as it exists, rather than "exporting" socialism through what would essentially become a "red" imperialism. The depletion of resources and the constant barrage of anti-socialist endeavors from quite literally all over the globe are sufficient to strike a defeating blow to the socialist endeavor in a small country deficient in resources. Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution isn't a complete fabrication; it's error is in its abstraction. The fact of the matter is that socialism's victory in one country is not a final victory, and, until the final victory of socialism, it is still locked in combat with capitalism. Combat implies the potential for defeat. Unless a socialist entity can remain self-sufficient and challenge the hegemony of capitalism, like the Soviet Union did for some time, it will succumb to the endeavors of capitalism to undermine it. That being said, all socialism in one country is as a concept is that power can indeed be seized by the proletariat even in non-advanced countries when the opportunity presents itself. Lenin and Stalin were quite clear that the continued victory of socialism does indeed rely on both sufficient productive advance and an international presence capable of challenging capitalism's hegemony.


However, the true supporters of SIOC will not agree with such crazy explanations of the fall of socialism in Albania or any other country. We hold that the proletariat is an incredibly powerful class and has the capability of defending socialism in any country, no matter how poor or small or resourceless it might be. The only factor that can defeat socialism in any country is the defeat of the proletariat in internal class-struggle, which is preventable. Denying this means succumbing to Trotskyism.

The portion in bold is grossly idealist, and the conclusions drawn from it are unsound.


That is for you to decide if you agree with Hoxhaism and hence Trotskyism. At least I don't care about any of their counter-revolutionary theories.

That does explain how you've managed to know so little about them.

[ind_com]

Socialism in one country is the tactic of developing socialism as it exists, rather than "exporting" socialism through what would essentially become a "red" imperialism. The depletion of resources and the constant barrage of anti-socialist endeavors from quite literally all over the globe are sufficient to strike a defeating blow to the socialist endeavor in a small country deficient in resources. Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution isn't a complete fabrication; it's error is in its abstraction. The fact of the matter is that socialism's victory in one country is not a final victory, and, until the final victory of socialism, it is still locked in combat with capitalism. Combat implies the potential for defeat.Unless a socialist entity can remain self-sufficient and challenge the hegemony of capitalism, like the Soviet Union did for some time, it will succumb to the endeavors of capitalism to undermine it. That being said, all socialism in one country is as a concept is that power can indeed be seized by the proletariat even in non-advanced countries when the opportunity presents itself. Lenin and Stalin were quite clear that the continued victory of socialism does indeed rely on both sufficient productive advance and an international presence capable of challenging capitalism's hegemony.

Trotsky's permanent revolution is a complete fabrication in the sense that it ignores the highly revolutionary character and power of the proletariat of underdeveloped countries, and the fact that it can construct a socialist society out of a war-torn, starving nation in the face of an imperialist onslaught. Trotsky's theory fails to place class struggle above material advancements in the mode of production, and hence takes the pro imperialist stand that socialism in an underdeveloped country cannot survive without external aid from revolutions in imperialist countries. This is the same line that you are taking by supporting the claim that depletion of a certain resource can lead to the fall of socialism.

"Furthermore, I have spoken about the contradictions within our country, between the capitalist elements and the socialist elements. I said that we can overcome these contradictions by our own efforts. Whoever does not believe that this is possible is a liquidator, does not believe that we can build socialism. We shall overcome these contradictions; we are already doing so. Of course, the sooner assistance comes from the West the better, the sooner shall we overcome these contradictions in order to deliver the finishing stroke to private capital and to achieve the complete victory of socialism in our country, the building of a complete socialist society. But even if we do not receive outside assistance we shall not become despondent, we shall not cry out for help, we shall not abandon our work and we shall not be daunted by difficulties. Whoever is weary, whoever is scared by difficulties, whoever is losing his head, let him make way for those who have retained their courage and staunchness. We are not the kind of people to be scared by difficulties. We are Bolsheviks, we have been steeled by Lenin, and we do not run away from difficulties, but face them and overcome them." - J.V.Stalin, Fourteenth Congress of
the C.P.S.U.(B.), 1925


The portion in bold is grossly idealist, and the conclusions drawn from it are unsound.

It is very practical compared to the absurd claim that a mere shortage of resources accompanied with some other trivial factors can lead to the fall of a genuine socialist country.


That does explain how you've managed to know so little about them.

It's not necessary to know much about them to see that they are essentially the same thing.

[Geiseric]

That doesn't make any sense. And still, how would Trotsky's alternative of permanent revolution have been put into practice?

Well it was put in practice, during the Russian Revolution. You don't understand the theory at all. It's saying that the proletariat can seize political power and overthrow capitalism, and construct a workers state, which happened in Russia. The tasks of the workers state are the tasks that capitalism completed in the Imperialist countries, i.e. advancing the mode of production from backwards, semi feudal to the planned economy that we saw exist. If you don't support the planned economy, you don't support Perminant Revolution.

[ind_com]

Well it was put in practice, during the Russian Revolution. Did any of the Bolshevik leaders other than Trotsky say anything positive about Permanent Revolution during or soon after the Russian Revolution? If they didn't then it is not very believable that they were practicing it.


You don't understand the theory at all. It's saying that the proletariat can seize political power and overthrow capitalism, and construct a workers state, which happened in Russia. The tasks of the workers state are the tasks that capitalism completed in the Imperialist countries, i.e. advancing the mode of production from backwards, semi feudal to the planned economy that we saw exist. If you don't support the planned economy, you don't support Perminant Revolution.

After the socialist revolution, a country retains much of its capitalist structure. It can immediately develop at most into monopoly state capitalism. The primary goals of a workers' state are to crush the bourgeoisie and its remnant allies both nationally and internationally, and gradually dissolve its state capitalist structure so that the proletariat can take power directly as a class. A worker's state does not blindly follow the national policies of imperialist capitalism. Permanent Revolution fails to realize this.

[Grenzer]

Well it was put in practice, during the Russian Revolution. You don't understand the theory at all. It's saying that the proletariat can seize political power and overthrow capitalism, and construct a workers state, which happened in Russia. The tasks of the workers state are the tasks that capitalism completed in the Imperialist countries, i.e. advancing the mode of production from backwards, semi feudal to the planned economy that we saw exist. If you don't support the planned economy, you don't support Perminant Revolution.

I agree with you entirely, but I feel the need to add something.

The Marxist-Leninist view is that you cannot have a socialist revolution without first having a bourgeois revolution in an individual country. They believe that the establishment of the provisional government constituted a bourgeois revolution, and that it was only after then that it was time for a socialist revolution.

Here is why I think they are wrong, and why permanent revolution is right: the idea that the bourgeois must take de jure political power before a proletarian revolution should be put forward seems absurdly formalistic to me. As Marxists, what really concerns us is the economic potential for socialism. The economic basis of Russia in February 1917 was no less more suited for socialism than Russia had been in 1916, or even 1905 for that matter. The basis of the economy remained largely feudal, so the act of revolution itself in these conditions amounts to support of permanent revolution. The two-stage theory applied on a consistent Marxist level(which is to say, keeping the economic base in view) can only result in Menshevism.. and indeed I've seen people say that the reason the popular front in Spain was permissible was because the "anti-feudal revolution needed to be completed". Surely this is an absurd view! Spain was even more suited for proletarian revolution than Russia was in 1917; so there seems to be a large amount of hypocrisy involved in being a stagist while simultaneously supporting the October Revolution and the Spanish popular front.

The thing that is important is that the basis for healthy, sustainable proletarian dictatorships existed in the industrialized west; and they certainly could have aided proletarian dictatorships in undeveloped countries with a peasant majority. The ultimate reason for the degeneration of the VKB(B) in my view is that revolution failed to succeed in the west, and therefore the young Soviet Union didn't get the aid it required to remain a stable proletarian dictatorship and instead found itself encapsulated by hostile bourgeois states and trapped by the demands of an angry peasantry.

[Ismail]

It's worth noting that in Eastern Europe it was declared during Stalin's time that the construction of socialism in one country was not possible since the countries mentioned (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Albania, etc.) were far smaller in size and scope than the USSR. Without the aid of the USSR it was believed that these countries could not make any significant progress.

Albania demonstrated that even the poorest country in Europe could make considerable progress, but obviously capitalist encirclement was much more damaging to it economically compared to the USSR.

@Ghost Bebel, the Popular Front was created not just to advance bourgeois-democratic development in Spain. It was also (and more importantly) formed to unite as large a coalition as possible against fascism, with the leading role of the Communist Party of Spain coming about through the course of struggle.

Lenin clearly warned in 1917 against skipping stages. In Albania, as you yourself have read, the Communist Party obviously didn't go about immediately socializing the entire economy as soon as the fascist occupiers were expelled from the country. The old state apparatus was smashed and a new one constructed which initially carried out programs of both a democratic and socialist character, e.g. land to the peasants (which was combined with a campaign of class struggle against kulaks and large landowners), a state monopoly over trade, creation of consumer cooperatives, nationalization of the "commanding heights" of the economy (i.e. the most important industries), and other policies not dissimilar to those initially pursued by the Bolsheviks.