Counterculture vs. Communism/Socialism

[James Connolly]

After the death of Stalin, and Khrushchev's purge of Marxist-Leninists, a rise of Khrushchev-inspired Liberal 'Communism' and Anti-Communism surfaced. Youngsters from this generation became very politically inspired by these Liberal Communist and Anti-Communist intelligentsia, which for the first time had a platform from which to speak, and they would later be known as the 'sixtiesnicks.'
These groups were largely liquidated under Brezhnev, but once Gorbachev came to power(who himself was a sixtiesnick), resurfaced and began to take over positions in various institutions, filmography, newspapers, and other areas.
As we know now, it was that generation that eventually destroyed the Soviet Union.

We can certainly explain 'Counterculture' dialectically. Without Khrushchev's anti-Stalinism, these sixtiesnicks would have never been cultivated, and anti-Sovietism would never have been aggravated. How are we going to combat such 'Counterculture,' or perhaps promote it to some extent, once we reach the Socialist stage of development?

I'm not specifically referring to Liberalism, but counterculture in general.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, as I said, you're horribly predictable.
Counterculture destroying the USSR. And you call yourself a Marxist, amusing.

[James Connolly]

Yeah, as I said, you're horribly predictable.
Counterculture destroying the USSR. And you call yourself a Marxist, amusing.
I explained how it can be interpreted Dialectically, and it was given a Material basis with Khrushchev.
My argument was that Counterculture lead to a strong Liberal intelligentsia, which brought down the SU.

[Thirsty Crow]

I explained how it can be interpreted Dialectically, and it was given a Material basis with Khrushchev.
My argument was that Counterculture lead to a strong Liberal intelligentsia, which brought down the SU.
Which, if it were true, would destroy historical materialism as constructed in the work of Marx, Engels and subsequent communists.

Or maybe this intelligentsia constituted a class? If so, on which basis their relation to the means of production was founded?

How is it even possible that Breznev liquidated sixtiesnicks and yet one arose to such a rank within the CP?!

Dialectical magic, I suppose.

[l'Enfermé]

One man, Khrushchev, was the material basis for the destruction of Marxism-Leninism that was built by Stalin's mighty hand and supported by tens of millions of workers and peasants! The same Khrushchev, comrades, who was one of Stalin's most trusted lackeys, the man who wept like a child at Stalin's deathbed! The same Khrushchev who lost most of his colleagues and "comrades" during the purges in the 30s, the Khrushchev who was one of Stalin's most important assets, being probably the loudest purveyor of Stalin's cult of personality; the rat's disguise did not fool even Stalin, the giant of a man who saved Mother Russia from the troskyo-fascist-zinoeviete-bukharnite terorrist groups(that numbered in millions and included in it's ranks most of the Stalinist bureaucratic elite - what a wonder that the USSR survived at all, being managed mostly by unholy trotksyist and fascist wreckers and terrorists...no doubt it was because of Stalin's great leadership!) and the Nazi hordes, evil Jewish doctor-assassins, Leningrad bureaucrats and filthy national minorities.

[James Connolly]

Which, if it were true, would destroy historical materialism as constructed in the work of Marx, Engels and subsequent communists.

Or maybe this intelligentsia constituted a class? If so, on which basis their relation to the means of production was founded?
Ah yes, interesting point, but Social Constructs are breakable, as Sartre pointed out.

Sartre also quoted Marx, who said "we are free to do what we want, but only in accordance with conditions"- I paraphrase.

Historical Materialism only details the A priori which created the individual, which can be explained under the counterculture that surfaced under Khrushchev.

This situation has more to do with Dialectics.

[James Connolly]

One man, Khrushchev, was the material basis for the destruction of Marxism-Leninism that was built by Stalin's mighty hand and supported by tens of millions of workers and peasants! The same Khrushchev, comrades, who was one of Stalin's most trusted lackeys, the man who wept like a child at Stalin's deathbed! The same Khrushchev who lost most of his colleagues and "comrades" during the purges in the 30s, the Khrushchev who was one of Stalin's most important assets, being probably the loudest purveyor of Stalin's cult of personality; the rat's disguise did not fool even Stalin, the giant of a man who saved Mother Russia from the troskyo-fascist-zinoeviete-bukharnite terorrist groups(that numbered in millions and included in it's ranks most of the Stalinist bureaucratic elite - what a wonder that the USSR survived at all, being managed mostly by unholy trotksyist and fascist wreckers and terrorists...no doubt it was because of Stalin's great leadership!) and the Nazi hordes, evil Jewish doctor-assassins, Leningrad bureaucrats and filthy national minorities.
Ban this idiot for trolling my thread.

[l'Enfermé]

Ban this idiot for trolling my thread.
You Stalinists are always so eager to silence your critics...

[Prometeo liberado]

This is fun. Can y'all time out whilst I make me popcorn?

[Thirsty Crow]

Ah yes, interesting point, but Social Constructs are breakable, as Sartre pointed out.

Sartre also quoted Marx, who said "we are free to do what we want, but only in accordance with conditions"- I paraphrase.

Historical Materialism only details the A priori which created the individual, which can be explained under the counterculture that surfaced under Khrushchev.

This situation has more to do with Dialectics.

It's clear by now, you're either a:

1) massive troll

2) deluded dialectical mystic

I'd say 1) is more likely since dialectical magicians of the Marxist-Leninist persuasion would rarely invoke the ghost of Sartre.

Plus:


Ban this idiot for trolling my thread. You know what they say, "takes one to know one" :lol:

[Veovis]

I explained how it can be interpreted Dialectically, and it was given a Material basis with Khrushchev.

:rolleyes:

[James Connolly]

:rolleyes:
Sigh... When I said 'Khrushchev,' I obviously meant his leadership and policies, not him as an individual. If you read my comments before that post, you'd have known that.

[Art Vandelay]

Sigh... When I said 'Khrushchev,' I obviously meant his leadership and policies, not him as an individual. If you read my comments before that post, you'd have known that.

Everyone has read your posts. There just calling it out for the bullshit it is and giving it about as serious of responses it warrants.

That was hilarious Borz (I know that's not your username anymore, but it'll be what I always refer to you as).

[James Connolly]

Everyone has read your posts. There just calling it out for the bullshit it is and giving it about as serious of responses it warrants.
Yet no one has answered my question... How can you honestly say you read my posts if you haven't addressed my question?

You idiots are so worked up that you didn't even realize I was asking a QUESTION.

Why is it a trait of this forum to leave my questions unanswered?

[Камо́ Зэд]

I came into this thread expecting to see something along the lines of "counterculture" under socialism in the sense of persisting trends like punk or something. I agree with the Marxist-Leninist analysis of certain conditions facilitating the infiltration of revisionist attitudes in the political apparatus of the Soviet proletariat, but I'm not seeing that analysis at all in this thread. The general impetus of the original post echoes, in a very abstract sense, the conclusions of the Marxist-Leninist analysis, but it is wanting for the materialist-theoretical basis for these conclusions.

I don't mean to embarrass a fellow learning Stalinist, comrade, but I think the most logical course of action at this point would be to concede the debate and focus one's attention on developing a more thorough understanding of the Marxist-Leninist analysis.

[Ocean Seal]

Yeah, as I said, you're horribly predictable.
Counterculture destroying the USSR. And you call yourself a Marxist, amusing.
And even more ironically the dude just made a thread about materialism criticizing us for not following it. Anyway, this guy is just a troll, incoming Stalin and Krondstat threads asap.

[l'Enfermé]

Everyone has read your posts. There just calling it out for the bullshit it is and giving it about as serious of responses it warrants.

That was hilarious Borz (I know that's not your username anymore, but it'll be what I always refer to you as).
If you don't learn my new name comrade, then mighty Stalin-the-Titan will eat a giant baby. Or shoot it's parents for being Japanese Bukharinite spies.

https://minsuk731.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/stalin_poster.jpg

True story.

[maskerade]

man cant we just forget about stalin already, all this shit happened millions of years ago. it's one thing to learn from the past, i'm not debating that. but these endless circle jerks centered around stalin and the archaic debates that accompany him honestly make me want to die.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yet no one has answered my question... How can you honestly say you read my posts if you haven't addressed my question?

Perhaps it's due to the fact that your question, doesn't have any material foundation, aside from you clarifying that you mean't Khrushchev's policies and so on. Perhaps it's not us, perhaps it's you, your question or even, you might not fully understand the various responses you've been getting.


This situation has more to do with Dialectics.

Dialectics is nothing more than idealist bullshit mate.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Dialectics is nothing more than idealist bullshit mate.

Hello, comrade. Would you care to expand on the above quoted passage?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

man cant we just forget about stalin already, all this shit happened millions of years ago.

lol


it's one thing to learn from the past, i'm not debating that. but these endless circle jerks centered around stalin and the archaic debates that accompany him honestly make me want to die.

I mean, I kind of agree yet not. The reason being is that if you think the Soviet Union under Stalin represented a socialist society (or anything moving in that direction) then that says a lot about what you mean by socialism (such as the existence of the market in socialism, the exchange of equivalent values, generalized commodity production, etc.). So yes, at some points it really is pointless, but at other points it is crucial.

[Prometeo liberado]

man cant we just forget about stalin already, all this shit happened millions of years ago. it's one thing to learn from the past, i'm not debating that. but these endless circle jerks centered around stalin and the archaic debates that accompany him honestly make me want to die.

Can we time-out for a minute, watch this guy die, then get started again?
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I5020800276824810&pid=1.8&w=132&h=136&c=7&rs=1http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4540601482151288&pid=1.8&w=152&h=122&c=7&rs=1

You can do the deed or Stalin will do it for you.:huh:

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh stop whining.


A How are we going to combat such 'Counterculture,' or perhaps promote it to some extent, once we reach the Socialist stage of development?

Your "question" is a false problem, predicated upon false premises.

I don't care for the "counterculture" you rant about.

[maskerade]

Can we time-out for a minute, watch this guy die, then get started again?
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I5020800276824810&pid=1.8&w=132&h=136&c=7&rs=1http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4540601482151288&pid=1.8&w=152&h=122&c=7&rs=1

You can do the deed or Stalin will do it for you.:huh:

who is the guy on the left? also, hyperbole is without a doubt the greatest thing ever invented.

[Raúl Duke]

IN b4 "dialectics: bullshit or greatest idea ever" shouting match.

I really know little about dialectics, if it is even knowable; but one thing I do know is how easy it can be (mis)used to justify bullshit and talk nonsense (such as the 'use of dialectical "materialism"' by the OP).

These counter-cultures don't come from the air or from a single solitary individuals; plus it's unlikely that at once it's eradicated and then it just magically appears within the CPSU a few years later. These counter-cultures aren't even the root of any problem, only a symptom for deeper, actually material, problems within the USSR.

Plus these "sixties-nick" sounds like a lot of non-sense...the counter-cultures that did appear where not always per se oppose to the USSR but mostly infatuated with Western pop culture and consumer goods and many of them were found within the "intelligentsia"/bureaucratic/political class's kids who had better access to foreign goods; they even existed during the post-war Stalin era (i.e. stiliagi). If anything, the state was at times irrationally fearful and repressive of them because they didn't conform strictly liking "socialist realism."

[Камо́ Зэд]

https://minsuk731.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/stalin_poster.jpg



That is one tasty-looking baby, I tell you what.

[James Connolly]

I agree with the Marxist-Leninist analysis of certain conditions facilitating the infiltration of revisionist attitudes in the political apparatus of the Soviet proletariat, but I'm not seeing that analysis at all in this thread. The general impetus of the original post echoes, in a very abstract sense, the conclusions of the Marxist-Leninist analysis, but it is wanting for the materialist-theoretical basis for these conclusions.
That's because I wasn't asking a question about Revisionism, nor was this at all related to Marxism-Leninism besides some historical data that coincides with Hoxhaism.

Please just answer my question, which I bolded.

And don't call me a Stalinist, I dispise you cultists just like the Ultra-Left... I am a Marxist-Leninist, and I'm not a dogmatic zealot, unlike everyone else on this thread.


If you don't learn my new name comrade, then mighty Stalin-the-Titan will eat a giant baby. Or shoot it's parents for being Japanese Bukharinite spies.

I call on mods to delete this post, along with other non-related comments on my thread.
This is the second time this user has trolled on my thread, and I call for action immediately!


man cant we just forget about stalin already, all this shit happened millions of years ago. it's one thing to learn from the past, i'm not debating that. but these endless circle jerks centered around stalin and the archaic debates that accompany him honestly make me want to die.
How do you get this from a question about how to combat Counterculture?


Perhaps it's due to the fact that your question, doesn't have any material foundation, aside from you clarifying that you mean't Khrushchev's policies and so on. Perhaps it's not us, perhaps it's you, your question or even, you might not fully understand the various responses you've been getting.
Oh how enlightening! I'm a born again Materialist! Praise the physical world!

No, on the contrary mate. From my very first comment, I set up a material basis(fearing that ignorant individuals would mistake my comments with Idealism.) Just look over the content I included, and you'll more than see how I set up a thorough material basis for this question.

Khrushchev's thaw brought in Western ideals, perhaps inadvertently, to compete with the thesis of the SU, which first conditioned the intelligentsia and then some of the population. As you can see, Liberalism came about as a reaction to Khrushchev's thaw, not as a product.

"New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks before society. But once they have arisen they become a most potent force which facilitates the carrying out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, a force which facilitates the progress of society. It is precisely here that the tremendous organizing, mobilizing and transforming value of new ideas, new theories, new political views and new political institutions manifests itself. New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces, which hamper the development of the material life of society.
Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the development of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible."
-Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism

"Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." -Marx and Engels

Although development in the USSR was happening exponentially, in the 50s and 60s, there had been a long political crisis. With the fall of Marxism-Leninism, there had to be new ideas generated to fill the massive void of all the purge victims of Khrushchev.

Dialectics is nothing more than idealist bullshit mate.
I'm not going to debate this anti-Marxist nonsense. Where do ideas come from if not as products of material conditions? Ideas are created as we empirically prospect the world, which we reflect from matter with our consciousness.

"Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error."
-Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism

"The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality.... Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter."
-Marx, Selected Works

"Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it."
-Lenin

"Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation.... Matter, nature, being, the physical-is primary, and spirit, consciousness, sensation, the psychical-is secondary."
-Lenin

Can you think of one idea that hasn't been created in such a way?



Your "question" is a false problem, predicated upon false premises.

I don't care for the "counterculture" you rant about.
Fair enough, you were the first one to reply to my question, so I won't hold it against you. I will however direct you to my reply to Vox Populi.



These counter-cultures don't come from the air or from a single solitary individuals; plus it's unlikely that at once it's eradicated and then it just magically appears within the CPSU a few years later. These counter-cultures aren't even the root of any problem, only a symptom for deeper, actually material, problems within the USSR.

Plus these "sixties-nick" sounds like a lot of non-sense...the counter-cultures that did appear where not always per se oppose to the USSR but mostly infatuated with Western pop culture and consumer goods and many of them were found within the "intelligentsia"/bureaucratic/political class's kids who had better access to foreign goods; they even existed during the post-war Stalin era (i.e. stiliagi). If anything, the state was at times irrationally fearful and repressive of them because they didn't conform strictly liking "socialist realism."
That's what I've been arguing as well. Thanks for the reply mate.

[Камо́ Зэд]

That's because I wasn't asking a question about Revisionism, nor was this at all related to Marxism-Leninism besides some historical data that coincides with Hoxhaism.

Please just answer my question, which I bolded.

Forgive me, comrade, but I'm afraid I don't understand your question if it doesn't relate to either the issue of revisionism or to Marxism-Leninism at all.


And don't call me a Stalinist, I dispise you cultists just like the Ultra-Left... I am a Marxist-Leninist, and I'm not a dogmatic zealot, unlike everyone else on this thread.

I beg your pardon, comrade, but I am no cultist. In earlier posts elsewhere on the forum, I've discussed the term "Stalinist," its historical use by opportunists and derisive use by other groups, and use of it as a self-label by some Marxist-Leninists. Where "Stalinist" is typically used derisively, not unlike the way in which you seem to have felt it was meant, I and some other Marxist-Leninists use the term to differentiate ourselves from those who would call themselves Marxist-Leninist but trace their theoretical "heritage," so to speak, to Lenin through Trotsky, as opposed to through Stalin. (I also typically qualify "Stalinist" with "Hoxhaist," in that I trace my "heritage," which I again use loosely if you'll permit, to Stalin not through Mao, but through Enver Hoxha.) I do not worship Stalin, and I am not uncritical of him. However, I still very much respect him as an individual figure in the history of socialism, much like I respect Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Hoxha.

[James Connolly]

Forgive me, comrade, but I'm afraid I don't understand your question if it doesn't relate to either the issue of revisionism or to Marxism-Leninism at all.
It was basically how to combat Counterculture... I don't see why people bring in all these sectarian elements simply after seeing Stalin and Khrushchev in the same sentence.



However, I still very much respect him as an individual figure in the history of socialism, much like I respect Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Hoxha.
As do I.

I view 'Stalinism' as Marxism-Leninism as applied to Material conditions in the Soviet Union from 1928-56. Stalin, of course, called for a radical change to 'Stalinism' in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, in 1951, according to the changing material conditions of the Soviet Union. Hoxhaism is also Marxism-Leninism applied in Albania, while Maoism is overly-idealistic, self-styled Marxist(ignoring Dialectical Materialism), and Revisionist.

I didn't realize there was a different usage on Revleft- my apologies.

[Камо́ Зэд]

It was basically how to combat Counterculture... I don't see why people bring in all these sectarian elements simply after seeing Stalin and Khrushchev in the same sentence.

Could you be a little more clear, comrade, about what you mean by "counterculture?" Understand that this word typically refers to habits cultivated to respond to perceived injustices or problems with culture at large. Consider punk or hippies, for instance. In a socialist society or even under world communism, for what reason would we have to struggle against, say, goths and the like?


I view 'Stalinism' as Marxism-Leninism as applied to Material conditions in the Soviet Union from 1928-56. Stalin, of course, called for a radical change to 'Stalinism' in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, in 1951, according to the changing material conditions of the Soviet Union. Hoxhaism is also Marxism-Leninism applied in Albania, while Maoism is overly-idealistic, self-styled Marxist(ignoring Dialectical Materialism), and Revisionist.

I didn't realize there was a different usage on Revleft- my apologies.

Understandable, comrade. And your definition of Stalinism seems to be based on a reasonable paradigm.

[Sea]

No, on the contrary mate. From my very first comment, I set up a material basis(fearing that ignorant individuals would mistake my comments with Idealism.)when earlier you said

Sigh... When I said 'Khrushchev,' I obviously meant his leadership and policies, not him as an individual. If you read my comments before that post, you'd have known that.idealectical, baby!

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm not sure I understand the notion that acknowledging the connection between administrative policy and concrete administrative actions is idealist. Really, that idea and matter should be regarded as absolutely separate strikes me as idealist in and of itself, since all conceptions and movements of mind have their basis in matter and can come to influence the material world through concrete action. I shan't expound on this any further, though, given that I've dedicated an entire diatribe to it elsewhere on the forum.

[James Connolly]

Could you be a little more clear, comrade, about what you mean by "counterculture?" Understand that this word typically refers to habits cultivated to respond to perceived injustices or problems with culture at large. Consider punk or hippies, for instance. In a socialist society or even under world communism, for what reason would we have to struggle against, say, goths and the like?

Should an anti-Socialist movement arise in a Socialist system, like what happened in the SU, how should it be combated?


when earlier you said
idealectical, baby!
Cherrypicking is a lame tactic. Why don't you just make logical inferences rather than misrepresenting my quotes with your poor comprehension abilities?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Should an anti-Socialist movement arise in a Socialist system, like what happened in the SU, how should it be combated?

I guess that depends on the concrete class character of the movement. It stands to reason that any anti-socialist movement would necessarily arise from non-proletarian attitudes, but it is important to consider that many working people can be taken in by petty-bourgeois charlatans if they are not sufficiently empowered with theory. The conditions in the Soviet Union, from the revolution to industrialization to the Great Patriotic War, presented unique difficulties in building a solid theoretical base among the proletariat through education. While the Party is the vanguard toward revolution, the proletarian is the prime mover of revolution and as such is our primary line of defense against the infiltration of revisionist attitudes in our political work. It is the task of Communists to empower the proletariat with the knowledge they need to understand the workings of the world in which they live that they be able to identify revisionism and other non-proletarian elements when they rear their ugly heads.

[James Connolly]

I guess that depends on the concrete class character of the movement. It stands to reason that any anti-socialist movement would necessarily arise from non-proletarian attitudes, but it is important to consider that many working people can be taken in by petty-bourgeois charlatans if they are not sufficiently empowered with theory. The conditions in the Soviet Union, from the revolution to industrialization to the Great Patriotic War, presented unique difficulties in building a solid theoretical base among the proletariat through education. While the Party is the vanguard toward revolution, the proletarian is the prime mover of revolution and as such is our primary line of defense against the infiltration of revisionist attitudes in our political work. It is the task of Communists to empower the proletariat with the knowledge they need to understand the workings of the world in which they live that they be able to identify revisionism and other non-proletarian elements when they rear their ugly heads.
Hoxha did that for decades, yet Albanians weren't able to recognize the Revisionary character of Alia.

[Hit The North]

Should an anti-Socialist movement arise in a Socialist system, like what happened in the SU, how should it be combated?


Your question seems predicated on the assumption that the Soviet Union under Kruschev was socialist and that the 'counter culture' that emerged in the sixties was anti-socialist.

How was the USSR socialist and what was anti-socialist about the counter culture?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Hoxha did that for decades, yet Albanians weren't able to recognize the Revisionary character of Alia.

Weren't they, though? The collapse of socialism in Albania had less to do with the infiltration of revisionist elements in the Party's politics as was the case in the Soviet Union, but even in the case of the Union, the country's collapse began in work done very shortly after Stalin's death. It culminated in the disastrous economic reforms of the Gorbachev regime, and remember that the Union was the keystone of the Eastern Bloc at the time. Although Albania ceased its official alignment with the Union around 1960, it was still very much reliant on trade with other Eastern Bloc states, themselves reliant on the Union (with the exception of Yugoslavia, with whom Albania had an antagonistic relationship). By the time of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, growing pressures from the West facilitated liberalization and counter-revolutionary tendencies. In summation, the conditions of Albania at the time of the collapse of socialism in that country were drastically different from those of the Soviet Union. At that point, Albania had the option of either subjugating itself to liberalism as the other Eastern Bloc states had done or go the way of North Korea and just become almost overtly fascist.

[Tim Cornelis]

OP

"Revisionist elements" infiltrating positions of power implies power was not based with the working class. This implies the USSR was not a workers' state.
Evidently therefore, when a genuine workers' state arises 'counter culture' or 'revisionism' is not a threat. Thus to answer your question, there is no need to fight 'counter culture'.

You specifically asked "socialist stage of development," which would make 'counter culture' even less of a threat.


By the time of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, growing pressures from the West facilitated liberalization and counter-revolutionary tendencies.

Does this mean socialism in one country is impossible?

[Камо́ Зэд]

"Revisionist elements" infiltrating positions of power implies power was not based with the working class. This implies the USSR was not a workers' state.

Comrade, this same criticism has been addressed several times, not only in this thread, but in others including Why do some people support Stalinism?


Does this mean socialism in one country is impossible?

Both Lenin and Stalin acknowledged that, while it is not only possible but essential to the final global victory of socialism and communism to build socialism in where it is able to be constructed, whether in one country or several, it is likewise essential that the revolution be facilitated in countries nearby through this work. A country as economically vulnerable as Albania was, despite its strides in development, needed allies to defend it against global capitalism.

[Hit The North]

A country as economically vulnerable as Albania was, despite its strides in development, needed allies to defend it against global capitalism.

Yes, because rather than being a higher mode of production (socialism) it was weaker than global capitalism. How do you square this with the Marxist conceptualisation of socialism as a higher mode than capitalism?

This becomes a problem when we come to identify socialism as being a particular nation state and not a generalised mode of production.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yes, because rather than being a higher mode of production (socialism) it was weaker than global capitalism. How do you square this with the Marxist conceptualisation of socialism as a higher mode than capitalism?

Where Albania was before the revolution and where it was by the time of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, economically speaking, it is very clear socialism was indeed a "higher" mode of production. To say that Albania's condition improved, though, is unfortunately (realistically) not saying a whole hell of a lot.


This becomes a problem when we come to identify socialism as being a particular nation state and not a generalised mode of production.

I'm not sure I understand, comrade, because not once have I ever encountered the suggestion that socialism was a particular national state rather than the endeavor to establish a certain mode of production and resolving the contradictions of capitalism and class.

[Zannarchy]

Counterculture that is pro freedom is good. why bother combat it.

[Jason]

The Soviet Union was "state monopoly capitalism" at best. The nation was in feudalism in 1917 and wasn't ready for "real communism". Nonetheless, the conditions for Soviet citizens (as with Cuban citizens later) were far better under Soviet rule than under capitalism (or feudalism).

The rise of cliques trying to destroy "state monopoly capitalism" should be a warning to those who tolerate "open mindedness". We don't want to destroy any gains we have made. For instance, today a majority of East Germans preferred Communism. Nonetheless, their Soviet friends "let them down" by allowing Gorbachev to take power.

[Ismail]

the man who wept like a child at Stalin's deathbed!Beria also grasped Stalin's hand as he lay dying. After Stalin's death he later told Molotov that "I saved you all," implying that Stalin was murdered. Mikoyan also discussed with Hoxha how he and others contemplated getting rid of Stalin. Then these loyal "Stalinists" proceeded to burn Stalin's diaries and other things which would reflect badly on them, as the Medvedev brothers have noted. The fact is that all these "good Stalinists" later denounced the man himself and a good many of his views as "anti-Leninist," "dogmatic," etc.

And yeah, he was one of the largest promoters of the Stalin cult. Stalin did mention once that bureaucrats liked promoting his cult to serve their own interests, so that fits the bill pretty nicely.

[Ostrinski]

Counterculturalists have made better music than Stalinists ever have/will.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It's clear by now, you're either a:

2) deluded dialectical mystic

He's not using dialectics, considering the emphasis he's placing upon a "liberal" generation regarding the fall of the USSR. This is the reductionist method. "Counterculture" in the abstract did not sell off the Soviet-owned industries to private interests. Nor did "counterculture" restore capitalism in Russia. The OP is throwing out bogeyman-like labels onto social currents to distract from the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is the equivalent to blaming the fall of the American and British proletariat on Reagan and Thatcher respectively--by themselves, they are not satisfying explanations, and can never be.

[Let's Get Free]

After the death of Stalin, and Khrushchev's purge of Marxist-Leninists, a rise of Khrushchev-inspired Liberal 'Communism' and Anti-Communism surfaced. Youngsters from this generation became very politically inspired by these Liberal Communist and Anti-Communist intelligentsia, which for the first time had a platform from which to speak, and they would later be known as the 'sixtiesnicks.'
These groups were largely liquidated under Brezhnev, but once Gorbachev came to power(who himself was a sixtiesnick), resurfaced and began to take over positions in various institutions, filmography, newspapers, and other areas.
As we know now, it was that generation that eventually destroyed the Soviet Union.

We can certainly explain 'Counterculture' dialectically. Without Khrushchev's anti-Stalinism, these sixtiesnicks would have never been cultivated, and anti-Sovietism would never have been aggravated. How are we going to combat such 'Counterculture,' or perhaps promote it to some extent, once we reach the Socialist stage of development?

I'm not specifically referring to Liberalism, but counterculture in general.


If I could impose on you a question. Seeing as it is necessary for a revolution to change the mode of production in a given society, how is it possible that a death of a single leader or a few people at the top can result in the complete altering of the relations to the mode of production in that society? How does some tyrant dying change the workers relationship to the means of production? You Stalinists call everyone else "revisionists" but make the most monstrous revision to Marxism. You take Marx's materialist conception of history and replace it with Great Man theory.

[Ismail]

How does some tyrant dying change the workers relationship to the means of production?I guess because the "tyrant" was subsequently denounced and his economic policies, which just so happened to be ones of socialist construction, were likewise denigrated and replaced with policies which brought forth the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. From the character of the law of value under socialism to the machine-tractor stations, from foreign affairs to the issue of class struggle, the revisionists declared that Stalin was "dogmatic" and/or simply wrong.

Deng Xiaoping said that the CCP would never do to Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin, and that the CCP would always hold high the banner of "Mao Zedong Thought." And yet within 10 years China became pretty much unrecognizable from what it was when Mao died, even if China under Mao was not a socialist state. What matters isn't if a revisionist "upholds" his predecessor or not (Ramiz Alia obviously did and that didn't stop him from carrying out the restoration of capitalism in Albania under a bastardized banner of Hoxha.) What matters is what the revisionists had to gain from denouncing Stalin and his policies, and obviously it was quite a bit.

[Let's Get Free]

I guess because the "tyrant" was subsequently denounced and his economic policies, which just so happened to be ones of socialist construction, were likewise denigrated and replaced with policies which brought forth the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. From the character of the law of value under socialism to the machine-tractor stations, from foreign affairs to the issue of class struggle, the revisionists declared that Stalin was "dogmatic" and/or simply wrong.

Deng Xiaoping said that the CCP would never do to Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin, and that the CCP would always hold high the banner of "Mao Zedong Thought." And yet within 10 years China became pretty much unrecognizable from what it was when Mao died, even if China under Mao was not a socialist state. What matters isn't if a revisionist "upholds" his predecessor or not (Ramiz Alia obviously did and that didn't stop him from carrying out the restoration of capitalism in Albania under a bastardized banner of Hoxha.) What matters is what the revisionists had to gain from denouncing Stalin and his policies, and obviously it was quite a bit.

I'd say the nature of Stalinist state capitalism inevitably leads to a return of the bourgeoisie and market capitalism, whether Mao or Stalin or Hoxha liked it or not. The "Communist Parties" in those nations exploited workers in state owned industries. They were collectively in charge of the expansion of capital. Since their role is inherently similar to that of private capitalists (based on maximizing growth through exploitation) it follows that after one generation they will develop a bourgeois mentality. Mao or Stalin could not have prevented this development in any way. As far I know, there weren't any structural changes when Kruschev and Deng Xiao Ping came to power. And even if the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were "proletarian dictatorships," why did the workers not mobilize to defend that dictatorship when it was under attack from the "revisionists?"

[Ismail]

As far I know, there weren't any structural changes when Kruschev and Deng Xiao Ping came to power.If by "structural changes" you mean "there was still a Party that called itself a vanguard" then no, superficially there were no changes. If you mean actual economic changes, then obviously there were more than a few even though a façade of economic planning remained.

To give one analysis from 1987: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/USSRrestCapitalism-ParkH.pdf

There is, of course, Bill Bland's book which is in my signature.


why did the workers not mobilize to defend that dictatorship when it was under attack from the "revisionists?"Well, in the first place in the case of the USSR, there was unrest, notably in the Georgian SSR. See for instance: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n2/georgia.htm

But overall Khrushchev and Co. proclaimed that the times of hardships were over. After all, this was the same Khrushchev who declared that the USSR would reach communism by 1980 and that it was focused on peacefully competing with the West and overcoming it in terms of consumer goods production. Peasants were given various monetary incentives and control over their main means of production (hence the dissolution of the machine-tractor stations, something Stalin explicitly warned against), workers were promised higher wages and whatnot (while privileges for Party bureaucrats increased at the same time), etc. Education, health care, and other benefits remained and the revisionists claimed they were simply "returning to Leninism" after the "aberrations" of the Stalin period. Political education was, of course, quite lacking. Stalin noted this in one of his last Party speeches. To the vast majority of Soviet citizens (although as I said there were dissenters) the Party told them that all was well and they had little reason to object since postwar reconstruction was largely completed and living standards were improving thanks to what was built in the 30's and 40's.

Of course economic stagnation and other economic and social ills which followed the restoration of capitalism began to erode the image the Soviet revisionists built up. Under Brezhnev socialism was declared not a transitional stage in mankind's history, but an entire historical epoch (hence "real/actually existing socialism") since Khrushchev's "communism by 1980" stuff was obviously unreal. Cynicism quickly dominated. Anti-revisionist materials were banned, whereas various Western journals, magazines, etc. could be obtained with relative ease. This was not a climate that would inspire people to be politically conscious rather than finding "salvation" in Western capitalism as opposed to the Soviet revisionists and their state-capitalism.

[Let's Get Free]

If by "structural changes" you mean "there was still a Party that called itself a vanguard" then no, superficially there were no changes. If you mean actual economic changes, then obviously there were more than a few even though a façade of economic planning remained.


To give one analysis from 1987: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/USSRrestCapitalism-ParkH.pdf

There is, of course, Bill Bland's book which is in my signature.

Well, in the first place in the case of the USSR, there was unrest, notably in the Georgian SSR. See for instance: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n2/georgia.htm

But overall Khrushchev and Co. proclaimed that the times of hardships were over. After all, this was the same Khrushchev who declared that the USSR would reach communism by 1980 and that it was focused on peacefully competing with the West and overcoming it in terms of consumer goods production. Peasants were given various monetary incentives and control over their main means of production (hence the dissolution of the machine-tractor stations, something Stalin explicitly warned against), workers were promised higher wages and whatnot (while privileges for Party bureaucrats increased at the same time), etc. Education, health care, and other benefits remained and the revisionists claimed they were simply "returning to Leninism" after the "aberrations" of the Stalin period. Political education was, of course, quite lacking. Stalin noted this in one of his last Party speeches. To the vast majority of Soviet citizens (although as I said there were dissenters) the Party told them that all was well and they had little reason to object since postwar reconstruction was largely completed and living standards were improving thanks to what was built in the 30's and 40's.

Of course economic stagnation and other economic and social ills which followed the restoration of capitalism began to erode the image the Soviet revisionists built up. Under Brezhnev socialism was declared not a transitional stage in mankind's history, but an entire historical epoch (hence "real/actually existing socialism") since Khrushchev's "communism by 1980" stuff was obviously unreal. Cynicism quickly dominated. Anti-revisionist materials were banned, whereas various Western journals, magazines, etc. could be obtained with relative ease. This was not a climate that would inspire people to be politically conscious rather than finding "salvation" in Western capitalism as opposed to the Soviet revisionists and their state-capitalism.

I don't know, it just seems like a weak argument to me. I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, or hell, if every member of congress was replaced with a "communist" the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeiose, would it not?

And where does all this "revisionism" come from? Revisionism, apparently falling from the moon, rears its ugly head and takes over the party. Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere. "(They're all revisionists Comrade, except for thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee.")

[Ismail]

I don't know, it just seems like a weak argument to me. I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, or hell, if every member of congress was replaced with a "communist" the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeiose, would it not?Yes? That's why after the open break between the Albanians and Chinese on one side and the Soviets on the other in 1960 onwards the former weren't calling the USSR capitalist, just that it was logically leading onto a road of capitalist restoration. By the end of the decade, however, they had concluded that through economic changes and through its foreign policy line abroad (most notably the invasion of Czechoslovakia) the Soviet Union had transformed itself into a state-capitalist and social-imperialist ("socialism in words, imperialism in deeds") superpower, just as dangerous as the USA.


And where does all this "revisionism" come from?Why are you putting it in quotation marks? Did not Lenin and Luxemburg combat the revisionism of Bernstein and Kautsky? Obviously Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Co. represented the Party bureaucracy which was against the continuation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Just as trade union bureaucracies sought to end class militancy within the labor movement, Soviet and other revisionisms sought to end the dictatorship of the proletariat and a foreign policy of proletarian internationalism.

[Grenzer]

I find one thing particularly problematic with conception of the proletarian dictatorship. The actual organization and operation of the party and state machinery did not have a qualitative change from Stalin to Khrushchev. The only thing that changed were the politics and intentions of those in charge.

Lenin stated that "socialism is state capitalism turned to the benefit of the people". If one accepts this statement, than a proletarian dictatorship could be framed in terms of intent. The Soviet Union was state capitalist, but if Stalin's policies were oriented towards abolition of capital then by Lenin's view, it could be termed socialist. Consequently, Khrushchev's turn to the right can be considered a form of state capitalism that is not "run to the benefit of the people". This is all if one accepts Lenin's proposition to begin with.

Firstly, it is debatable whether Stalin's policies could really be considered a move in that direction, but that's beyond the scope of this topic and I have no desire of getting into it here. What is more questionable is the validity of Lenin's statement. I don't think class rule is something that can be framed as a matter of intent since intent(ideas) are a product of the material circumstances. Consequently, a class dictatorship must be placed on a material basis. On a material level, there is no difference in the organization of the Soviet state in political terms from 1950 to 1960. As a result, one has to seriously question whether Khrushchev's policies are just the logical continuation of the material circumstances that facilitated Stalin's politics as opposed to some fundamental break with them.

[Let's Get Free]

Why are you putting it in quotation marks? Did not Lenin and Luxemburg combat the revisionism of Bernstein and Kautsky? Obviously Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Co. represented the Party bureaucracy which was against the continuation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Just as trade union bureaucracies sought to end class militancy within the labor movement, Soviet and other revisionisms sought to end the dictatorship of the proletariat and a foreign policy of proletarian internationalism.


Yes, Marxists have used the term "revisionist" for various reasons historically, but it is the usage by MLs, etc. that is relevant to Marxists today.

I find the idea that the USSR, China, Albania, etc. "failed" because of "revisionism" rather idealistic. The mere ideas of party members are not enough to change the structure of an entire society. The real conditions in the real, material world have always been the cause of such changes. The position that the anti-revisionist seem to take is that capitalism was restored because the "wrong people" came to power and started dismantling the socialism built by the mighty hand of Stalin/Mao/Hoxha without the workers of those nations noticing. So how do we, as Marxists, combat revisionism? Do we keep conducting party purges? At certain intervals? Revisionism must have some materialist condition to be based on? Otherwise it's just an idea.

I think the Leninist model of vanguard parties and democratic centralism is susceptible to revisionism/degeneracy/etc.) The Soviet Union didn't collapse because of revisionism, it collapsed because of the foundations that had been set 70 years earlier.

[Ismail]

I find the idea that the USSR, China, Albania, etc. "failed" because of "revisionism" rather idealistic.Of course material conditions play a notable role in the spread of revisionism.

To quote a post I made not long ago on the ascendancy of revisionism within the Soviet party and state:

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."


The mere ideas of party members are not enough to change the structure of an entire society.And no one is claiming that.


So how do we, as Marxists, combat revisionism? Do we keep conducting party purges? At certain intervals?Obviously the two most important things are working-class control and political education.

It's a bit odd you mention Mao, since Maoists accuse Stalin of being "mechanistic" in dealing with enemies, and they instead call for "bombarding the headquarters," liquidating the Party in effect through a "great proletarian cultural revolution" as Mao himself advocated. Such a policy, of course, led to anarchy and had nothing in common with the policies of Lenin and Stalin.

[Guayaco]

I'd say the nature of Stalinist state capitalism inevitably leads to a return of the bourgeoisie and market capitalism, whether Mao or Stalin or Hoxha liked it or not. The "Communist Parties" in those nations exploited workers in state owned industries. They were collectively in charge of the expansion of capital. Since their role is inherently similar to that of private capitalists (based on maximizing growth through exploitation) it follows that after one generation they will develop a bourgeois mentality. Mao or Stalin could not have prevented this development in any way. As far I know, there weren't any structural changes when Kruschev and Deng Xiao Ping came to power. And even if the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were "proletarian dictatorships," why did the workers not mobilize to defend that dictatorship when it was under attack from the "revisionists?"

Every time a defender of Stalin or Mao is asked the above questions that The Insurrectionist has posed above, what follows are long and convoluted answers that are hardly convincing. Here´s another question that they can´t effectively answer:

Just before its collapse, the USSR had a Communist party of over 19 million militants.

After the collapse, when the Communist Party of the Russian Federation was reconstituted, it had less than half a million militants.

Does this mean that the overwhelming majority of those "communists" were little more than machiavellian opportunists? It is hard to argue otherwise, in fact many of those "communists" converted over to neoliberal "Harvard/Chicago Boy" capitalism with stunning speed.

How can this fact be squared with "Kruschev Revisionists are to blame" line? Are we to believe that the quasi-totality of the members of the once largest Communist Party in the world just completely changed their political convictions in the span of a few months?

[l'Enfermé]

I'm still confused about how our resident Stalinist revisionists are so unhappy with the revisionism so dominant in the CPSU after Stalin's death, yet they remain completely silent on how Marxism-Leninism itself is a monstrous deviation from and revision of all pre-existing "Marxism", Bolshevism, and Lenin's positions as well. If it's fine and dandy when Stalin and Bukharin fabricate and revise, why can't Khrushchev do it too? Is all the revising left exclusively for Stalin? Greedy, greedy Stalin!

[Ismail]

How can this fact be squared with "Kruschev Revisionists are to blame" line? Are we to believe that the quasi-totality of the members of the once largest Communist Party in the world just completely changed their political convictions in the span of a few months?Being a CPSU member gave you various privileges and social standing, even if you were an ordinary worker. Being a CPRF member gave you membership in a bourgeois party that pretends to fly the red flag. I don't see how this is such a hard question since it was precisely those privileges and benefits which helped undermine the Party's vanguard role and allow for the revisionist seizure of power, and this was stressed by both the Chinese and Albanians.


If it's fine and dandy when Stalin and Bukharin fabricate and revise, why can't Khrushchev do it too?Well if it helps you sleep at night there was a notable undercurrent in 1956-1964 calling for the rehabilitation of Bukharin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I don't know, it just seems like a weak argument to me. I mean, if a 'communist' succeeded Obama as the president of the United States, or hell, if every member of congress was replaced with a "communist" the country would still remain a dictatorship of the bourgeiose, would it not?

And where does all this "revisionism" come from? Revisionism, apparently falling from the moon, rears its ugly head and takes over the party. Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere. "(They're all revisionists Comrade, except for thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee.")

:lol:

[Guayaco]

Being a CPSU member gave you various privileges and social standing, even if you were an ordinary worker. Being a CPRF member gave you membership in a bourgeois party that pretends to fly the red flag. I don't see how this is such a hard question since it was precisely those privileges and benefits which helped undermine the Party's vanguard role and allow for the revisionist seizure of power, and this was stressed by both the Chinese and Albanians.

Even if we start with the premise that the USSR under Stalin was "non-revisionist," and we accept the argument that Stalin´s own trusted inner-circle was filled with crypto-revisionists that infiltrated into the top echelons of government and ushered in the "germ" of opportunist degeneration in the CPSU, culminating in the complete and utter liquidation of the party and the Revolution, then the lesson we must draw is still the same:

"A nationalized planned economy needs democracy, as the human body needs oxygen." Leon Trotsky, 1936

Regardless of their purported ideology, powerful people always and everywhere seek to grab ever more control, undermining broader social progress for their own greed. Keep those people in check with effective democracy or watch your institutions ossify and fail.