Stalin and the state

[MaximMK]

I red somewhere that Stalin changed the marxist ideology in USSR regarding the state. Instead of working towards spreading the revolution throughout the world and in the end working towards the withering away of the state he proposed strengthening the state and making a strong dictatorship ( obviously not of the proletariat since he controlled everything ). So if the goal of communism is to create a stateless moneyless and classless society and Stalin was openly against statelessness and with that probably against moneylessness should he be not considered communist.

[Peoples' War]

I red somewhere that Stalin changed the marxist ideology in USSR regarding the state. Instead of working towards spreading the revolution throughout the world and in the end working towards the withering away of the state he proposed strengthening the state and making a strong dictatorship ( obviously not of the proletariat since he controlled everything ). So if the goal of communism is to create a stateless moneyless and classless society and Stalin was openly against statelessness and with that probably against moneylessness should he be not considered communist.
He, for the most part, didn't practice what he preached. What he did preach and practice, was a vulgarization and perversion of Marx and Lenin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I love the good arguments used in this thread, sources 'n stuff.

Keep it up!
:thumbup1:

[Igor]

I love the good arguments used in this thread, sources 'n stuff.

Keep it up!
:thumbup1:

This is the learning forum. For learning. People who want to learn about Marxism-Leninism and Stalin have to provide proper sourcing for their questions?

[Peoples' War]

This is the learning forum. For learning. People who want to learn about Marxism-Leninism and Stalin have to provide proper sourcing for their questions?He's referring to me too I believe.

Anything that makes Stalin look bad is "bourgeois, Trotskyist, fascist or ultra-left" propaganda and lies anyways. :rolleyes:

[Zealot]

I red somewhere that Stalin changed the marxist ideology in USSR regarding the state. Instead of working towards spreading the revolution throughout the world and in the end working towards the withering away of the state he proposed strengthening the state and making a strong dictatorship ( obviously not of the proletariat since he controlled everything ).

Stalin maintained contact with revolutionaries and communist parties throughout the world, actively supporting and arming revolutionary movements. This "dictatorship" you speak of, in which Stalin "controlled" everything, is simply meaningless rhetoric. Stalin was not some sort of godly omnipotent dictator puppeteering millions of Soviet citizens single-handedly.


So if the goal of communism is to create a stateless moneyless and classless society and Stalin was openly against statelessness and with that probably against moneylessness should he be not considered communist.

The Soviet Union was in no position to be stateless what with being destroyed in World War I, civil war, World War II, imperialist hostilities and an economy that had yet to consolidate a socialist mode of production let alone a communist society.

I have to assume that you're either trolling or ignorant on these issues, in which case you can PM me or other Marxist-Leninists with further questions if you'd like.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He's referring to me too I believe.

Anything that makes Stalin look bad is "bourgeois, Trotskyist, fascist or ultra-left" propaganda and lies anyways. :rolleyes:

Not at all, but you just said stuff without backing up your claims.

[ind_com]

I red somewhere that Stalin changed the marxist ideology in USSR regarding the state. Instead of working towards spreading the revolution throughout the world and in the end working towards the withering away of the state he proposed strengthening the state and making a strong dictatorship ( obviously not of the proletariat since he controlled everything ). So if the goal of communism is to create a stateless moneyless and classless society and Stalin was openly against statelessness and with that probably against moneylessness should he be not considered communist.

These are very vague allegations. It is not that easy to 'spread' a revolution throughout the world or do away with the state in the face of continuous capitalist aggression. Those who claim otherwise should 'spread' a world revolution and show us how it's done.

[MaximMK]

Im not saying he should have made USSR stateless im just saying i red in a philosophy school book that he was against the last stage of communism and instead wanted a strong state and not withering of the state. I just want to know if this is true and if it is is he really communist if he doesn't want withering of the state in the end. Not talking about practice but his philosophy.

[ind_com]

Im not saying he should have made USSR stateless im just saying i red in a philosophy school book that he was against the last stage of communism and instead wanted a strong state and not withering of the state. I just want to know if this is true and if it is is he really communist if he doesn't want withering of the state in the end.

Communism can only be global. A major pre-condition of the state withering away is the victory of socialist revolutions all over the world.

[MaximMK]

Communism can only be global. A major pre-condition of the state withering away is the victory of socialist revolutions all over the world.

Yes.

Im not sure you understand what im asking. Im asking if Stalin wanted the state to disappear after revolutions happen around the world or to make one strong state.

The book says he changed marx's idea about the state disappearing into making one strong state.

[Zealot]

Yes.

Im not sure you understand what im asking. Im asking if Stalin wanted the state to disappear after revolutions happen around the world or to make one strong state.

The book says he changed marx's idea about the state disappearing into making one strong state.

Yes, he wanted the state to whither away but he also understood that a strong proletarian dictatorship was necessary before this could ever happen.

[ind_com]

Yes.

Im not sure you understand what im asking. Im asking if Stalin wanted the state to disappear after revolutions happen around the world or to make one strong state.

The book says he changed marx's idea about the state disappearing into making one strong state.

How is one supposed to verify that? We can only judge whether Stalin was a good communist or not by evaluating his contributions to the world he lived in.

[MaximMK]

How is one supposed to verify that? We can only judge whether Stalin was a good communist or not by evaluating his contributions to the world he lived in.

I jsut wanted to find out if what is written in the school book is true. Maybe if you had some info out of his written work or something. Its a question about Stalin's personal opinion.

[ind_com]

I jsut wanted to find out if what is written in the school book is true. Maybe if you had some info out of his written work or something. Its a question about Stalin's personal opinion.

Here is a work by Grover Furr that gives some idea about what Stalin stood for:

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Below is an excerpt from a speech (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/06/09.htm) delivered by Stalin at the Sverdlov University, in 1925.


Implanting Soviet democracy in town and country and revitalising the Soviets with a view to simplifying, cheapening, and morally improving the state apparatus, with a view to expelling elements of bureaucracy and bourgeois corruption from this apparatus, with a view to completely linking the state apparatus with the vast masses — such is the path along which the Party must proceed if it wants to strengthen the bond in the sphere of administrative and political development.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end in itself. The dictatorship is a means, a way of achieving socialism. But what is socialism? Socialism is the transition from a society with the dictatorship of the proletariat to a stateless society. To effect this transition, however, preparations must be made for altering the state apparatus in such a way as to ensure in fact that the society with the dictatorship is transformed into communist society. That purpose is served by the slogan of revitalising the Soviets, the slogan of implanting Soviet democracy in town and country, the slogan of drawing the best elements of the working class and the peasantry into the direct work of governing the country. It will be impossible to reform the state apparatus, to alter it thoroughly, to expel elements of bureaucracy and corruption from it and to make it near and dear to the broad masses unless the masses themselves render the state apparatus constant and active assistance. But on the other hand, active and continuous assistance of the masses is impossible unless the best elements of the workers and peasants are drawn into the organs of government, unless direct and close connection is established between the state apparatus and the "rank and file" of the toiling masses.

What distinguishes the Soviet state apparatus from the apparatus of the bourgeois state?

Above all, the fact that the bourgeois state apparatus stands above the masses and, as a consequence, it is separated from the population by an impassable barrier and by its very spirit is alien to the masses of the people. The Soviet state apparatus, however, merges with the masses, for it cannot and must not stand above the masses if it wants to remain a Soviet state apparatus, for it cannot be alien to these masses if it really wants to embrace the millions of working people. That is one of the fundamental differences between the Soviet state apparatus and the apparatus of the bourgeois state.

Lenin once said in his pamphlet Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? that the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik Party could undoubtedly govern the country in the interests of the poor and against the rich, for they were in no way inferior to the 130,000 landlords who governed the country in the interests of the rich and against the poor. On these grounds, some Communists think that the state apparatus can consist merely of several hundred thousand Party members, and that this is quite enough for the purpose of governing a vast country. From this standpoint they are sometimes not averse to identifying the Party with the state. That is wrong, comrades. It is a distortion of Lenin's idea. When speaking of the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik Party, Lenin did not in the least mean that this figure indicated, or could indicate, the total personnel and general scope of the Soviet state apparatus. On the contrary, in addition to the members of the Party, he included in the state apparatus the million electors who cast their votes for the Bolsheviks at that time, before October, stating that we had the means by which at one stroke to enlarge tenfold our state apparatus, that is to say, to increase its personnel to at least 10,000,000 by drawing the working people into the daily work of governing the state.

"These 240,000," said Lenin, "are already backed by not less than a million votes of the adult population, for this is precisely the proportion between the number of Party members and the number of votes cast for it established by the experience of Europe and the experience of Russia, as shown, for example, by the August elections to the Petrograd Duma. Thus, we already have a 'state apparatus' of one million people who will be devoted to the socialist state for the sake of their ideals and not for the sake of receiving a fat sum on the 20th of every month.

"Not only that. We have a 'magic means' by which at once, at one stroke to enlarge tenfold our state apparatus, a means which no capitalist state ever possessed nor could possess. This magic means is that of drawing the working people, drawing the poor, into the daily work of governing the state" (see Vol. XXI, pp. 264-65).

How does this "drawing the working people, drawing the poor, into the daily work of governing the state" take place?

It takes place through organisations based on mass initiative, all kinds of commissions and committees, conferences and delegate meetings, that spring up around the Soviets, economic bodies, factory committees, cultural institutions, Party organisations, youth league organisations, all kinds of co-operative associations, and so on and so forth. Our comrades sometimes fail to see that around the low units of our Party, Soviet, cultural, trade-union, educational, Y.C.L. and army organisations, around the departments for work among women and all other kinds of organisations, there are whole teeming ant-hills — organisations, commissions and conferences which have sprung up of their own accord and embrace millions of non-Party workers and peasants — ant-hills which, by their daily, inconspicuous, painstaking, quiet work, provide the basis and the life of the Soviets, the source of strength of the Soviet state. If our Soviet and Party organs did not have the help of these organisations embracing millions, the existence and development of Soviet power, the guidance and administration of a great country would be absolutely inconceivable. The Soviet state apparatus does not consist solely of Soviets. The Soviet state apparatus, in the profound meaning of the term, consists of the Soviets plus all the diverse non-Party and Party organisations, which embrace millions, which unite the Soviets with the "rank and file," which merge the state apparatus with the vast masses and, step by step, destroy everything that serves as a barrier between the state apparatus and the people.

That is how we must strive to "enlarge tenfold" our state apparatus, making it near and dear to the vast masses of the working people, expelling the survivals of bureaucracy from it, merging it with the masses and thereby preparing the transition from a society with the dictatorship of the proletariat to communist society.

Such is the meaning and significance of the slogan of revitalising the Soviets and implanting Soviet democracy.

Such are the principal measures for strengthening the bond that must be taken in the administrative and political sphere of the Party's work.

As regards the measures for ensuring the bond in the cultural and educational sphere of work, little need be said about them, for they are obvious and commonly known, and therefore need no explanation. I should only like to indicate the main line of work in this sphere for the immediate future. This main line lies in preparing the conditions necessary for introducing universal, compulsory, primary education throughout the country, throughout the Soviet Union. That is a very important reform, comrades. Its achievement will be a great victory not only on the cultural front, but also on the political and economic fronts. That reform must serve as the basis of an immense advance of the country. But it will cost hundreds of millions of rubles. Suffice it to say that to carry it out a whole army of men and women school-teachers, almost half a million, will be needed. But we must, in spite of everything, carry out this reform in the very near future if we really intend to raise the country to a higher cultural level. And we shall do it, comrades. There can be no doubt about that.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Yes, he wanted the state to whither away but he also understood that a strong proletarian dictatorship was necessary before this could ever happen.

Oh please. Stalin wouldn't know a proletarian dictatorship if it fell in his lap. What he brought forth in the Soviet union was a Dictatorship of the Bureaucrats , not proletarians.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, he wanted the state to whither away but he also understood that a strong proletarian dictatorship was necessary before this could ever happen.Wouldn't that be kind of a bummer for him, though?

[ind_com]

Oh please. Stalin wouldn't know a proletarian dictatorship if it fell in his lap. What he brought forth in the Soviet union was a Dictatorship of the Bureaucrats , not proletarians.

Absolutely! Here is a quote by Lenin exposing the bureaucratic nature of Stalin:

Trotsky writes that “many trade unionists tend to cultivate a spirit of hostility for the new men”. How so? If that is true, those who are doing so should be named. Since this is not done, it is merely a shake-up, a bureaucratic approach to the business. Even if there is a spirit of hostility for the new men, one should not say a thing like that. Trotsky accuses Lozovsky and Tomsky of bureaucratic practices. I would say the reverse is true. It is no use reading any further because the approach has spoiled everything; he has poured a spoonful of tar into the honey, and no matter how much honey he may add now, the whole is already spoiled.

- V. I. Lenin (The Second All-Russia Congress of Miners ,January 23, 1921)

[Break Free1017]

Yes, he wanted the state to whither away but he also understood that a strong proletarian dictatorship was necessary before this could ever happen.


The state needs to grow stronger before it can "whither away." I like that logic.

[jookyle]

The state needs to grow stronger before it can "whither away." I like that logic.

Actually, it's not as absurd as it sounds. You strengthen the proletarian state to end classes, redistribute wealth, resources, however you want to put it. And once that happens, the state begins to whither away because it is no longer needed , not because you'd rather it just not be there.

[GoddessCleoLover]

[QUOTE=jookyle;2515412]Actually, it's not as absurd as it sounds. You strengthen the proletarian state to end classes, redistribute wealth, resources, however you want to put it. And once that happens, the state begins to whither away because it is no longer needed , not because you'd rather it just not be there.[/QUOTE

Is this at all accurately descriptive of the Soviet state during the Stalin era?

[Break Free1017]

Actually, it's not as absurd as it sounds. You strengthen the proletarian state to end classes, redistribute wealth, resources, however you want to put it. And once that happens, the state begins to whither away because it is no longer needed , not because you'd rather it just not be there.

Does that ever work? If the proletariat have attained a position of social power such as to be able to overthrow the capitalist class and capture the state then why couldn't they also do away with their exploited status as a class i.e. abolish themselves as a class and, therefore, abolish class society?

The more you think about it, the more you realize that this entire notion of some kind of transitional society between capitalism and communism overseen by a so called "proletarian state" doesn't make any sense. None at all. It is a complete dead end. Trash the whole idea.

[jookyle]

[QUOTE=jookyle;2515412]Actually, it's not as absurd as it sounds. You strengthen the proletarian state to end classes, redistribute wealth, resources, however you want to put it. And once that happens, the state begins to whither away because it is no longer needed , not because you'd rather it just not be there.[/QUOTE

Is this at all accurately descriptive of the Soviet state during the Stalin era?

The response was not intended to adress Stalin's Russia directly but the point being made and questioned on the strengthening and withering of a state for socialist purposes.

To apply it to Stalin's Russia I would only have to say that it wasn't really to anyone in Russia at the time to do so. Russia could not have gotten rid of the state apparatus while the rest of the world was populated with imperialist capitalist states.

[Positivist]

I jsut wanted to find out if what is written in the school book is true. Maybe if you had some info out of his written work or something. Its a question about Stalin's personal opinion.

Well without having any idea what your school book or what it says, no it isn't.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Absolutely! Here is a quote by Lenin exposing the bureaucratic nature of Stalin:

Trotsky writes that “many trade unionists tend to cultivate a spirit of hostility for the new men”. How so? If that is true, those who are doing so should be named. Since this is not done, it is merely a shake-up, a bureaucratic approach to the business. Even if there is a spirit of hostility for the new men, one should not say a thing like that. Trotsky accuses Lozovsky and Tomsky of bureaucratic practices. I would say the reverse is true. It is no use reading any further because the approach has spoiled everything; he has poured a spoonful of tar into the honey, and no matter how much honey he may add now, the whole is already spoiled.

- V. I. Lenin (The Second All-Russia Congress of Miners ,January 23, 1921)

I fail to see the relevance of this post.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

the relevence of the post I believe is intended to demonstrate that Lenin had accused Trotsky of beurocratic traits as an ironic means of countering the phrase "the beurocratic nature of stalin". ironic in the sense that poster refers to his quote as one exposing the beaurocratic nature of stalin when in fact it does this to Trotsky. Lenins authority as one to measure beurcratic traits is based in the personal ideology of the poster.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

the argument against the so-called "communist states" of the cold war era because they never acheived "full communism" is just like "socialism looks good on paper". its basic marxism that a world wide dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to achieve world communism. The nature of a proletarian state is diametrically opposed to that of the bourgois states whose standards they compared to. Its a completely different form of organization, and theoretical orientation, an opposite line of logic used as the standard. The massive totalitarian state bemoaned by bourgois criticis is an example of solipism because the popular organizations of the proletarian state that encompass the broad masses of people is not "big government" in the sense thought of by American rightists, rather it is purer democracy because more people are included in the decision making process in various fields. I hope im making sense