Question for M-L's about Russia post-1956

[thriller]

This question is mainly for Marxist-Leninist's
Would it require revolution in Russia after Khrushchev's reforms to bring about/back socialism, or could reforms or the repeal of reforms suffice?
Or is this like a dumb question?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Not an ML anymore, but...

I'd imagine most MLs would say that it was certainly possible for some period of time, when an anti-revisionist faction remained in the party (think Molotov), or maybe until 1965, which is generally the date at which MLs place the collapse of socialism in the USSR.

[Ostrinski]

Not an ML anymore, but...

I'd imagine most MLs would say that it was certainly possible for some period of time, when an anti-revisionist faction remained in the party (think Molotov), or maybe until 1965, which is generally the date at which MLs place the collapse of socialism in the USSR.How would one go about dispelling the notion that this is just an arbitrary cutoff? I've seen the argument that it was the result of marketization policies but.. is socialism a matter of policy to begin with? I think that's a problematic view. How is that different from reformism?

[officer nugz]

Not an ML anymore, but...

I'd imagine most MLs would say that it was certainly possible for some period of time, when an anti-revisionist faction remained in the party (think Molotov), or maybe until 1965, which is generally the date at which MLs place the collapse of socialism in the USSR.I think anti-revisionists place the date at 1956, not 1965. you have the 6 and the 5 switched in the date.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Would it require revolution in Russia after Khrushchev's reforms to bring about/back socialism

LOL. The Soviet State was still one filled in its vast majority with pro-worker officials, who a lot of fought in WW2. So a political change within the party would have sufficed to change the economic and social policies of the USSR towards communism.

[l'Enfermé]

LOL. The Soviet State was still one filled in its vast majority with pro-worker officials, who a lot of fought in WW2. So a political change within the party would have sufficed to change the economic and social policies of the USSR towards communism.
The CPSU wasn't a political party in the sense that, say, the RSDLP, the RKP/RCP or the SDP were political parties. It was an administrative apparatus(similarly, in America, the Democratic Party and the Republican party do not deserve the appellation of "political party", they're mere electoral machines). Anyways, if these pro-worker officials who were Red Army men during the WWII period were so pro-worker, why did they participate in the mutual slaughter of millions of German workers in the Wehrmacht, comrade?

A political change in the CPSU was out of the question. The Russian CPSU "coordinator class" which controlled the Soviet Union would be consciously acting against it's own interests if it changed the Soviet policies in favor of the working class and handed power over to the proletariat.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The CPSU wasn't a political party in the sense that, say, the RSDLP, the RKP/RCP or the SDP were political parties. It was an administrative apparatus(similarly, in America, the Democratic Party and the Republican party do not deserve the appellation of "political party", they're mere electoral machines). Anyways, if these pro-worker officials who were Red Army men during the WWII period were so pro-worker, why did they participate in the mutual slaughter of millions of German workers in the Wehrmacht, comrade?

A political change in the CPSU was out of the question. The Russian CPSU "coordinator class" which controlled the Soviet Union would be consciously acting against it's own interests if it changed the Soviet policies in favor of the working class and handed power over to the proletariat.

I agree that bureaucracy was distinct in the USSR. Definitely, latest by the 70's (where there were open statements by USSR bureaucrats positive towards the Vietnam War, open right wing sentiments etc.), only revolution would have most likely been the most probable way towards communism. I think we have to though face that, while arguing about potential ways towards communism, the Soviet Union was not a genuine Proletarian revolution; it was "ahead of its time" as so many people in GDR said about Socialism.

[l'Enfermé]

I agree that bureaucracy was distinct in the USSR. Definitely, latest by the 70's (where there were open statements by USSR bureaucrats positive towards the Vietnam War, open right wing sentiments etc.), only revolution would have most likely been the most probable way towards communism. I think we have to though face that, while arguing about potential ways towards communism, the Soviet Union was not a genuine Proletarian revolution; it was "ahead of its time" as so many people in GDR said about Socialism.
As I have recommended to several comrades, I reccomend to you also: read a bit from this Hoxhaist account on the "Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union", there are many shreds of truth in it. (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html) Cheers to Ismail for including it in his signature :thumbup1:

[Ismail]

The Chinese and Albanians said after the 60's that nothing short of a new proletarian revolution could undo the changes in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc states, since capitalism had been restored. There was no question of "Marxist-Leninist factions" in the CPSU or whatever after that time since the Party, army, and state apparatus itself was placed in the service of the new bourgeoisie.

The "factions" stuff is more of a Brezhnevite fascination. Apologists for present-day China keep on going on about how there's a "left-wing" faction in the CCP and whatnot who will magically rise up and fix all the "right-wing" (putting it quite lightly) tendencies at work. They also argue that under Khrushchev and onwards the USSR moved onto a right-wing course but was still "socialist" and its foreign policy still that of "proletarian internationalism," etc. It's just apologia for state-capitalism and social-imperialism.