How Trotsky betrayed the revolution

[hetz]

... in Persia.
From an interesting article called Socialism in one country before Stalin... on libcom.
I would appreciate comments.


All information on the situation in Khiva, in Persia, in Bukhara and in Afghanistan confirm the fact that a Soviet revolution in these countries is going to cause us major difficulties at the present time…Until the situation in the West is stabilized and until our industries and transport systems have improved, a Soviet expansion in the east could prove to be no less dangerous than a war in the West…a potential Soviet revolution in the east is today to our advantage principally as an important element in diplomatic relations with England. From this I conclude that: 1) in the east we should devote ourselves to political and educational work…and at the same time advise all possible caution in actions calculated to require our military support, or which might require it; 2) we have to continue by all possible channels at our disposal to arrive at an understanding with England about the east. Leon Trotsky: Secret memo to Lenin, Zinoviev et al. June 1920

Everyone knows about Soviet deals with England concerning post-WW2 Greece, but is this any different?

* Sorry for the typo in title. And sorry for the title being a bit provocative, I wanted to get discussion started.

[jookyle]

Well, Trotsky's history showed him not be the most loyal of people to socialism and especially leninism. One only has to look at the things he said after Lenin's death to see that he not only opposed Leninism but stayed true to the Menshevik line. In exile it is known that he was in contact with fascists in Germany and even sold out communists to the FBI in the hopes a green card to America.

There was a time I had quite a positive view of Trotsky but that's been over for quite some time. The more I read the more I came to realize he was always a Menshevik, an opportunist, and worked against the building of socialism.

[l'Enfermé]

^Yeah and when he tripped and fell on an ice-pick in August whatever 1940, with his dying breaths he invented the story that it was actually a Stalinist agent that attacked him with the ice-pick, in order to slander the clean name of Stalin.

Fucking Trotsky, man.

[Aurora]

Theres nothing objectionable about that piece, the underlying theme of it is that Soviet Russia and the Red Army would immediately come to the aid of these revolutions(and these revolutions would need significant aid unlike say Germany). With Polish armies advanced to Kiev it would have been a disaster to need to divert the army to the aid of other revolutions at that particular time.

So Trotsky suggests that in these areas the communists should be cautious about doing anything that requires military aid until the industry and infrastructure is capable of providing it.

[Ostrinski]

^Yeah I was thinking the same thing. He plainly states that support should be given to these revolutionary movements, but also acknowledges that aiding them would be a great difficulty. I guess acknowledging political realties is counter revolutionary.

[Let's Get Free]

Trotsky certainly participated in actions which accelerated the demise of the Russian revolution, above all the suppression of Kronstadt, but he was at least an advocate of world revolution, in contrast to Stalin's reactionary "socialism in one country."

[hetz]

Does anyone actually want to comment on the article?
The title, as I said, was only to start the discussion.


So Trotsky suggests that in these areas the communists should be cautious about doing anything that requires military aid until the industry and infrastructure is capable of providing it. The article points out that the Soviets "delayed" the revolution in certain places for certain "geopolitical" interests of the Soviet state.
Trotsky clearly said:
...we have to continue by all possible channels at our disposal to arrive at an understanding with England about the east.

And by June 1920 the Poles had been thrown back from Kiev.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Geez. Trotsky sent the fucking memo to Lenin -- no doubt to rub in Lenin's face the betrayal that he was committing. Are you Stalinists so twisted in your thinking? Trotsky was talking about the geopolitical realities that the fledgling Soviet Union had to deal with including negotiations with imperialist powers. He said in the quote that he was for the revolutions in the East -- but using the Soviet Army might prove to be a problem. How Menshevik of him. Probably exactly what Martov was writing about in Paris at the time. :laugh:

[hetz]

Trotsky was talking about the geopolitical realities that the fledgling Soviet Union had to deal with including negotiations with imperialist powers.
Eh, isn't that what I said in the previous post?


He said in the quote that he was for the revolutions in the East -- but using the Soviet Army might prove to be a problem. How Menshevik of him. Probably exactly what Martov was writing about in Paris at the time.Then why didn't Trotsky have a problem with using the Red Army for "revolutions" in Georgia etc.?

[Prof. Oblivion]

Trotsky certainly participated in actions which accelerated the demise of the Russian revolution, above all the suppression of Kronstadt

Trotsky had nothing to do with Kronstadt...

[Homo Songun]

Trotsky had nothing to do with Kronstadt.Riigght. As Emma Goldman said,


No, he did not do the bloody job himself. He entrusted Tuchachevsky, his lieutenant, to shoot the sailors "like pheasants" as he had threatened. Tuchachevsky carried out the order to the last degree. Likewise, as head of the Red Army, he was similarly in no way responsible for not sending troops to the East. :lol:

Anyways, carry on

http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif

[jookyle]

^Yeah and when he tripped and fell on an ice-pick in August whatever 1940, with his dying breaths he invented the story that it was actually a Stalinist agent that attacked him with the ice-pick, in order to slander the clean name of Stalin.

Fucking Trotsky, man.

I never said Trotsky wasn't killed by a stalinist agent? If you'd like to know, I see no reason to think he wasn't killed by such means.

[Crux]

I never said Trotsky wasn't killed by a stalinist agent? If you'd like to know, I see no reason to think he wasn't killed by such means.
Well, I think the point is you seem to be getting your cues from 1930's Pravda, who did claim that Trotsky was in fact murdered by a disaffected trotskyist. So when you say "the more I read" just what is it you are reading?

Well, Lenin opposed those Bolsheviks that called for a "revolutionary war" with Germany etc, does that make him a Menshevik also? You're being quite lazy with your slurs, "tovarish".

As for Kronstadt that rebellion was essentially brought down from within Kronstadt. Also there was the small detail that the effective military defence, the defence committee for the fortress of Kronstadt or some such, was in fact lead by two white generals who later fled to Finland respectively germany. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.

Because you wanted a discussion on bolshevik policy in the 1920's on the Middle east right, Stalinets? I mean it's not like you've been quote mining to make an incredibly weak attempt at slander or anything. So, indeed, let's discuss this policy. I'll re-read the papers from the Conference of the People's of the East just to be sure.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Riigght. As Emma Goldman said,

Likewise, as head of the Red Army, he was similarly in no way responsible for not sending troops to the East. :lol:

Anyways, carry on

http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif

In other words, he had nothing to do with Kronstadt.

For what it's worth I'm not defending Kronstadt (I think most discussions on the matter are quite infantile, TBH) but I think it's disingenuous to exaggerate Trotsky's role in the matter. He issued a declaration against it (which IMO explains perfectly the reasonin behind its crushing), but afaik did nothing more on the matter.

[Hit The North]

Ffs, how long do we have to suffer these amateurish attempts at defaming Trotsky by these clueless Stalinoids?

Weak pitching as an artform. :rolleyes:

[Omsk]

Ffs, how long do we have to suffer these amateurish attempts at defaming Trotsky by these clueless Stalinoids?




In the CCCP, he basically defamed himself. Post 1919 his life was a failure. He will be remembered as the pathetic hound nobody cared for. Stalin certainly didnt act amateurishly when he destroyed the old raven with a sharp tongue.

[DaringMehring]

Riigght. As Emma Goldman said,

Likewise, as head of the Red Army, he was similarly in no way responsible for not sending troops to the East. :lol:

Anyways, carry on


Trotsky took responsibility for crushing Kronstadt (although it was the decision of the whole party). It was the correct decision. Surprising how obsessed with it some people are, given that approx 1,000 rebels were killed in the context of a civil war in which millions died on each side and the socialist revolution was at stake.

[DaringMehring]

... in Persia.
..

Notice that he automatically assumes they would support any soviet revolution requiring their help.

And there was no revolution there... the population was not ready for it at that time. Education etc. as he says was probably the best program.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Trotsky took responsibility for crushing Kronstadt (although it was the decision of the whole party). It was the correct decision. Surprising how obsessed with it some people are, given that approx 1,000 rebels were killed in the context of a civil war in which millions died on each side and the socialist revolution was at stake.

That's certainly the perspective of the bureaucrat Trotsky at the time it happened. From his perspective the state represents the revolution and any opposition must then by definition be reactionary.

This view certainly changed when he was on the other side of it.

[Hit The North]

In the CCCP, he basically defamed himself. Post 1919 his life was a failure. He will be remembered as the pathetic hound nobody cared for.

According to you, bozo. But clearly that is not how Trotsky is remembered.

More weak pitching from your side. Why don't you go off and polish your fake Soviet medals or something.

[l'Enfermé]

re. Kronstadt, Trotsky wrote 2 articles regarding the event and his role in it:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm

Obviously, a must-read if you want insight on the point of view of the Bolsheviks regarding Kronstadt.

[Omsk]

More weak pitching from your side. Why don't you go off and polish your fake Soviet medals or something. And you know how he is remembered? He is known only among students here.

Also, that was a poor remark. Why don't you and your three Trotskyite friends run along and split into 7 different sects?

[Prof. Oblivion]

re. Kronstadt, Trotsky wrote 2 articles regarding the event and his role in it:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/07/kronstadt2.htm

Obviously, a must-read if you want insight on the point of view of the Bolsheviks regarding Kronstadt.

Interestingly enough, his argument in the first piece is essentially the same as that which certain Stalinist groups use: opposition to the Syrian government by both Marxists and imperialists must mean that they're batting for the same team, and that the Assad regime is the only true anti-imperialist of the bunch.

How a Trotskyist can defend this logic is hypocritical in my opinion.

[Ostrinski]

Also, that was a poor remark. Why don't you and your three Trotskyite friends run along and split into 7 different sects?This might have been a halfway decent jab if it didn't betray mathematics.

[hetz]

And there was no revolution there... the population was not ready for it at that time. Education etc. as he says was probably the best program.
But the population in Central Asia, the Caucasus etc. was, somehow, "ready" ?

[Crux]

But the population in Central Asia, the Caucasus etc. was, somehow, "ready" ?
uhm if you actually read the article you will see what he is actually discussing is the military resources of the USSR. So what would be your actual counter-argument?

[hetz]

uhm if you actually read the article you will see what he is actually discussing is the military resources of the USSR. So what would be your actual counter-argument?
Sorry, but I am not seeing that.

[Omsk]

This might have been a halfway decent jab if it didn't betray mathematics.

Thats a part of the jab. Like, "What do you get when you place two Trots in a room? - Two people and 17 splits."

[Hit The North]

Sorry, but I am not seeing that.

It is difficult to understand what you see. How is Trotsky's strategic description of events a betrayal of the revolution?


Thats a part of the jab. Like, "What do you get when you place two Trots in a room? - Two people and 17 splits."

You know it's a shit joke when you have to explain it.

[Omsk]

And the boring used-up tankie jokes are funny? I'm not even a tankie.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Eh, isn't that what I said in the previous post?

Then why didn't Trotsky have a problem with using the Red Army for "revolutions" in Georgia etc.?
Because it depended on the situation, comrade. If you knew squadiddly about Trotsky you would know that at the outset of WWII, he gave support to soviet troops in Finland and Poland. This caused a split in the US Trotskyist movement. If you are actually interested I recommend you try reading "In Defense of Marxism." It would do you some good.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Interestingly enough, his argument in the first piece is essentially the same as that which certain Stalinist groups use: opposition to the Syrian government by both Marxists and imperialists must mean that they're batting for the same team, and that the Assad regime is the only true anti-imperialist of the bunch.

How a Trotskyist can defend this logic is hypocritical in my opinion.
Trotsky actually goes through a class analysis of the makeup of the Kronstadt garrison. He discusses where they were possibly headed. The problem here for the Bolsheviks was that taking a "wait and see" attitude toward the rebellion might have meant the end of the revolution. Or at least a great deal of additional bloodshed. And the point that even the left critics of the regime supported the attack on Kronstadt is a big deal. I've read Avrich's book on this. He is sympathetic to the rebellion. But he's also a decent historian and my reading of it says that the Bolsheviks did the right thing. As awful as it was.

[Prof. Oblivion]

He doesn't really make an analysis of anything, considering that he didn't provide any sources. He essentially just makes claims which he doesn't back up, ad these claims are cited as truth by his followers.

[Crux]

He doesn't really make an analysis of anything, considering that he didn't provide any sources. He essentially just makes claims which he doesn't back up, ad these claims are cited as truth by his followers.
Does this help? (http://www.marxist.com/kronstadt-trotsky-was-right.htm)

[hashem]

there has been no successful revolution without repelling trotskyism and there wont be any.

[Crux]

there has been no successful revolution without repelling trotskyism and there wont be any.
The ultra-secterian has spoken.
Ever heard of the October reolution?
Your ad hoc justification is weak and ahistorical.
I could, of course, give you more examples of mass struggles lead by or with significant trotskyist participation (there are streets in Ho Chi Minh city still named after the trotskyist revolutionaries, simply because they enjoyed so much and prestige that the regime, although they did physically eradicate them could not eradicate them from history. The main trade union federation in bolivia's program is based on the Transistional Program, in Sri lanka the majority went with The Left Opposition etc).

[Take The Long Way Home]

fucking leave it alone its history it happened if you are going to ***** about it you wount change anything

[hashem]

The ultra-secterian has spoken.
Ever heard of the October reolution?
Your ad hoc justification is weak and ahistorical.
I could, of course, give you more examples of mass struggles lead by or with significant trotskyist participation (there are streets in Ho Chi Minh city still named after the trotskyist revolutionaries, simply because they enjoyed so much and prestige that the regime, although they did physically eradicate them could not eradicate them from history. The main trade union federation in bolivia's program is based on the Transistional Program, in Sri lanka the majority went with The Left Opposition etc).

the October revolution was successful because all of trotskyist thoughts (without any exception) were repelled by R.S.D.L.P. and worker movement. even trotsky himself had to withdraw from his own ideology when he faced workers and their party.

success of a ideology is not dependent on acts of individuals who believe in it. it dependent on whether mass movement can be successful by carrying it or not. if Vietnams revolution was successful it was because it repelled trotskyism. even those individuals were forced to throw away their wrong ideas when it came to practice.

[Hit The North]

the October revolution was successful because all of trotskyist thoughts (without any exception) were repelled by R.S.D.L.P. and worker movement. even trotsky himself had to withdraw from his own ideology when he faced workers and their party.

success of a ideology is not dependent on acts of individuals who believe in it. it dependent on whether mass movement can be successful by carrying it or not. if Vietnams revolution was successful it was because it repelled trotskyism. even those individuals were forced to throw away their wrong ideas when it came to practice.

So exactly which of Trotsky's ideas did he abandon in order to put himself at the leadership of the revolution? And where is his public repudiation of those ideas?

I look forward to your answer.

[ind_com]

So exactly which of Trotsky's ideas did he abandon in order to put himself at the leadership of the revolution? And where is his public repudiation of those ideas?

I look forward to your answer.

Lenin never agreed with the core ideas of Trotskyism. After opposing him for years, Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks before the revolution. Trotsky's group was assimilated into the Bolshevik party. When such assimilations take place, it is conventional to assume that the group being assimilated into the bigger one accepts the line of the bigger group, unless they explicitly declare otherwise. So, Lenin was always in the leadership of the revolution. Trotsky agreed to Lenin's line, joined the Bolsheviks and became an important leader himself.

[Hit The North]

^^^ In spite of your conventional assumptions, you have still to outline which of his ideas Trotsky abandoned. Into the bargain you might like to outline which of Lenin's ideas he adopted.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I'm surprised at the amount of Stalinist dogma being asserted in this thread. I was under the impression that the board's Stalinists were more tactful than this (i.e. Ismail).

[ind_com]

^^^ In spite of your conventional assumptions, you have still to outline which of his ideas Trotsky abandoned. Into the bargain you might like to outline which of Lenin's ideas he adopted.

My claim stands for all of Lenin's ideas when Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks, unless you produce a single document by the ex-Mezhraiontsi where they clearly stated that they were not accepting certain parts of the Bolshevik line.

[Zeus the Moose]

Hey guys, don't you think it's possible that two groups could merge based on mutual programmatic conclusions, even if the theory of the two groups that lead to said programmtic conclusions was different? So people within an organisaion can hold different views, but still come together on agreements of political strategy?

Wait, that is silly. What am I thinking...

[l'Enfermé]

Fuck you all talking about? The Mezhrainotsy was definitely not a Trotskyist group or "Trotsky's group". It was a group of Bolshevik conciliators and Menshevik partyists, founded in 1913 by 3 or 4 Bolsheviks or something, Trotsky didn't even join it until 1917 I think. Anyway, fuck are you in with "Trotskyism"? "Trotskyism" wasn't a real, let's say "tendency", for lack of a better word, until the 1920s. Trotsky was the president of the Petersburg Soviet and the most prominent Marxist leader of the 1905 Revolution, so the Kadets used "Trotskyism" as a slur. Afterwards I don't think anyone mentioned "Trotskyism" as a tendency until Zinoviev's(and Bukharin's) campaign against "Trotskyism" in the mid-20s. It didn't really emerge as a genuine tendency until Trotsky's "Bolshevik-Leninism!" bullshit and his revisionist Transitional Program of 1938.

"Trotskyism" in the 1900s and the 1910s was like "Kautskyism" in the 1910s - "Kautskyism" doesn't refer to a distinct tendency but to the act of Kautsky reneging on revolutionary Marxism.

[ind_com]

Hey guys, don't you think it's possible that two groups could merge based on mutual programmatic conclusions, even if the theory of the two groups that lead to said programmtic conclusions was different? So people within an organisaion can hold different views, but still come together on agreements of political strategy?

Wait, that is silly. What am I thinking...

Then there should be documents by the groups clearly stating those.

[ind_com]

Fuck you all talking about? The Mezhrainotsy was definitely not a Trotskyist group or "Trotsky's group". It was a group of Bolshevik conciliators and Menshevik partyists, founded in 1913 by 3 or 4 Bolsheviks or something, Trotsky didn't even join it until 1917 I think. Anyway, fuck are you in with "Trotskyism"? "Trotskyism" wasn't a real, let's say "tendency", for lack of a better word, until the 1920s. Trotsky was the president of the Petersburg Soviet and the most prominent Marxist leader of the 1905 Revolution, so the Kadets used "Trotskyism" as a slur. Afterwards I don't think anyone mentioned "Trotskyism" as a tendency until Bukharin's campaign against "Trotskyism" in the mid-20s. It didn't really emerge as a genuine tendency until Trotsky's "Bolshevik-Leninism!" bullshit and his revisionist Transitional Program of 1938.

"Trotskyism" in the 1900s and the 1910s was like "Kautskyism" in the 1910s - "Kautskyism" doesn't refer to a distinct tendency but to the act of Kautsky reneging on revolutionary Marxism.

The central point here is that Lenin's line was the line of the October Revolution, irrespective of what Trotskyism might have meant.

Below is a quote of Lenin mentioning Trotskyism.


Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the “Trotskyites and conciliators” like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the Trotskys deceive the workers, cover up the evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it. Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of lying and of deceiving the workers, a policy of shielding the liquidators. Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia, and the shielding of their deeds by “revolutionary” phrase-mongering abroad—there you have the essence of the policy of “Trotskyism”.

[hashem]

So exactly which of Trotsky's ideas did he abandon in order to put himself at the leadership of the revolution? And where is his public repudiation of those ideas?

I look forward to your answer.

Trotsky didnt exactly abandoned his ideas (about permanent revolution, seeing peasants as anti revolutionaries, impossibility of socialism in Russia, factionalism, his understanding of imperialism and war and ...), he just hid them. when he saw that he has no place in politics if he remained a liquidator, he pretended that he has abandoned his ideas and worked behind the party. by refusing a peace and dismissing the army, he proved that his theories are completely wrong and he is also working against the will of party and proletariat. he put existence of new soviet government at risk in because of his wrong viewpoints. fortunately he was stopped in time.

besides, what makes you think that Trotsky had a place in "leadership of the revolution"? he didnt lead the revolution, he submitted to it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

He betrayed the revolution when he took his meager chicken eatery and turned it into a multi-billion dollar corporation.

[Hit The North]

Trotsky didnt exactly abandoned his ideas (about permanent revolution, seeing peasants as anti revolutionaries, impossibility of socialism in Russia,

Ok, let me stop you there. How can he have espoused permanent revolution and, at the same time, argue that socialism was impossible in Russia? Even a dunderhead like you can spot the contradiction. Meanwhile, he didn't see the peasantry as anti-revolutionary but merely recognised, as did any Marxist, that the peasantry were not in a material position to be won to the ideas of socialism. If you think otherwise, then it is you who is in disagreement with Lenin.

[...]factionalism,

Factionalism? One of your comrades above accused Trotsky of conciliationism. You kids need to get your heads together and decide exactly what you think he's guilty of, otherwise you'll continue to embarrass yourselves.


his understanding of imperialism and war and ...)

Did Trotsky's ideas about imperialism and war change between 1914 and 1917? I don't think so, but you are at liberty to show that it did. But, whatever, Trotsky was there, with Lenin among others, at Zimmerwald, where he co-drafted the manifesto (which Lenin had reservations about) and where he maintained throughout that war strict opposition to all combatant nations and called for the imperialist war to be transformed into a class war. And any differences he had with Lenin were not severe enough in the mind of the latter to prevent Trotsky being elected to the Central Committee as soon as he joined the Bolsheviks. Nor did it prevent Lenin from trusting him with the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, or taking command of the Red Army. Two, as even a liar like you must admit, important tasks of the revolution.


he just hid them. when he saw that he has no place in politics if he remained a liquidator, he pretended that he has abandoned his ideas and worked behind the party.

Lol, yes because he was a veritable Fu Manchu with his tentacles in all manner of reactionary intrigue, plotting to bring down the revolution from the very start: an agent of Tsarism before the war and a secret supporter of the whites during the civil war, and a spy for fascism in the 1930s. How silly of the St Petersberg Soviet to elect him as leader in 1905; how foolish of Lenin and the Bolshevik CC to allow him a central role in the organising of the seizure of power! But of course, as even small children know, evil geniuses like Trotsky have supernatural powers of deception. :rolleyes:

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. More weak pitching from your team.


besides, what makes you think that Trotsky had a place in "leadership of the revolution"? he didnt lead the revolution, he submitted to it.

Well, hey there, it's a matter of historical record. It's called the truth, Punchy, the truth. You should look it up.

[Hit The North]

The central point here is that Lenin's line was the line of the October Revolution, irrespective of what Trotskyism might have meant.


Yes, but Lenin's line only emerged in April 1917 and took the vast majority of even the Bolsheviks by surprise. As far as I'm aware, Trotsky never had any disagreement with Lenin's April Thesis - in fact, this new strategic turn by Lenin brought the two leaders closer together and allowed Trotsky's absorption into the Bolsheviki.


Below is a quote of Lenin mentioning Trotskyism.


Yes, it is a quote from 1911 when Lenin and Trotsky were in disagreement. Meanwhile, I doubt there is a modern Trotskyist who would argue that Trotsky's conciliatory vacillation between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks wasn't mistaken. The outbreak of War 1914 and the revolutions in 1917 were proof that Lenin was correct in not trusting the Mensheviks and theat TYrotsky was wrong to work for unification. But so what? The events of 1914 soon robbed Trotsky of these illusions.

Your trouble is that you want to defend an argument that there is some immutable and intrinsically fallible thing called "Trotskyism" that "needs to be overcome" in order to conduct revolution. This is because you want to cling to some metaphysical notion that there is a counter doctrine called "Marxism-Leninism" which is also immutable but infallible and which needs to be clung to in order to wage revolution. But this just means you are thinking in purely ideological terms like a child indulging in fairytale mythos or an intellectually bankrupt parson clinging to the binaries of heaven and hell.

To that extent, your views can be dismissed.

[Grenzer]

Lenin never agreed with the core ideas of Trotskyism. After opposing him for years, Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks before the revolution. Trotsky's group was assimilated into the Bolshevik party. When such assimilations take place, it is conventional to assume that the group being assimilated into the bigger one accepts the line of the bigger group, unless they explicitly declare otherwise. So, Lenin was always in the leadership of the revolution. Trotsky agreed to Lenin's line, joined the Bolsheviks and became an important leader himself.

Which ideas were those? For the most part the doctrines of Trotskyism are entirely different from the ideas of Trotsky the Menshevik. Pretty much the only thing the have in common is Permanent Revolution. There seems to be Little doubt that Lenin agreed with such a concept.

Here was Lenin in 1905:


We declare he is an agent provocateur who strives to use state power for the realisation of socialism in backward Russia.

At the time, he was a follower of the two-stage theory. What changed in 12 years? Not the material conditions in Russia, that's for damn sure. Russia was not particularly more developed in 1917 than it had been in 1905. The only thing that could have brought about this change is abandoning the two-stage theory and adopting permanent revolution.

Lenin wasn't the sole leader of the revolution. In fact, it was extremely common for both domestic and foreign observers to refer to "Lenin and Trotsky" as the leaders of the Revolution.. in fact they usually grouped them together like that. It was more common to see people talk about "Lenin and Trotsky are doing..." rather than just them as individuals.

I am not defending or supporting the theory of Permanent Revolution here, as that is irrelevant to the subject at hand; but it seems pretty undeniable that Lenin adopted that view or something remarkably similar to it or he wouldn't have even supported the revolution to begin with.

[ind_com]

Yes, but Lenin's line only emerged in April 1917 and took the vast majority of even the Bolsheviks by surprise. As far as I'm aware, Trotsky never had any disagreement with Lenin's April Thesis - in fact, this new strategic turn by Lenin brought the two leaders closer together and allowed Trotsky's absorption into the Bolsheviki.

Lenin's line was taking shape since the separation of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and since then, Trotsky had always been against Leninists till 1917. But you are right in claiming that Trotsky had no disagreement with Lenin's April thesis.


Yes, it is a quote from 1911 when Lenin and Trotsky were in disagreement. Meanwhile, I doubt there is a modern Trotskyist who would argue that Trotsky's conciliatory vacillation between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks wasn't mistaken. The outbreak of War 1914 and the revolutions in 1917 were proof that Lenin was correct in not trusting the Mensheviks and theat TYrotsky was wrong to work for unification. But so what? The events of 1914 soon robbed Trotsky of these illusions.

Your trouble is that you want to defend an argument that there is some immutable and intrinsically fallible thing called "Trotskyism" that "needs to be overcome" in order to conduct revolution. This is because you want to cling to some metaphysical notion that there is a counter doctrine called "Marxism-Leninism" which is also immutable but infallible and which needs to be clung to in order to wage revolution. But this just means you are thinking in purely ideological terms like a child indulging in fairytale mythos or an intellectually bankrupt parson clinging to the binaries of heaven and hell.

To that extent, your views can be dismissed.

Except that I didn't make that claim at all. Any communist party always progresses through internal and external contradictions, and within the spectrum of contradictions that the Bolsheviks faced in 1917, Trotskyism was quite insignificant. It had nothing to do with the main challenges that stood before the Bolsheviks.

[Geiseric]

I don't care enough to spend more than 3 minutes responding! However here we go:

Stalin supported privatizing the land in georgia for as long as the Kulaks wanted, i.e. forever. He supported extending the N.E.P. which was literally strangling the city workers, and submitting the economy to expanding Kulak owned farms at the expense of the working class and poor peasants

Stalin divided a country with millions of people with genocidal psychopath Nazis. I don't need to explain how that's evil in and of itself, dooming the jews in poland to be slaughtered.

Trotsky was in favor of the fundamental communist principle of redistributing the wealth in the U.S.S.R. away from the rich Kulaks and moving it into the hands of poorer peasants employed for a wage in collective farms, and for the working class to have cheaper food. That is the core difference of the 1920s between the Left and Center.

Stalin was forced to collectivize once the famines were out of hand, and when the Kulaks were actively "not playing," the political alliance that Stalin and Bukharin built up in the 1920s. He ignored the fact that 75% of the food was in the hands of about 5% of the population (Kulaks) and that these 5% of capitalists were killing thousands in the famines.

Trotsky was against subordinating the world revolution to bourgeois leaders, as the Stalinists forced to happen in France, Spain, China, the United States, and Germany all through the 1920s and 30's, ending in massacres of communists and workers worldwide.

Stalin sent oil to the Italian fleet when it destroyed Ethiopia. He also sent raw materials to the german army which were used to make Panzers, Stukas, and the MP40s which massacred millions of russian workers once the Nazis finally invaded.

[hetz]

He ignored the fact that 75% of the food was in the hands of about 5% of the population (Kulaks) and that these 5% of capitalists were killing thousands in the famines.
Source for this please.
The figure seems somewhat inflated to me. A good part of food must have been used by the peasants themselves.

[hashem]

How can he have espoused permanent revolution and, at the same time, argue that socialism was impossible in Russia?

havent you read Trotskys writings? he believed that socialism cant be successful in Russia because:

"The contradictions between a workers' government and an overwhelming majority of peasants in a backward country could be resolved only on an international scale, in the arena of a world proletarian revolution." ("1905").

therefor he claimed that foreign aid (which was non existent) determines future of Russia, not class struggle of workers and toilers of Russia.


he didn't see the peasantry as anti-revolutionary but merely recognised, as did any Marxist, that the peasantry were not in a material position to be won to the ideas of socialism.

about peasants he wrote:

"... the proletarian vanguard in the very earliest stages of its rule would have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations. While doing so it would enter into hostile conflict, not only with all those bourgeois groups which had supported it during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry, with whose collaboration it -- the proletariat -- had come into power." ("1905").

just imagine what would happen to soviet government if it had accepted this theory.


Factionalism? One of your comrades above accused Trotsky of conciliationism. You kids need to get your heads together and decide exactly what you think he's guilty of, otherwise you'll continue to embarrass yourselves.

there is no contradiction between Factionalism and conciliationism. trotsky tried to conciliate factions which rejected partys line with pro party elements. in other words: he tried to equalise anti party factions with pro party activists. lenin openly exposed trotsky as a supporter of liquitadorism, Factionalism and conciliationism (for example see lenins works like "notes of a publicist" and "disruption of unity under cover of outcries for unity"). if you deny (which i hope you dont because by denying these facts you will prove that you are unaware of history of Russian revolution), i will quote exact words of lenin for you.

thanks to trotskys glorious order about dismissing the army while no peace was signed, there is no need to discuss correctness or incorrectness of his real theories about imperialism and war.


How silly of the St Petersberg Soviet to elect him as leader in 1905; how foolish of Lenin and the Bolshevik CC to allow him a central role in the organising of the seizure of power!

as i said before, correctness of ideas are not dependent on acts of individuals who believe them. it dependent on whether mass movement can be successful by carrying them or not. did October revolution followed trotskys ideas? no. it couldn't achieve victory if it had done so. revolution forced trotsky to submission.

[Omsk]

I don't care enough to spend more than 3 minutes responding! However here we go:

Stalin supported privatizing the land in georgia for as long as the Kulaks wanted, i.e. forever. He supported extending the N.E.P. which was literally strangling the city workers, and submitting the economy to expanding Kulak owned farms at the expense of the working class and poor peasants

Stalin divided a country with millions of people with genocidal psychopath Nazis. I don't need to explain how that's evil in and of itself, dooming the jews in poland to be slaughtered.

Trotsky was in favor of the fundamental communist principle of redistributing the wealth in the U.S.S.R. away from the rich Kulaks and moving it into the hands of poorer peasants employed for a wage in collective farms, and for the working class to have cheaper food. That is the core difference of the 1920s between the Left and Center.

Stalin was forced to collectivize once the famines were out of hand, and when the Kulaks were actively "not playing," the political alliance that Stalin and Bukharin built up in the 1920s. He ignored the fact that 75% of the food was in the hands of about 5% of the population (Kulaks) and that these 5% of capitalists were killing thousands in the famines.

Trotsky was against subordinating the world revolution to bourgeois leaders, as the Stalinists forced to happen in France, Spain, China, the United States, and Germany all through the 1920s and 30's, ending in massacres of communists and workers worldwide.

Stalin sent oil to the Italian fleet when it destroyed Ethiopia. He also sent raw materials to the german army which were used to make Panzers, Stukas, and the MP40s which massacred millions of russian workers once the Nazis finally invaded.
__________________



I won't even correct your mistakes, but i have to ask you, have you heard about a small thing called historical materialism, or.. ehh.. materialism? No? Ah yes, it must be a Stalinist counterrevolutionary methodological line!

[Geiseric]

So the famines didn't happen? And if they didn't happen, Kulaks weren't responsible? And if the Kulaks were responsible, wouldn't that mean that the government which allowed the Kulaks to own their land is responsible? And wouldn't that mean that Stalin, basically the head of the Bolshevik party by that point along with Bukharin, would be responsible, for allowing those Kulaks to continue selling their grain abroad, while sending less and less to feed the cities?

You cannot say that Stalin didn't stand by and watch the Kulaks starve the cities in the 1920s, when trotsky was calling for their expropiation and liquidation as a class.

I just wanted to highlight this quote from Hashim:
as i said before, correctness of ideas are not dependent on acts of individuals who believe them. it dependent on whether mass movement can be successful by carrying them or not. did October revolution followed trotskys ideas? no. it couldn't achieve victory if it had done so. revolution forced trotsky to submission.

Does anybody else see how that does not make any sense at all, when Lenin supported Trotsky becoming the Commisar of the Red Army, the force almost solely responsible for the continuation of the revolution?

[Omsk]

Does anybody else see how that does not make any sense at all, when Lenin supported Trotsky becoming the Commisar of the Red Army, the force almost solely responsible for the continuation of the revolution?

Again you make a beginners mistake, the Russian working class was responsible for the continuation of the revolution, along with the party. (Which led the working class.) I understand your Trotskyite zeal, but you have to try and "fit" Marxism into your posts.

The Red Army was the army of Stalin as much as it was the army of Trotsky. It was a worker's force, although Trotsky did like to use White-Guard "specialists".

You have yet to understand how you should engage in historical discussions, untill than, i am not wasting my time with your stories for children.

[Crux]

havent you read Trotskys writings? he believed that socialism cant be successful in Russia because:

"The contradictions between a workers' government and an overwhelming majority of peasants in a backward country could be resolved only on an international scale, in the arena of a world proletarian revolution." ("1905").

therefor he claimed that foreign aid (which was non existent) determines future of Russia, not class struggle of workers and toilers of Russia.
Which was also the position of Lenin. It wasn't until much later the idea of Socialism In One Country was launched by Bukharin and then adopted by Stalin and bureacrats behind him. Of course the SR's did advocate an uniquely "russian socialism".





about peasants he wrote:

"... the proletarian vanguard in the very earliest stages of its rule would have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations. While doing so it would enter into hostile conflict, not only with all those bourgeois groups which had supported it during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry, with whose collaboration it -- the proletariat -- had come into power." ("1905").

just imagine what would happen to soviet government if it had accepted this theory.

And, unlike Lenin, but like the SR's, you reject the leading role of the working class as well? Fair enough. But don't pretend to be something you are not. A cursory look at the civil war does show that the peasants, most aptly represented by the SR's did indeed have large groups taking a hostile view towards the Bolsheviks, the SR-right by joining forces with the Whites and the SR-left (or those of the SR-Left that did not join up with the bolsheviks) by attempting a military coup.




there is no contradiction between Factionalism and conciliationism. trotsky tried to conciliate factions which rejected partys line with pro party elements. in other words: he tried to equalise anti party factions with pro party activists. lenin openly exposed trotsky as a supporter of liquitadorism, Factionalism and conciliationism (for example see lenins works like "notes of a publicist" and "disruption of unity under cover of outcries for unity"). if you deny (which i hope you dont because by denying these facts you will prove that you are unaware of history of Russian revolution), i will quote exact words of lenin for you.
Indeed, on the issue of recononcilation between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, pre-1913, Trotsky was wrong and Lenin was right. So?


thanks to trotskys glorious order about dismissing the army while no peace was signed, there is no need to discuss correctness or incorrectness of his real theories about imperialism and war.
What are you referencing here?




as i said before, correctness of ideas are not dependent on acts of individuals who believe them. it dependent on whether mass movement can be successful by carrying them or not. did October revolution followed trotskys ideas? no. it couldn't achieve victory if it had done so. revolution forced trotsky to submission.
It did follow quite closely on Trotsky's and Lenin's ideas and this was widely aknowledged by friends and foes alike at the time. Only later day history revisionist would deny this.

[hashem]

Which was also the position of Lenin. It wasn't until much later the idea of Socialism In One Country was launched by Bukharin and then adopted by Stalin and bureacrats behind him. Of course the SR's did advocate an uniquely "russian socialism".



And, unlike Lenin, but like the SR's, you reject the leading role of the working class as well? Fair enough. But don't pretend to be something you are not. A cursory look at the civil war does show that the peasants, most aptly represented by the SR's did indeed have large groups taking a hostile view towards the Bolsheviks, the SR-right by joining forces with the Whites and the SR-left (or those of the SR-Left that did not join up with the bolsheviks) by attempting a military coup.

you are a bad lier. Lenin wrote:

"... we shall at once, and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution ... we shall bend every effort to help the entire peasantry achieve the democratic revolution, in order thereby to make it easier for us, the party of the proletariat, to pass on as quickly as possible to the new and higher task—the socialist revolution."(SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PEASANT MOVEMENT)

its written by Lenin not Bukharin and in 1905 not "much later". here Lenin states that movement toward socialism is dependent on "the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat" not foreign aid. he states that proletariat should support peasants. nobody has ever found anything about a "hostile conflict" between proletariat and peasants in Lenins works! if you have found it please let us know!


It did follow quite closely on Trotsky's and Lenin's ideas and this was widely aknowledged by friends and foes alike at the time. Only later day history revisionist would deny this.

OK. imagine that proletariat had entered a hostile conflict with peasants, imagine that soviets had waited for revolution to finish in west european countries in order to start the construction of socialism in Russia, imagine that Russian army was dismissed in 1917. now try to imagine that revolution could be victorious with this conditions! i couldnt. if you can, then you have a good imagination!

[Crux]

I could give you links to the appropriate texts by Lenin (I assume you are pro-Lenin?) but I worry I might just be wasting my time. If you genuinely believe that the internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky, in that they believed to achieve socialism in Russia what was needed was at the very least a europewide revolution, is opposed to the ideas of socialist revolution you might have to re-read your marxist ABC's. You are just building strawmen at this point.

[ind_com]

I could give you links to the appropriate texts by Lenin (I assume you are pro-Lenin?) but I worry I might just be wasting my time. If you genuinely believe that the internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky, in that they believed to achieve socialism in Russia what was needed was at the very least a europewide revolution, is opposed to the ideas of socialist revolution you might have to re-read your marxist ABC's. You are just building strawmen at this point.

Didn't Lenin later abandon that idea?

[Geiseric]

Didn't Lenin later abandon that idea?

Lol Lenin made the idea happen by creating Comintern. Any quotes about the "Victor of socialism," means that a revolution can take power in one or two industrialized countries, which Russia was not one of. He never abandoned it, and it would of been suicidal to do so.

[ind_com]

Lol Lenin made the idea happen by creating Comintern. Any quotes about the "Victor of socialism," means that a revolution can take power in one or two industrialized countries, which Russia was not one of. He never abandoned it, and it would of been suicidal to do so.

How did Lenin make this idea happen? The Europewide revolution never took place. And how would it be suicidal?

[Geiseric]

He was an internationalist, and you shit on his memory by claiming that he didn't believe in a worldwide socialist revolution, which was to start in Russia and other third world countries, and spread to the hotbeds of imperialism... I mean that's basic, basic lenin theory, that he's held his entire life, which i'm not going to waste my time quoting.

[ind_com]

He was an internationalist, and you shit on his memory by claiming that he didn't believe in a worldwide socialist revolution, which was to start in Russia and other third world countries, and spread to the hotbeds of imperialism... I mean that's basic, basic lenin theory, that he's held his entire life, which i'm not going to waste my time quoting.

Weren't you originally defending the claim that Lenin believed the necessity of an Europewide revolution for socialism in Russia?

[Geiseric]

Well as we see now anybody who held that view would be correct, so it's irrelevant if Lenin believed it or not. He did however, and he was correct.

[Geiseric]

Again you make a beginners mistake, the Russian working class was responsible for the continuation of the revolution, along with the party. (Which led the working class.) I understand your Trotskyite zeal, but you have to try and "fit" Marxism into your posts.

The Red Army was the army of Stalin as much as it was the army of Trotsky. It was a worker's force, although Trotsky did like to use White-Guard "specialists".

You have yet to understand how you should engage in historical discussions, untill than, i am not wasting my time with your stories for children.

Yeah, I agree! The russian working class was ultimately responsible for the revolution, however the working class supported Trotsky, whether you like it or not, to lead them in creating the red army and various soviets that he was instrumental in. Stalin did not organize the red army, he was however a commander in it. Trotsky was the Commisar of the Red Army and Navy, meaning he was instrumental in building it.

The use of "specialists," wasn't even disputed by Stalin, nor Lenin, so I don't get what your point is. It's the same thing as a guy who knows how to operate a B-2 Bomber telling us how to fly it and drop the bombs.

[ind_com]

He did however, and he was correct. Please prove that he did.

[Geiseric]

Why would he of founded Comintern if he didn't?

[ind_com]

Why would he of founded Comintern if he didn't?

Aiming to induce and aid communist movements internationally, is not the same as believing in the necessity of a Europewide revolution for socialism in Russia.

[Geiseric]

Yeah, actually it is. Especially while people were starving inside of Russia itself.

[ind_com]

Yeah, actually it is. Especially while people were starving inside of Russia itself.

Wonderful logic. I take it that you are unable to produce any proof the claim you were originally defending.

[Geiseric]

I just gave you proof, he founded Comintern, the organization that was supposed to build the world revolution, how is that less valid than say a quote? Stalin didn't even believe in SioC untill 1927, so there's no possible way Lenin would of talked about it by that point, since he kinda died in 1924. It's a given if you're a marxist that international revolution is a necessity. If you don't believe that, then you're not technically a Marxist, since Marx and Engels stress that in the Communist Manifesto...

[ind_com]

I just gave you proof, he founded Comintern, the organization that was supposed to build the world revolution, how is that less valid than say a quote? Stalin didn't even believe in SioC untill 1927, so there's no possible way Lenin would of talked about it by that point, since he kinda died in 1924. It's a given if you're a marxist that international revolution is a necessity. If you don't believe that, then you're not technically a Marxist, since Marx and Engels stress that in the Communist Manifesto...

But building the world revolution was not equivalent to believing in its necessity for socialism in Russia. At least you fail to show how it was.

Edit: Being a Marxist is not about following their words like some holy text. Anyone who works towards the central demands of Marx and Engels is a Marxist, while someone who rigidly upholds all their assertions while not taking a single step forward is an opportunist.

[Geiseric]

But building the world revolution was not equivalent to believing in its necessity for socialism in Russia. At least you fail to show how it was.

Edit: Being a Marxist is not about following their words like some holy text. Anyone who works towards the central demands of Marx and Engels is a Marxist, while someone who rigidly upholds all their assertions while not taking a single step forward is an opportunist.

None of this matters since SioC was an abject failure, where's the USSR now? It was picked apart by the bureaucracy that Stalin strengthened.

[Grenzer]

Being a Marxist is not about following their words like some holy text. Anyone who works towards the central demands of Marx and Engels is a Marxist, while someone who rigidly upholds all their assertions while not taking a single step forward is an opportunist.

Being an "anti-revisionist" you should know that Revisionism is twisting Marxism and excising its revolutionary content while simultaneously pretending to uphold it. That's essentially what Socialism in One Country is. People who complain about "Dogmatism" tend to do so in defense of their opportunism and revisionism, just as you are now.

Revisionism is a concept that could be taken seriously if the people who were "anti-revisionists" weren't such fucking huge revisionists themselves to begin with.

[ind_com]

None of this matters since SioC was an abject failure, where's the USSR now? It was picked apart by the bureaucracy that Stalin strengthened.

What about the success of Permanent Revolution?

[ind_com]

Being an "anti-revisionist" you should know that Revisionism is twisting Marxism and excising its revolutionary content while simultaneously pretending to uphold it. That's essentially what Socialism in One Country is. People who complain about "Dogmatism" tend to do so in defense of their opportunism and revisionism, just as you are now.

Revisionism is a concept that could be taken seriously if the people who were "anti-revisionists" weren't such fucking huge revisionists themselves to begin with.

As opposed to the great orthodox Marxists who are flooding the world with their worker's councils I suppose.

Until you actually prove the validity of some alternative model, your opposition to SIOC amounts to nothing more than cheap sectarianism.

[Grenzer]

As opposed to the great orthodox Marxists who are flooding the world with their worker's councils I suppose.

Until you actually prove the validity of some alternative model, your opposition to SIOC amounts to nothing more than cheap sectarianism.

Your ignorance is really showing here. Classical Marxist politics are in opposition to the very apolitical councilist model.

There is nothing any more sectarian about rejecting the anti-Marxist, counter-revolutionary theory of Socialism in One Country than denouncing reformism as the same. Your nationalist and reformist conception of managing capital within one country has proven to be an abject failure.

I don't have to prove anything. Communism is not an ideal to which reality itself must adapt, but the movement which aspires to abolish the present state of things. Socialism in One Country, on the other hand, has actually been proven to be a failure on dozens of occasions.

There is one thing I have to congratulate Maoists on. Marx pointed out that by 1848, the proletariat had grown to such a degree that they were a very prominent force in any revolution to the degree that the bourgeois revolution could carry over into a proletarian revolution in support of the abolition of private property. It became problematic to discover a way to have a bourgeois revolution without running the dangers of it running over into a proletarian revolution. Maoism solved that problem. By disguising itself with superficial red rhetoric and bogus "Marxist" theory, it was able to masquerade itself as a revolutionary movement while in reality seeking the culmination of the bourgeois revolution. The surest way to establish a bourgeois republic and complete the anti-feudal revolution in the modern epoch is to organize a revolution on Maoist principles.

It's not "cheap sectarianism". It's simple objective fact that Stalinism is a counter-revolutionary force rooted in petit-bourgeois fantasies of national management of capital. Its failure has already spoken for itself time and time again, just as reformism has.

[Geiseric]

What about the success of Permanent Revolution?

Perminant revolution was proven by the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese one.

Do you know what the theory is? It's stating that a backwards peasant dominated country will be the first to have a revolution, because of the uneven economic development and imperialism, and because Capitalism today is incapible of providing the revolutionary role that it did in the 1700s, which is true in every single aspect. Look at Haiti compared with Cuba, and you'll see how capitalism can't develop imperialized countries.

Socialism in One Country is completely unrelated, saying that after a revolution, socialism can "Be built," in a single country. A planned economy doesn't equate to socialism unless it's the working class organizing it, for the benefit of the working class. Anyways it is by definition "revisionism" to basic marxism, because of what it says in the Communist Manifesto, and every single other marxist revolutionary theorist, with the exception of a particular chauvanist german social dem who came up with SioC.

[ind_com]

Your ignorance is really showing here. Classical Marxist politics are in opposition to the very apolitical councilist model.

There is nothing any more sectarian about rejecting the anti-Marxist, counter-revolutionary theory of Socialism in One Country than denouncing reformism as the same. Your nationalist and reformist conception of managing capital within one country has proven to be an abject failure.

Can you provide any alternative of SIOC? What do the workers victorious in one country do next?


I don't have to prove anything. Communism is not an ideal to which reality itself must adapt, but the movement which aspires to abolish the present state of things. Socialism in One Country, on the other hand, has actually been proven to be a failure on dozens of occasions.

Let's not forget that the tendencies that have tried alternative models have failed worse in all the occasions.


There is one thing I have to congratulate Maoists on. Marx pointed out that by 1848, the proletariat had grown to such a degree that they were a very prominent force in any revolution to the degree that the bourgeois revolution could carry over into a proletarian revolution in support of the abolition of private property. It became problematic to discover a way to have a bourgeois revolution without running the dangers of it running over into a proletarian revolution. Maoism solved that problem. By disguising itself with superficial red rhetoric and bogus "Marxist" theory, it was able to masquerade itself as a revolutionary movement while in reality seeking the culmination of the bourgeois revolution. The surest way to establish a bourgeois republic and complete the anti-feudal revolution in the modern epoch is to organize a revolution on Maoist principles.

Maoism aims to carry out the anti-imperialist revolution onward to the socialist stage and finally to communism. Maoism fills out the strategic and technical gaps that traditional Marxism leaves between any capitalist or pre-capitalist society, and communism. Maoism is the completion of Marxism in that sense. Instead of masquerading as something they are not, unlike certain self proclaimed 'Marxists', Maoists are very clear about the various stages of the revolution, and the strategies and tactics involved.


It's not "cheap sectarianism". It's simple objective fact that Stalinism is a counter-revolutionary force rooted in petit-bourgeois fantasies of national management of capital. Its failure has already spoken for itself time and time again, just as reformism has.

Failure compared to what? The success of dogmato-revisionists who claim to be Marxists?

[ind_com]

Perminant revolution was proven by the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese one.

Do you know what the theory is? It's stating that a backwards peasant dominated country will be the first to have a revolution, because of the uneven economic development and imperialism, and because Capitalism today is incapible of providing the revolutionary role that it did in the 1700s, which is true in every single aspect. Look at Haiti compared with Cuba, and you'll see how capitalism can't develop imperialized countries.

That is only a part of Permanent Revolution, and this part is common to Leninism and Maoism as well. The Russian and Chinese revolutions, along with most other revolutions, validate only this part of the theory.


Socialism in One Country is completely unrelated, saying that after a revolution, socialism can "Be built," in a single country. A planned economy doesn't equate to socialism unless it's the working class organizing it, for the benefit of the working class. Anyways it is by definition "revisionism" to basic marxism, because of what it says in the Communist Manifesto, and every single other marxist revolutionary theorist, with the exception of a particular chauvanist german social dem who came up with SioC.

This is the major feature of Permanent Revolution, which distinguishes it from all other branches of Marxism. If one of the underdeveloped nations undergoes a revolution, Permanent Revolution had no plan for them other than stating that socialism is not possible in one country. So, once a country has a socialist revolution, and the working classes of other countries fail to advance to that point, Permanent Revolution is a dead-end for the movement.

[hetz]

And if the Kulaks were responsible, wouldn't that mean that the government which allowed the Kulaks to own their land is responsible?
You cannot "allow" or "disallow" the kulaks to own land, because they already own it.
You can only take it from them by force and start a class war in the countryside.
And that has consequences.

[Drosophila]

Can you provide any alternative of SIOC? What do the workers victorious in one country do next?

It helps if the workers are actually victorious. They certainly weren't in Russia, unless you consider being subjected to party rule a "victory."

Anyway, we don't oppose SiOC because Engels said it out of the blue. His view on it actually makes sense and reflects Marxist theory as a whole. Socialism is not possible under the restraints of capital. Russia could have continued to built the necessary productive forces, but not said "look everyone, we've achieved socialism all by our selves!" That's a perversion of the term and sets a bad precedent, which, as we've seen, carried on in other Stalinist states and continues to be the view of many communists today. It also would have helped the Soviets if they didn't discourage world revolution through the popular front. But that's just another perversion of Marxism, like SiOC.




Let's not forget that the tendencies that have tried alternative models have failed worse in all the occasions. What?



Failure compared to what? The success of dogmato-revisionists who claim to be Marxists?Please don't say "dogmato-revisionists." It just sounds too hilarious to be taken seriously.

[hetz]

It also would have helped the Soviets if they didn't discourage world revolution through the popular front. But that's just another perversion of Marxism, like SiOC.
This is idiocy. Popular front is various classes forming temporary alliances for some common goals. How is that a perversion of Marxism when every revolution so far has been the work of various classes?
Marx himself spoke out in support of various revolutions led by certain classes, and it usually wasn't the working class that led them.

[Geiseric]

That is only a part of Permanent Revolution, and this part is common to Leninism and Maoism as well. The Russian and Chinese revolutions, along with most other revolutions, validate only this part of the theory.



This is the major feature of Permanent Revolution, which distinguishes it from all other branches of Marxism. If one of the underdeveloped nations undergoes a revolution, Permanent Revolution had no plan for them other than stating that socialism is not possible in one country. So, once a country has a socialist revolution, and the working classes of other countries fail to advance to that point, Permanent Revolution is a dead-end for the movement.

I can pull out several quotes from Lenin saying how he would gladly sacrifice the Russian revolution it it meant allowing the German one to have a chance at surviving. He was an internationalist, not a russian "social nationalist," which is what SioC comes down to. For the bureaucratic so called "socialism," in russia to survive, it meant that trade contracts needed to be maintained with the Allies, and the Axis. For those trade contracts, and the short term guarantee of not invading to survive, popular fronts with full on bourgeois parties were formed to protect the capitalists property whom agreed to not invade the USSR.

Jokes on Stalin though, the bastards picked up the counter revolution immediately after World War two, and surrounded the USSR with Nuclear Weapons! That's what the popular fronts bought the rulers of the USSR, 10 more years of maintaining their positions!

Explain why the CP-USA was anti intervention, while the Nazis were rampaging through europe, untill the Nazis invaded Russia, at which point they zigzagged into supporting the fucking imperialist war effort. They were sell outs, Judas's, of the worst sort. Earl Browder was a complete crony of Stalin. The CP-USA were fine with the Nazis as long as the Stalinists were. The CP-USA agreed to a fucking no strike pledge during WW2, selling out the proletariat to the Capitalists demands, and the imperialist genocide of the soon to be colonies, wholesale.

[hetz]

Jokes on Stalin though, the bastards picked up the counter revolution immediately after World War two, and surrounded the USSR with Nuclear Weapons!
Lol.:laugh:
Of course we know that Trotsky would never have done that.
Trotsky would have refused to build nuclear weapons out of principle and revolutionary humanism.
That he was one of the main people in charge of poison gas attacks on peasants in Tambov in 1921 doesn't mean anything.

[ind_com]

It helps if the workers are actually victorious. They certainly weren't in Russia, unless you consider being subjected to party rule a "victory."

This gives a new flavour to the debate. Shouldn't the workers have a party?


Anyway, we don't oppose SiOC because Engels said it out of the blue. His view on it actually makes sense and reflects Marxist theory as a whole. Socialism is not possible under the restraints of capital. Russia could have continued to built the necessary productive forces, but not said "look everyone, we've achieved socialism all by our selves!" That's a perversion of the term and sets a bad precedent, which, as we've seen, carried on in other Stalinist states and continues to be the view of many communists today. It also would have helped the Soviets if they didn't discourage world revolution through the popular front. But that's just another perversion of Marxism, like SiOC.


Since you are not a Leninist, I must ask you how you define socialism.

[Geiseric]

Lol.:laugh:
Of course we know that Trotsky would never have done that.
Trotsky would have refused to build nuclear weapons out of principle and revolutionary humanism.
That he was one of the main people in charge of poison gas attacks on peasants in Tambov in 1921 doesn't mean anything.

I meant the western allies surrounded the USSR, a few decades after Stalin saved their asses with popular fronts, and forcing the communists of the Allies to back the war efforts, which wouldn't of flied with most of the working class. I didn't mean Stalin placing defensive nuclear weapons around the USSR, which makes sense from a certain point of view.

Dogmato Revisionist is an oxymoron btw. I'm dogmatic for original marxism but I'm a revisionist by disagreeing with Stalin, I guess. How is that not a cultish attitude?

[hetz]

You still don't make sense because Stalin had literally nothing to do with the Manhattan project.


I meant the western allies surrounded the USSR, a few decades after Stalin saved their asses with popular fronts, and forcing the communists of the Allies to back the war efforts
Stalin didn't save France, he couldn't have "saved" England, and America could "save itself" from Germany.
The USSR had its own problems, like the Germans getting to the suburbs of Moscow and so on.
And "popular fronts" appeared some 10 years before America got the bomb, not a few decades.

[ind_com]

I can pull out several quotes from Lenin saying how he would gladly sacrifice the Russian revolution it it meant allowing the German one to have a chance at surviving.

Please do. I can provide quotes from Lenin to counter those.


He was an internationalist, not a russian "social nationalist," which is what SioC comes down to.

You can create and use these terms at will, but usually nationalism is associated either with national liberation, or imperialism, where it becomes national-chauvinism.


For the bureaucratic so called "socialism," in russia to survive, it meant that trade contracts needed to be maintained with the Allies, and the Axis. For those trade contracts, and the short term guarantee of not invading to survive, popular fronts with full on bourgeois parties were formed to protect the capitalists property whom agreed to not invade the USSR.

Do you agree then that PR is a dead-end if the workers of only a few underdeveloped countries manage to win the revolution?


Explain why the CP-USA was anti intervention, while the Nazis were rampaging through europe, untill the Nazis invaded Russia, at which point they zigzagged into supporting the fucking imperialist war effort. They were sell outs, Judas's, of the worst sort. Earl Browder was a complete crony of Stalin. The CP-USA were fine with the Nazis as long as the Stalinists were. The CP-USA agreed to a fucking no strike pledge during WW2, selling out the proletariat to the Capitalists demands, and the imperialist genocide of the soon to be colonies, wholesale.

I don't support parties like the CPUSA and consider the policies including no-strike pledge etc to be acts of revisionism. These aspects of the local as well as Soviet lines on allied nations were revisionist.

[Geiseric]

Well Stalin kicked out William Foster (who I don't support), James Cannon, and all of the other leaders of the CP-USA, meaning that Stalin is a revisionist by supporting his own pick for party chairman. That's the memory specifically in America that Stalinism left. It sold out the working class, and supported World War Two. Earl Browder was put in charge by Stalin, after all of the other leaders were kicked out.

PR is a dead end if the revolution only happens in one country. As is socialism in general. You answered your own question, socialism cannot survive in a backwards country. PR is saying that the revolutions however will happen there first, which we've seen to be true. China, Vienam, Russia, and Cuba are examples of this theories validity. Internationalism is a requirement of socialism in the first place, because as we've seen, the USSR is now the fSU. Cuba is privatizing. All of these "revisionists," were finishign the process that Stalin laid the ground for.

I was saying that the trade contracts should of been abandoned as soon as revolutions picked up in Germany, Spain, and Italy. Especially Stalin shouldn't of shipped raw materials to the Wehrmacht and the Italian armies.

[ind_com]

Well Stalin kicked out William Foster (who I don't support), James Cannon, and all of the other leaders of the CP-USA, meaning that Stalin is a revisionist by supporting his own pick for party chairman. That's the memory specifically in America that Stalinism left. It sold out the working class, and supported World War Two. Earl Browder was put in charge by Stalin, after all of the other leaders were kicked out.

I don't see kicking out someone who would later become a Trot as something bad. But yes, any decision to stop worker's struggles for participating in an outside war is a revisionist decision.


PR is a dead end if the revolution only happens in one country.

Thanks for admitting. So PR had no business in the USSR anyways.


As is socialism in general. You answered your own question, socialism cannot survive in a backwards country. PR is saying that the revolutions however will happen there first, which we've seen to be true. China, Vienam, Russia, and Cuba are examples of this theories validity. Internationalism is a requirement of socialism in the first place, because as we've seen, the USSR is now the fSU. Cuba is privatizing. All of these "revisionists," were finishign the process that Stalin laid the ground for.

I never claimed that socialism cannot survive in a backwards country. I hold that not only can socialism survive in a backwards country, but that country can also become a catalyst for world revolution and continue consolidating socialism inside itself even if other revolutions don't happen within decades.

[Prof. Oblivion]

This is the major feature of Permanent Revolution, which distinguishes it from all other branches of Marxism. If one of the underdeveloped nations undergoes a revolution, Permanent Revolution had no plan for them other than stating that socialism is not possible in one country. So, once a country has a socialist revolution, and the working classes of other countries fail to advance to that point, Permanent Revolution is a dead-end for the movement.

But here is the point of departure. Internationalism - of the type Trotsky and Lenin asserted - would argue that there is no such thing as socialism - the socialist economic base, the system - within the confines of a single country, and that this is in fact impossible as capitalism is a self-universalizing system. Therefore, socialism can't survive in a single country, as it can't even come into existence in such a scenario. This is why Lenin, up until his death bed, analyzed the Bolshevik state as a proletarian dictatorship ruling over a bourgeois state, what Lenin called "state capitalism" (not to be confused with the Cliffite definition).

So from this point of view, you're right, Permanent Revolution isn't a plan, it is an analysis, particularly of countries that were not as developed as the "great powers" of the time. This is something that Marx actually comically analyzed about Germany in the 40's (see his famous statements on Britain's political economy, France's political credentials, and Germany's backwards philosophical milieu).

Anyways, the point is that Permanent Revolution was never a "plan". It was analysis of how political revolutions could come about in less developed countries, and its effects.

Socialism In One Country starts from two presumptions that are fundamentally unmarxist in nature:

1. That socialism - the economic system, and not simply the political victory of the working class and their allies through a revolution, i.e. a classless society - can exist within the confines of a national border.

2. That socialism can be "built" if we have the correct "plan".

These, to anyone that isn't a Stalinist, are rather obviously unmarxist: the former invalidated based on a simple understanding of how capitalism works; and the latter based on a simple understanding of the materialist conception of history.


This is idiocy. Popular front is various classes forming temporary alliances for some common goals. How is that a perversion of Marxism when every revolution so far has been the work of various classes?

Because popular fronts almost always lead to tailism.


Marx himself spoke out in support of various revolutions led by certain classes, and it usually wasn't the working class that led them.

Well, this is quite the ahistoric statement.

[Geiseric]

Again the USSR isn't around anymore so this discussion is pointless.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Again the USSR isn't around anymore so this discussion is pointless.

Unfortunately every ideology defines itself on its understanding of the USSR so because of dogma it is not pointless. I wish it were.

[l'Enfermé]

^Marxism is not an ideology. According to the Marxist tradition, "ideaology" is something fake that's designed to conceal the truth. It was basically a dirty word for Marx.

[Prof. Oblivion]

^Marxism is not an ideology. According to the Marxist tradition, "ideaology" is something fake that's designed to conceal the truth. It was basically a dirty word for Marx.

I used the term properly.

And FWIW I think it's rather silly to argue about what Lenin or Trotsky believed, as it doesn't really matter; all that matters is what they did. But unfortunately those beliefs live on in the minds of dogmatic ideologists.

Hope this explains things a bit better.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Lenin never agreed with the core ideas of Trotskyism. After opposing him for years, Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks before the revolution. Trotsky's group was assimilated into the Bolshevik party. When such assimilations take place, it is conventional to assume that the group being assimilated into the bigger one accepts the line of the bigger group, unless they explicitly declare otherwise. So, Lenin was always in the leadership of the revolution. Trotsky agreed to Lenin's line, joined the Bolsheviks and became an important leader himself.

'Trotskyism' didn't exist when Lenin was alive, nor did 'Leninism'. Both Trotsky and Lenin identified as Orthodox Marxists, and their opposition to each other was welcomed in the interests of Democratic Centralism, unlike Mr. 'Stache and Stab with his slaughter of half the prominent figures in the party (Why would he even kill Bela Kun? I mean, what the hell was the point of that!? How the fuck do you make Kun out to be reactionary!?).

[Marxaveli]

Can you provide any alternative of SIOC? What do the workers victorious in one country do next?

That is dependent on the material conditions of the time. Anyone who tries to answer this with a direct answer is an idealist. And SIOC will always fail - the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


Let's not forget that the tendencies that have tried alternative models have failed worse in all the occasions.

Specific examples? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along?


Maoism aims to carry out the anti-imperialist revolution onward to the socialist stage and finally to communism. Maoism fills out the strategic and technical gaps that traditional Marxism leaves between any capitalist or pre-capitalist society, and communism. Maoism is the completion of Marxism in that sense. Instead of masquerading as something they are not, unlike certain self proclaimed 'Marxists', Maoists are very clear about the various stages of the revolution, and the strategies and tactics involved.

Right, because Maoism has proven to be an incredible success. I'm sure Marx, Engels, and other Marxists like Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky, August Bebel, and such would all just be thrilled about those wonderful accomplishments of The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. :rolleyes:



Failure compared to what? The success of dogmato-revisionists who claim to be Marxists?

Except that is was actually Stalin and Mao who were the revisionists. They are not even worthy of being called Marxists (or communists) as far as I'm concerned.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lenin wasn't the sole leader of the revolution. In fact, it was extremely common for both domestic and foreign observers to refer to "Lenin and Trotsky" as the leaders of the Revolution.. in fact they usually grouped them together like that. It was more common to see people talk about "Lenin and Trotsky are doing..." rather than just them as individuals.

I am not defending or supporting the theory of Permanent Revolution here, as that is irrelevant to the subject at hand; but it seems pretty undeniable that Lenin adopted that view or something remarkably similar to it or he wouldn't have even supported the revolution to begin with.

Exactly. I was taught by a Menshevik leaning professor in college that in outlying parts of the USSR in the early days, some peasants thought that LeninTrotsky was a single person.

And to put it simply, by April 1917 Lenin had come to agree with the Permanent Revolution and Trotsky came to agree with Lenin's view of the the Vanguard Party. The idea that Trotsky tricked Lenin, or submitted to Lenin is retarded. They had their disagreements. But on major issues they were on the same page. I suppose it might keep some MLers up late at night, knowing that Lenin was trying to remove Stalin from being party Secretary before he died. Oh, probably because Trotsky tattled on Stalin about Georgia. . . .

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

That is only a part of Permanent Revolution, and this part is common to Leninism and Maoism as well. The Russian and Chinese revolutions, along with most other revolutions, validate only this part of the theory.



This is the major feature of Permanent Revolution, which distinguishes it from all other branches of Marxism. If one of the underdeveloped nations undergoes a revolution, Permanent Revolution had no plan for them other than stating that socialism is not possible in one country. So, once a country has a socialist revolution, and the working classes of other countries fail to advance to that point, Permanent Revolution is a dead-end for the movement.
No -- it is the only way forward -- I guess I forgot that Trotsky just threw up his hands when the German revolution failed and told the RCP that the game was up. Uhhh, duhh, no. The main point of the theory of Permanent Revolution, which at first Trotsky only applied to the Russian Empire, but later generalized to underdeveloped nations, was that in these countries capital was too tied to world imperialism and the bourgeoisie was too weak to make a good old fashioned bourgeois revolution. It would require the proletariat taking power to achieve the gains of the bourgeois revolution -- and having gone that far, the proletariat would not give power back to the fucking bourgeoisie. Mao would have made a deal with the KMT if they only would have let him. He believed in the Stalinist/Menshevik policy of two-stage revolution.

Is it that the Stalinists don't read, or that when they do, the words simply have a different meaning?

[ind_com]

But here is the point of departure. Internationalism - of the type Trotsky and Lenin asserted - would argue that there is no such thing as socialism - the socialist economic base, the system - within the confines of a single country, and that this is in fact impossible as capitalism is a self-universalizing system. Therefore, socialism can't survive in a single country, as it can't even come into existence in such a scenario. This is why Lenin, up until his death bed, analyzed the Bolshevik state as a proletarian dictatorship ruling over a bourgeois state, what Lenin called "state capitalism" (not to be confused with the Cliffite definition).


Lenin, more than once, talked of the victory of socialist revolution and socialism in one country.


Because popular fronts almost always lead to tailism.

Not necessarily. The bourgeois elements of the front have to be subordinated to the proletariat and poor peasantry.

[ind_com]

That is dependent on the material conditions of the time. Anyone who tries to answer this with a direct answer is an idealist. And SIOC will always fail - the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Specific examples? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

Right, because Maoism has proven to be an incredible success. I'm sure Marx, Engels, and other Marxists like Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky, August Bebel, and such would all just be thrilled about those wonderful accomplishments of The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. :rolleyes:

Except that is was actually Stalin and Mao who were the revisionists. They are not even worthy of being called Marxists (or communists) as far as I'm concerned.

A completely worthless post. Others opposing SIOC have at least some good theoretical points to make.


No -- it is the only way forward -- I guess I forgot that Trotsky just threw up his hands when the German revolution failed and told the RCP that the game was up. Uhhh, duhh, no.

Others here have admitted that PR is a dead-end if the revolution does not spread beyond one country (or a bloc of countries, since that is what the USSR was). Do you agree with this or not?


The main point of the theory of Permanent Revolution, which at first Trotsky only applied to the Russian Empire, but later generalized to underdeveloped nations, was that in these countries capital was too tied to world imperialism and the bourgeoisie was too weak to make a good old fashioned bourgeois revolution. It would require the proletariat taking power to achieve the gains of the bourgeois revolution -- and having gone that far, the proletariat would not give power back to the fucking bourgeoisie. Mao would have made a deal with the KMT if they only would have let him. He believed in the Stalinist/Menshevik policy of two-stage revolution.

Is it that the Stalinists don't read, or that when they do, the words simply have a different meaning?

Have you done enough reading yourself? Mao explicitly stated multiple times that the proletariat would lead the Chinese Revolution at its bourgeois-democratic stage and then carry it over to the socialist stage. Or are you implying that other Mensheviks including Trotsky promoted this line?

[Marxaveli]

A completely worthless post. Others opposing SIOC have at least some good theoretical points to make.


More like a post that has inconvenient truths you dont wish to confront, because in the face of cold hard, historical facts your Maoist utopia and SIOC is a complete and utter failure. Fact.

[ind_com]

More like a post that has inconvenient truths you dont wish to confront, because in the face of cold hard, historical facts your Maoist utopia and SIOC is a complete and utter failure. Fact.

Which inconvenient truth have you encrypted in your post? The Maoist utopia is a communist world. Perhaps you are not exactly okay with a classless society?

Edit: Exactly how is Maoism or SIOC a failure in practical terms, while some other branch of Marxism is a success?

[Geiseric]

There isn't any "successful," branch of marxism in that there hasn't been a world revolution yet, but Stalinism played a huge role in quelling that possiblity that Leninism had in the 1920s.

And you've misunderstood what I said, I didn't say that PR is a "dead end," in a backwards third world country, I said that Socialism is fucked as a whole if it's impossible for the revolution to spread outside of one country. PR is the theory that was proven correct by the first revolutions happening in China, Russia, and numerous other third world countries. Mao and Stalin being in power in the first place, after the bourgeois revolution was completed by the proletarian planned economy, confirms PR.

[ind_com]

There isn't any "successful," branch of marxism in that there hasn't been a world revolution yet, but Stalinism played a huge role in quelling that possiblity that Leninism had in the 1920s.

How so? According to PR socialism was doomed anyways because the revolution didn't spread worldwide. So, according to PR, the outcome would have been the same if Trotsky, instead of Stalin, led the USSR.


And you've misunderstood what I said, I didn't say that PR is a "dead end," in a backwards third world country, I said that Socialism is fucked as a whole if it's impossible for the revolution to spread outside of one country.

I did not misunderstand what you said.


PR is the theory that was proven correct by the first revolutions happening in China, Russia, and numerous other third world countries. Mao and Stalin being in power in the first place, after the bourgeois revolution was completed by the proletarian planned economy, confirms PR.

As I said earlier, that confirms only the first part of the PR. The second part of the PR renders it useless when the revolution does not spread worldwide. It is just an analysis that claims the revolution in a single country is doomed to fail and does not provide anything constructive for the victorious proletariat.

[Hit The North]

Others here have admitted that PR is a dead-end if the revolution does not spread beyond one country (or a bloc of countries, since that is what the USSR was).


But you are just misapplying the theory. PR is not a theory of how socialism can be built, but a theory of the dynamics of class struggle in the imperialist age. To call it a dead-end if the revolution does not become global is akin to rejecting the laws of motion just because the wheel has fallen off your bike.

However, SIOC is a revision of Marxist orthodoxy - primarily because the country in question was the Soviet Union which was economically backward compared to the major imperialist nations. You can't whip the working class into performing an industrial revolution and build socialism at the same time. In other words, the workers cannot be both the ruling class and be subject to the extreme discipline of the rapid accumulation necessary to pass the capitalist stage. For that to happen, an external state power must rule with a rod of iron over them - as the Soviet Union after 1922 proves.



And you've misunderstood what I said, I didn't say that PR is a "dead end," in a backwards third world country, I said that Socialism is fucked as a whole if it's impossible for the revolution to spread outside of one country. PR is the theory that was proven correct by the first revolutions happening in China, Russia, and numerous other third world countries. Mao and Stalin being in power in the first place, after the bourgeois revolution was completed by the proletarian planned economy, confirms PR.

I think I disagree with this. PR is only proven when the working class take control of the revolution and this has only happened in Russia. This was not the case in China or Cuba or the other third world struggles of liberation after 1945.

[ind_com]

But you are just misapplying the theory. PR is not a theory of how socialism can be built, but a theory of the dynamics of class struggle in the imperialist age. To call it a dead-end if the revolution does not become global is akin to rejecting the laws of motion just because the wheel has fallen off your bike.

The laws of motion can be changed if experiments disagree with them. Similarly, the victorious proletariat of one country does not stop experimenting and defending their gains just because the PR preaches defeatism to them. They don't accept PR, but grasp SIOC, because they have nothing to lose otherwise.


However, SIOC is a revision of Marxist orthodoxy - primarily because the country in question was the Soviet Union which was economically backward compared to the major imperialist nations. You can't whip the working class into performing an industrial revolution and build socialism at the same time. In other words, the workers cannot be both the ruling class and be subject to the extreme discipline of the rapid accumulation necessary to pass the capitalist stage. For that to happen, an external state power must rule with a rod of iron over them - as the Soviet Union after 1922 proves.

What would be more appropriate to do in that case then?

[Geiseric]

SioC would be fine if it was actually socialism, but it simply wasn't. Society wasn't controlled democratically, and the bureaucracy was constantly creating the conditions, one at a time, necessary for them to fully own the capital, which ended up happening.

[Marxaveli]

^No, not even then. SIOC cannot work regardless, and this is a big reason why Stalinism and Maoism are incompatible with Marxism. Marx made it very clear that capitalism was a global development, therefore socialism would have to be as well. This is simple geo-politics here. How can you have SOIC, even if it is 'genuine socialism', in a global capitalist society? It would only a matter of time before the imperialist countries invade the socialist one, drain it of its resources, and ultimately change it back to being capitalist. SIOC is un-Marxist, if not anti-Marxist. Also, the revolution has always occurred in economically and politically backwards nations - it needs to occur in the advanced capitalist societies first. As someone else said, you cannot develop technologically and build socialism at the same time. It MIGHT be possible if the advanced capitalist nations had successful revolutions first, and they in turn would be able to help these lesser developed countries build socialism and development at the same time, but as it is now, nope.

[ind_com]

SioC would be fine if it was actually socialism, but it simply wasn't. Society wasn't controlled democratically, and the bureaucracy was constantly creating the conditions, one at a time, necessary for them to fully own the capital, which ended up happening.

That's what even I am saying. If you follow PR, you can't really blame SIOC for ruining anything, because PR already predicts doom for an isolated revolution irrespective of whatever takes place inside the country.

[ind_com]

^No, not even then. SIOC cannot work regardless, and this is a big reason why Stalinism and Maoism are incompatible with Marxism. Marx made it very clear that capitalism was a global development, therefore socialism would have to be as well. This is simple geo-politics here. How can you have SOIC, even if it is 'genuine socialism', in a global capitalist society? It would only a matter of time before the imperialist countries invade the socialist one, drain it of its resources, and ultimately change it back to being capitalist. SIOC is un-Marxist, if not anti-Marxist. Also, the revolution has always occurred in economically and politically backwards nations - it needs to occur in the advanced capitalist societies first. As someone else said, you cannot develop and build socialism at the same time. It MIGHT be possible if the advanced capitalist nations had successful revolutions first, and they in turn would be able to help these lesser developed countries build socialism and development at the same time, but as it is now, nope.

Right, Maoism is anti-Marxist because SIOC does not advice the victorious proletariat to accept defeat. Probably your ideal Marxist road would be making the victorious proletariat submit to imperialism as fast as possible, in hope of a revolution in the imperialist countries.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin, more than once, talked of the victory of socialist revolution and socialism in one country.

No he didn't, in fact he openly stated that without a revolution in Germany they were doomed.


That's what even I am saying. If you follow PR, you can't really blame SIOC for ruining anything, because PR already predicts doom for an isolated revolution irrespective of whatever takes place inside the country.

Then just admit that you are a revisionist. It is Marxist orthodoxy to claim that revolution will have to spread rapidly to progress and surpass capital.

[Marxaveli]

Right, Maoism is anti-Marxist because SIOC does not advice the victorious proletariat to accept defeat. Probably your ideal Marxist road would be making the victorious proletariat submit to imperialism as fast as possible, in hope of a revolution in the imperialist countries.

And again, we cite the The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolutions as being wonderful victories for the Proletariat :laugh:

Take your Third Internationalist revisionism horse shit elsewhere please.

[ind_com]

And again, we cite the The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolutions as being wonderful victories for the Proletariat :laugh:

Take your Third Internationalist revisionism horse shit elsewhere please.

And you'd better use the Black Book of Communism and Mao: The Untold Story as your references, so that we can recognize your revolutionary spirit.

[Omsk]

It is Marxist orthodoxy to claim that revolution will have to spread rapidly to progress and surpass capital.

Of course, and that is why we are for proletarian internationalism and for a large international center for coordination and solidarity, an international. Simple Marxism, comrade, as Marx himself said, "Proletarians of all countries, unite!"

[Marxaveli]

Comrade, I am a communist of the Second International, and a revolutionary to the fullest - something you revisionists only dream to be.

Whatever flaws the SI had (Vanguardist dogmatism in particular), its philosophy was much closer to the principles as described by Marx and Engles: the working class, not the peasantry of backward nations, is the revolutionary class. The revolution must take place in the advanced capitalist nations first, and the revolution must spread beyond the borders and point of its origin - in other words, no SIOC. The revolution must be a mass party consisting of the working class - not some 'cult of personality' counter-revolutionary leader that has nationalistic (very anti-Marxist) and personal agendas, to use Marxism has a curtain to achieve them. I think you need to go back and read some of the basics again, perhaps the Manifesto itself.

[ind_com]

No he didn't, in fact he openly stated that without a revolution in Germany they were doomed.

Produce that quote and I'll show you when he changed his position.


Then just admit that you are a revisionist. It is Marxist orthodoxy to claim that revolution will have to spread rapidly to progress and surpass capital.

Isn't it also Marxist orthodoxy to be somewhat homophobic and racist? In that case, I will wait for you to clearly admit that you are an orthodox Marxist, as opposed to someone who holds that science can never indulge in orthodoxy.

[Marxaveli]

Produce that quote and I'll show you when he changed his position.

show it now.




Isn't it also Marxist orthodoxy to be somewhat homophobic and racist? In that case, I will wait for you to clearly admit that you are an orthodox Marxist, as opposed to someone who holds that science can never indulge in orthodoxy.

Um, no idea where you got this from, but just....NO. Racial, gender, and sexuality equality are the prerequisites for being a Leftist of any stripe.

[ind_com]

Comrade, I am a communist of the Second International, and a revolutionary to the fullest - something you revisionists only dream to be.


It's not a dream for any Leninist, it's a nightmare.

[Marxaveli]

It's not a dream for any Leninist, it's a nightmare.

And thankfully, Im not a Leninist. Good try though. But....

Lenin > Mao

[Omsk]

I guess this was directed at me, so i will answer.


Comrade, I am a communist of the Second International No you are not, just like i am not a communist of the Comintern.


and a revolutionary to the fullest

I doubt you are even politically active.


- something you revisionists only dream to be.


So i am dreaming that i am in a party? If you say so. Hey, you must be right, like you idol Rosa, she was pretty right during the revolutionary years in Germany, huh?


and the revolution must spread beyond the borders and point of its origin - in other words, no SIOC.

You made a beginners mistake, i can tolerate that, most people don't know what SIOC is. It is not a negation of international revolution. It's a strategy for the worst case scenario.


The revolution must be a mass party The revolution is a process, not a party, mass or not.


consisting of the working class No, the revolution is led by the Vanguard party which is the strongest, best organized workers party and the head of the proletarian revolution, the strong arm which leads it into class struggle.


- not some 'cult of personality' This leader denounced the cult of personality.


counter-revolutionary

This is just boring, you are using old slander.


unleader that has nationalistic

So he and the Georgians dominaterd the USSR? No, it was simply not so.


(very anti-Marxist)

You know what is anti-Marxist, pfff.


and personal agendas

Bourgeois historiography and it's idiocy claim another poor sheep for the heard which knows nothing.


I think you need to go back and read some of the basics again, perhaps the Manifesto itself.


You need to stop posting, it's awful.

You also need to read, i suggest you re-read everything, and than abandon Marxism forever, who knows what you might come back with.

[ind_com]

And thankfully, Im not a Leninist. Good try though.

Thankfully indeed.



But....

Lenin > Mao

May be. But....

Masses >>>> (Lenin X Mao)^Marx

[Art Vandelay]

Produce that quote and I'll show you when he changed his position.

"At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed." - Lenin; March 7th, 1918.


Isn't it also Marxist orthodoxy to be somewhat homophobic and racist? In that case, I will wait for you to clearly admit that you are an orthodox Marxist, as opposed to someone who holds that science can never indulge in orthodoxy.

I am an orthodox Marxist; while Marxism is indeed a science, there are certain orthodox Marxist positions that will never change, ie: internationalism.

[Marxaveli]

I guess this was directed at me, so i will answer.

No you are not, just like i am not a communist of the Comintern.



I doubt you are even politically active.



So i am dreaming that i am in a party? If you say so. Hey, you must be right, like you idol Rosa, she was pretty right during the revolutionary years in Germany, huh?



You made a beginners mistake, i can tolerate that, most people don't know what SIOC is. It is not a negation of international revolution. It's a strategy for the worst case scenario.

The revolution is a process, not a party, mass or not.

No, the revolution is led by the Vanguard party which is the strongest, best organized workers party and the head of the proletarian revolution, the strong arm which leads it into class struggle.

This leader denounced the cult of personality.



This is just boring, you are using old slander.



So he and the Georgians dominaterd the USSR? No, it was simply not so.



You know what is anti-Marxist, pfff.



Bourgeois historiography and it's idiocy claim another poor sheep for the heard which knows nothing.



You need to stop posting, it's awful.

You also need to read, i suggest you re-read everything, and than abandon Marxism forever, who knows what you might come back with.

It was for ind_com, actually.

However, this one is for you: FUCK OFF.

[Omsk]

Hihi, all right, sory comrade. :) No hard feelings.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Comrade, I am a communist of the Second International, and a revolutionary to the fullest - something you revisionists only dream to be.

Whatever flaws the SI had (Vanguardist dogmatism in particular), its philosophy was much closer to the principles as described by Marx and Engles: the working class, not the peasantry of backward nations, is the revolutionary class. The revolution must take place in the advanced capitalist nations first, and the revolution must spread beyond the borders and point of its origin - in other words, no SIOC. The revolution must be a mass party consisting of the working class - not some 'cult of personality' counter-revolutionary leader that has nationalistic (very anti-Marxist) and personal agendas, to use Marxism has a curtain to achieve them. I think you need to go back and read some of the basics again, perhaps the Manifesto itself.
Small flaws, eh? The SI parties, except for the Bolsheviks (and perhaps one or two smaller parties) SUPPORTED THEIR OWN BOURGEOISIES in WWI. The SI was shown to be bankrupt and useless to the revolution in August 1914. Revolutionaries don't give a crap what Kautsky was writing, he was supporting the Germans in WWI. I don't know in what abstract way the SI seems Marxist to you. On the ground, they failed in such a critical and monumental way that we are still paying the price for the betrayal.

[Marxaveli]

So you think the problems of the SI were much greater and ultimately more destructive for the socialist movement than the revisionism and shortcomings of the Third International were? If so, I have to disagree.

I acknowledge the problems of the SI on the ground, and I don't support Vanguardism - I respect Lenin as revolutionary and theorist and he did some good things, but also did some not-so great things, and politically I have disagreements with his theories . But as a Orthodox Marxist, I think the SI was much closer to where we need to be politically and ideologically, than the Comintern was. A great majority of the anti-communist rhetoric we hear today was from the groundwork of the Comintern (Stalinism), and the material developments after it (Mao, the 'Cold War', Cuban revolution, etc).

[ind_com]

"At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed." - Lenin; March 7th, 1918.

"We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia." - Lenin; March 15th, 1921.


I am an orthodox Marxist; while Marxism is indeed a science, there are certain orthodox Marxist positions that will never change, ie: internationalism.

And who decides what are the positions that will never change, you? Best of luck transforming Marxism into defeatism!

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So you think the problems of the SI were much greater and ultimately more destructive for the socialist movement than the revisionism and shortcomings of the Third International were? If so, I have to disagree.

I acknowledge the problems of the SI on the ground, and I don't support Vanguardism - I respect Lenin as revolutionary and theorist and he did some good things, but also did some not-so great things, and politically I have disagreements with his theories . But as a Orthodox Marxist, I think the SI was much closer to where we need to be politically and ideologically, than the Comintern was. A great majority of the anti-communist rhetoric we hear today was from the Comintern (Stalin, Mao, Vietnam, the 'cold war', etc).
Try reading up on the first four congresses of the CI. It is fascinating and instructive. I think Pluto Press has published transcripts from some of these. The CI was destroyed by Stalin and his supporters. Lenin and the Bolsheviks rose above the heterogeneous swamp, and remained true to Marxist Internationalism. Stalin is another story. Obviously, I am a Trotskyist and make a strong distinction between Leninism and Stalinism.

The Bolsheviks led a proletarian revolution. The SI supported the capitalists and generals leading to the carnage of WWI (and, if you want to extrapolate, WWII as well). These are not simple errors, comrade. August 1914 may constitute the largest and most crippling betrayal ever made in the worker's movement. Of course, there is the matter of the murder of Luxembourg and Liebknicht, carried out by minions of the SI. I don't know how an organization, defined by an outrageous betrayal of the workers of the world, stands close to Marxism. It is a pretty piss poor model, to say the least.

[Marxaveli]

[I]"We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia." - Lenin; March 15th, 1921.

This is a misconstruing of Lenin. The revolution does have to start somewhere, but Lenin stating that the peasantry saving the revolution in Russia is necessary is a very different thing from advocating SIOC.


And who decides what are the positions that will never change, you? Best of luck transforming Marxism into defeatism!

Yep, you are a revisionist.

[Marxaveli]

Try reading up on the first four congresses of the CI. It is fascinating and instructive. I think Pluto Press has published transcripts from some of these. The CI was destroyed by Stalin and his supporters. Lenin and the Bolsheviks rose above the heterogeneous swamp, and remained true to Marxist Internationalism. Stalin is another story. Obviously, I am a Trotskyist and make a strong distinction between Leninism and Stalinism.

The Bolsheviks led a proletarian revolution. The SI supported the capitalists and generals leading to the carnage of WWI (and, if you want to extrapolate, WWII as well). These are not simple errors, comrade. August 1914 may constitute the largest and most crippling betrayal ever made in the worker's movement. Of course, there is the matter of the murder of Luxembourg and Liebknicht, carried out by minions of the SI. I don't know how an organization, defined by an outrageous betrayal of the workers of the world, stands close to Marxism. It is a pretty piss poor model, to say the least.

I agree, there is a very strong distinction between Leninism and Stalinism. However...

It is a bit unfair to conflate the entire SI with SPD reformists though, is it not? This is why Luxembourg and Liebknicht broke away from the SPD and formed the Spartacist Movement.

Who were the other major Marxists, besides Kautsky, that betrayed the workers movement and remained with the social democrats, in supporting WWI? And again, does the actions of the SPD define the entire groundwork AND theory of the SI? I think it is necessary to separate this, from the general ideological doctrine of the SI. Granted, I am not as well read many comrades here on this, but the SI, at least theoretically, seems pretty faithful to the foundation of what Marx and Engels wrote - especially compared to Stalinism or Maoism, which have little in common with Marxism as far as I'm concerned.

[ind_com]

This is a misconstruing of Lenin. The revolution does have to start somewhere, but Lenin stating that the peasantry saving the revolution in Russia is necessary is a very different thing from advocating SIOC.

Absolutely, because Lenin was explicit about constructing capitalism in one country out of the socialist revolution.


Yep, you are a revisionist.

No, I am not the one preaching defeatism, you are. You are a consistent defeatist and hence an agent of imperialism. Thus, you are the revisionist here.

[Marxaveli]

Absolutely, because Lenin was explicit about constructing capitalism in one country out of the socialist revolution.



No, I am not the one preaching defeatism, you are. You are a consistent defeatist and hence an agent of imperialism. Thus, you are the revisionist here.

You even use revisionism to make your critiques :rolleyes:

Im not preaching anything - I am merely pointing out the failure of Maoist ideology, its vulgarization of Marxism, and its shortcomings when put in practice. You have ZERO evidence to suggest I am a proponent of imperialism. Take your revisionist dogmatism and shove it up your fucking ass, you fucking dillweed. It is your kind, along with the Stalinists, as to why Marxism has such a bad name and continues to be horribly misrepresented. Third Worldest scum, fuck off. I'm done responding to your idiotic tripe.

How's that Great Leap Backward working for you these days? Just peachy? ROFL.

[ind_com]

You even use revisionism to make your critiques :rolleyes:

Im not preaching anything - I am merely pointing out the failure of Maoist ideology, its vulgarization of Marxism, and its shortcomings when put in practice. You have ZERO evidence to suggest I am a proponent of imperialism. Take your revisionist dogmatism and shove it up your fucking ass, you fucking dillweed.

How's that Great Leap Forward working for you these days? Just peachy? ROFL.

As soon as you're not left with any argument, you've exposed yourself as the whiny little motherfucker that you are. You are a sellout and you serve imperialism despite your lip-service to Marxism.

Edit:
It is your kind, along with the Stalinists, as to why Marxism has such a bad name and continues to be horribly misrepresented. Third Worldest scum, fuck off. I'm done responding to your idiotic tripe. Marxism has a bad name because first-worldist fuckwits like you pose as Marxists.

[Sea]

Edit: Marxism has a bad name because first-worldist fuckwits like you pose as Marxists.But Marxism should have a bad name! Marx was an idealist early on in his intellectual career, and this tainted all of his work!

One's earlier thoughts cannot be changed! Once someone believes something it is impossible for them to go back, and I learned that by emulating a much better leader than Trotsky!


have I mastered stalinist logic yet?


No, I am not the one preaching defeatism, you are.Here's a good, well-written refutation of that. (http://kids.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/english/entry/defeatism)

[Marxaveli]

Eh, there is no point in trying to reason with him. He is a reactionary third-world Nationalist.

[Hit The North]

For those pulling quotes out of their ass in order to justify SIOC, I have two things to say.

Firstly, whatever inconsistency there is in Lenin's use of the word 'socialist' in his political pronouncements between 1917 and his death, it is clear that he did not believe that socialism had been established in the USSR in the age of the NEP.

Secondly, whatever the propaganda value SIOC had in terms of the real politic of maintaining support for the regime, we have the historical record which clearly shows that socialism was not created in the USSR never mind any other single country.

[ind_com]

For those pulling quotes out of their ass in order to justify SIOC, I have two things to say.

Firstly, whatever inconsistency there is in Lenin's use of the word 'socialist' in his political pronouncements between 1917 and his death, it is clear that he did not believe that socialism had been established in the USSR in the age of the NEP.

But he was positive about the construction of socialism in the USSR in future years.


Secondly, whatever the propaganda value SIOC had in terms of the real politic of maintaining support for the regime, we have the historical record which clearly shows that socialism was not created in the USSR never mind any other single country.

That is another age-old debate between supporters and opponents of the USSR. Here we are dealing mainly with the question of validity of the PR to the victorious proletariat of one country.

[ind_com]

But Marxism should have a bad name! Marx was an idealist early on in his intellectual career, and this tainted all of his work!

One's earlier thoughts cannot be changed! Once someone believes something it is impossible for them to go back, and I learned that by emulating a much better leader than Trotsky!


have I mastered stalinist logic yet?

Here's a good, well-written refutation of that. (http://kids.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/english/entry/defeatism)

Care to elaborate on your points rather than trolling?


Eh, there is no point in trying to reason with him. He is a reactionary third-world Nationalist.

STFU first-world chauvinist!

[Sea]

Care to elaborate on your points rather than trolling?I find it rather difficult to accept an accusation of defeatism when defeatism has no part in the ideology of the person you're accusing.

[ind_com]

I find it rather difficult to accept an accusation of defeatism when defeatism has no part in the ideology of the person you're accusing.

Be clearer, please. I have repeatedly asked the person I am accusing to produce some alternative plan in case the revolution in only one country succeeds.

[l'Enfermé]

"Hi my name is Ind_Com, I reject and revise practically every fundamental tenet of Marxism, like what constitutes a social class or the Marxist position on whether the peasantry is a revolutionary class. But, you're the one who poses as a Marxist!111!!1111!!!"

:rolleyes:

[ind_com]

"Hi my name is Ind_Com, I reject and revise practically every fundamental tenet of Marxism, like what constitutes a social class or the Marxist position on whether the peasantry is a revolutionary class. But, you're the one who poses as a Marxist!111!!1111!!!"

:rolleyes:

It's kinda funny to watch you liberals whine when you run out of arguments.

[Thirsty Crow]

I can't help but wonder is this the kind of debate Ghost Bebel had in mind when insisting on an honest and open debate with Stalinists which could presumably result in them casting off the illusions about certain theories and political positions arising from them.

But yeah I guess the internet is to blame.

[Paul Cockshott]

Whatever flaws the SI had (Vanguardist dogmatism in particular), its philosophy was much closer to the principles as described by Marx and Engles: the working class, not the peasantry of backward nations, is the revolutionary class. The revolution must take place in the advanced capitalist nations first,

Well in one sense it is not surprising that the theory of the second international was more similar to that of Marx since human knowledge tends to be cumulative.
We start ignorant, acquire tentative hypotheses some of which turn out to be true some false. When hypotheses turn out to be false we have to modify our theories.
Unless you are religious and believe true knowledge comes to us from the gods and their prophets, you do not make the antiquity of an idea a criterion for truth.

The physics of Laplace was closer to the physics of Newton than that of Heisenberg, but that does not make Heisenberg and Schroedinger 'revisionists'. Newton claimed that he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of Giants(( Hooke in this case), for Einstein, Heisenberg etc, Newton was a shoulder to stand on, but they too saw further.

Marx and Lenin were shoulders for Mao to stand on, but he too saw further than them because he knew things about the real world that they did not.

The idea that revolution would come first in developed capitalist countries has been thorougly disproven by the course of events, if you hold to it now, it is just dogmatic sentimentality on your part. Even in Marx's own lifetime it had been disproven : it was not in Britain that communism arose, but in Germany, then an underdeveloped land.

[Hit The North]

But he was positive about the construction of socialism in the USSR in future years.


I know you M-L's like to imbue your Saint Lenin with the omniscient powers of a god, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to come up with an authentic quote where Lenin states that he foresaw a socialist society erected in Russia amidst a sea of hostile capitalist imperialism.


That is another age-old debate between supporters and opponents of the USSR. Here we are dealing mainly with the question of validity of the PR to the victorious proletariat of one country.


Actually, you hi-jacked the debate by focussing on PR. The initial question related to Trotsky's memo to Lenin which has nowt to do with PR. But I note that one can only maintain that SOIC was the right policy if one accepts that socialism was built in the Soviet Union. I understand this presents difficulties for you in defending a debased notion of socialism as a system where the workers are ruled over and where the economy lags behind the capitalist economies that it was supposed to be a higher expression of, but that is your problem.

[Paul Cockshott]

Secondly, whatever the propaganda value SIOC had in terms of the real politic of maintaining support for the regime, we have the historical record which clearly shows that socialism was not created in the USSR never mind any other single country.

It would be helpful to your scientific credibility if you could point to a coherent theory of how a socialist economy would work, published before 1914 on which you are basing your judgement, and if you could show that this theory was the one programmatically accepted by the pre 1917 socialist movement.

There was never such a coherent theory and could never have been such a theory in the absence of a political movement having to face the practical problems that establishing a socialist economy entailed. The Soviet Communists had little to guide them about how a socialist economy should work, a little from Anti-Dhuring, a few aphorism in Critique of the Gotha Programme, and the theoretical orthodoxys of the 2nd International - for example Kautsky's writings on socialism. Within these parameters what they attempted fits pretty much bang in the middle of what socialists had intended. The reality of socialism, and the contradictions of socialism could not have been forseen by earlier writers.

I seriously doubt that Rosas Dream has ever published a coherent theory of how a socialist economy should work. I have. If Rosa has perhaps she can refer us to it.

[l'Enfermé]

It's kinda funny to watch you liberals whine when you run out of arguments.
I'm a liberal because my positions are in line with Marx's and you are a Marxist because your positions contradict his? Your reasoning is very peculiar, Comrade Maoist.

[Paul Cockshott]

to come up with an authentic quote where Lenin states that he foresaw a socialist society erected in Russia amidst a sea of hostile capitalist imperialism.

It is not necessary to imbue Lenin with a supernatural power to see the future to have respect for him a a political strategist.

[ind_com]

I know you M-L's like to imbue your Saint Lenin with the omniscient powers of a god, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to come up with an authentic quote where Lenin states that he foresaw a socialist society erected in Russia amidst a sea of hostile capitalist imperialism.

We do not hold Lenin or any other leader to be omniscient. We leave it to the experiences of the revolutionary masses to rectify and construct revolutionary theory. However, Lenin's conclusions were made while him being embedded in the Russian class war, and reflected the ground realities back then. Hence he urged the working classes multiple times to keep on fighting and construct socialism in Russia. I have already produced a quote where he gave the key strategy to save the socialist revolution in Russia.

[Hit The North]

We do not hold Lenin or any other leader to be omniscient. We leave it to the experiences of the revolutionary masses to rectify and construct revolutionary theory. However, Lenin's conclusions were made while him being embedded in the Russian class war, and reflected the ground realities back then. Hence he urged the working classes multiple times to keep on fighting and construct socialism in Russia.

So did Trotsky. You have no point.

[Hit The North]

It would be helpful to your scientific credibility if you could point to a coherent theory of how a socialist economy would work, published before 1914 on which you are basing your judgement, and if you could show that this theory was the one programmatically accepted by the pre 1917 socialist movement.


I take my queue from Marx and move beyond seeing socialism as a mere set of economic techniques and view it as a mode of production based on specific class relations - crucially the self-government of the direct producers. Are you suggesting that Stalin or his successors achieved this? Another principle in the Marxist definition is that socialism is a higher mode of production to capitalism. Are you also suggesting that the USSR outstripped its capitalist rivals? Another assumption is that socialism will be a more humane, less alienated society than capitalism. Is it another of your contentions that the Soviet Union attained this higher level of civilisation as well?

Now, of course, the term socialism has been used to denote many different things in the past from state capitalism to nationalised industry all the way to Obamacare and you are free to define it as you wish. But it is another thing to pretend that the USSR achieved socialism in terms of Marxist definitions.


It is not necessary to imbue Lenin with a supernatural power to see the future to have respect for him a a political strategist.

I completely agree. But ind_com suggested something else:


But he was positive about the construction of socialism in the USSR in future years.Now 1. he has not provided textual support for this; and 2. even if true, it is only an important argument if supernatural powers of premonition are attributed to Lenin. Paul, you've probably had enough dealings with M-L's to know that such an assertion is not beyond some of them.

[Marxaveli]

Well in one sense it is not surprising that the theory of the second international was more similar to that of Marx since human knowledge tends to be cumulative.
We start ignorant, acquire tentative hypotheses some of which turn out to be true some false. When hypotheses turn out to be false we have to modify our theories.
Unless you are religious and believe true knowledge comes to us from the gods and their prophets, you do not make the antiquity of an idea a criterion for truth.

The physics of Laplace was closer to the physics of Newton than that of Heisenberg, but that does not make Heisenberg and Schroedinger 'revisionists'. Newton claimed that he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of Giants(( Hooke in this case), for Einstein, Heisenberg etc, Newton was a shoulder to stand on, but they too saw further.

Marx and Lenin were shoulders for Mao to stand on, but he too saw further than them because he knew things about the real world that they did not.

The idea that revolution would come first in developed capitalist countries has been thorougly disproven by the course of events, if you hold to it now, it is just dogmatic sentimentality on your part. Even in Marx's own lifetime it had been disproven : it was not in Britain that communism arose, but in Germany, then an underdeveloped land.

There is a very big difference between building on what Marx and Engels wrote, and revising its core principles. Lenin built upon Marx, for better or worse depending on where you stand, but kept most of the basic and vital tenets intact. Mao changes several tenets within Marxism that should never have been changed - whether it was SIOC, developing socialism in a backwards country, or that the peasantry are the revolutionary class instead of the workers - because they defeat the point of socialism. These are changes that Mao made to Marxism that should NEVER have done. And history is proof of that.

Secondly, Marx didn't say revolution would come in developed capitalist nations first, but that they should come there first. And it makes sense, this is basic political science. You can't build a nation AND socialism at the same time. If anything, the course of events have proven Marx RIGHT, not wrong.

[ind_com]

So did Trotsky. You have no point.

What exactly are you asking for?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I agree, there is a very strong distinction between Leninism and Stalinism. However...

It is a bit unfair to conflate the entire SI with SPD reformists though, is it not? This is why Luxembourg and Liebknicht broke away from the SPD and formed the Spartacist Movement.

Who were the other major Marxists, besides Kautsky, that betrayed the workers movement and remained with the social democrats, in supporting WWI? And again, does the actions of the SPD define the entire groundwork AND theory of the SI? I think it is necessary to separate this, from the general ideological doctrine of the SI. Granted, I am not as well read many comrades here on this, but the SI, at least theoretically, seems pretty faithful to the foundation of what Marx and Engels wrote - especially compared to Stalinism or Maoism, which have little in common with Marxism as far as I'm concerned.
Comrade, MOST of the leaders of the SI voted war credits and/or supported their own bourgeoisie in WWI. It was not isolated to the German SPD. The French, Dutch, Italian, Austrian, British and US SPs all failed the acid test of internationalism. The term "social patriot" was coined to describe this almost universal betrayal of the parties of the SI in 1914. So, you need to ask yourself, "if these august gentlemen voted on mass to make a world war that they had, on paper, opposed for years, what fundamental things went wrong?" How could their practice diverge so catastrophically from their theory? There is a lot that has been written about this, and I can try to scare up some links to help if you like.

Stalinism, of which Maoism is a particular version, is neither Marxist nor Leninist (their name notwithstanding). It is a nationalistic, bureaucratic, distortion of Marxism/Leninism. Once that is clear, you can separate the Leninist wheat from the Stalinist chaff.

[Hit The North]

What exactly are you asking for?

You appear to be asserting that because Lenin continued to exhort the workers to continue to struggle for socialism this means he supported SIOC. My retort is that Trotsky also did this. Therefore, Lenin's exhortations cannot be offered as proof of his agreement with SIOC, any more than Trotsky's can.

[ind_com]

You appear to be asserting that because Lenin continued to exhort the workers to continue to struggle for socialism this means he supported SIOC. My retort is that Trotsky also did this. Therefore, Lenin's exhortations cannot be offered as proof of his agreement with SIOC, any more than Trotsky's can.

In the quote that I posted, Lenin instructs the working classes to save the socialist revolution in the absence of revolutions in other countries. Can you show some such quote by Trotsky?

[Hit The North]

In the quote that I posted, Lenin instructs the working classes to save the socialist revolution in the absence of revolutions in other countries. Can you show some such quote by Trotsky?

Is this the quote you are referring to:


"We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia."If so, to put it in its context, which is not a blanket prognosis for SIOC, but a report on the immediate task of handling the relationship between the town and the countryside, Lenin precedes this comment with this:


A word or two on the theoretical significance of, or the theoretical approach to, this issue. There is no doubt that in a country where the overwhelming majority of the population consists of small agricultural producers, a socialist revolution can be carried out only through the implementation of a whole series of special transitional measures which would be superfluous in highly developed capitalist countries where wage-workers in industry and agriculture make up the vast majority. Highly developed capitalist countries have a class of agricultural wage-workers that has taken shape over many decades. Only such a class can socially, economically, and politically support a direct transition to socialism. Only in countries where this class is sufficiently developed is it possible to pass directly from capitalism to socialism, without any special country-wide transitional measures. We have stressed in a good many written works, in all our public utterances, and all our statements in the press, that this is not the case in Russia. for here industrial workers are a minority and petty farmers are the vast majority. In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. As you know, we have done very much indeed in comparison with the past to bring about this condition, but far from enough to make it a reality.

The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds state power, and the majority of the peasant population.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/ch03.htm

Now, I don't mention this in order to embarrass you (although it is embarrassing for you), but to show that you will have to work harder in order to make a case that Lenin argued from the position of SIOC (that is, in the absence of revolutions "in one or several advanced countries.")

[ind_com]

Is this the quote you are referring to:

If so, to put it in its context, which is not a blanket prognosis for SIOC, but a report on the immediate task of handling the relationship between the town and the countryside, Lenin precedes this comment with this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/ch03.htm

Now, I don't mention this in order to embarrass you (although it is embarrassing for you), but to show that you will have to work harder in order to make a case that Lenin argued from the position of SIOC (that is, in the absence of revolutions "in one or several advanced countries.")

Thank you for not intending to embarrass me, but I can't really understand where you are trying to contradict my point. Lenin clearly identifies two conditions there, and claims that the second condition can save the socialist revolution in absence of the first. The first condition is the revolution spreading to advanced countries, and the second is the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry.

[Hit The North]

But it is clear that he is talking about the survival of the regime, not the construction of socialism in one couintry. In fact, because this particular issue was about setting out the NEP, Lenin is clear that this alliance between the workers and the peasants is something of a strategic retreat (clearly due to the failure of the first condition). Lenin is not such a sloppy thinker to insist in one breath that two conditions are necessary for the victory of socialism and then, in the next breath, claim that only the second condition is necessary.

[ind_com]

But it is clear that he is talking about the survival of the regime, not the construction of socialism in one couintry. In fact, because this particular issue was about setting out the NEP, Lenin is clear that this alliance between the workers and the peasants is something of a strategic retreat (clearly due to the failure of the first condition). Lenin is not such a sloppy thinker to insist in one breath that two conditions are necessary for the victory of socialism and then, in the next breath, claim that only the second condition is necessary.

I must have missed something there. Can you please point out the part where Lenin says that both conditions together are necessary? And indeed, in that piece Lenin proposed a transitional phase to socialism because Russia had a peasant majority. That transitional phase would be pointless if he wasn't looking forward to socialism in Russia.

[Paul Cockshott]

I take my queue from Marx and move beyond seeing socialism as a mere set of economic techniques and view it as a mode of production based on specific class relations - crucially the self-government of the direct producers. Are you suggesting that Stalin or his successors achieved this? Another principle in the Marxist definition is that socialism is a higher mode of production to capitalism. Are you also suggesting that the USSR outstripped its capitalist rivals? Another assumption is that socialism will be a more humane, less alienated society than capitalism

Well the problem with just starting with Marx is that there is not just one theoretical system working in Marx. By selecting works written at different dates you get different theoretical concepts.

You have taken from the early pre Communist Manifesto Marx the concept of alienation and made this a defnitional feature of a 'mode of production', but these ideas belong to different conceptual structures. The idea of alienation was something Marx toyed with as he tried to understand the class struggle of the workers using ideas he already knew about from the philosophy of Fuerbach.
The problem with the idea of alienation is that it is a philosophical idea not a scientific one. It has no operational meaning. How can one arrive at an objective measure of the amount of alienation in a society?

There is no such procedure and can not be one. So the question you ask is an impossible one to answer. It as futile as asking if there is more evil in Canada or Texas. It uses a word that has no measurable material interpretation.

You say that socialism is a mode of production characterised by 'self government of the direct producers', but that is not a concept at the right level, it is not a concept about production and reproduction but an idea from bourgeois political philosophy. It works on the contrast between self government, for example of the American colonies, and government by an foreign or alien power.
It says nothing about the economic forms of the society, the mechanism of economic reproduction or the method by which the surplus product is produced and distributed. It is these latter things that are crucial to Marx's later concept of a mode of production.

On the question of socialism being a 'higher mode of production' this formulation whilst a commonplace of Second International or Soviet terminology suffers from the problem that it only makes sense in the context of a unilinear sequence of modes of production that became standardised in Diamat but which is essentially idealist or teleological - a proletarian version of the Whig view of history.
From a scientific perspective how do you determine if something is a 'higher' mode of production?

It is a question posed in a theoretical framework that is essentially retrospective - slavery was a lower mode of production than feudalism because as history developed feudalism came after slavery. But in that sense anything that comes after something else is 'higher' which is not very helpful since it is evident that the Soviet economy of 1960 came after the Russian economy of 1900 and thus represented a 'higher' economic form.

In order to give the notion of 'higher' a concrete meaning you need some measurable scale to order things on. What is your measurable scale?

Is it life expectancy?

Is it population ?

Is it the educational level of the population ?

Is it the level of output per head ?

Is it the rate of growth of output per head ?

Is it the number of engineers and scientists working in the country ?

The first three are reasonably easy to measure, as soon as you get into things like levels of output per head you are getting into realms that are remarkably difficult to measure objectively.

What is your criterion of what is a 'higher' stage of economic development?

[Paul Cockshott]

There is a very big difference between building on what Marx and Engels wrote, and revising its core principles. Lenin built upon Marx, for better or worse depending on where you stand, but kept most of the basic and vital tenets intact. Mao changes several tenets within Marxism that should never have been changed - whether it was SIOC, developing socialism in a backwards country, or that the peasantry are the revolutionary class instead of the workers - because they defeat the point of socialism. These are changes that Mao made to Marxism that should NEVER have done. And history is proof of that.

This opens the question of what are the core principles or key ideas that Marx put forward.
I would put it to you that the key ideas that Marx put forward were :
1. The labour theory of value.
2. The theory of surplus value
3. In politics, the idea that the class struggle will lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat

None of these were repudiated by Maoism

The points you mention were ideas within the 2nd International but I am not aware of Marx devoting any publication to arguing them. As far as I am aware Marx had little or nothing to say about the peasantry in China. He had no practical knowledge of them and was in no position to asses their revolutionary potential.

As to your idea that it would be better if the Chinese revolution should never have occured, I will only say that this is not a view that will find much sympathy in China itself.

[ComradeOm]

But he was positive about the construction of socialism in the USSR in future yearsWithout wishing to get into the whole quote-a-Lenin game, this is highly disingenuous. It is clear from Lenin's last published work (the shamefully neglected Better Fewer, But Better (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm)) that by the end of his life Lenin was deeply ambivalent about not just the future but the whole Soviet experiment. He is scathing about the state of the Soviet apparatus and openly wonders whether the USSR can survive "until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries"

That whole last section, where he casts around for a glimmer of light, is bleak. He admits that the Soviets "lack enough civilisation to enable us to pass straight on to socialism, although we do have the political requisites for it. We should adopt the following tactics, or pursue the following policy, to save ourselves"

That is not someone who is "positive about the construction of socialism in the USSR in future years". It's someone concerned with how the USSR can "keep going" until international events make the transition to socialism possible

[ind_com]

Without wishing to get into the whole quote-a-Lenin game, this is highly disingenuous. It is clear from Lenin's last published work (the shamefully neglected Better Fewer, But Better (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm)) that by the end of his life Lenin was deeply ambivalent about not just the future but the whole Soviet experiment. He is scathing about the state of the Soviet apparatus and openly wonders whether the USSR can survive "until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries"

That whole last section, where he casts around for a glimmer of light, is bleak. He admits that the Soviets "lack enough civilisation to enable us to pass straight on to socialism, although we do have the political requisites for it. We should adopt the following tactics, or pursue the following policy, to save ourselves"

That is not someone who is "positive about the construction of socialism in the USSR in future years". It's someone concerned with how the USSR can "keep going" until international events make the transition to socialism possible

It is a severe criticism by Lenin, of the shortcomings of the Soviet apparatus. Indeed, he said "It is not easy for us, however, to keep going until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries ..." and proposed a series of measures that he aimed at a gradual transition to socialism. He said, "it is not easy", not that "it is impossible" to keep going. Acknowledging the odds stacked against socialism, and directing the working classes to put up a prolonged and concrete fight for socialism, is quite different from claiming that socialism is not possible.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's kinda funny to watch you liberals whine when you run out of arguments.

Do you just call anyone you disagree with a liberal and then run away?

[ind_com]

Do you just call anyone you disagree with a liberal and then run away?

No. When I know that someone is really a liberal posing as a communist, I call him a liberal. There are others with whom I disagree with, but consider them to be communists as well.

[ComradeOm]

It is a severe criticism by Lenin, of the shortcomings of the Soviet apparatus. Indeed, he said "It is not easy for us, however, to keep going until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries ..." and proposed a series of measures that he aimed at a gradual transition to socialism. He said, "it is not easy", not that "it is impossible" to keep going. Acknowledging the odds stacked against socialism, and directing the working classes to put up a prolonged and concrete fight for socialism, is quite different from claiming that socialism is not possible.No. That's just wrong. Lenin said that "It is not easy for us, however, to keep going until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries". You can't just stop reading before the italics and claim that he was talking about the eventual construction of socialism in an isolated USSR. That's not how language works

But all this quote-picking all by the by. You use Lenin as a source of authority but completely ignore what he's actually saying and twist these texts to serve your own ends. And that's the difference between Leninism and Stalinism

[hetz]

Lenin said that "It is not easy for us, however, to keep going until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries".Well it wasn't easy.
I only vaguely remember what you people are talking about, but it really is true that Lenin, towards the end of his life, got "depressed" from all the "bureaucratic ( or bureaucratist ) practices" and "general lack of culture" and "machinery only barely greased by Soviet lubricant".

[ind_com]

No. That's just wrong. Lenin said that "It is not easy for us, however, to keep going until the socialist revolution is victorious in more developed countries". You can't just stop reading before the italics and claim that he was talking about the eventual construction of socialism in an isolated USSR. That's not how language works

I really don't understand how you interpret it otherwise. He said that it was not easy to continue until the socialist revolution spread, not that it was impossible to continue until the socialist revolution spread.


But all this quote-picking all by the by. You use Lenin as a source of authority but completely ignore what he's actually saying and twist these texts to serve your own ends. And that's the difference between Leninism and Stalinism

We insist that that's the difference between Leninism and Trotskyism.

[Geiseric]

Lenin died before SioC was an issue, so there's no possible way to see if he supported it or not. Stalin didn't even believe in it until mid-late 1925. He did however found the communist international, so we need evidence that he didn't think it was necessary to fund it or even keep it alive if he truly believes in SioC. Stalin did dissolve Comintern, after gutting it.

[ind_com]

Lenin died before SioC was an issue, so there's no possible way to see if he supported it or not. Stalin didn't even believe in it until mid-late 1925. He did however found the communist international, so we need evidence that he didn't think it was necessary to fund it or even keep it alive if he truly believes in SioC. Stalin did dissolve Comintern, after gutting it.

SIOC and internationalism are not in contradiction. SIOC just states that an underdeveloped country can construct socialism on its own. It does not come into conflict with aiding or guiding revolutions worldwide.

[Marxaveli]

SIOC and internationalism are not in contradiction.

Yes, they are.


SIOC just states that an underdeveloped country can construct socialism on its own.

And SIOC is wrong about that, and just about everything else. You cannot build a country and socialism at the same time.


It does not come into conflict with aiding or guiding revolutions worldwide.

Actually it does. Revolution must occur in advanced capitalist societies first, and the fact the SIOC model has been tried numerous times, most in underdeveloped countries, and with very little success - is proof of this shortcoming.

[ind_com]

Yes, they are. Totally convincing.


And SIOC is wrong about that, and just about everything else. You cannot build a country and socialism at the same time.

Doesn't make sense without further explanation.


Actually it does. Revolution must occur in advanced capitalist societies first, and the fact the SIOC model has been tried numerous times, most in underdeveloped countries, and with very little success - is proof of this shortcoming.

First-worldism yet again. And using your logic, it can be deduced that either all other models are useless as well, or no one ever cared to try out those models anywhere.

[hetz]

Revolution must occur in advanced capitalist societies first, and the fact the SIOC model has been tried numerous times, most in underdeveloped countries, and with very little success - is proof of this shortcoming. Saying that the revolution "must first occur in this or that place" is pretty pointless and hardly has anything to do with Marxism anyway.
Marx didn't say that revolutions "must" occur in Germany or France first. Indeed, it was later pointed out that Russia might become the hotbed of revolution in Europe and beyond...

[l'Enfermé]

What the fuck is wrong with you mate, can't you read? Why in God's name are you assuming that by "keep going" he means "achieve socialism"? The paragraph, in Russia, is as follows:


Общей чертой нашего быта является теперь следующее: мы разрушили капиталистическую промышленность, постарались разрушить дотла учреждения средневековые, помещичье землевладение и на этой почве создали мелкое и мельчайшее крестьянство, которое идет за пролетариатом из доверия к результатам его революционной работы. На этом доверии, однако, продержаться нам вплоть до победы социалистической революции в более развитых странах нелегко, потому что мелкое и мельчайшее крестьянство, особенно при нэпе, держится по экономической необходимости на крайне низком уровне производительности труда. Да и международная обстановка вызвала то, что Россия отброшена теперь назад, что в общем и целом производительность народного труда у нас теперь значительно менее высока, чем до войны. Западноевропейские капиталистические державы, частью сознательно, частью стихийно, сделали все возможное, чтобы отбросить пас назад, чтобы использовать элементы гражданской войны в России для возможно большего разорения страны. Именно такой выход из империалистической войны представлялся, конечно, имеющим значительные выгоды: если мы не опрокинем революционного строя в России, то, во всяком случае, мы затрудним его развитие к социализму, — так, примерно, рассуждали эти державы, и с их точки зрения они не могли рассуждать иначе. В итоге они получили полурешение своей задачи. Они не свергли нового строя, созданного революцией, но они и не дали ему возможности сделать сейчас же такой шаг вперед, который бы оправдал предсказания социалистов, который бы дал им возможность с громадной быстротой развить производительные силы, развить все те возможности, которые сложились бы в социализм, доказать всякому и каждому наглядно, воочию, что социализм таит в себе гигантские силы и что человечество перешло теперь к новой, несущей необыкновенно блестящие возможности стадии развития.
The part in question, which I bolded, I translate as "On this confidence, however, to hang on until the victory of socialist revolution in the more advanced countries is not easy, because...."

He's not talking of building socialism in Russia at all. Such a notion would have been laughed at before Stalinist revisionism took hold. He's saying that it won't be easy for the Bolsheviks to cling on to power in Russia until the Socialist Revolution in the West on "this confidence"(the confidence that exists because the Bolsheviks destroyed capitalist industry and abolished landlord-ism and created a small peasantry subjugated to the will of the proletariat) alone.

It wasn't a question of building socialism in Russia at all, it was a question of actually maintaining the Bolshevik regime until the Socialist Revolution in the West emancipates the world proletariat.

SIOC is a grotesque revisionism. It's not a Stalinist invention, though, not really. The whole nonsense originated in the heads of right-wing German Social-Democrats in the 1880s I believe, as I saw noted by someone on RevLeft many months ago(DNZ or Q probably). The main theoretician of Socialism in One Country/Socialism in an Isolated State/whatever was George von Vollmar apparently, who was opposed by all of German Marxists. I've never been able to find a translation of his Der isolierte soziale Staat("The Isolated Socialist State", published in 1880). Stalin and Co. just revived this reactionary theory, they didn't invent it.

[hetz]

The part in question, which I bolded, I translate as "On this confidence, however, to hang on until the victory of socialist revolution in the more advanced countries is not easy, because...."Why didn't you translate the whole of the bolded part?

...потому что мелкое и мельчайшее крестьянство, особенно при нэпе, держится по экономической необходимости на крайне низком уровне производительности труда
... because the small peasentry, especially under the NEP, reproduces, according to the economic neccessity, the low level of labor productivity on the countryside.

(I'm not 100% sure about the translation but the point is more-less clear.)

Certainly, after the collectivization ended the situation was radically different.

[Ostrinski]

If A Marxist Historian was here he'd curbstomp y'all

[hetz]

If A Marxist Historian was here he'd curbstomp y'all
I took a look at his profile and he seems like a very smart and knowledgeable member.
Why was he banned?

[l'Enfermé]

^He was accused of being a sexist because of his refusal to believe anti-Assange propoganda or something like that, there was a long thread which I didn't follow(I was restricted back then, basically read only OPs outside the Opposing Ideologies forum). Which is completely ridiculous, the guy was a neat fella and definitely not a sexist. But then again I've joined only in February and saw so many people banned for absolutely no reason that I don't think his banning was so ridiculous at all, as far as RevLeft standards go.

[Ismail]

Stalin once pointed out that he didn't defend "socialism in one country" because everything was going swimmingly, but because it was a necessary course to take if the gains of the revolution were not to be smashed to smithereens. By Stalin's death pretty much every apprehension Lenin had about future prospects were overcome, from the issue of international isolation to the economic situation.

Lenin during the civil war at times doubted that Soviet Russia could last against the onslaught of the Germans and other forces. He later admitted his doubts obviously did not come to pass.

[Tim Cornelis]

No. When I know that someone is really a liberal posing as a communist, I call him a liberal. There are others with whom I disagree with, but consider them to be communists as well.

Well apparently anyone who is skeptical of the FARC being able to carry out a social revolution is a "liberal" and not worthy of having a discussion with, so your definition of qualifies as 'communist' and 'liberal' presumably approximates 'a communist is someone who agrees with me, and a liberal is a communist I disagree with.'

[ind_com]

Well apparently anyone who is skeptical of the FARC being able to carry out a social revolution is a "liberal" and not worthy of having a discussion with, so your definition of qualifies as 'communist' and 'liberal' presumably approximates 'a communist is someone who agrees with me, and a liberal is a communist I disagree with.'

Being just skeptical is not the issue. Criticisms concerning the strategy and tactics of any revolutionary group can be made. But denouncing some such group altogether or claiming that its dissolution will aid class-struggle, is plain reactionary.

[Crux]

^He was accused of being a sexist because of his refusal to believe anti-Assange propoganda or something like that, there was a long thread which I didn't follow(I was restricted back then, basically read only OPs outside the Opposing Ideologies forum). Which is completely ridiculous, the guy was a neat fella and definitely not a sexist. But then again I've joined only in February and saw so many people banned for absolutely no reason that I don't think his banning was so ridiculous at all, as far as RevLeft standards go.
Yes he was smart about some things undoubtedly. But he was also a sexist rape-apologist who in classical spart subtle manner called the women lying CIA whore Assange groupies and fucking someone without consent isn't really rape. But for someone from an organization who spends a comical amount of articles on how the left need to stand up for Roman Polanski and NAMBLA, what can you expect? We've been over this. If anyone is *really* curious why he was banned, PM me for entire fucking list. This is not the place for this discussion.


Stalin once pointed out that he didn't defend "socialism in one country" because everything was going swimmingly, but because it was a necessary course to take if the gains of the revolution were not to be smashed to smithereens. By Stalin's death pretty much every apprehension Lenin had about future prospects were overcome, from the issue of international isolation to the economic situation.

Lenin during the civil war at times doubted that Soviet Russia could last against the onslaught of the Germans and other forces. He later admitted his doubts obviously did not come to pass.
You mean like outlawing abortion and homosexuality again? Before Stalin the national anthem of the soviet union was The Internationale but Stalin changed to that, while musically wonderful, a song about the grandness of russia and, of course, the man of steel himself.

[Tim Cornelis]

Being just skeptical is not the issue. Criticisms concerning the strategy and tactics of any revolutionary group can be made. But denouncing some such group altogether or claiming that its dissolution will aid class-struggle, is plain reactionary.

That is contradictory. If you are critical of their strategy and this criticism entails that they are incapable of making a social revolution, then the conclusion is that they are not a revolutionary group. Consequently, insisting their disintegration will be positive is not reactionary--it is a different opinion on strategy. But as you yelled "liberal!" and then ran away, I will not dwell on why I think killing workers to target capitalists is not a good strategy.

What is your opinion on the black bloc tactic? I assume you, like most Marxist-Leninists, oppose it. This opposition is usually based on the notion they do more harm than good, and consequently the non-use of black bloc tactics (which is tantamount to their disintegration) is a positive thing. If you hold this position it would make you a liberal by your own logic, and if you do not, it makes anyone opposed to black bloc tactics (most Marxist-Leninists) a liberal. I'm sure you don't actually think this.

In short, stop using "liberal" and "reactionary" as buzzwords meant to kill any debate.

[Omsk]

I took a look at his profile and he seems like a very smart and knowledgeable member.
Why was he banned?


He was a Trot, and his posts were not even that good.

[Grenzer]

AMH was a reactionary twat, he just happened to know a bit about history. Unfortunately, that's not enough to gain my respect.

I kind of despised him for his extremely arrogant and passive-aggressive way of insulting anyone who didn't agree with his bizarre political cult, the Spartacists, on every last issue(such as Nicaragua being a stateless society under the Sandinista regime). He was an avowed supporter of NAMBLA(which by itself is a restrictable/bannable offense I believe), and had very reactionary views towards rape and sexism. I'm glad he's gone. He could occasionally say something non-sectarian and productive, but that tended to be the exception rather than the rule.

Oh, and back on the topic. One might as well add the dissolution of the Comintern to that list. I don't see how we can realistically approach the goal of socialism without an international socialist organization to coordinate struggles and bring them beyond the confines of a single national unit. The excuse that was used in justifying this was that it was politically inconvenient to Soviet foreign policy. Well no fucking shit, of course supporting international socialism isn't going to be too popular with the bourgie scum. By that point it didn't really matter though because the Comintern had long been a burnt out husk of its former self. There is really no indication at all that the Soviets had any serious intention of resurrecting the International.

In some ways I think the Comintern was a fatally flawed model from the beginning. Ideally, an International should be the effort of the international proletariat, beholden only to the international class rather than the interests of any one specific country. Revolutionary Russia was the outpost of world revolution, but at the same time that should not warrant total subordination of the International to its interests. Should that outpost fall, then it would take the international proletariat down with it; this is actually precisely what happened, and Lenin shared these fears regarding the Comintern while reminiscing on how the same thing had happened with the Second International and the SPD's stranglehold over it.

Gotta give them an A for effort though, but we need to take care in the future that these kind of structural flaws are not reproduced.

[hetz]

Oh, and back on the topic. One might as well add the dissolution of the Comintern to that list. I don't see how we can realistically approach the goal of socialism without an international socialist organization to coordinate struggles and bring them beyond the confines of a single national unit. The excuse that was used in justifying this was that it was politically inconvenient to Soviet foreign policy. Well no fucking shit, of course supporting international socialism isn't going to be too popular with the bourgie scum. By that point it didn't really matter though because the Comintern had long been a burnt out husk of its former self. There is really no indication at all that the Soviets had any serious intention of resurrecting the International.Comintern was as you said basically moribund by then but the Cominform was formed a few years later.

[Ismail]

The excuse that was used in justifying this was that it was politically inconvenient to Soviet foreign policy.That wasn't used, actually. Dimitrov's diaries make it pretty clear that the Comintern was considered a fetter on the various communist parties. Western attempts to "understand" the dissolution naturally resulted in "it helps Soviet foreign policy vis-à-vis the West," but the actual reasons were organization-related.

Also, from another source,

"We now know that on 20 April 1941, at a closed dinner at the Bolshoi Theater, Stalin... [r]effering to the fact that the American Communists had disaffiliated from the Comintern in order to avoid prosecution under the Voorhis Act... declared,

'Dimitrov is losing his parties. That's not bad. On the contrary, it would be good to make the Com[munist] parties entirely independent instead of being sections of the CI. They must be transformed into national Com. parties under various names—Labor Party, Marxist Party, etc. The name doesn't matter. What is important is that they take root in their own people and concentrate on their own special tasks. The situation and tasks vary greatly from country to country, for instance in England and Germany, they are not at all the same. When the Com. parties get strong in this fashion, then you'll reestablish their international organization.'

Stalin continued:

'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)


You mean like outlawing abortion and homosexuality again? Before Stalin the national anthem of the soviet union was The Internationale but Stalin changed to that, while musically wonderful, a song about the grandness of russia and, of course, the man of steel himself.If changing the status of abortion, homosexuality and the national anthem make or break a revolution and its gains then that's a pretty weak revolution. Khrushchev legalized abortion and Brezhnev "communized" the Soviet anthem's lyrics while the GDR decriminalized homosexuality in 1968, so using your logic they "restored" the gains of the revolution.

[Crux]

Consider this a verbal warning to Ostrinski and Gladiator for spam.

[ind_com]

That is contradictory. If you are critical of their strategy and this criticism entails that they are incapable of making a social revolution, then the conclusion is that they are not a revolutionary group. Consequently, insisting their disintegration will be positive is not reactionary--it is a different opinion on strategy. But as you yelled "liberal!" and then ran away, I will not dwell on why I think killing workers to target capitalists is not a good strategy.

Being merely skeptical and stating that they are incapable of making social revolution are two different things. The latter conclusion is extended to a more rightist argument claiming that somehow things would be better without the revolutionary movement itself and is nothing but an apology for the imperialist oppressors.


What is your opinion on the black bloc tactic? I assume you, like most Marxist-Leninists, oppose it. This opposition is usually based on the notion they do more harm than good, and consequently the non-use of black bloc tactics (which is tantamount to their disintegration) is a positive thing. If you hold this position it would make you a liberal by your own logic, and if you do not, it makes anyone opposed to black bloc tactics (most Marxist-Leninists) a liberal. I'm sure you don't actually think this.

I don't know about the black-bloc tactics.


In short, stop using "liberal" and "reactionary" as buzzwords meant to kill any debate.

I call liberals and reactionaries what they really are, and I don't see anything wrong about it.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

He was a Trot, and his posts were not even that good.
You are a Stalinist and your posts are not nearly as good as his. Although you seem to be immensely well read in obscure literature from the 30s, 40s, and 50s by Stalinist hacks. In any case, no reason for you to be banned or for AMH to be banned. Some of you comrades hate the Spartacist League -- okay, your privilege. AMH was a very knowledgeable contributor to this forum. Banning him because of his suspicions that Assange was being set up on rape charges is crazy. I've had the NAMBLA discussion before, and the SL doesn't support NAMBLA, it defends it's right to exist and not be persecuted by the state. It would seem a lot of the comrades here are all to sanguine about the bourgeois state intervening in people's sex lives.

[Geiseric]

NAMBLA is a rapist organization. Minors cannot under any circumstance be put into a position where predators can legally threaten them into submission. NAMBLA has no right to exist. If it was anything other than an organization filled with, technically pedophiles, i'd say let it be, whatever floats their boat, but little kids don't know any better, and it's out of the question to support an organization whose main goal is to legalize pedophelia. Anti pedo laws are restricting sexual rights in the same way that anti lynching laws restrict racists freedom of speech.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO Broody is absolutely correct. NAMBLA is a rapist organization and if the Sparts defend it then they are rape apologists.

[Althusser]

This fucking thread is still alive?

[Ismail]

To get back to the original post, the Soviets under Lenin actually established friendly relations with Reza Shah, even though he attacked the revolutionary government in Persia.

Also: "Kucik Khan, one of the heads of the republic of Golan, after the defeat at the hands of Reza [Shah], fled into the mountains where he subsequently died... Stalin, who had supported Kucik Khan, was infuriated. His rage was particularly directed at Soviet representative in Teheran Fyodor Rothstein, considered to be responsible for this death and, more generally, for the end of the republic of Golan. The issue was raised in a Politburo meeting, and Lenin, impatient with the discussion, tried to cut it off with the comment, 'Well. Sharp reprimand to comrade Rothstein for having killed Kucik Khan.' Someone objected to that Kucik had been killed by Reza [Shah], and Lenin replied, 'Well. Sharp reprimand to Reza.' Stalin reminded him that they could not send a reprimand to Reza since he was not a Soviet citizen. At that, Lenin broke out in laughter along with several others. The group then went on to discuss other matters." - Piero Melograni, Lenin and the Myth of World Revolution, p. 140.


Theres nothing objectionable about that piece, the underlying theme of it is that Soviet Russia and the Red Army would immediately come to the aid of these revolutions(and these revolutions would need significant aid unlike say Germany). With Polish armies advanced to Kiev it would have been a disaster to need to divert the army to the aid of other revolutions at that particular time.

So Trotsky suggests that in these areas the communists should be cautious about doing anything that requires military aid until the industry and infrastructure is capable of providing it.Interestingly enough Stalin was critical of the prospects for victory in the Polish-Soviet War, as were Dzerzhinsky and some others.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'm not sure if I said this already, but I think it ought to be said again.

Stalin did some messed up stuff, I admit that I am in no place to criticize him because I have not taken enough time to study his reign, however I think it's fair to say that he made mistakes.

The biggest mistakes that most people cite are his purges and his poor treatment of the peasantry. However it's important to note that Trotsky was exiled because he opposed Burkirun's (Or however you spell his name) economic policies. However it was soon realized that Trotsky was right and Stalin adapted Trotsky's line in a whole bunch of policies. Let me reitterate that, it wasn't due to any humanitarian concern. I'll quote the man himself

As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the "sacredness of human life."
~Terrorism and Communism

The road to socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the state … Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the state, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of state, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction
~Terrorism and Communism

The question of the form of repression, or of its degree, of course, is not one of “principle.” It is a question of expediency. In a revolutionary period, the party which has been thrown from power, which does not reconcile itself with the stability of the ruling class, and which proves this by its desperate struggle against the latter, cannot be terrorized by the threat of imprisonment, as it does not believe in its duration. It is just this simple but decisive fact that explains the widespread recourse to shooting in a civil war.
~Terrorism and Communism

During war all institutions and organs of the State and of public opinion become, directly or indirectly, weapons of warfare. This is particularly true of the Press. No government carrying on a serious war will allow publications to exist on its territory which, openly or indirectly, support the enemy. Still more so in a civil war. The nature of the latter is such that each of the struggling sides has in the rear of its armies considerable circles of the population on the side of the enemy. In war, where both success and failure are repaid by death, hostile agents who penetrate into the rear are subject to execution. This is inhumane, but no one ever considered war a school of humanity – still less civil war. Can it be seriously demanded that, during a civil war with the White Guards of Denikin, the publications of parties supporting Denikin should come out unhindered in Moscow and Petrograd?

~Terrorism and Communism


Now please tell me who that sounds like?

So back to the main question.What line was that exactly? Simple, in his work Terrorism and Communism, which Stalin is said to have read more than any other Marxist text (according to the amount of notes found in his copy of the book). Trotsky argued for the use of alot of tactics employed by Stalin to maintain his hold on power. Additionally he argued for the class struggle against the peasantry, which Stalin also adapted. So in the end, the whole Trotsky vs Stalin debate really isn't anything of that great consequence, and we need to realize at this point that calling eachother "Stalinists" or "Trots" because our factions hate eachother so much has no bearing on the 21 century, when the legacy of both leaders has all bit died away completely.

(And as a brief self-criticism, I acknowledge that I have also behaved in a sectarian manner towards the Trotskites and I apologize for it. Sectarian is always wrong and ought to be avoided by any good communist.)

[Geiseric]

I don't think that Trotsky ever supported killing hundreds of thousands of communists. He did support fighting reactionaries, but that's totally different than Stalin's purges.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless all we have is speculation, and speculation is no good reason to divide the left.

[ind_com]

I don't think that Trotsky ever supported killing hundreds of thousands of communists. He did support fighting reactionaries, but that's totally different than Stalin's purges.

Trotsky himself executed many fighters in the red army for trivial reasons.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Trotsky himself executed many fighters in the red army for trivial reasons.

And remember Kronstadt?

I'm not one that will weep over the humanatarin considerations of Kronstadt. I believe that Trotsky did the right thing there. However that event proved that he clearly had no quails with killing leftists.

Again, I don't want you to think that I am besmerching Trotsky's charcther. It's just that the entire history of the Trotskite movement has been devoted to criticizing Stalin. And when he died and a new brand of revisionism took place, the Trots couldn't move on. They invented the word "Stalinism" to charctherize every socialist movement that grew from Leninism other than their own tendency. And by doing that, now anyone who isn't a Trot is associated with Stalin, and you know what, as a Maoist I take offense to that. I'm not a Stalinist, you can't invent a word and redefine it as you will to fit your political goals. So let's drop this whole "Stalin V Trotsky" debate because both of their regimes would look at least somewhat similar. Lets stop calling people Stalinists, and lets start debating our theoretical differences based on their merits and applicability to the real world, not some abstract moralizing. Because if Trotskyism is the correct path as you say, then it can win in an honest debate fair and square without any dirty words.

[Geiseric]

Kronstadt was sparked by grain seizures, which the peasantry didn't like (obviously), so that was a petit bourgeois insurrection in character. It would of been supported by the Right Opposition if it happened later on. The Kronstadt Soviet was dominated for a long time by SRs, and Petrichenko himself was the son of a Kulak. None of the red army were killed "for trivial reasons," nor were the purgees during Stalinism, for the most part (excluding those Stalin basically didn't trust or like personally, like Kirov or Kaganovich who were Stalin supporters), there were actual political reasons for these events bourgeois ideologues like to paint as personality conflicts.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Which ideas were those? For the most part the doctrines of Trotskyism are entirely different from the ideas of Trotsky the Menshevik. Pretty much the only thing the have in common is Permanent Revolution. There seems to be Little doubt that Lenin agreed with such a concept.

At the time, he was a follower of the two-stage theory. What changed in 12 years? Not the material conditions in Russia, that's for damn sure. Russia was not particularly more developed in 1917 than it had been in 1905. The only thing that could have brought about this change is abandoning the two-stage theory and adopting permanent revolution.

Lenin wasn't the sole leader of the revolution. In fact, it was extremely common for both domestic and foreign observers to refer to "Lenin and Trotsky" as the leaders of the Revolution.. in fact they usually grouped them together like that. It was more common to see people talk about "Lenin and Trotsky are doing..." rather than just them as individuals.

I am not defending or supporting the theory of Permanent Revolution here, as that is irrelevant to the subject at hand; but it seems pretty undeniable that Lenin adopted that view or something remarkably similar to it or he wouldn't have even supported the revolution to begin with.

Ghost Bebel is right on the money, entirely correct, here, I think. I remember reading a leftist historian years ago, who made the point that, before the October Revolution, Lenin moved from a two-stage understanding of revolution in Russia, to accept Trotsky's notion of permanent revolution, wherein the working class leads the revolution to a proletarian dictatorship, while Trotsky moved to accept Lenin's understanding of the nature of the revolutionary party. Lenin remarked that Trotsky came to understand that reunification between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was impossible, and, since then, "there has been no better Bolshevik" than Trotsky.

[ind_com]

And remember Kronstadt?

I'm not one that will weep over the humanatarin considerations of Kronstadt. I believe that Trotsky did the right thing there. However that event proved that he clearly had no quails with killing leftists.

Again, I don't want you to think that I am besmerching Trotsky's charcther. It's just that the entire history of the Trotskite movement has been devoted to criticizing Stalin. And when he died and a new brand of revisionism took place, the Trots couldn't move on. They invented the word "Stalinism" to charctherize every socialist movement that grew from Leninism other than their own tendency. And by doing that, now anyone who isn't a Trot is associated with Stalin, and you know what, as a Maoist I take offense to that. I'm not a Stalinist, you can't invent a word and redefine it as you will to fit your political goals. So let's drop this whole "Stalin V Trotsky" debate because both of their regimes would look at least somewhat similar. Lets stop calling people Stalinists, and lets start debating our theoretical differences based on their merits and applicability to the real world, not some abstract moralizing. Because if Trotskyism is the correct path as you say, then it can win in an honest debate fair and square without any dirty words.

Not that I support all the actions of Lenin and Stalin; in many places they were wrong. But I shudder at the thought of what Trotsky would have done had he succeeded Lenin. A person that believed that red army men could be motivated to fight only by execution for disobeying orders, would have executed most of the red army and communist party membership well before the 30s.

[Geiseric]

Are you kidding? That's what Stalin did. Man you're out of your mind, do you know anything of the military purges that Stalin did? Trotsky didn't do anything like that while he was in charge of the red army, there really weren't too many summary executions outside of normal military discipline from what I understand during the civil war. There were the romanovs and stuff, but the white army were the really brutal ones during the entire conflict. Stalin had brutal military disciplines as well, i'm not sure if you've read about his campaigns in Poland, and how he dealt with Georgians and other minorities.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, Trotsky did preside over some pretty authoritarian measures during the war such as executions, conscription, kidnapping of families to ensure good behavior, et al but that was in the context of a war of which Trotsky was the commander in chief of one of the armies. We might consider some of what he did despicable and horrendous but we have to place in relation to the greater good - the protection of the revolution in Russia from a standing army that very well could have won.

The primary opposition is not that Stalin merely killed people (although the extent to which this was carried out was also contemptible) but the context that they were killed under, i.e. a context completely different from fucking civil war. Those that were killed consisted of political opponents of Stalin or those thought to be political opponents and genuine revolutionaries that had been instrumental in the building of the Bolshevik party.

[ind_com]

Yes, Trotsky did preside over some pretty authoritarian measures during the war such as executions, conscription, kidnapping of families to ensure good behavior, et al but that was in the context of a war of which Trotsky was the commander in chief of one of the armies. We might consider some of what he did despicable and horrendous but we have to place in relation to the greater good - the protection of the revolution in Russia from a standing army that very well could have won.

Sorry, but no saviour from on high delivers. Not even during wars. Class-struggle has to be conducted from below, and the soldiers fighting for the working-class must not be subordinated to some bureaucrat randomly handing out execution orders. Kidnapping families, conscription, show of power through frequent executions etc. demonstrated the bourgeois power-hungry nature of Trotsky very well.


The primary opposition is not that Stalin merely killed people (although the extent to which this was carried out was also contemptible) but the context that they were killed under, i.e. a context completely different from fucking civil war. Those that were killed consisted of political opponents of Stalin or those thought to be political opponents and genuine revolutionaries that had been instrumental in the building of the Bolshevik party.

There were many excesses under Stalin, but still the USSR was the only country to have eliminated the fascist fifth column inside it. In general, the USSR made the same mistake of conducting class-struggle through bureaucrats, which is one of the main causes of its downfall, but there is no doubt that the allegations against the main leaders accused were all true. That is why Trotsky had to stage a drama of a mock-trial in Mexico.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I sense more than a little projection here. The Moscow trials were mock-trials. The various terrorist centers were imaginery. The notion that there existed a "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" that included Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Bukharin, and Alexei Rykov is ludicrous. During Soviet times even the officials there admitted that the trials were a mockery of justice. Grover Furr is about the last defender of the trials and he has about as much credibility as does David Irving.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Sorry, but no saviour from on high delivers.... There were many excesses under Stalin, but still the USSR was the only country to have eliminated the fascist fifth column inside it.... there is no doubt that the allegations against the main leaders accused were all true.

If, according to the Internationale, "No savior from on high delivers," then that eliminates the unspeakable Stalin, whose cult of personality reached indescribable proportions in the USSR during the 1930's, proportions that can hardly even be imagined today.

And the Stalin cult included executions of millions of perfectly innocent Soviet citizens; there was no "fascist fifth column" at work in the USSR; the whole reason for the purges made by the Stalinists was imaginary: all that terrible human suffering, all those executions, under Stalin, for nothing, for no real reason!

Nor was Stalin any slouch in the destruction of the General Staff of the Red Army, which greatly endangered the survival of the Revolution, when the real, rather than imaginary, German fascists decided to attack. The counter-revolutionary Solzhenitsyn is not the only writer to have noticed that the one man on earth Stalin trusted, was Hitler. Soviet author Aksyonov noticed that, too, and wrote about it, in his Generations of Winter. It is unbelievable that anyone would defend Stalin at this late date, the way the RevLeft Stalinists are doing.

[GoddessCleoLover]

An internet "community" is an ideal place to defend Stalin or for that matter to engage in right-wing "historical revisionism". In the real world were one has to look a person in the face and where there are real consequences to actions neo-Stalinism falls upon deaf ears.

[Grenzer]

Whether the two-stage theory can even be considered an authentic Marxist position is in doubt. Marx did speak of revolution in permanence, after all. The primary proponent of the two-stage theory, so far as I am aware, was the arch-Menshevik, Plekhanov. The logical implication of the theory is that proletarian revolution shouldn't be supported unless it's under a certain, ideal condition(namely developed capitalism). The defencist position in regards to the Russian Civil War was the natural conclusion of holding that position. If Lenin did not have some understanding and acceptance of the concept of permanent revolution, then it's very doubtful he would have supported revolution at all.

The Stalinist adoption of the two-stage theory primarily seems to be to justify suppression of revolutionary movements abroad and support bourgeois forces via the popular front and such disastrous strategies as were foisted upon the CCP during the 1920's. Even Ismail has said that the Popular Front in Spain was justified to "complete the anti-feudal revolution"; truly absurd given that the conditions in Spain were, if anything, more suited to proletarian revolution than Russia had been. This is literally the same logic that the Mensheviks used to justify supporting the Whites.

[hetz]

there was no "fascist fifth column" at work in the USSRThat's absurd. There was a fascist fifth column at work in countries like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, of course it existed in the USSR too.
Of course, that doesn't excuse or justify "the purges" in general, most victims of Stalinist terror were innocent.

[GoddessCleoLover]

That's absurd. There was a fascist fifth column at work in countries like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, of course it existed in the USSR too.
Of course, that doesn't excuse or justify "the purges" in general, most victims of Stalinist terror were innocent.

There may have been a Fascist Fifth column within the USSR but the entire thrust of the Moscow purge trials was based upon eradicating the generation of revolutionaries who remembered Lenin and not upon their alleged participation in a fifth column. Not only were most victims of the terror innocent, it would be difficult to identify any victim who was really a fifth columnist. This is because the entire thrust of the trials was to eliminate those who might question Stalin's judgment not to prosecute real traitors.

[Ismail]

(excluding those Stalin basically didn't trust or like personally, like Kirov or Kaganovich who were Stalin supporters)1. Kirov wasn't killed by Stalin;
2. Kaganovich lived to the ripe old age of 97, dying in 1991 and pro-Stalin to the end.


During Soviet times even the officials there admitted that the trials were a mockery of justice.Well yeah, there was substantial support in the CPSU for rehabilitating Bukharin after 1956. Mikoyan said to Rykov's daughter that if he, Rykov, hadn't been shot he'd be working with Khrushchev and Co. Mentioning the Moscow Trials became taboo, there was no debate or public discussion, just "the Trials were fake but we won't formally say it as such."


Whether the two-stage theory can even be considered an authentic Marxist position is in doubt. Marx did speak of revolution in permanence, after all. The primary proponent of the two-stage theory, so far as I am aware, was the arch-Menshevik, Plekhanov. The logical implication of the theory is that proletarian revolution shouldn't be supported unless it's under a certain, ideal condition(namely developed capitalism). The defencist position in regards to the Russian Civil War was the natural conclusion of holding that position. If Lenin did not have some understanding and acceptance of the concept of permanent revolution, then it's very doubtful he would have supported revolution at all.
The idea of "permanent" revolution should not be regarded as a new idea. It was first advanced by Marx at the end of the forties in his well-known Address to the Communist League (1850). It is from this document that our "permanentists" took the idea of uninterrupted revolution. It should be noted that in taking it from Marx our "permanentists" altered it somewhat, and in altering it "spoilt" it and made it unfit for practical use. The experienced hand of Lenin was needed to rectify this mistake, to take Marx's idea of uninterrupted revolution in its pure form and make it a cornerstone of his theory of revolution.

Here is what Marx says in his Address about uninterrupted (permanent) revolution, after enumerating a number of revolutionary-democratic demands which he calls upon the Communists to win:

"While the democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution to a conclusion as quickly as possible, and with the achievement, at most, of the above demands, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, until all more or less possessing classes have been forced out of their position of dominance, until the proletariat has conquered state power, and the association of proletarians, not only in one country but in all the dominant countries of the world, has advanced so far that competition among the proletarians of these countries has ceased and that at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians."

In other words:

a) Marx did not at all propose to begin the revolution in the Germany of the fifties with the immediate establishment of proletarian power-contrary, to the plans of our Russian "permanentists."

b) Marx proposed only that the revolution be crowned with the establishment of proletarian state power, by hurling, step by step, one section of the bourgeoisie after another from the heights of power, in order, after the attainment of power by the proletariat, to kindle the fire of revolution in every country-and everything that Lenin taught and carried out in the course of our revolution in pursuit of his theory of the proletarian revolution under the conditions of imperialism was fully in line with that proposition.

It follows, then, that our Russian "permanentists" have not only underestimated the role of the peasantry in the Russian revolution and the importance of the idea of hegemony of the proletariat, but have altered (for the worse) Marx's idea of "permanent" revolution and made it unfit for practical use.

That is why Lenin ridiculed the theory of our "permanentists," calling it "original" and "fine," and accusing them of refusing to "think why, for ten whole years, life has passed by this fine theory." (Lenin's article was written in 1915, ten years after the appearance of the theory of the "permanentists" in Russia. See Vol. XVIII, p. 317.)

That is why Lenin regarded this theory as a semi-Menshevik theory and said that it "borrows from the Bolsheviks their call for a resolute revolutionary struggle by the proletariat and the conquest of political power by the latter, and from the Mensheviks the 'repudiation' of the role of the peasantry" (see Lenin's article "Two Lines of the Revolution," ibid.).

This, then, is the position in regard to Lenin's idea of the bourgeois-democratic revolution passing into the proletarian revolution, of utilising the bourgeois revolution for the "immediate" transition to the proletarian revolution.From: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm

[GoddessCleoLover]

Well yeah, there was substantial support in the CPSU for rehabilitating Bukharin after 1956. Mikoyan said to Rykov's daughter that if he, Rykov, hadn't been shot he'd be working with Khrushchev and Co. Mentioning the Moscow Trials became taboo, there was no debate or public discussion, just "the Trials were fake but we won't formally say it as such."




That is a reasonable way of putting things. Roy Medvedev certainly was no hypocrite, but OTOH I am unsure as to whether his writings were ever officially published or were samizdat. During the Brezhnev era the CPSU made a conscious decision to avoid debate or public discussion as you pointed out. Under Gorbachev of course de-Stalinization was revived and political issues became a fit subject for debate and discussion.

[ind_com]

I sense more than a little projection here. The Moscow trials were mock-trials. The various terrorist centers were imaginery. The notion that there existed a "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" that included Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Bukharin, and Alexei Rykov is ludicrous. During Soviet times even the officials there admitted that the trials were a mockery of justice. Grover Furr is about the last defender of the trials and he has about as much credibility as does David Irving.

Actually there was a lot of evidence against the main leaders accused. As for the trial of members from the lower layers of the CP and red army, Stalin and others admitted within a few years that there were excesses and many supporters of Trotsky inside the USSR were not aware that is was actually a terrorist center.

[Grenzer]

That article is complete and utter rubbish.

Stalin's insistence that "Leninism" is universally applicable is rot. It is not difficult for us to see that his insistence on this stems from the fact that "Leninism" was the state ideology of the Soviet Union, and if "Leninism" is the theory of international communism, then that gives the nomenklatura a monopoly on what constitutes genuine revolutionary theory. The Soviet conception of Leninism was not theory, but ideology. Specifically, the ideology of the Soviet bureaucracy. The entire idea of Leninism as it is put forth in the Foundations of Leninism is simply the ideological reification of the Soviet bureaucracy.

I digress, this isn't what the issue at hand is. Stalin claims that supporters of permanent revolution "distorted" Marx's conceptions. Where is the evidence for this claim? He doesn't provide it because it cannot be found. You will be hard pressed to find in Marx's writings the claim that there must be a bourgeois revolution before a proletarian revolution. On the contrary, Marx stated that since 1848 there had been a tendency on the part of the bourgeoisie away from revolution precisely because the proletariat had developed as a class to the point where it could assert itself as an independent force. Any revolutionary surge would tend to carry over into proletarian revolution.

The theory of permanent revolution is entirely in line with Marx's understanding revolution. It is precisely because of this unwillingness and incapacity of the bourgeoisie to carry out revolution that the task of revolution in the present epoch must fall to the proletariat, which would go beyond the bourgeois phase into the socialist phase. In 1917, the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying out revolution to it's conclusion. The bourgeois revolution was ultimately unable to be fulfilled by them, so it fell to the proletariat to carry out revolution and extend it beyond the goals of bourgeois revolution.

It's telling that Stalin resorts entirely to quoting 1905 Lenin. You will have a hard time finding a 1917 quote that disavows permanent revolution. The conceptions of Lenin in 1905 on this issue is entirely in keeping with that of the Mensheviks in 1917. They believed that there must be a bourgeois revolution before proletarian revolution could occur. When they saw that the bourgeoisie was unable to be make its own revolution, they then proposed supporting them. That's the only logical and consistent option with the two-stage theory.

The entire proposition of carrying out proletarian revolution in such a circumstance is an implicit endorsement of permanent revolution. Lenin was wrong in 1905, and it was Trotsky who was correct.

[l'Enfermé]

^What, the 19 September 11 hijackers thought they were participating in a US military exercise? Nonsense, comrade Maoist! All of Trotsky's "supporters" very fully well aware that they were advancing the cause of terrorizing the glorious Soviet people. Those monstrous were fully aware that they were monstrously ripping children from the hands of their mothers!

And so on.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

An internet "community" is an ideal place to defend Stalin or for that matter to engage in right-wing "historical revisionism". In the real world were one has to look a person in the face and where there are real consequences to actions neo-Stalinism falls upon deaf ears.

Me and Ind_Com aren't "Defending" Stalin. We just happen to think that the demonization of Stalin and the canonizatization of Trotsky has no relevance to the left in the 21st century. Personally, I think the Soviet Union would have been better off under Trotsky despite his bloodthirsty nature, while my comrade here would probably disagree. But what we both agree on is that the gap between them is not as wide as you would think and that we think the fact that the "Stalin V Trotsky" debate has degenerated this far is despicable. As I said before, the only one who should be called a Stalinist is Stalin, and MAYBE Hoxhists (though I still hold that it is better to call them by the name they want to be called.) Calling someone a "Stalinist" is abhorrent and extremely rude and has no place in any debate between the tendencies. Additionally, calling a country "Stalinist" other than Stalin's Soviet Union just shows that you have absolutely no understanding of history other than reading your theoretical masters. I'm not saying that you shouldn't criticize other experiences, its just returning to the Stalin V Trotsky debate is a mark of immaturity and self centeredness. The fact that some people call Kruschev a "Stalinist" whenever we discuss him just shows that you have no understanding of the man and his policies and that you can't stand the fact of any debate not focusing on your heroes martyrdom so much that you have to shove the word "Stalinism" in everyone's face just so you can take every issue and return it back to the one thing that Trotskyites like to talk about, the Trotsky V Stalin debate.

Seriously, if you insist on creating a theoretical category for countries that don't adhere to your tendency, then go with the words of your hero himself. Call them "Deformed workers states" Call them "Degenerated workers states". Heck, you can even call them "State Capitalist". Just anything other than Stalinist simply because when you call them that you only make it look like you've never read anything about the history of these countries, and if you did you got it from an ideologically pure source.

[GoddessCleoLover]

To the extent that I have a hero it would be Rosa Luxemberg or Andres Nin more than Trotsky. Also, I remember the bad old days when certain M-Ls would chant "icepick the Trots". I am happy to see that some M-Ls are open-minded than they were back in the 70s. I do not believe that we can build a movement without coming to terms with history. Although I disagree with some of your analysis, I believe that you have every right to post what is on your mind. I take no personal offense and hope to give no personal offense. Finally, I am of the opinion that it is better to hash things out than try to paper over differences. Even when done with the best of intentions, that approach doesn't work because eventually people will say what is on their minds. We just have to learn to agree to disagree agreeably.

[Ostrinski]

Sorry, but no saviour from on high delivers. Not even during wars. Class-struggle has to be conducted from below, and the soldiers fighting for the working-class must not be subordinated to some bureaucrat randomly handing out execution orders. Kidnapping families, conscription, show of power through frequent executions etc. demonstrated the bourgeois power-hungry nature of Trotsky very well.This has nothing to do with Trotsky being a savior. It has to do with him being a competent if at points merciless military leader. Bolshevik forces initially tried to fight the war with only militias and volunteers - didn't work very well against the standing conventional White Army with central leadership. The thing about the chaos of war and military conflict is that what would be our peacetime ethics take a backseat to the immediate needs and conditions for victory.

This is not me apologizing for Trotsky's brutality, this is recognizing the realities of a war that the Red Army very well could have lost.

Agree that there were some things bourgeois about Trotsky - namely his insistence with his degenerated worker's state theory that we should support capitalist states (the state capitalist Communist bloc regimes) but this is not one of them. You can kill people and still be a communist, as any Stalinist will tell you.

Speaking of which I find it difficult to respect a Stalinist talking about revolution from below and then turning around and supporting a system where all grassroots influence and popular pressure were silenced. What good is the revolution being "conducted from below" if you just end up with Stalinism? May as well just cut to the chase in my opinion.


There were many excesses under Stalin, but still the USSR was the only country to have eliminated the fascist fifth column inside it. In general, the USSR made the same mistake of conducting class-struggle through bureaucrats, which is one of the main causes of its downfall, but there is no doubt that the allegations against the main leaders accused were all true. That is why Trotsky had to stage a drama of a mock-trial in Mexico.:rolleyes:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

To the extent that I have a hero it would be Rosa Luxemberg or Andres Nin more than Trotsky. Also, I remember the bad old days when certain M-Ls would chant "icepick the Trots". I am happy to see that some M-Ls are open-minded than they were back in the 70s. I do not believe that we can build a movement without coming to terms with history. Although I disagree with some of your analysis, I believe that you have every right to post what is on your mind. I take no personal offense and hope to give no personal offense. Finally, I am of the opinion that it is better to hash things out than try to paper over differences. Even when done with the best of intentions, that approach doesn't work because eventually people will say what is on their minds. We just have to learn to agree to disagree agreeably.


Sorry, I quoted you but I was referring to the Trotskyite in this thread. It was wrong not to make this clear and I should know better than to imply that you are a Trotskyite. My sincere apologizes.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Speaking of which I find it difficult to respect a Stalinist talking about revolution from below and then turning around and supporting a system where all grassroots influence and popular pressure were silenced. What good is the revolution being "conducted from below" if you just end up with Stalinism? May as well just cut to the chase in my opinion.


Actually we Maoists don't agree with Stalin on this line and believe in grassroots organization is a much better way to orginize class struggle than through vanguard parties. This is why Mao explicitly noted that the People's Communes were cooperativly owned and not state owned and why he often sent his sympathizers to recruit people on the ground to do revolutionary work instead of making them do it with the barrel of a gun to their skull. Not to nitpick, I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Carry on

[Let's Get Free]

Actually we Maoists don't agree with Stalin on this line and believe in grassroots organization is a much better way to orginize class struggle than through vanguard parties. This is why Mao explicitly noted that the People's Communes were cooperativly owned and not state owned and why he often sent his sympathizers to recruit people on the ground to do revolutionary work instead of making them do it with the barrel of a gun to their skull. Not to nitpick, I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Carry on

The "peoples communes" was more or less a forced thing, and this forced collectivization inevitably aroused the resentment of the peasants, causing general unrest, chaotic conditions, and even riots in the rural areas during 1957. Some communes were dissolved by the peasants themselves. So CCP repressed the dissatisfaction and resistance of the peasants under the guise of an “anti-rightist” campaign. In an attempt to turn the peasants’ attention away from resistance, it forced them, under the slogan of a “great leap forward,” to work doubly hard to increase production. The move into people’s communes carried the “great leap forward” to its culmination.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The "peoples communes" was more or less a forced thing, and this forced collectivization inevitably aroused the resentment of the peasants, causing general unrest, chaotic conditions, and even riots in the rural areas during 1957. Some communes were dissolved by the peasants themselves. So CCP repressed the dissatisfaction and resistance of the peasants under the guise of an “anti-rightist” campaign. In an attempt to turn the peasants’ attention away from resistance, it forced them, under the slogan of a “great leap forward,” to work doubly hard to increase production. The move into people’s communes carried the “great leap forward” to its culmination.

It's fair enough that you will disagree with me on the historical experience of China, since it's important to debate these issues. However I was only making the point that Maoists view the vanguard as open to corruption and that we believe in the superiority of the grassroots. Additionally it's important to note that Marxist-Leninist-Maoism sees it's self as a countiunity from Mao's China and does not seek to replicate that experience in it's entirety, Unlike Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong thought which most of us view as revisionist. So we are focused more on the ideological method of Mao than any dogmatic interpretation.

The only reason why I mentioned Mao's China was to put the Maoist view on the vanguard in contrast to the "Stalinist" view. I didn't mean to bring up a discussion of Chinese history and I apologize if you interpreted my post as an attempt to further derail the thread. We can have this debate in another thread, but for now let's stick to the topic at hand.

[Let's Get Free]

Fair enough.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Actually, Yet Another Boring Marxist is being more than fair, he is being a real comrade.

[Ismail]

You will be hard pressed to find in Marx's writings the claim that there must be a bourgeois revolution before a proletarian revolution.Except Stalin noted that Marx did this. Lenin pre-1917 and post-1917 noted that the bourgeois-democratic revolution was not to stop halfway, but would be a continuous process, with the completion of democratic tasks making way for the achievement of socialist tasks. Lenin warned against any "Chinese Wall" between the two stages of revolution.


It is precisely because of this unwillingness and incapacity of the bourgeoisie to carry out revolution that the task of revolution in the present epoch must fall to the proletariat, which would go beyond the bourgeois phase into the socialist phase. In 1917, the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying out revolution to it's conclusion. The bourgeois revolution was ultimately unable to be fulfilled by them, so it fell to the proletariat to carry out revolution and extend it beyond the goals of bourgeois revolution.Indeed, this was pointed out by none other than Lenin and Stalin.


It's telling that Stalin resorts entirely to quoting 1905 Lenin.There's also 1914 Lenin:

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

And 1917 Lenin:

"Trotskyism: 'No tsar, but a workers’ government.' This is wrong. A petty bourgeoisie exists, and it cannot be dismissed. But it is in two parts. The poorer of the two is with the working class."
(Ibid. Vol. 24. 1974. p. 150.)

"If we had said, 'No tsar, but a dictatorship of the proletariat', well, this would have meant skipping over the petty bourgeoisie."
(Ibid. p. 246.)

He explicitly denounced skipping over stages. He noted, however, that it was the proletariat which could carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution through to completion.

[Geiseric]

You're revising history because Lenin wrote those before he carried out the actual october revolution, which was based in the cities, not the countryside, which in the long run was bogged down by the peasantry who demanded the N.E.P.

[Ostrinski]

Except Stalin noted that Marx did this.How about actually quoting Marx or Engels on the subject? Most of us couldn't be bothered to give a shit about what Stalin said about Marx and Engels.

[ind_com]

This has nothing to do with Trotsky being a savior. It has to do with him being a competent if at points merciless military leader. Bolshevik forces initially tried to fight the war with only militias and volunteers - didn't work very well against the standing conventional White Army with central leadership. The thing about the chaos of war and military conflict is that what would be our peacetime ethics take a backseat to the immediate needs and conditions for victory.

This is not me apologizing for Trotsky's brutality, this is recognizing the realities of a war that the Red Army very well could have lost.

Agree that there were some things bourgeois about Trotsky - namely his insistence with his degenerated worker's state theory that we should support capitalist states (the state capitalist Communist bloc regimes) but this is not one of them. You can kill people and still be a communist, as any Stalinist will tell you.

Speaking of which I find it difficult to respect a Stalinist talking about revolution from below and then turning around and supporting a system where all grassroots influence and popular pressure were silenced. What good is the revolution being "conducted from below" if you just end up with Stalinism? May as well just cut to the chase in my opinion.

:rolleyes:

I support Stalin's regime no more than you support Trotsky. I agree that the way the Moscow trials were conducted was wrong, but I argue that they benefited the Soviet Union in the end, just like though Trotsky's decisions led to the Bolshevik defeat in Poland, and would have led to more defeats in the civil war had he not been replaced in some crucial fronts, allover his contributions in the war were far more positive than negative. Stalin should have organized mass-trials of all accused, and mass-debates all over the USSR to arrive to a conclusion for them. This would have both eliminated the terrorists and engage the masses more deeply in class-struggle.

[black magick hustla]

i don't care about stalinists but fuck trotsky. he called the brave kronstadt sailors white counterrevolutionaries till the end of his days and wrote a pathetic apologetic for shooting them down like birds based on lies and half trues. he invented militarization of labor and super-industrialization which bukanin rightfully called out. could care less that he was whacked by the stalinists

[l'Enfermé]

Brave Kronstadt sailor-counter-revolutionaries, you mean?

[Geiseric]

i don't care about stalinists but fuck trotsky. he called the brave kronstadt sailors white counterrevolutionaries till the end of his days and wrote a pathetic apologetic for shooting them down like birds based on lies and half trues. he invented militarization of labor and super-industrialization which bukanin rightfully called out. could care less that he was whacked by the stalinists

I like how you ignore that kronstadt was sparked by grain seizures.

[hetz]

I like how you ignore that kronstadt was sparked by grain seizures.
Was it? I mean I'd understand that the Tambov rebellion had everything to do with grain, but Kronstadt?
Weren't most rebels there sailors?

[Geiseric]

yeah they were sailors but the ones garrisonned at kronstadt were all peasantry based, always supported the SRs historically, and Petrichenko, an SR leader, was the son of a Kulak, not in the same way Lenin and Trotsky's familly were wealthy whom later were disconnected, but the sailors held the class interests of the petit bourgeois landowners who vaccilated supporting the revolution at some times and the white army at others. Regardless the insurrectionaries would of eventually needed food shipments, which could only come through finland from the entente. so if it wasn't put down its logically impossible for them to keep going without winning imperialist support, whom would of also ended up invading petrograd. Kronstadt wasn't like my high school teacher put it, its an event much more convoluted than bourgeois idealists like to put it.

[Let's Get Free]

Actually, Kronstadt was a popular uprising from below by the same sailors, soldiers and workers that made the 1917 October revolution. They were the same "Red Sailors" the Lenin and Trotsky had glorified in 1917. You can justify the Bolshevik repression of the revolt in terms of defending the state power of the Bolsheviks but it cannot be defended in terms of socialism.
The Bolsheviks repressed Kronstadt- a movement they knew to be genuinely proletarian, shows above all else: given a choice between workers' power and party power, Bolshevism will destroy the former to ensure the latter.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I have come to the view that the Bolsheviks had little choice but to use armed force, but ONLY because the Kronstadt sailors were the ones who refused negotiations. OTOH Trotsky's bragging about his Red Army soldiers shooting down the sailor like partridges was vile. More importantly, although the Bolsheviks modified their economic policies in response to Kronstadt, they actually became ideologically more "substitutionist". This "substitutionism" came to its bitter fruition with Stalin's ascension to the post of general secretary and his further consolidation of power throughout the 1920's.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yea, I feel like this substitutionist attitude is partially responsible for the theory of productive forces that you see me constantly go on about

[GoddessCleoLover]

The theory of productive forces is an economic form of "substitutionism". In China it has served as an ideological fig leaf for the policies of Deng and his successors. IMO Stalin ascribed to a version of the theory of productive forces also called "primitive socialist accumulation" which underlay Soviet economic policy during the Stalin era.

[Let's Get Free]

I have come to the view that the Bolsheviks had little choice but to use armed force

The Kronstadt revolt was peaceful, it was the Bolshevik response that was not.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Kronstadt revolt was peaceful, it was the Bolshevik response that was not.

While the initial revolt was peaceful, the refusal to negotiate indicated an intent to overthrow the government. Under the circumstances of the time the likely result would have been a victory for the White Army, who would have certainly crushed the Kronstadt sailors. Where the Bolsheviks made a fatal error was by responding o Kronstadt by tightening their single party dictatorship rather than by broadening their support among Russian workers. The Bolsheviks basically learned all of the wrong lessons from Kronstadt.

[ind_com]

Actually, Kronstadt was a popular uprising from below by the same sailors, soldiers and workers that made the 1917 October revolution. They were the same "Red Sailors" the Lenin and Trotsky had glorified in 1917.

What is your source for this? In his defence for his actions in Kronstadt, Trotsky had claimed that the revolutionary elements from Kronstadt were stationed outside Kronstadt to serve the revolution. Not that I believe Trotsky's words, but in this case his claim seems logical. Usually in any revolution, the more developed elements are called off to serve at the main fronts.

"Yes, Kronstadt wrote a heroic page in the history of the revolution. But the civil war began a systematic depopulation of Kronstadt and of the whole Baltic fleet. As early as the days of the October uprising, detachments of Kronstadt sailors were being sent to help Moscow. Other detachments were then sent to the Don, to the Ukraine, to requisition bread and organize the local power. It seemed at first as if Kronstadt were inexhaustible. From different fronts I sent dozens of telegrams about the mobilization of new “reliable” detachments from among the Petersburg workers and the Baltic sailors. But beginning as early as 1918, and in any case not later than 1919, the fronts began to complain that the new contingents of “Kronstadters” were unsatisfactory, exacting, undisciplined, unreliable in battle, and doing more harm than good. After the liquidation of Yudenich (in the winter of 1919), the Baltic fleet and the Kronstadt garrison were denuded of all revolutionary forces. All the elements among them that were of any use at all were thrown against Denikin in the south. If in 1917-18 the Kronstadt sailor stood considerably higher than the average level of the Red Army and formed the framework of its first detachments as well as the framework of the Soviet regime in many districts, those sailors who remained in “peaceful” Kronstadt until the beginning of 1921, not fitting in on any of the fronts of the civil war, stood by this time on a level considerably lower, in general, than the average level of the Red Army, and included a great percentage of completely demoralized elements, wearing showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts." - Trotsky, 1938

[Grenzer]

yeah they were sailors but the ones garrisonned at kronstadt were all peasantry based, always supported the SRs historically, and Petrichenko, an SR leader, was the son of a Kulak, not in the same way Lenin and Trotsky's familly were wealthy whom later were disconnected, but the sailors held the class interests of the petit bourgeois landowners who vaccilated supporting the revolution at some times and the white army at others. Regardless the insurrectionaries would of eventually needed food shipments, which could only come through finland from the entente. so if it wasn't put down its logically impossible for them to keep going without winning imperialist support, whom would of also ended up invading petrograd. Kronstadt wasn't like my high school teacher put it, its an event much more convoluted than bourgeois idealists like to put it.

Wait a second. I thought you upheld the Socialist Revolutionaries as a glorious "workers' party" worthy of a "united front" with?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Apparently fancy leather jackets and showy haircuts were only for secret police and Party leaders, but a thing to be disparaged among common sailors. Trotsky himself was quite fastidious about his own appearance and portrayal as a Great Leader.