Do anti-revisionists subscribe to a "Great Man" interpretation of history?

[Let's Get Free]

Or am I not understanding anti-revisionism correctly?

[jookyle]

I would say no. It's not about defending the USSR under Stalin because Stalin was the bee's knees, it's defending the policies against the ones that came after Stalin as they were moving away from socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would say no. It's not about defending the USSR under Stalin because Stalin was the bee's knees, it's defending the policies against the ones that came after Stalin as they were moving away from socialism.

What?

So it's not about defending Stalin, but attacking Kruschev et al. for moving away from Socialism? How is that NOT a great man theory of history?:confused:

[Omsk]

Anti-revisionism (M-L) is the political and ideological line of being against the people, circles, leaderships which are turning to reformism, abandoning revolutionary lines and watering down Marxism.

It is not about Stalin, we just see him as an example, and as an inspiration.

Anti-revisionism (in general) is older than Stalin.

An interesting article: The Soviet Economy – A Completely and Definitely Capitalist Economy

Life, time has always been the best judge of the correctness of the conclusions of our party in all questions. It has demonstrated their incalculable value and historic importance. This is just what occurred also with the conclusions concerning the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
1
Without doubt the great ideological betrayal and the usurpation of the leadership of the CPSU by a group of traitors which took its open form at the ill-famed 20th Congress of the CPSU constituted the prologue to the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. This group of traitors, headed by Khrushchev, began the process of the degeneration of the dictatorship of the proletariat that existed in the Soviet Union, into a dictatorship of the new Soviet bourgeoisie which began to emerge.
The entire superstructure of Soviet society degenerated. The former dictatorship of the proletariat was transformed into a savage fascist dictatorship of the new revisionist bourgeoisie, the socialist Soviet State was transformed into a social-imperialist state. Although the beginning of the process of the degeneration of the Soviet superstructure was also the beginning of the restoration of capitalism, this degeneration of the superstructure could not advance itself without the degeneration of the economic base. Therefore, with the beginning of the process of the degeneration of the superstructure, the process of the degeneration of the economic base began, too. Here we have to do with a dialectical and complicated interaction of the degeneration of the superstructure and the base, where the one pushed ahead and impelled the other, until at last they assumed their complete capitalist form. Also in the question of the degeneration of the socialist relations of production into capitalist relations, just as our Party has pointed out in its documents, the treacherous Khrushchovian leaders exploited some shortcomings which existed, especially in the relations of distribution (the great discrepancy of salaries, which our Party has rightfully described as a dangerous evil).

It is known that capitalism is the highest and most general stage of commodity production. With scientific genius Marx proved in his work“Capital” that wherever commodity production becomes general and flourishing, there capitalist exploitation comes into being spontaneously. Therefore, in his work “Capital”, Marx begins his whole analysis of capitalism “precisely with his analysis of the commodity. Defending and further developing Marx's economic theory Lenin underlined that:
“The essential features of capitalism, (author's emphasis) according to his theory, are: (1) Commodity production, as the general form of production. The product assumes the form of a commodity in the most varied organism of social production, but only in capitalist production is this form of the labour product general and not exceptional, isolated, accidental. (2) The second characteristic of capitalism is the fact that not only the product of labour, but also labour itself, i.e. human labour power, takes the commodity form. The degree to which the commodity form of labour power is developed is an indication of the degree to which capitalism is developed”.
After the usurpation of the leadership of the Soviet Party and State, the Soviet revisionist traitors in a camouflaged way, created objective conditions for the emergence and development of the above two features in the Soviet economy. And in as much as any practical activity requires prior ideological preparation, after 1953, the first thesis attacked by the Soviet revisionists in the Marxist economic theory was that about commodity production and the law of value in socialism.
It is well known that Marxism-Leninism does not negate the necessity of the existence of commodity production after the seizure of state power by the working class. On the contrary, in the first stage, this form of production exists objectively, but being a vestige of capitalism, it is never allowed to extend and flourish; on the contrary, with the extension and strengthening of the socialist sector of the economy, with the maturing of the socialist relations of production the sphere of commodity production and of the operation of the law of value is also narrowed and limited, until objective conditions are finally created for their complete liquidation. While they consider commodity production as inevitable for a certain time, the genuine Marxist-Leninist Party and the socialist state of the working class are also aware of the danger it conceals, and take conscious measures for the creation of the objective conditions for its final liquidation in the future.
But in opposition to all this, with the aim of concealing the process of the restoration of capitalism with demagogic phrases, after the year 1953, the Soviet revisionist traitors brought out the diabolical thesis that before they cease their operation, and in order to bring aboutthis cessation, the old categories inherited from capitalism (thus including commodity production and the law of value) must be developed and flourish in a full and general way.
In the impossibility of presenting here all the "scientific arguments”for this diabolic thesis, suffice it to mention that in a camouflaged manner, it found its expression in the so-called “Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”, which was approved at the 22nd Congress of this party, which says:
“In communist construction it is necessary to fully utilize the commodity – money relations…” (author's emphasis).
As is seen, in opposition to the entire Marxist-Leninist theory, which stresses the indispensability of the limitation and restriction of commodity production during the transition to communism, the Soviet revisionists, as conscious traitors to Marxism wanting to conceal the process of the restoration of capitalism, speak of “full utilization”of commodity-money relations in communist construction. As to what is the meaning of the words “full utilization”, this emerged clearly from all the practical economic measures they adopted, which are measures for the transformation of socialist production into capitalist commodity production. All the “theoretical” creations and practical measures of these renegades were blatant betrayal of the precepts of Marxism-Leninism which they claim they are “developing”.
Here, concretely is what Lenin stresses:
“Marxism teaches us that the society, which is based on commodity production... at a certain level of development, inevitably, takes the road of capitalism”, (author's emphasis).
And precisely the measures taken by the Soviet revisionists after the year 1953 in the economic field, along with the process of the degeneration of the superstructure, objectively created that certain level of development of commodity production which brought about the birth of capitalism in the economy, which has now been completely and definitely formed.
All the concrete measures of the Soviet revisionists after the year 1953 in the field of the economy, which reached their culmination in 1965 with the so-called “economic reform”, had one aim: the restoration of the capitalist economy of commodity production. Irrespective of“Marxist” phraseology with which these measures have been justified, or how their capitalist essence has been concealed from the working people, in essence they were measures for the reestablishment of capitalism which has now been completed. At various periods these measures have affected production, distribution, exchange, the management of the economy, etc., but in their entirety they express one thing: the degeneration of the socialist economy, the unlimited extension of the commodity-money relations, the creation of the economy of capitalist commodity production, the creation of conditions for the emergence and operation of all the categories of the capitalist economy which will be mentioned below.
The most important element in the whole process of the extension and flourishing of capitalist commodity production in the Soviet Union was precisely the transformation of labour power into a commodity. Marxism teaches us that “capitalism is that stage of the development of commodity production when even labour power, becomes a commodity”.Precisely because this process of the transformation of labour power into a commodity has been completed in the Soviet Union, it is understandable that we have to do here with a completely capitalist economy.
For labour power to become a commodity it is necessary for the worker to be divested of all means of production and be obliged to sell only his labour power. The process of divesting the Soviet labour force of the means of production, has been the very process of the degeneration of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the new Soviet bourgeoisie. Thus, with the degeneration of the Soviet State, with its transformation into a dictatorship of the new Soviet bourgeoisie, the means of production too, which were state or collective farm property, were automatically transformed into property of the new revisionist bourgeoisie, which usurped the state power. The Soviet working class was deprived of the means of production, it no longer has anything to sell for its livelihood but its labour power, which like all the other factors of production, has been transformed into a commodity.
In order to become convinced that the character of the state property depends on the character of the state itself, on whose hands the state is in, suffice it to cast a glance on the present day reality of the western capitalist states, where state ownership has been extended in recent years. Nobody thinks .of considering the state ownership existing today in the western capitalist states as socialist ownership, ownership by the workers. Why? Because state ownership is always the ownership of that class which holds the state power. And as long as the state power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, of the capitalists, state ownership, too, is a form of capitalist ownership, is state monopoly capitalism.
In essence, we have the same thing also in the Soviet Union. It is not superfluous to note here that a century ago, in his work "Anti-Dühring”, Engels pointed out that the character of state ownership depends on whose hands the state is in.
Of course, the transformation of socialist ownership into state capitalist ownership of a special type, and of labour power into commodity did not take place in the Soviet Union at the touch of a magic wand, but through a whole process of the degeneration of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the new revisionist bourgeoisie.
In as much as the processes of the degeneration of the superstructure, of the change of the character of ownership, of the transformation of labour power into a commodity, of the extension and flourishing of capitalist commodity production were completed, the process of the restoration of capitalist exploitation, too, in all its breadth and depth, was automatically completed in the Soviet Union. This was the inevitable result of the restoration of the capitalist commodity production. Here is what Marx teaches us:
"To the extent that commodity production develops in conformity with its inherent laws into capitalist production, to the same extent the property laws of commodity production are turned into .laws of capitalist appropriation”.
2
Now there is no doubt that the main form of capitalism in the Soviet Union is state monopoly capitalism of a new type. But this “new type” does not mean at all that we have to do with another essence of capitalism. The new type consists only in the way of its birth and its role, while as far as its essence is concerned, it is capitalism as in all the capitalist countries.
State capitalism in the western countries came into being mainly as a result of nationalisations with compensation carried out by the bourgeois state, whereas in the Soviet Union it came into being through the completion of the process of the degeneration of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie. In the western capitalist countries, state capitalism plays a role dependant on private capital, as a tool of the latter, while in the present-day Soviet Union it plays the dominant and principal role.
But while stressing the fact that the main form of capitalism in the Soviet Union is state monopoly capitalism of a special type, we must mention the other forms of capital and capitalism existing there today.
As a result of the fat salaries which the new Soviet bourgeoisie receives in the state and collective farm sector, it manages not only to lead a fabulous life, but also to create colossal "savings” in the form of deposits, which, by means of interest, “give birth” to other money. Here it is not a question of denying the possibility of savings in socialist society. Naturally, parallel with the increase of general wellbeing, the working people also create savings in order to better fulfil their needs of consumption in the future. But when these savings belong only to “people with special abilities”, when they stem from the exceptionally high salaries and bonuses they receive, and yield large sums of interests, they are no longer savings, but loan capital, money which gives birth to money.
Here is what Lenin says:
“The starting point of any capital, – both industrial and commercial –is the formation of free financial means in the hands of individual persons (the words “free means” should be understood as those financial means which are not necessarily used for personal consumption, etc)”.
Today, the new Soviet bourgeois and a part of the worker aristocracy possess almost 60 billion roubles of deposits, bringing in 2 billion roubles interest annually, without even lifting a finger. The formula of capital, loan P–P', demonstrated by Marx a century ago, is precisely the formula of these “savings” of the new Soviet bourgeoisie.
But this is not the only form of private monetary capital possessed by the new Soviet bourgeoisie. There are also other forms, in the form of state obligations, insurance, etc. Finally, we cannot fail to mention another form of commodity production which gives birth every day to new capitalists in the Soviet Union, which involves the so-called .collective farmer's personal plot”. No Marxist has denied that as long as the agricultural cooperatives are unable to fulfil some of the needs of their members, the cooperativists must have a personal plot of land for some of their family needs. But when this “personal plot” is extended beyond measure and is used not for personal needs, but to supply the market, then it is turned into an economy of simple commodity production which, .as Lenin has said, every minute, every hour, and every day, gives birth to capitalism. This is precisely the type of the economy of a large number of “collective farmers' personal plots” in the present-day Soviet Union. These “personal plots” today supply up to 60 per cent of the vegetables, 80 per cent of the fruit, etc. Therefore, as commodity production economies, they give birth to new capitalists every day.
3
The analysis of the capitalist character of the Soviet economy must be done not on the basis of external appearances, of the demagogy of the traitors to Marxism, of the laws and juridical forms which still preserve the “socialist” shell, but in the way in which the classics of Marxism-Leninism, the Party of Labour and comrade Enver Hoxha teach us, on the basis of the real economic relations.
Criticising the Narodniks, Lenin taught the Marxists:
“In order to define the ‘type’ (of an economy – A. Pano) we must naturally, consider the principal economic features of an order and not its juridical forms”. And the economic reality of the Soviet Union today is such that, without having in their pocket any deed entitling them to ownership of the country's means of production but thanks to their actual position, the new revisionist bourgeoisie use these means for the exploitation of the working class, for the capitalist appropriation of the surplus value created with the unpaid labour of the rank-and-file working people.
Just as all the other elements of the relations of production, the relations of distribution, too, have degenerated completely. Just for this reason, the new Soviet bourgeois can readily allow the workers to keep in a drawer the text of the Soviet constitution, which legally consecrates the right to common property, provided these bourgeois themselves keep hold of the bank book in which the sums of deposited roubles continually increase.
The whole of the surplus value appropriated by the Soviet bourgeoisie assumes various forms. A large part of this surplus value is transformed in various ways by this bourgeoisie itself, as the collective owner of the means of production, into capital of the form of state monopoly capitalism. This part, like the means of production, it owns as a class and not as individuals. Another part of the appropriated surplus value it distributes individually among the members of its class in the form of the fat salaries and innumerable bonuses, established for the new Soviet managers in recent years, which are constantly increasing.
Suffice it to compare the second part of the surplus value appropriated individually by the members of the Soviet bourgeoisie in the form of“salaries and bonuses” with the wage of a rank and file worker, to understand the entire exploiting character of the capitalist relations of distribution in the Soviet Union. Today the salaries and bonuses of the top Soviet managers (let alone the elite of the Party, State, army and science) are 15-20 times higher than the minimum wage of ordinary workers. Of course, in order to preserve its domination more easily. The Soviet bourgeoisie, by means of bonuses, also corrupts a small part of the working class, transforms it into an aristocracy of the working class, as is the case in any capitalist society.
But the entire system of distribution operating in the Soviet Union today, the colossal number of bonuses, which in some cases are entirely unlimited, have nothing in common with the socialist principle of distribution according to work, but under the label of the “recognition of the special merits of managers”, serves the individual appropriation by the new bourgeois of a part of the surplus value produced with the unpaid labour of the Soviet workers. Precisely on this background we have the growth of the social contrast: On the one hand, the class of the new Soviet bourgeoisie, leading a fabulous luxurious life, and, on the other hand, the rank and file working people who live in such poverty that, as the Soviet newspaper “Socialisticheskaya Industria”unintentionally let out a few years ago, only now are they replacing their wooden spoons with metal spoons! It could not be otherwise. It is true that immediately after he came to power, Khrushchov promised golden spoons to everybody, but by the word “everybody” he implied only the new Soviet bourgeoisie, which became the masters of the state power and the means of production, while the others were reckoned to become, as they did, wage slaves.
The degree of exploitation of the workers in every capitalist economy is measured with the norm of surplus value, which represents the ratio of the surplus value to variable capital. The Soviet statistics of these categories still preserve the so-called “socialist” terms and falsify the amount of variable capital, by including the salaries of a part of the new Soviet bourgeois, which, as we said, represent a part of the surplus value. But even from those figures “fiddled” by the Soviet statistics, it emerges that the norm of exploitation of the Soviet working class in 1972 was 23 per cent greater than in 1960. Such is the “gain” of the Soviet working class from the so-called construction of communism (read: restoration of capitalism).
4
The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union also brought about the replacement of all the socialist economic laws and categories with the capitalist ones. The process of the restoration of capitalism extended over a number of years, which were also the years of the extension of the operation of capitalist laws and categories, until they reached their complete and final state.
The fundamental law of the present day Soviet economy is the law of drawing maximum profits. One of the aspects of its manifestation in practical activity consists in the fact that the entire activity of Soviet enterprises is evaluated from the main index, which is the so-called “profitability on funds” (read: profitability on capital). The Soviet revisionists may engage in demagogy as much as they want, claiming that the aim of their production has remained the fulfilment of the needs of the working masses, however it is not words that are important, but deeds. As long as the fat bonuses of the new Soviet managers depend only on the “profitability on funds”, everybody understands that, in order to fill their pockets, they do their utmost, not to fulfil the needs of the economy and the working people, but to increase their bonuses. Their motto is precisely the old Russian saying, “Svoja rubashka blizhe k tjellu” (my shirt is closest to my body).
The only regulator of Soviet production is the law of value and market spontaneity. Volume of sales is the second index for evaluation of the work of Soviet enterprises. But the volume of sales is directly determined by the situation of the market; therefore, it is precisely this market spontaneity that regulates Soviet production, and not the“plan” as they prattle. For sake of appearances the Soviet revisionists may play comedies and “criticize” the so-called “market socialism” of a certain Otto Schick, but they themselves have long ago established market capitalism.
The distribution of investments in the Soviet Union today, is done according to the so-called “normative coefficient of capital investments”, which is nothing but a “socialist” label for the average norm of profit. The category of the capitalist price of production, for which the revisionists find a thousand and one “socialist” names and justifications, is operating in the entire Soviet economy. Through the decentralisation of prices, which are fixed by the enterprises themselves, “escalated prices”, etc., etc., the free play of prices is fully operative, although in other forms. The capitalist category of interest on capital has been established in the entire economy.
The struggle of individual enterprises for the most favourable conditions for the creation of incentive funds, for the most advantageous credit and capital, for a more profitable structure of assortments, etc., is nothing but a form of competition operating in the capitalist economy. Through uniting, merging, and transferring the activities of individual enterprises, the Soviet revisionists conceal the processes of the bankruptcy of individual capitalist enterprises, but in fact, this bankruptcy exists. Many Soviet enterprises today have landed in a bankrupt financial situation. During the 1965-1971 period, the bank loans alone not repaid on time by the enterprises increased 2.3 times. During the period 1966-1970, violation of the normal time-limit for the liquidation of obligations by Soviet enterprises increased by 25 per cent, while the total of all the obligations not paid on time increased by 78 per cent.
The complete restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union could not fail to bring about the fabulous enrichment of the new bourgeoisie, the impoverishment of the working masses, continuous economic failures, unemployment and crises, manifested in hidden forms, and other capitalist phenomena.
To show the disastrous consequences of the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet economy, we shall mention only the marked decline of the rates of economic development in comparison with the time when socialist economy still existed. Thus, in comparison with the 1945-1960 period, the average rate of increase of national income in the Soviet Union in the years 1960-1965 dropped by 44 per cent, in the years 1965-1970 it dropped 35 percent, and in 1974 it dropped 58 per cent. And it must be said that the rates of economic development calculated by the Soviet statistics contain in themselves the colossal increase, in recent years, of Soviet military production, and if this were excluded, the situation of crisis and the real Soviet economic decline would be even more pronounced.
All analysis of real facts shows very clearly that the Soviet economy today is completely and definitely a capitalist economy. It is precisely this economy which constitutes the basis of Soviet social-imperialism, which is characterized in the internal field by savage exploitation of the working people; by antagonistic class contradictions, by phenomena of decline and successive crises, unprecedented militarization, etc., while in the external field it is characterized by expansion, not only political and military, but also economic; by the exploitation of other countries, and primarily, of the East European “allies”. Aristotel Pano

[Ostrinski]

Anti-revisionism is reformism. It supposes that socialism is a matter of policy.

Brezhnevism > anti-revisionism

[Omsk]

Wow, how deep.

[Ostrinski]

Wow, how deep. Please stop embarrassing yourself.Embarrassing? There are plenty here that would agree with me.

[Omsk]

I don't have time right now (To answer.), but i'll drop by later.

[Let's Get Free]

So how did the Soviet Union all of a sudden become a capitalist state? How did Kruschev change the entire relationship between the working class and the means of production without the workers noticing?

[ind_com]

So how did the Soviet Union all of a sudden become a capitalist state? How did Kruschev change the entire relationship between the working class and the means of production without the workers noticing?

The pre-conditions for state-capitalistic take over shaped themselves within the Stalin-era USSR. By the time Stalin died, class struggle of the proletariat had become secondary compared to the power-struggle between various sections of anti-worker bureaucrats.

[jookyle]

What?

So it's not about defending Stalin, but attacking Kruschev et al. for moving away from Socialism? How is that NOT a great man theory of history?:confused:

Because no one is saying Stalin and only Stalin could have upheld socialism in the USSR. It just so happens those who came after him did not. No one is saying that socialism depends on Stalin and Stalin alone.

[Art Vandelay]

Because no one is saying Stalin and only Stalin could have upheld socialism in the USSR. It just so happens those who came after him did not. No one is saying that socialism depends on Stalin and Stalin alone.

No your right, your just saying that Socialism is a matter of policy and thus showing (to the true Marxists at least) what a revisionist you (anti-revisionist) really are.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anti-revisionism doesn't really exist, as a tangible matter with its own consequences. It is nothing more than a dreamed-up idea, that things were better when Stalin was explicit in his hatred for anybody who didn't toe the party line, than when Kruschev moved away from class struggle towards peaceful co-existence.

In many ways, Kruschevism, Brezhnevism and beyond can be seen as the logical extension of Marxism-Leninism. In many ways, I don't see how, in praxis, they diverge from Marxism-Leninism. In terms of maintaining the status and power of the Bolshevik Party within the USSR, and in terms of maintaining the USSRs status and power within the (capitalist) world, I wouldn't say they went against Leninist principles. After all, post-1953, did the world really move closer towards Socialism? In the 70s and 80s were there moves towards revolution or against it, or was there a stalemate? Was the intended State Capitalism of the 1920s not due to the lack of spreading of revolution, alongside the problems of war and a small proletariat? In the post-war world, was it not that in the countries where there was a large proletariat, Capitalism was able to use Keynesian thinking, along with the new morality that accompanied the welfare state, to buy off the proletariat in those countries? Where could the revolution expand to?

To me, Marxism-Leninism in practice (not solely in theory, because Lenin of course did in words adhere to some level of Marxism and established a level of Marxist orthodoxy, but not in deed) has never been revolutionary in that it has never tried to subvert capitalism altogether. It has only tried to manage capitalism in the hope that one day communism will simply come alone (though of course nobody who takes state power is so naive!).

I use Marxism-Leninism and anti-revisionism interchangeably, though of course from a Marxist perspective we should also view Leninism as a huge revision of Marx.

Above all, with hindsight, we can see that Marxism-Leninist parties held power extensively all over the globe in the 20th century and they failed. Where this was through Capitalist military power, capitalist propaganda or subversion, this can be seen as a failure of Marxism-Leninism itself. If Socialism was such a popular system, then no amount of military power could permanently defeat it. We have seen throughout history - from the power of the Lords over the serfs, to monarchy, and to Marxism-Leninism itself, that if a system really isn't popular, then no amount of military might, internal security or propaganda can save it.

[cb9's_unity]

I use Marxism-Leninism and anti-revisionism interchangeably, though of course from a Marxist perspective we should also view Leninism as a huge revision of Marx.

Good post, but I would just like to take on this idea of a "huge revision of Marx."

To me revising Marx is possibly the most central element of being a Marxist. A Marxism that isn't being revised in the face of a moving history, and the consequential rise of empirical data that comes with it, is a dead and dogmatic Marxism.

Now I haven't read nearly enough Lenin to make any authoritative claims about him, but I see in him an important tradition of being willing to revise Marxism to make it theoretically conform to the practical questions of the day. A theoretical defense of Marxism must function at the same time as a development of Marxism. Lenin had to do this because nothing in Marx, at least to my knowledge, had very much to say about how revolutionary practice should advance in early 20th century Russia. Marx had thought a sort of communal peasant revolution could happen, but that was before the massive industrial centers in the eastern cities of Russia created a proletariat sitting directly below the seat of political and economic power in the country. That and a large portion of the proletariat itself was one that was composed of people who still had ambiguous connections, in terms of economic relations and political/social identity, to the peasantry. Left unrevised Marxism would have to either pretend that Eastern Europe was Western Europe or that the Russia of 1917 was still the same as the Russia of the 1880's that Marx mused about creating a peasant revolution.

Now, from my studies so far it seems to me that Lenin made glaring theoretical and practical errors. I could go off into a tangent about what I thought those were, but when it comes down to it we can never know how making different decisions in regards to building the party or operating it immediately after the war could have effected the outcome. Those who preach that adhering to some 'unrevised' Marxism at any point in the revolution could have saved it are selling snake oil.

And this is why 'anti-revisionist' Marxism is so destructive to Marxism overall. I rarely ever disagree with something I read from Marx. However, I understand that his writings are not meant to be a set of ideas that contain within them timeless truths. Rather, they are the tools with which to reveal the illusions of truth that develop to conceal the reality of exploitative societies.

Anti-revisionism seems to me to treat Marxism in the same way modern liberals and social democrats treat liberalism. In each the basic set up of the state and society would allow for the leaders to direct society towards a fundamentally good ideology/value system, but it is always the fault of some faction that masquerades as a continuation of the previous ideology while actually betraying it. This sort of history places tons of weight on political struggles, and thus on political movements leaders. I see little fundamental difference in how a liberal might look at Goldwater or Reagan and how an 'anti-revisionist' see's Kruschev or Brezhnev. In a sense they create a fundamentally similar myth about FDR and Stalin, both lead a movement that brought their countries to the top of the world economically, politically, and diplomatically and and that somehow the movements they lead still couldn't survive their death and were consistently betrayed by those that came afterwards. By the 1990's the movements of communism and the 'robust' welfare state had died due in part to economic forces, but the true blame is to be placed on the wavering or outright treacherous political leaders that came after a beloved leaders death. From this they build a political platform that is bitter, antiquated, and idealistic.

Though my knowledge of history is still fairly small so I might be jumping to conclusions.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrades I think it is very intellectually dishonest to accept the label of "anti-revisionists" that our Stalinists friends have bestowed upon themselves. Do we not laugh and object whenever bourgeois ideaologists go on and on about how Amerioca is the "bastion of freedom and democracy", "leader of the free world", etc, etc? Why then should we not laugh and object when revisionists call themselves anti-revisionists because they oppose the revisionism of what was already revisionist? I find this hard to understand.

[Zealot]

Anti-revisionism doesn't really exist, as a tangible matter with its own consequences. It is nothing more than a dreamed-up idea, that things were better when Stalin was explicit in his hatred for anybody who didn't toe the party line, than when Kruschev moved away from class struggle towards peaceful co-existence.

In many ways, Kruschevism, Brezhnevism and beyond can be seen as the logical extension of Marxism-Leninism. In many ways, I don't see how, in praxis, they diverge from Marxism-Leninism. In terms of maintaining the status and power of the Bolshevik Party within the USSR, and in terms of maintaining the USSRs status and power within the (capitalist) world, I wouldn't say they went against Leninist principles. After all, post-1953, did the world really move closer towards Socialism? In the 70s and 80s were there moves towards revolution or against it, or was there a stalemate? Was the intended State Capitalism of the 1920s not due to the lack of spreading of revolution, alongside the problems of war and a small proletariat? In the post-war world, was it not that in the countries where there was a large proletariat, Capitalism was able to use Keynesian thinking, along with the new morality that accompanied the welfare state, to buy off the proletariat in those countries? Where could the revolution expand to?

To me, Marxism-Leninism in practice (not solely in theory, because Lenin of course did in words adhere to some level of Marxism and established a level of Marxist orthodoxy, but not in deed) has never been revolutionary in that it has never tried to subvert capitalism altogether. It has only tried to manage capitalism in the hope that one day communism will simply come alone (though of course nobody who takes state power is so naive!).

Absolutely hilarious. Especially when considering the fact that Marxist-Leninists have been the only ones to consistently launch revolutions. We are the last people you should be blaming for hoping that "communism will simply come alone".

But in short, you're a great man theorist. Got it. Marxism-Leninism is not revolutionary because it merely "managed" capitalism in accordance with the will of almighty Stalin.


I use Marxism-Leninism and anti-revisionism interchangeably, though of course from a Marxist perspective we should also view Leninism as a huge revision of Marx.

Above all, with hindsight, we can see that Marxism-Leninist parties held power extensively all over the globe in the 20th century and they failed. Where this was through Capitalist military power, capitalist propaganda or subversion, this can be seen as a failure of Marxism-Leninism itself. If Socialism was such a popular system, then no amount of military power could permanently defeat it. We have seen throughout history - from the power of the Lords over the serfs, to monarchy, and to Marxism-Leninism itself, that if a system really isn't popular, then no amount of military might, internal security or propaganda can save it.

LOL. So now Marxism-Leninism is directly responsible for capitalist propaganda and imperialism. Okay, we get it, you adhere to anti-Marxism and great man theories. I'm sorry but really really wanting Socialism isn't an effective strategy for maintaining it. Especially not in some backward place like early 20th century Russia.

[Let's Get Free]

Especially when considering the fact that Marxist-Leninists have been the only ones to consistently launch revolutions.


But look where we're at now. We're right back where we started, not one iota closer to communism than before.

[Zealot]

But look where we're at now. We're right back where we started, not one iota closer to communism than before.

It's a learning experience that we should seek to build and learn from in the future. If you think that Communism is to be built over night you're terribly mistaken.

[cb9's_unity]

Absolutely hilarious. Especially when considering the fact that Marxist-Leninists have been the only ones to consistently launch revolutions.

Launching a revolution has no special significance over the social relations that came before it and the social relations that followed when we are evaluating past socialist movements. A revolution is largely a product of what came before it and it is ultimately validated only by what came after it. The conditions that preceded M-L revolutions bear little resemblance to the conditions currently experienced by modern industrialized and industrializing nations (I really have no basis to advise what tactics the worlds poorer nations should use so I'm not going to try). So far the legacy of M-L parties has been to slowly bring pro-capitalist forces to agricultural societies. I'm not sure why this gives the M-L ideology any credibility in leading capitalist societies into socialism.

The better question is; if we are Marxists, and thus understand technology's importance in drastically changing social relations, why do we believe that a revolutionary movement in the age of the internet ought to base itself on revolutionary movements in the age of the telegraph?


We are the last people you should be blaming for hoping that "communism will simply come alone".

Who is this "we"? How does repeating the beliefs of Leninism or reading the proponents of Leninism make you part of their political legacy? To me Lenin is important because he is a symbol of adapting Marxism to certain practical needs while upholding theory, despite the eventual failure of his movement. Those that carry the legacy of Lenin don't need to carry the specifics of his theory, but only the methods to bring Marxist practice to the forefront of the society we engage in. As long as the left stays in the dismal condition its in none of us should fool ourselves into thinking we are respecting the legacy of Marx, or Lenin, or any other the great leaders of the past.

[Grenzer]

I'm really disappointed in you guys. Anti-revisionism is the coolest, most scientifically advanced ideology there is.

[Zealot]

Launching a revolution has no special significance over the social relations that came before it and the social relations that followed when we are evaluating past socialist movements. A revolution is largely a product of what came before it and it is ultimately validated only by what came after it. The conditions that preceded M-L revolutions bear little resemblance to the conditions currently experienced by modern industrialized and industrializing nations (I really have no basis to advise what tactics the worlds poorer nations should use so I'm not going to try). So far the legacy of M-L parties has been to slowly bring pro-capitalist forces to agricultural societies. I'm not sure why this gives the M-L ideology any credibility in leading capitalist societies into socialism.

The better question is; if we are Marxists, and thus understand technology's importance in drastically changing social relations, why do we believe that a revolutionary movement in the age of the internet ought to base itself on revolutionary movements in the age of the telegraph?

Who is this "we"? How does repeating the beliefs of Leninism or reading the proponents of Leninism make you part of their political legacy? To me Lenin is important because he is a symbol of adapting Marxism to certain practical needs while upholding theory, despite the eventual failure of his movement. Those that carry the legacy of Lenin don't need to carry the specifics of his theory, but only the methods to bring Marxist practice to the forefront of the society we engage in. As long as the left stays in the dismal condition its in none of us should fool ourselves into thinking we are respecting the legacy of Marx, or Lenin, or any other the great leaders of the past.

I understand your point, however, he simply attempted to brush off every revolution made by Marxist-Leninist parties all the while proclaiming that Marxist-Leninists hope for Communism to "simply come alone". My point was that historical facts show this to be a complete lie.

No one is saying that we should be using telegraphs over the internet. As I've mentioned elsewhere, one of the saddest things is the inability of the left to project itself through modern internet media. In my opinion, it's a huge mistake even for non-MLs to simply brush aside the wealth of experience and hindsight that the 20th century ML revolutions have brought us. Instead of drawing lessons everyone seems to be more interested in attacking "Stalinism" with the same fervour of a bourgeois liberal.

[Zealot]

Anyway, in response to the original question, there is an economic basis for revisionism, which I'm not going to go through in this thread.

[Omsk]

A question.

So all of you think it's completely wrong to suggest that Nikita and his revisionists wrecked the USSR and that the petty-bourgeois elements in the party made a halt in the revolutionary advance of the party and the unrelentless struggle against capitalism, imperialism and all the forms of reaction.

You do.

But you also at the same time, accpet, that Stalin did the same thing, just with the USSR, of (I know it's not a proper Marxist method to describe a state like this, but what the hell, it's easier.) the Lenin period?

So, it's understandable and proven that Stalin destroyed the USSR of Lenin, (Stalin and his "degenerated bueraucracy" as you people like to say.) while it is absurd to suggest that Nikita and his revisionists (A lot of different elements.) made a huge halt and rolled back the gains of the Stalin years. What kind of a logic is that?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Good post, but I would just like to take on this idea of a "huge revision of Marx."

To me revising Marx is possibly the most central element of being a Marxist. A Marxism that isn't being revised in the face of a moving history, and the consequential rise of empirical data that comes with it, is a dead and dogmatic Marxism.

Now I haven't read nearly enough Lenin to make any authoritative claims about him, but I see in him an important tradition of being willing to revise Marxism to make it theoretically conform to the practical questions of the day. A theoretical defense of Marxism must function at the same time as a development of Marxism. Lenin had to do this because nothing in Marx, at least to my knowledge, had very much to say about how revolutionary practice should advance in early 20th century Russia. Marx had thought a sort of communal peasant revolution could happen, but that was before the massive industrial centers in the eastern cities of Russia created a proletariat sitting directly below the seat of political and economic power in the country. That and a large portion of the proletariat itself was one that was composed of people who still had ambiguous connections, in terms of economic relations and political/social identity, to the peasantry. Left unrevised Marxism would have to either pretend that Eastern Europe was Western Europe or that the Russia of 1917 was still the same as the Russia of the 1880's that Marx mused about creating a peasant revolution.

Now, from my studies so far it seems to me that Lenin made glaring theoretical and practical errors. I could go off into a tangent about what I thought those were, but when it comes down to it we can never know how making different decisions in regards to building the party or operating it immediately after the war could have effected the outcome. Those who preach that adhering to some 'unrevised' Marxism at any point in the revolution could have saved it are selling snake oil.

And this is why 'anti-revisionist' Marxism is so destructive to Marxism overall. I rarely ever disagree with something I read from Marx. However, I understand that his writings are not meant to be a set of ideas that contain within them timeless truths. Rather, they are the tools with which to reveal the illusions of truth that develop to conceal the reality of exploitative societies.

Anti-revisionism seems to me to treat Marxism in the same way modern liberals and social democrats treat liberalism. In each the basic set up of the state and society would allow for the leaders to direct society towards a fundamentally good ideology/value system, but it is always the fault of some faction that masquerades as a continuation of the previous ideology while actually betraying it. This sort of history places tons of weight on political struggles, and thus on political movements leaders. I see little fundamental difference in how a liberal might look at Goldwater or Reagan and how an 'anti-revisionist' see's Kruschev or Brezhnev. In a sense they create a fundamentally similar myth about FDR and Stalin, both lead a movement that brought their countries to the top of the world economically, politically, and diplomatically and and that somehow the movements they lead still couldn't survive their death and were consistently betrayed by those that came afterwards. By the 1990's the movements of communism and the 'robust' welfare state had died due in part to economic forces, but the true blame is to be placed on the wavering or outright treacherous political leaders that came after a beloved leaders death. From this they build a political platform that is bitter, antiquated, and idealistic.

Though my knowledge of history is still fairly small so I might be jumping to conclusions.

A good and informed post.

I see a difference between adding to the rich literature that falls within the Marxian tradition, and revising Marxism itself. The former is to be applauded; it is not always done well, but it allows us to pick and choose the better (for me Luxemburg is an excellent example here, Bordiga et al. have certainly made some contributions too) and highlight the weaker (Bernstein, Kautsky et al.). The latter, however, is problematic for it doesn't actually add to Marxism, it revises what Marxism actually is, moves the goalposts so to speak. You can see this problem straight away in the USSR, for example. It wasn't based on a Marxist ideology, but a Marxist-Leninist one.

I think the main problem with Marxism is that, as a body of work, it is incomplete. It is one of the most comprehensive critiques of Capitalism out there - in fact probably the most complete, accurate and most well respected. But it doesn't say a huge amount about Socialism, and where it does there are contradictions and mistakes (the minimum programme that he later cast off comes to mind). I think this is where people can make important contributions - Luxemburg on the Mass Strike, Bordiga on the role of the party, Lenin at least had some idea on party discipline though I think his idea of democratic centralism was a poor conclusion to draw and very damaging to the movement. With this, I think we must advise against those claiming to have revised Marxism, as a complete body of work, for the better. 'Marxism-Leninism' is very problematic in this regard as it is essentially the ideology of Lenin, updating the work of Marx. But this is unnecessary and damaging, because Marxism is a very complete body of work, merely needing a few areas regarding the future and how to bring about a communist society in practical terms, as updates.

So yes, we should welcome those who engage with classic Marxism and try to update it/fill in the gaps that do exist, but be very wary of those who claim to have sort of updated Marxism in its entirety into some sort of new-fangled, 'better' ideology. It often ends up missing the point and, in my mind, represents a degredation of Marx's original work.

[Thirsty Crow]

A question.

But you also at the same time, accpet, that Stalin did the same thing, just with the USSR, of (I know it's not a proper Marxist method to describe a state like this, but what the hell, it's easier.) the Lenin period?

So, it's understandable and proven that Stalin destroyed the USSR of Lenin, (Stalin and his "degenerated bueraucracy" as you people like to say.) while it is absurd to suggest that Nikita and his revisionists (A lot of different elements.) made a huge halt and rolled back the gains of the Stalin years. What kind of a logic is that?
No, I do not accept what you describe here.

What I do maintain is that mostly due to the horrible weight of the destruction of the world war and the civil war, and the predominance of the peasantry in Russian society, and ultimately the retreat of the internationjal revolutionary wave, the capitalist basis has never been destroyed in Russia and furthermore, workers' self-emancipation was halted. Stalin is the result, and not the cause.

[Omsk]

It is normal for a Left-Communist to have such a view, but these "Leninists" here (They are not Leninists, but i guess most of them have a positive view on Lenin.) ought to have a different answer. Plus, we can use your logic.

The rule of Nikita was a result of the long war which exausted the creative power of the proletariat and caused so much damage, both in the economy and in the actual ranks of the working class, and a result of the age-long counter-revolutionary struggle of the hostile left-over bourgeois mentality elements in the Soviet Union itself ,of whom Nikita was a representative, and of the deep wounds caused by the imperialist worms which ate their way into the system, when the system experienced a shock during the post-purges years. In this chaos, which affected the entire society, the revolutionary process slowed down when the forcess of reaction used their chance to destroy the healthy party circles in the party, and the system which was built for decades. Their imperialisit policies also led them to take action against the peoples democracies of Eastern Europe, the need for their capitalist expansion. And in the peoples democracies, socialism was not built because of the horrible effects of the Nazi years, because of the weak communist organizations, and because of the shock of Soviet social-imperialism, and the expansion of capital.

[hetz]

What I do maintain is that mostly due to the horrible weight of the destruction of the world war and the civil war, and the predominance of the peasantry in Russian society, and ultimately the retreat of the internationjal revolutionary wave, the capitalist basisHow do you mean the capitalist base wasn't destroyed?
What is this capitalist base?
Private ownership over the means of production?
That I think was destroyed or at least "shook up" violently.

[Let's Get Free]

It is normal for a Left-Communist to have such a view, but these "Leninists" here (They are not Leninists, but i guess most of them have a positive view on Lenin.) ought to have a different answer. Plus, we can use your logic.

The rule of Nikita was a result of the long war which exausted the creative power of the proletariat and caused so much damage, both in the economy and in the actual ranks of the working class, and a result of the age-long counter-revolutionary struggle of the hostile left-over bourgeois mentality elements in the Soviet Union itself ,of whom Nikita was a representative, and of the deep wounds caused by the imperialist worms which ate their way into the system, when the system experienced a shock during the post-purges years. In this chaos, which affected the entire society, the revolutionary process slowed down when the forcess of reaction used their chance to destroy the healthy party circles in the party, and the system which was built for decades. Their imperialisit policies also led them to take action against the peoples democracies of Eastern Europe, the need for their capitalist expansion. And in the peoples democracies, socialism was not built because of the horrible effects of the Nazi years, because of the weak communist organizations, and because of the shock of Soviet social-imperialism, and the expansion of capital.

Most "anti-revisionists" I know maintain that the USSR was a socialist state right up until 1956, 11 years after the war had ended, when Dear Stalin died and the evil, treacherous revisionists weaseled themselves into positions of power. This throws Marx's materialist conception of history out the window and replaces it with a Great Man theory. For these anti-revisionists the Khruschev speech is often also identified with the “restoration of capitalism,” showing how superficial their “Marxism” really is. If a "communist" replaced Obama s the president of the U.S., and every member of congress was replaced with a "communist," would we have communism? No. So how did Stalin dying change the entire political and economic structure of the USSR?

[Omsk]

Most "anti-revisionists" I know maintain that the USSR was a socialist state right up until 1956, 11 years after the war had ended, when Dear Stalin died and the evil, treacherous revisionists weaseled themselves into positions of power.


We, ML's, and the world proletariat lost our great hero, when he closed his warm eyes for the last time at 9:50 p.m. on the fifth of March, year 1953.

Next time you want to talk about Stalin, at least check the facts.



For these anti-revisionists the Khruschev speech is often also identified with the “restoration of capitalism,” showing how superficial their “Marxism” really is.


Of course not, the "Secret Speech" was just a jest of the old fool, who tried to lie about Stalin, it had little do with the restoration of capitalism, but it was a bold step after which Stalin was demonized beyond any borders.



So how did Stalin dying change the entire political and economic structure of the USSR?


Where did i say that his death changed the class nature or the economical structures of the USSR? It was simply an event which preceded the capitalist reaction.

If you want to continue this debate, i suggest you find those anti-revisionist you are talking about.

[Let's Get Free]

We, ML's, and the world proletariat lost our great hero, when he closed his warm eyes for the last time at 9:50 p.m. on the fifth of March, year 1953.

Next time you want to talk about Stalin, at least check the facts.

My bad, that is when the evil revisionist worm Krushev came to power, and began to dismantle the socialism built by the mighty hand of Stalin.



Where did i say that his death changed the class nature or the economical structures of the USSR? It was simply an event which preceded the capitalist reaction.

Can you tell me how this "capitalist restoration" took place and why the working class did not mobilize to stop this capitalist restoration?

[Omsk]

My bad, that is when the evil revisionist worm Krushev came to power, and began to dismantle the socialism built by the mighty hand of Stalin.



If you can't stop making this an infantile discussion, let me ask the questions:

How did Stalin "kill" the revolution, in what period? How? Describe me this process in detail.



Can you tell me how this "capitalist restoration" took place and why the working class did not mobilize to stop this capitalist restoration?


You should know that the working class can be defeated with ease, (As it is defeated, even while we are speaking.) if the reactionaries controll a number of state apparatuses which can be turned against the working class. Propaganda, prison, murder, all of this the revisionists used in their combat against the People and the Party. (They had the spy, army, and propaganda apparatuses, along with pretty much all of the rest.)

The anti-party groups can be partially blamed for the failure and for the easy rise of Nikita and his slaves.

[Let's Get Free]

If you can't stop making this an infantile discussion, let me ask the questions:

How did Stalin "kill" the revolution, in what period? How? Describe me this process in detail.

Stalinism was merely a continuation of the statised bureaucratic capitalism that was formed under Lenin and completely degenerated under Brezhnev and Andropov. The bureaucratic capitalist class has formed in the USSR as early as the years of War Communism and NEP when specific officials were given control over 'their' enterprises (one-man management scheme), and then became engaged in the same practices of investment as the 'traditional' capitalists and, more importantly, their dependence on the central investment fund embodied in Gosplan, as opposed to traditional industrial capitalists' dependence on the networks of investment banks. The working class, meanwhile, remained a tool for capital accumulation, and did not control the process of social production. Stalin did not fall from the moon and "kill the revolution." Stalin and Stalinism are, the logical consequence of the authoritarian state capitalist system founded and established between 1918 and 1921.




You should know that the working class can be defeated with ease, (As it is defeated, even while we are speaking.) if the reactionaries controll a number of state apparatuses which can be turned against the working class. Propaganda, prison, murder, all of this the revisionists used in their combat against the People and the Party. (They had the spy, army, and propaganda apparatuses, along with pretty much all of the rest.)

The anti-party groups can be partially blamed for the failure and for the easy rise of Nikita and his slaves.

If socialism and the working class can be defeated because of the "wrong people" coming into power, then there will never be socialism. And if I may ask you a question: where does all this "revisionism" come from? Revisionism, apparently falling from the sky, raises its ugly head and takes over the party. Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere. ("They're all revisionists Comrade, except for thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee.")