WW2 imperialism

[Geiseric]

So I was watching this WW2 documentary, and it ad that the USSR government was pressuring britain and the U.S. the entire time to invade germany, meaning he was fine with them doing imperialism all over europe, and north africa, and even lobbied, like Glock, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin do today, for the U.S. and england to wage imperialist wars. So he went beyond kautsky basically.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Of course. The USSR was an imperialist state that engaged in realpolitik just like other imperialist states. Practically, the USSR couldn't ever project power into Africa or South East Asia as the western capitalist nations could but it could project its influence into East Europe and northern China. The Germans and Japanese threatened the USSR's imperialist interests in these regions and so they sought an alliance to protect their sphere of influence.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So I was watching this WW2 documentary, and it ad that the USSR government was pressuring britain and the U.S. the entire time to invade germany, meaning he was fine with them doing imperialism all over europe, and north africa, and even lobbied, like Glock, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin do today, for the U.S. and england to wage imperialist wars. So he went beyond kautsky basically.
Well, yes. To protect Stalin's position he was always fine with all manner of imperialistic carnage and exploitation -- including the use of atomic weapons on Japanese population centers. You are a self-professed Trotskyist. Does this come as a surprise, comrade?

[Geiseric]

No it doesn't surprise me, but I thought it was interesting seeing as I've always overlooked that.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No it doesn't surprise me, but I thought it was interesting seeing as I've always overlooked that.
I didn't know that he communicated with major arms manufacturers in the US. That is interesting. The US took its sweet time invading Europe, probably hoping for the USSR's destruction. When the tide turned the US got very nervous indeed that the Red Army was going to take over Europe. Sadly, the USSR stuck to the letter of the Yalta agreements and stopped exactly where they promised to. Would have been very interesting if the USSR's army continue marching westward.

[Grenzer]

Sadly, the USSR stuck to the letter of the Yalta agreements and stopped exactly where they promised to. Would have been very interesting if the USSR's army continue marching westward.

Sadly? You need to brush up your history. They did not adhere to the Yalta agreements by any stretch of the imagination, which called for the establishment of democratic republics and the holding of free elections.

The Stalinists took over politically in Eastern Europe through coups for the most part. They only succeeded because as the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe, they established secret policy agencies that were accountable only to the Stalinist parties, who themselves were accountable to Moscow.

For some reason, the Hungarian Stalinists were arrogant and assured of their success and did not resort to much interference in the elections of October 1945, much. They of course controlled all the radio stations, and the supply of paper(needed for the production of political newspapers), but despite this the liberal Smallholder's Party won the vote by a landslide with over 55% of the vote while the Stalinists received only about 16%. In response, they began arresting members of the Smallholder's Party and even took the Prime Minister's son hostage in order to force him to resign.

In Poland, the Stalinists again staged arbitrary arrests of members of the liberal opposition party, the Peasants' Party, and fully exploited their monopoly on the radio and control of the paper supply. This was not enough, and they needed to arbitrarily strike the party off of the ballot for many electoral districts to guarantee that they would win.

According to the degenerate Trotskyists' theory of workers' state, this sort of thing is not only acceptable, but revolutionary. A "workers' state" can be established, so it seems, without the agency or even the support of the working class.

I have no love of bourgeois democracy, but support for this reveals an implacable hatred of the Marxian understanding that the emancipation of the working class must be through the efforts of the working class itself. None of these regimes, save perhaps several such as Albania and Yugoslavia, had ever had the support of the working class. Of course support is something different from the exercise of class dictatorship, but implicit in the degenerate Trotskyists' theory of workers' state is the class dictatorship of the workers. It's difficult for me to imagine how a workers' dictatorship could not have the support of those exercising the dictatorship. Unless of course they weren't exercising it, in which case it could not be considered their dictatorship.

[Geiseric]

Those are different, I believe they're deformed workers states, since there is a planned economy but no revolution happened. Nice try but the principle of a state owned ecnomy is still what's important, with that particular label. Is a workers state since there wasn't a bourgeois dominance over the economy, that's all the label means, as in everybody works, and a management is undemocratically in charge.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Those are different, I believe they're deformed workers states, since there is a planned economy but no revolution happened. Nice try but the principle of a state owned ecnomy is still what's important, with that particular label. Is a workers state since there wasn't a bourgeois dominance over the economy, that's all the label means, as in everybody works, and a management is undemocratically in charge.
Was Britain during the war period a deformed workers' state? The economy was planned, no revolution had happened, the state owned or guided the economy. What differentiates bourgeois dominance and nomenklatura dominance?

[Ostrinski]

Those are different, I believe they're deformed workers states, since there is a planned economy but no revolution happened. Nice try but the principle of a state owned ecnomy is still what's important, with that particular label. Is a workers state since there wasn't a bourgeois dominance over the economy, that's all the label means, as in everybody works, and a management is undemocratically in charge.So we should just support it when the Stalinists come in and take over the place?

[Geiseric]

All we can and imo should do is support no intervention from the western capitalist countries, while meanwhile objectively supporting any attempts from the non bureaucratic workers to effect political change, such as trotskyists supporting the hungarian revolution, and trotskyists inside of the gulag system, in vorkuta comes to mind. going on hunger strike to support the left oppositions program of restoring democracy inside of the soviet bloc. Or the strike wave that followed WW2 inside of Moscow, Leningrad, and all accross the soviet contrled area.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So does that mean you supported the cultural revolution? :)

[Geiseric]

Was Britain during the war period a deformed workers' state? The economy was planned, no revolution had happened, the state owned or guided the economy. What differentiates bourgeois dominance and nomenklatura dominance?

Brtain didn't hve a planned economy it was a bourgeois war economy like every other fucking country in europe had through Ww1 and WW2, including nazi germany, wich had abourgeois war economy, run for profit. The planned economy in the eastern bloc actually developed those ****ries to have no unemploymnt and a decent standard of living, which was a result of state ownership, making it non capitalism. It was as capitalist as social security, which is government owned as well.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Brtain didn't hve a planned economy it was a bourgeois war economy like every other fucking country in europe had through Ww1 and WW2, including nazi germany, wich had abourgeois war economy, run for profit. The planned economy in the eastern bloc actually developed those ****ries to have no unemploymnt and a decent standard of living, which was a result of state ownership, making it non capitalism. It was as capitalist as social security, which is government owned as well.
First of all the British war economy was very much planned (even if it was for the benefit of the British national bourgeoisie and the maintainance of their imperialist control); food, fuel and other resources were distributed through a ration system, raw materials were owned by the state and directed to certain businesses based on the needs etc. The capitalist mode of production still existed, of course, just as it did in the Soviet Bloc. Full employment is one of the driving forces of Keynesian economics and that doesn't make it any less capitalist. As for the drive for profit? I follow the thoughts of Paul Mattick in this regard:

"The Russian revolution changed property relations, replacing individual proprietors by the Bolsheviks and their allies, substituting new “revolutionary” phrases for the old pep slogans, erecting the hammer and sickle over the Kremlin where the Czarist Eagle once stood, but the Bolshevik seizure of power did not change the capitalist mode of production. That is to say, under the Bolsheviks, there remains, as formerly, the system of wage labor and the appropriation by the exploiting class of surplus value which is profit. And, what is done with such profit is exactly what was done with it under the system of individual capitalists, allowing, of course, for the special character of state capitalism.

Such surplus value is distributed according to the needs of the total capital in the interests of further capital accumulation and to safeguard the state capitalist apparatus by increasing its power and prestige."

Objectively, the standard of living for slaves in the 19th century was better than slaves in the 18th century. This is not a justification for a slave society and similarly the raised standard of living in the soviet bloc isn't a justification for the state-capitalist society that emerged. We communists stand for the abolition of the class system and property relations, not for improved standards of living (although, I certainly believe that a society of free producers would bring about an increase in the median standards of living as a consequence).

Calling state ownership 'non capitalism' is a complete joke, of course. Allow me to quote Engels as he puts it better than I could:

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with"

[Sir Comradical]

They wanted Britain to open up a second front because you know, they didn't want their country destroyed by the fascists. Ohh those imperialist Soviets, how dare they want to defend their country.

[Sir Comradical]

Sadly? You need to brush up your history. They did not adhere to the Yalta agreements by any stretch of the imagination, which called for the establishment of democratic republics and the holding of free elections.

What's the point of expanding Soviet power into Eastern Europe, and then allowing bourgeois and fascist political parties to participate freely and openly? You can't have both "free elections" and socialist property relations. The latter can only be established by giving power to political forces keen on maintaining collectivized property relations, i.e. communists. Secondly, why should communists give a shit about some treaty with imperialism?



According to the degenerate Trotskyists' theory of workers' state, this sort of thing is not only acceptable, but revolutionary. A "workers' state" can be established, so it seems, without the agency or even the support of the working class.

Yes, abolishing capitalism and introducing collectivised property relations is revolutionary last time I checked.


I have no love of bourgeois democracy, but support for this reveals an implacable hatred of the Marxian understanding that the emancipation of the working class must be through the efforts of the working class itself. None of these regimes, save perhaps several such as Albania and Yugoslavia, had ever had the support of the working class. Of course support is something different from the exercise of class dictatorship, but implicit in the degenerate Trotskyists' theory of workers' state is the class dictatorship of the workers. It's difficult for me to imagine how a workers' dictatorship could not have the support of those exercising the dictatorship. Unless of course they weren't exercising it, in which case it could not be considered their dictatorship.

Yes you do. You've been crying about how the evil Stalinists didn't allow your precious liberals to participate freely in the political life of the Eastern Bloc.

[ВАЛТЕР]

They wanted a second front because the USSR was on the edge, with fascist forces pouring over its borders, massacring its people, and destroying its cities. Something that the allies would have gladly allowed to happen. Anyone not demanding a second front be opened under these circumstances would be an idiot. The USSR was pretty much doing all of the fighting at the time. By the time the second front was opened, the Red Army was steamrolling westward engulfing entire fascist divisions. The western front was opened not to help the Soviets, but to prevent the spread of communist ideology.

[Manic Impressive]

We alighted at Moscow on the afternoon of October 9... At ten o'clock that night we held our first important meeting at the Kremlin. There were only Stalin, Molotov, Eden, and I... The moment was apt for business, so I said, "Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions and agents there. Don't let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent predominance in Rumania, for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?" While this was being translated I wrote out on a half-sheet of paper:

Rumania
--- Russia ---------- 90 %
--- The others ----- 10 %
Greece
--- Great Britain--- 90 % (in accord with U.S.A.)
--- Russia ---------- 10 %
Yugoslavia --------- 50-50 %
Hungary ----------- 50-50 %
Bulgaria
--- Russia ---------- 75 %
--- The others ----- 25 %

I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was settled in no more time than it takes to set down...

After this there was a long silence. The pencilled paper lay in the center of the table. At length I said, " Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner? Let us burn the paper." "No, you keep it," said Stalin.

I'm opening up a second front! The betrayal of Greece.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They wanted Britain to open up a second front because you know, they didn't want their country destroyed by the fascists. Ohh those imperialist Soviets, how dare they want to defend their country.I think this is true (the realpolitic part about wanting allies and a possible 2nd front if it came to war). Putting aside the problematic concept of "their country" when talking about supposed socialism, there were any number of ways to try and resist rising reaction and fascism. They CHOOSE the UK and France as possible allies over the working class and REVOLUTION! I'm all for fighting fascism, but the problem is that the national interests of the USSR meant doing things like throwing Spainish marxists and anarchists under the freaking Hitler bus! In effect they destroyed the last best hope for a popular resistance to fascism by crushing all talk of revolution in Spain and then crushing the revolution itself when stopping at talk wasn't enough to contain a liberation movement. Hell, the CP evicted workers who siezed production facilities - it all comes from the calculous of deciding that imperialists, not the international working class would be the best allies and defense. In effect they were trying to tell the western governments, "we can be counted on to fight fascism without threatening to unleash worldwide revolution.

Hitler and Mussolin gave all the material support they could to Franco, while the USSR gave some arms (mostly to only parts of the resistance that were against the revolution) but even then didn't try and win: they were more interested in creating an alliance with the UK and France - who just sat back and watched wondering if fascists were actually a threat or a good counter to potential revolutions and hoping they'd all just kill eachother off.

[Invader Zim]

So I was watching this WW2 documentary, and it ad that the USSR government was pressuring britain and the U.S. the entire time to invade germany, meaning he was fine with them doing imperialism all over europe, and north africa, and even lobbied, like Glock, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin do today, for the U.S. and england to wage imperialist wars. So he went beyond kautsky basically.

Well, of all the things you can fault Stalin for, his advocacy that the Western Allies uphold the Treaty of Versailles during the interwar period when a rabidly anti-communist fascist Germany was in the midst of re-arming and its leaders openly threatening to invade Eastern Europe, is hardly noteworthy. During the war itself, when the USSR was fighting a bitter and bloody defense against the Nazi invaders, again, Stalin's advocacy of a second European front in the west is hardly odd.


The USSR was pretty much doing all of the fighting at the time. By the time the second front was opened, the Red Army was steamrolling westward engulfing entire fascist divisions. The western front was opened not to help the Soviets, but to prevent the spread of communist ideology.

Firstly, the fighting in North Africa involved millions of Axis troops and the eventual capture or death of half a million Axis troops, the loss of thousands of artillery pieces, several thousand tanks, many tens of thousands of other vehicles and nearly a 1,000 aircraft. That was followed by the Italian Campaign, which again involved hundreds of thousands of casualties, thousands of aircraft and armour, on both sides. While, of course, this tally is dwarfed by Axis losses and commitment to the Eastern Front it still represents a significant element total Axis forces, which posed a constant drain which could have otherwise been directed towards the Eastern Front which was very much in the balance. Moreover the Middle East and the Med. were of vast strategic importance - hence the reason so many troops, aircraft, armour and aircraft were expended on it. In short, it was nothing like the small-fry you are making out. Educate yourself.

Secondly, North Africa and Italy represented a front from 10 June 1940, long before Operation Barbarossa began, until 2 May 1945. The idea that there was no 'second front' until D-Day is farcical and it, in fact, represented a third front in the 'Europe' element of the conflict.

Thirdly, that is just nonsense. The US had been advocating the invasion of occupied France soon after it entered the war. It was actually the British, who, based on what turned out to be strategic (rather than political or ideological) misconceptions, pushed back the invasion of France to free resources for the continued prosecution of the war in North Africa and later in Italy. They were under the erroneous belief that North Africa and, Italy in particular, was the root to the Axis power's 'soft underbelly' (to borrow Churchill's turn of phrase). Meanwhile the British Minister of Aircraft Production, John Moore-Brabazon, was fired from his post in 1942 for advocating, in private, that the Nazis be allowed to destroy the Soviet Union. The notion that the British and American governments were only prosecuting the war in Europe to prevent Soviet expansionism is an insulting stupid to everybody who reads it, but mostly to you for being ignorant enough to suggest it, and it is a completely mad-cap conspiracy theory which no serous historian gives any credence to.


Brtain didn't hve a planned economy it was a bourgeois war economy like every other fucking country in europe had through Ww1 and WW2, including nazi germany, wich had abourgeois war economy, run for profit. The planned economy in the eastern bloc actually developed those ****ries to have no unemploymnt and a decent standard of living, which was a result of state ownership, making it non capitalism. It was as capitalist as social security, which is government owned as well.

Britain most certainly did have a planned economy. Having a planned economy in the defense of the bourgeois system of economic governance is not contradictory at all and is, in fact, precisely the case. Read some basic text books on the British economy and politics in WW2, I suggest you start with Henry Pelling's classic Britain and the Second World War.


I'm opening up a second front! The betrayal of Greece.

The quote you provided has way to many ellipses to adequately prove your point without the instant suspicion that it has been stripped of all context.


The US took its sweet time invading Europe, probably hoping for the USSR's destruction. When the tide turned the US got very nervous indeed that the Red Army was going to take over Europe.

Actually, the US position was to advocate an early invasion of France, as early as 1942. It was the British advocacy of the war in North Africa, and then in an invasion from the Med., which pushed back the invasion of France until 1944. I've been studying British policy in WW2 for the past for several years now and have never seen any convincing evidence that it was British policy to see the destruction of the USSR, and vast amounts of evidence suggesting the precise opposite. Policy, while often misguided in the light of hindsight, was primarily centred on winning the war as swiftly and effectively as possible - and by whatever means necessary. Allowing the Nazis to destroy the Soviet Union and then turn their cites West was not conducive to that aim, and it would have damaged morale to allow a major power to fall especially after the defeats in France and elsewhere.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm opening up a second front! The betrayal of Greece.
The betrayal of Greek Stalinists, you mean? I didn't expect that you cared much about Stalinists of any nationality.

[soso17]

What's the point of expanding Soviet power into Eastern Europe, and then allowing bourgeois and fascist political parties to participate freely and openly? You can't have both "free elections" and socialist property relations. The latter can only be established by giving power to political forces keen on maintaining collectivized property relations, i.e. communists. Secondly, why should communists give a shit about some treaty with imperialism?




Yes, abolishing capitalism and introducing collectivised property relations is revolutionary last time I checked.



Yes you do. You've been crying about how the evil Stalinists didn't allow your precious liberals to participate freely in the political life of the Eastern Bloc.

Thank you for expressing EXACTLY what I was thinking. So what if they didn't get their "democratic elections"? Just means that the US and Britain couldn't install their puppet regimes. Don't forget, the French and Italian gov'ts were coerced into banning communists from their "free" elections. Screw that.

[hetz]

Greek Stalinists are a sad case. They themselves denounced Tito ( who was the only one who still gave them arms and supplies ), even though Stalin had long ago decided to leave Greece to the British.

Anyway, that Stalin demanded a anti-Nazi coalition with Western powers is no news. The joint action against Germany failed mainly because of said Western powers and Poland.

[Sir Comradical]

Greek Stalinists are a sad case. They themselves denounced Tito ( who was the only one who still gave them arms and supplies ), even though Stalin had long ago decided to leave Greece to the British.

This is actually quite correct.

[Manic Impressive]

The betrayal of Greek Stalinists, you mean? I didn't expect that you cared much about Stalinists of any nationality.
true dat and of course I don't care that they were stalinists, they were still workers though, but they should care so I want to know how they defend it. Plus y'know drawing up the new map of Europe for after the war with Winston Churchill one of the most reactionary fucks to ever walk the earth.

[Manic Impressive]

The quote you provided has way to many ellipses to adequately prove your point without the instant suspicion that it has been stripped of all context.
It's quite a well known fact so I don't think it can be in much dispute that Churchill actually said that. The only argument against it would be that Churchill had some ulterior motivation for saying it. If so I'd love to hear your wild speculations on that.

[Invader Zim]

Anyway, that Stalin demanded a anti-Nazi coalition with Western powers is no news. The joint action against Germany failed mainly because of said Western powers and Poland.

Well, ultimately a 'joint action' against Nazi Germany succeeded - in 1945. However, the idea of a joint action, with the Soviet Union, in the 1930s was considered and rejected, in no small part, because the Soviet Union had decapitated the Red Army. The western Allies were never going to start a war with Nazi Germany, in 1937 or 1938, based on the proposed support of a military power whose army was universally believed would be knocked out in a matter of days.

Of course, there is an argument that during the Nazi invasion of Poland, the British and French should have invaded Germany while its troops were engaged in the East. However, given that the French Army had little capacity for an offensive campaign and lacked mobility, that the French and British high commands were entrenched in a Maginot mentality, and British troops were relatively few, such a strategy was not plausible.

It is also worth considering Britain and France's earlier situation, in 1937-38. It has been plausibly argued that they could have attacked Germany and been successful. But this strikes me as wishful thinking, as noted, even by 1939 the French army was largely without mobility, that problem was still more acute in earlier years. Meanwhile British rearmament had focused on the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force - obvious commitments given the circumstances, three hostile powers simultaneously threatening her home waters, and her interests in the Med and Eastern Empire. She lacked in terms of a standing army. most of the forces being tied up in the Empire. Moreover, French and British intelligence estimates, since 1935, had grossly overstated the extent of German rearmament, which was believed to far outstrip the British efforts at that time. As we now know that was not the case, British aircraft production, in particular, had already overtaken its German equivalent. But they weren't to know that.

Of course that brings us full circle to the Soviet Union and the possibility of the three powers encircling Nazi Germany. But as I noted above, it was widely believed in both Britain and France that between them they were relatively weak in terms of offensive capability and, while stronger in terms of fighting a defensive war still needed to rearm. They believed that should they form an alliance with the Soviet Union, which was undesirable for ideological reasons but, was impractical for strategic reasons. Such an action would have begun a war which they lacked the offensive capability to fight and in which they believed the Soviet Union would be swiftly dispatched. In turn the Nazi war machine, they believed, would turn on them prior to their rearmament and defensive programs reaching maturation. Therefore, not only was appeasement a politically desirable policy, but according to the chiefs of staff, a military necessity. With hindsight we can argue that they might well have been wrong, given Germany's actual military and economic weakness which they were not aware of, but they didn't know that.

[Invader Zim]

It's quite a well known fact so I don't think it can be in much dispute that Churchill actually said that. The only argument against it would be that Churchill had some ulterior motivation for saying it. If so I'd love to hear your wild speculations on that.

Well, actually Churchill wrote about it in his memoirs - so no there is no denying that he authored it. My point is that you have deliberately (or at least the unaccredited source you copied and pasted it from), and openly, omitted substantial amounts of text from the source, thus we readers cannot be assured that you have not edited out important additional information. Need anything else spelled out in painfully simple terms?

[goalkeeper]

They wanted Britain to open up a second front because you know, they didn't want their country destroyed by the fascists. Ohh those imperialist Soviets, how dare they want to defend their country.

And here lies the fundamental problem with socialism in one country. The Soviet state had to submit to the logical of international politics at the expense of old socialist principles (i.e. non-support of bourgeois militarism). The way you frame it shows how it was the obvious, sane, and rational thing to do for the heads of the Soviet state - and thats the problem.

[Sir Comradical]

And here lies the fundamental problem with socialism in one country. The Soviet state had to submit to the logical of international politics at the expense of old socialist principles (i.e. non-support of bourgeois militarism). The way you frame it shows how it was the obvious, sane, and rational thing to do for the heads of the Soviet state - and thats the problem.

In that case are you're arguing against the military defense of the USSR? Are you arguing that the workers of the USSR should have taken a defeatist position regarding the Axis invasion? Should they have the deserted the Red Army en masse? Go on tell me.

[goalkeeper]

In that case are you're arguing against the military defense of the USSR? Are you arguing that the workers of the USSR should have taken a defeatist position regarding the Axis invasion? Should they have the deserted the Red Army en masse? Go on tell me.

Look, from the point of view of the state, military defence in cooperation with other states is completely understandable. The ideal situation from the point of view of communists would of course have been turning the imperialist war into civil war (again). Are you asking that the Soviet working class support the defence of a state that had relentlessly attacked its living standards and working conditions over the past decade?

[Geiseric]

In that case are you're arguing against the military defense of the USSR? Are you arguing that the workers of the USSR should have taken a defeatist position regarding the Axis invasion? Should they have the deserted the Red Army en masse? Go on tell me.

They sided with capitalists aganst other capitalists, the former backstabbed the fSU immediately following the war, so it was fucked whichever way you look at it. The popular fronts (which communists participated) in capitalist countries sold out the whole working class to the IMPERIALIST war effort, you don't see anything wrong with that?

[Sir Comradical]

Look, from the point of view of the state, military defence in cooperation with other states is completely understandable. The ideal situation from the point of view of communists would of course have been turning the imperialist war into civil war (again).

Okay great. How would this happen? Hand out pamphlets to Axis soldiers and refuse to fight? Again, are you arguing that communists in the Red Army should have refused to fight?


Are you asking that the Soviet working class support the defence of a state that had relentlessly attacked its living standards and working conditions over the past decade?

You mean the state that rapidly improved the lives of the masses?


"What a contrast, after all, Stalinist Russia presents. The nation over which Stalin took power might, apart from small groups of educated people and advanced workers, rightly be called a nation of savages...The nation has, nevertheless, advanced far in most fields of its existence. Its material apparatus of production, which about 1930 was still inferior to that of any medium-sized European nation, has so greatly and so rapidly expanded that Russia is now the first industrial power in Europe and the second in the world. Within little more than one decade the number of her cities and towns doubled; and her urban population grew by thirty millions. The number of schools of all grades has very impressively multiplied. The whole nation has been sent to school. Its mind has been so awakened that it can hardly be put back to sleep again. Its avidity for knowledge, for the sciences and the arts,|has been stimulated by Stalin's government to the point where it has become insatiable and embarrassing."

- 'Stalin', Isaac Deutscher

[Sir Comradical]

They sided with capitalists aganst other capitalists, the former backstabbed the fSU immediately following the war, so it was fucked whichever way you look at it. The popular fronts (which communists participated) in capitalist countries sold out the whole working class to the IMPERIALIST war effort, you don't see anything wrong with that?

They did what they had to do to prevent the USSR from being destroyed. No it wasn't "fucked whichever way you look at it", unless you think the Cold War was just as bad as the USSR being destroyed by the fascists?

[goalkeeper]

Okay great. How would this happen? Hand out pamphlets to Axis soldiers and refuse to fight? Again, are you arguing that communists in the Red Army should have refused to fight?

The strategy is for the working class movement to decide upon according to conditions on the ground, not me. However, what should be clear to communists is that the working class should not rally to a brutal state opposed to its class interests if they hope for any sort of emancipation.




You mean the state that rapidly improved the lives of the masses?



- 'Stalin', Isaac Deutscher

The fact that you quote Isaac Deutscher as an authority on the Stalinist era shows your ignorance of the historiography of the subject. I'm familiar with this tactic by apologists for the Stalin era: find a respectable or semi-respectable historian making a rather general statement from many years ago as if it is authoritative. You probably didnt even mine it yourself, but its floating around on Stalinist message boards or online groups. I suppose you will quote Ian Grey's biography of Stalin, or maybe even Albert E .Kahn and Joseph E. Davies next if you really want to give us a laugh. . If you quoted this Deutscher paragraph as authoritative in a undergrad university essay, you would be laughed at.

The whole argument is redundant anyway. Support for the Kaiser in the First World War could be justified on the same basis: "have you seen the industrialisation the new Reich has bought us? Oh the growth of Berlin, how amazing it is!". The material progress made in Germany between 1871-1914 is undeniable (and it general was a good thing), yet anyone who dares suggest that the German working class should support their own state in imperialist war is obviously a reactionary.

[Sir Comradical]

The strategy is for the working class movement to decide upon according to conditions on the ground, not me. However, what should be clear to communists is that the working class should not rally to a brutal state opposed to its class interests if they hope for any sort of emancipation.

Just admit it. Your position is that the working class of the USSR should have deserted the Red Army and not resisted the fascist advance.


The fact that you quote Isaac Deutscher as an authority on the Stalinist era shows your ignorance of the historiography of the subject. I'm familiar with this tactic by apologists for the Stalin era: find a respectable or semi-respectable historian making a rather general statement from many years ago as if it is authoritative. You probably didnt even mine it yourself, but its floating around on Stalinist message boards or online groups. I suppose you will quote Ian Grey's biography of Stalin, or maybe even Albert E .Kahn and Joseph E. Davies next if you really want to give us a laugh. . If you quoted this Deutscher paragraph as authoritative in a undergrad university essay, you would be laughed at.

You're the one who said the Stalin era resulted in worsening living standards which is toweringly false.


The whole argument is redundant anyway. Support for the Kaiser in the First World War could be justified on the same basis: "have you seen the industrialisation the new Reich has bought us? Oh the growth of Berlin, how amazing it is!". The material progress made in Germany between 1871-1914 is undeniable (and it general was a good thing), yet anyone who dares suggest that the German working class should support their own state in imperialist war is obviously a reactionary.

I don't accept your premise that the USSR was capitalist.

[Geiseric]

Just admit it. Your position is that the working class of the USSR should have deserted the Red Army and not resisted the fascist advance.



You're the one who said the Stalin era resulted in worsening living standards which is toweringly false.



I don't accept your premise that the USSR was capitalist.

Don't you understand the marxist idea of a Bonapartist state? If you do, are there any noticable differences with the continued rule of the bureaucracy in the fSU?

I mean the capitalists would of fought Nazi era germany anyways, so there was no reason to sell out the french, spanish, and chinese revolutionaries, when the USSR was trying to work out treaties.

[goalkeeper]

Just admit it. Your position is that the working class of the USSR should have deserted the Red Army and not resisted the fascist advance.

The first does not necessitate the second.

The working class not support its own states attempt to resist the fascist advance, is not, however, a completely alien concept; rather it was the policy of the Comintern from 1939-41.

You seem trapped in the framework of competing states in world politics; is it not conceivable for you that a working class movement could have rejected being told by Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill to blow each other up and kill one another by the millions?


You're the one who said the Stalin era resulted in worsening living standards which is toweringly false.

The 1930s saw a collapse in consumption levels for the the Soviet working class. For example, in 1933 the "average married worker in Moscow consumed less the half the amount of bread and flower that his counterpart in Petersburg would have consumed at the start of the century" according to Sheila Fitzpatrick in Everyday Stalinism. The situation somewhat improved in the mid 1930s , but the late 1930s saw another collapse. Consult her book, particularly the chapter "Hard Times" if you want more detail. You're quote from Isaac Deutscher is just a general praise of industrialisation and education efforts. Modern research of the Stalin era, has of course, gone beyond this.

There is also the issue of ever more draconian labour laws and practices in the 1930s which you fail to take notice of.


I don't accept your premise that the USSR was capitalist.

I don't think the USSR was Capitalist either. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what it was yet, and most existing explanations (state capitalist, degenerated workers state, socialism etc) don't convince me. What is clear, however, is that it in no way could have been the class expression or embodiment of working class interests.

[Invader Zim]

The 1930s saw a collapse in consumption levels for the the Soviet working class. For example, in 1933 the "average married worker in Moscow consumed less the half the amount of bread and flower that his counterpart in Petersburg would have consumed at the start of the century" according to Sheila Fitzpatrick in Everyday Stalinism. The situation somewhat improved in the mid 1930s , but the late 1930s saw another collapse. Consult her book, particularly the chapter "Hard Times" if you want more detail. You're quote from Isaac Deutscher is just a general praise of industrialisation and education efforts. Modern research of the Stalin era, has of course, gone beyond this.

Interesting point. But is that due to the failed policies of the Stalinist regime - or down to the harvest failures and famines that plagued the USSR, coupled with the impact of the Great Depression and the following major international economic downturn in 1937? In short, given the reduced standard of living across the world in the 1930s, should we treat the Soviet Union as a special case?

[goalkeeper]

Interesting point. But is that due to the failed policies of the Stalinist regime - or down to the harvest failures and famines that plagued the USSR, coupled with the impact of the Great Depression and the following major international economic downturn in 1937? In short, given the reduced standard of living across the world in the 1930s, should we treat the Soviet Union as a special case?

True, perhaps we should not treat the Soviet Union as a special case. The apologists for the Stalin era, however, are treating the USSR as a special case i.e. the point of fighting the war is the defence of the Soviet Union. There is also things such as the horrendous situation of housing for the population and abysmal working conditions. Again such things are not specific to the USSR, but are a common feature of industrialisation often - the point is, however, that such a line of defence is not accepted by apologists for the privations suffered by, for example, the British working class in the 19th century; the difference being that the USSR wrapped itself in a red flag and couched itself in supposedly communist rhetoric.

[Invader Zim]

True, perhaps we should not treat the Soviet Union as a special case. The apologists for the Stalin era, however, are treating the USSR as a special case i.e. the point of fighting the war is the defence of the Soviet Union. There is also things such as the horrendous situation of housing for the population and abysmal working conditions. Again such things are not specific to the USSR, but are a common feature of industrialisation often - the point is, however, that such a line of defence is not accepted by apologists for the privations suffered by, for example, the British working class in the 19th century; the difference being that the USSR wrapped itself in a red flag and couched itself in supposedly communist rhetoric.


I take your point entirely. But I still wonder, had their been a different regime in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, one which was actually socialist for starters, would calorie intake - which was effectively the metric being employed in your earlier post - have seen a lesser, greater or equal depletion because of the structural factors that effected the USSR?

I realize that I'm dragging you into tangential 'what if' counter-factual scenario, one which is absolutely impossible to prove either way, but I'd like to hear your opinion on which you perceive to be the most likely.

[goalkeeper]

I take your point entirely. But I still wonder, had their been a different regime in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, one which was actually socialist for starters, would calorie intake - which was effectively the metric being employed in your earlier post - have seen a lesser, greater or equal depletion because of the structural factors that effected the USSR?


I'll have to admit, I have no idea. Perhaps this was a bit of sloppy reasoning on my part. I think, however, the draconian work laws in the 1930s still show its anti-working class nature.

I will make one point though:
If the Soviet Union could not break out of the general crisis of capitalism afflicting most of the world in the 1930s, what use would the overthrow of the capitalist states by the Pro-Moscow Communist Parties of the rest of Europe and the USA have been? On the one hand, the Moscow Communists claim to end capitalism's cycles of crisis, yet on the other hand the state they point to sees a steep decline in living standards due to the crisis, like the capitalist states.
If we accept that a structural factors such as the world economic depression can be used as a reason for collapse of living standards (which seems plausible), then the USSR does not seem economically that different from the capitalist states, or at least it is tied in the with the capitalist world economy.