The Failure of the Stalinist Model

[YugoslavSocialist]

The Failure of the Stalinist Model
http://www.agmarxismus.net/english/english5.htm

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Ugh, more sectarian Stalin baiting. Seriously, do you think you are providing valuable insights and not just repeating the same old bull shit excuses that Trotskyism uses to try to keep the debate in the 20's instead of approaching other tendencies on their own terms. To be honest, considering how much "Anti-Stalinist" crap you spam I'm tempted to just make some cheesy trot joke and dismiss it entirely. But of course, that would be sectarian and it would be a failure on my behalf of Combating Liberalism. So i'll try to engage your supposedly brilliant and innovative article about "Stalinist"


The Russian October revolution in 1917 was the first successful proletarian revolution. Its consequences had substantial influence on the further history of the 20th century. Led by V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky under the slogan: All power to the Soviets!', the bourgeois state has been smashed by the October revolution, and replaced by a semi-state based on workers´ and soldiers´ committees (Soviets). The nationalisation of big companies and banks, the introduction of a Foreign Trade Monopoly and - above all - the elimination of the market mechanisms in key areas led to a planned economy.

But the former ruling class of Russia used their foreign-based wealth and their relations with imperialist countries to start a civil war. They were supported by the international bourgeoisie by money, a trade blockade against the Soviet republic and direct military interventions by foreign troops. Temporarily, the Soviet power was reduced to less than a quarter of the Soviet territory. But the Red Army, set up and led by Trotsky

.....And Stalin. Stalin also was a fundamental part of the Russian Revolution, having been aressted multiple times for robbing backs so the Bolshevics could have funding and tortured on the Bolshevics behalf


Under Stalinist rule, Marxism was dogmatised into Marxism-Leninism and adapted to the goals of the bureaucracy. This was expressed by the concept of Socialism in one country. While Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolsheviks assumed that only an international revolution could prevent a degeneration of the Soviet Union, Stalin, Nikolai Bucharin and the bureaucracy now declared that not only the survival of the transitional society in Russia only was possible under the dictatorship of the proletariat, but even the realisation of socialism. This was impossible due to the simple fact that the economic autarky in the backward Soviet Union implied a backdrop behind the level of international organisation of production achieved already. Progress in production technologies – isolated from the world economy – resulted in a falling behind in other sectors. However, a socialist society has to reach a higher level of development regarding productive forces than capitalism. Only the co-operation of highly developed countries based on planned economies can constitute the foundation for the withering away of commodity production, classes and state, and consequently for socialism."

There are three assertions in this paragraph that are incorrect or faulty, or in essence, all of the assertions in this paragraph are faulty.

First is the idea that Marxist-Leninism is dogmatic as opposed to Trotskyism. If Trotsky argued that the failure of the world revolution to end capitalism all at once meant that socialism was impossible, well then maybe we should rethink Marxism a wee bit and try to do the best with what we have. After all, no matter how much you might want to theorize about the issue, the revolution was successful in only one country so the most logical step from that point is to build socialism where you can. And it's important to note that in the Third Period, where Marxist-Leninism was formulated, it was said that it was possible to build Socialism in one country, not complete socialism in one country. Even Stalin made very clear distinctions over what could be accomplished in one country. He made it very clear in this letter which I will quote for you:

Here's a good letter where Stalin clarifies his position. For those of you who don't feel like reading here's a quote


"Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

Why don't you try reading some Stalin before dismissing him? You might learn something.

So I want to challenge this claim of dogmatism on behalf of Marxist Leninists. World Revolution failed, what next? Marxist Leninism answers this question. Trotskyism simple says "World revolution of course"! This isn't an answer, if world revolution failed than it can not be seen as a viable path to socialism. At this point Trotskyism is just calling people revisionists who merely grasp the fact that if socialism was to be built between 1918 and the "inevitable fall of capitalism" then it would be in the only country where the revolution suceded in overthrowing the state. Critize this socialism, call it state capitalism and then justify this answer with facts. But begging history to reverse it's self to fit Marx's ideas of revolution isn't a valid answer to the question at hand.

And I love how the article then goes into saying how a backwards society couldn't develop the productive forces. First of all, it did. If a semi-feudal nation is incapable of developing productive forces then why did the Soviet Union achieve the second highest GDP in the world? By developing the productive forces of course!

And the idea that developing the productive forces is a hallmark of "Anti-Stalinism" is hilarious as it is wrong. I'm not even bullshiting, ask any other "Anti-Stalinist" and they will tell you that the theory of productive forces is horsecrap. Do you know why? Because

A) It neglects the importance of socialization and replaces socialism with a bourgeois notion of socialism as an economic force that can "out compete" capitalism instead of a radically different social relationship that completely supplants capitalist social relations. By calling Stalin a revisionist for not upholding the theory of productive forces and for implementing socialism in one country completely misses the point. Because essentially, you're saying that you don't like the theoretical expression of Stalin's rule (Socialism in One Country) but think that he wasn't hard enough in the actual expression of his rule (the development of the productive forces).

This is where Trotskyism misses the point. Socialism in one country should mean socialization in one country, where the economic and social relationships are radically altered in an anti-capitalist framework. By saying that socialism in one country is imposible while upholding the theory of productive forces all of your critiques of Stalin lose their bite, because while you are objecting to him from a theoretical perspective, from a practical perspective you are saying nothing . Expicaly since Stalin developed his theory of productive forces by reading Trotsky's Communism and Terrorism, and that when his archives were examined it was that book which Stalin put the most notes in and probably read the most of all other Marxist texts. I'm not going to bother with any claims that Trotskyism is somehow a democratic socialism in the tradition of worker's democracy and western enlightenment values considering that a cursory reading of Communism and Terrorism proves otherwise.



Marxists had to defend the remaining rests of the October Revolution in the Stalinist countries against capitalist restoration and imperialist attacks. They had to orient themselves towards a political revolution (as the best possible solution), like the relatively far developed one in Hungary 1956.


As someone who believes that Capitalism was restored under Khrushchev, I will say fuck this . Why should I defend capitalist states from other capitalist states? Sure, there are times when national liberation movements should be supported, but only because class struggle should countuine after these movements achieve victory. I refuse to distinguish the political revolution from the socialist revolution. Soviet Imperialism is still imperialism.



So please. We all know you are a third camp trot. So stop playing this "I am holier than thou because I reject Stalinism the most game" and engage in actual, non sectarian critiques of ideologies you disagree with. Stop using bogus "materialist" critiques that assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a boogyman out to get you and can't possibly be a genuine revolutionary. And most of all, try to learn about actual fucking Marxist-Leninism before you critique it instead of lumping every non-trotskyist Leninism into the "Stalinist" or "Ultra Leftist" category. Because I am going to tell you a rough truth, history didn't end when Trotsky was exiled.

[Let's Get Free]

The consolidation of a new ruling class and the huge centralization of power that went with it, was all well underway long before Stalin got to assume power. Why do some Trots blame Stalin for all their problems? Some have a habit of doing this and pretending that all was hunky dory before that particular despot came to power

[Yuppie Grinder]

Stalinists and Maoists, stop fucking calling everyone who's an Anti-Stalinist sectarian. The word sectarian means you divide yourself unnecessarily when there's no meaningful difference between your politics. The anti-Stalinist "Ultra-Left" hasn't got anything to do with your ideology in terms of goals and how to get there.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Stalinists and Maoists, stop fucking calling everyone who's an Anti-Stalinist sectarian. The word sectarian means you divide yourself unnecessarily when there's no meaningful difference between your politics. The anti-Stalinist "Ultra-Left" hasn't got anything to do with your ideology in terms of goals and how to get there.

There is nothing sectarian with ideologies that don't uphold Stalin, but it is sectarian when your refuse to debate an ideology based on it's own terms and try to critique Stalin as if this is just like critiquing Marxist-Leninism. So disagreeing with, vanguardism let's say, isn't sectarian because it is just a different tactical approach. Calling someone a Stalinists implies that they support dictatorial policies associated with Stalin and is therefore intellectually dishonest, just like critiquing Orthodox Marxists on the basis that Kaufsky went renegade instead of engaging their content as a theory would also be sectarian.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And for further clarification. Calling Stalin's Soviet Union state capitalist isn't sectarian either aslong as you can prove it with proper analysis. But this is not the same as saying that Marxist-Leninists advocate state capitalism over socialism. Likewise, saying that Marxist-Leninism is wrong because Stalin killed trotsky says nothing about their ideology because the killing of Trotsky did not change the mode of production, however if you wish to say that as an individual Stalin should not have done that then well that is a valid opinion that merits a debate.

[YugoslavSocialist]

Ugh, more sectarian Stalin baiting. Seriously, do you think you are providing valuable insights and not just repeating the same old bull shit excuses that Trotskyism uses to try to keep the debate in the 20's instead of approaching other tendencies on their own terms. To be honest, considering how much "Anti-Stalinist" crap you spam I'm tempted to just make some cheesy trot joke and dismiss it entirely. But of course, that would be sectarian and it would be a failure on my behalf of Combating Liberalism. So i'll try to engage your supposedly brilliant and innovative article about "Stalinist"


So I see you like to defend Stalin's Bureaucratic Collectivist policies.
I recommend you read this quote from the article.



Finally, in the middle of the twenties the bureaucracy took over. Contrary to the Marxist perspective of the dying of the state, the semi-state bound to the working class was replaced by a state with an apparatus of bureaucrats and police raised above society. Proletarian internationalism was replaced by Russian nationalism. Many achievements which were brought forward by the revolution for national minorities or women were eliminated again. On the political level a bourgeois counterrevolution was carried out step-by-step. The working class was finally deprived of their political power. Employing their bureaucratic-military apparatus, the bureaucracy, led by Joseph Stalin, built up a rule over the working class. At the same time, the party democracy inside the Communist Party was abolished and any possible opposition eliminated. With the suppression of the left opposition around Leo Trotsky, the bureaucratic bourgeois counter-revolution was sealed. As a consequence, the Communist parties of the Comintern internationally were brought into line and bureaucratised. The political „cleansing'' in Russia was mainly directed towards the Bolshevik cadre, while the party was stuffed with career oriented bureaucrats. The peak of this process is marked by the Moscow trials 1936-1938, when all leading party members (except Stalin) from the time of the revolution were convicted - by means of allegations and confessions made under torture - as counter-revolutionaries and finally were murdered.

However, the fundamental economic and social structures, the post-capitalist relations of property and mode of production, remained intact in the Soviet Union. It is true that the bureaucratisation seized the planned economy as well. Instead of a democratic planned economy based on the Soviets - according to the needs of the working class - it was now modified to a bureaucratically planned economy adjusted to the needs of the new ruling caste. And the enterprises' internal regime was reshaped according to the alienated capitalist commando structures. Nevertheless, key areas of the economy still did not work according to capitalist mechanisms. The relationships between enterprises and the state, and between different enterprises were not regulated via the market. Characteristics of capitalism, such as industrial cycles, over-accumulation of capital or unemployment did play no role in the Soviet economy.

[Art Vandelay]

There is nothing sectarian with ideologies that don't uphold Stalin, but it is sectarian when your refuse to debate an ideology based on it's own terms and try to critique Stalin as if this is just like critiquing Marxist-Leninism. So disagreeing with, vanguardism let's say, isn't sectarian because it is just a different tactical approach. Calling someone a Stalinists implies that they support dictatorial policies associated with Stalin and is therefore intellectually dishonest, just like critiquing Orthodox Marxists on the basis that Kaufsky went renegade instead of engaging their content as a theory would also be sectarian.

YABM is really correct on this matter. To quote Sam b from a thread in learning:


You cannot categorise people into arbitrarily "good" and "bad" camps, or you will not get far in understanding anything historical or dialectical.

[Geiseric]

YABM is really correct on this matter. To quote Sam b from a thread in learning:

No he's definately not correct, who in their right mind thinks that killing Trotsky was acceptable? He died right as he founded the 4th International, leaving a void in communism that nobody has filled, in terms of leadership, and knowlege of the Bolshevik revolution itself, with an interest to continue it. Every revolution since has been dominated by Stalinists, because of the USSR's intervention in the countries of China and Vietnam, usually the result of violent purges, of thousands of other revolutionaries. There is no legitimacy to Stalinism, none at all, because it isn't even theory, what they think is a legitimate theory is the farcical zig zags that Stalin's Comintern took internationally, compiled with dividing Poland with the Nazis, and fighting in World War two, to leave an Eastern bloc in such a great state, like Hungary!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No he's definately not correct, who in their right mind thinks that killing Trotsky was acceptable? He died right as he founded the 4th International, leaving a void in communism that nobody has filled, in terms of leadership, and knowlege of the Bolshevik revolution itself, with an interest to continue it. Every revolution since has been dominated by Stalinists, because of the USSR's intervention in the countries of China and Vietnam, usually the result of violent purges, of thousands of other revolutionaries. There is no legitimacy to Stalinism, none at all, because it isn't even theory, what they think is a legitimate theory is the farcical zig zags that Stalin's Comintern took internationally, compiled with dividing Poland with the Nazis, and fighting in World War two, to leave an Eastern bloc in such a great state, like Hungary!


And for further clarification. Calling Stalin's Soviet Union state capitalist isn't sectarian either aslong as you can prove it with proper analysis. But this is not the same as saying that Marxist-Leninists advocate state capitalism over socialism. Likewise, saying that Marxist-Leninism is wrong because Stalin killed trotsky says nothing about their ideology because the killing of Trotsky did not change the mode of production, however if you wish to say that as an individual Stalin should not have done that then well that is a valid opinion that merits a debate.

Edit: Excuse me, a petty, knee jerk insult was an inappropriate way for me to respond. What I should have said that
A) you for the most part ignored what I was saying
B) There is an ideology that extends past Stalin, and if you want to critique Marxist-Leninism than try critiquing actual Marxist-Leninism instead of going for Ad Hominen attacks at Stalin

[Art Vandelay]

No he's definately not correct, who in their right mind thinks that killing Trotsky was acceptable? He died right as he founded the 4th International, leaving a void in communism that nobody has filled, in terms of leadership, and knowlege of the Bolshevik revolution itself, with an interest to continue it. Every revolution since has been dominated by Stalinists, because of the USSR's intervention in the countries of China and Vietnam, usually the result of violent purges, of thousands of other revolutionaries. There is no legitimacy to Stalinism, none at all, because it isn't even theory, what they think is a legitimate theory is the farcical zig zags that Stalin's Comintern took internationally, compiled with dividing Poland with the Nazis, and fighting in World War two, to leave an Eastern bloc in such a great state, like Hungary!

I sure as hell don't think Trotsky deserved to die and he's personally one of my favorite Marxists. However to criticize Stalin from a moral perspective is an extremely weak argument. Attack the ideology all you want (of which there is plenty of criticisms to be made) however moralistic arguments should not be used by communists.

[Geiseric]

Edit: Excuse me, a petty, knee jerk insult was an inappropriate way for me to respond. What I should have said that
A) you for the most part ignored what I was saying
B) There is an ideology that extends past Stalin, and if you want to critique Marxist-Leninism than try critiquing actual Marxist-Leninism instead of going for Ad Hominen attacks at Stalin

Cheers for thinking that recognizing that he authorized the murder of hundreds of thousands of communists is an "ad hominem argument."

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Cheers for thinking that recognizing that he authorized the murder of hundreds of thousands of communists is an "ad hominem argument."

....And you still haven't managed to address Marxist-Leninism..... Or has god decided to resurrect Stalin and he went on a rampage out killing communists and sabotaging revolutions yesrday while I wasn't looking. I must be more vigilant! Thank you for this wisdom O'comrade of mine, clearly I am not focusing on things that were relevant in the 20's enough!

[Geiseric]

You can't just distinguish Stalinism from the purges and the actual disastrous politics which came from the USSR's bureaucracy, history doesn't work like that. I'm sure Napoleon had some good ideas, but talking about what he actually did is apparently ad hominem.

I'm not saying Stalinists are bad people but there are serious problems with holding Stalin up on a pedestal as somebody we should historically of supported in the late 20's onward.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

You can't just distinguish Stalinism from the purges and the actual disastrous politics which came from the USSR's bureaucracy, history doesn't work like that. I'm sure Napoleon had some good ideas, but talking about what he actually did is apparently ad hominem.

I'm not saying Stalinists are bad people but there are serious problems with holding Stalin up on a pedestal as somebody we should historically of supported in the late 20's onward.

I feel like you don't properly understand the place of Stalin in the context of Anti-Revisionism. Generally speaking, our defense isn't for the purpose of "upholding him, but rather it's because the "Anti-Stalinism" of the Khrushchev was used to justify his revisionism and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Maoists see the task as solely defending him from Khrushchev's accusations while maintaining that he made many errors. As Mao said:

“Stalin should be criticized, but we have differing opinions as to the form the criticism ought to take. There are some other questions, too, on which we disagree.”
—Remarks about the Criticism of Stalin (Oct. 23, 1956), WMZ2, p. 148, in full. A comment made to P. F. Yudin, the Soviet ambassador to China.

I already posted a link of quotes of Mao on Stalin in that one Trotskyism thread so I would prefer not to spam them. If you can't find it I'll link it to you.

Here's Mao on Khrushchev
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm

Here is a good article on the restoration of capitalism

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf


So while I'll defend him against Khrushchev just like most other Trotskyites defend Mao against Deng, I won't go as far as to say that he is some sort of saint. The Hoxhaist Tendency has a tendency to scream STAALLINNNN!111!!!!! But I'm not a Hoxhaite. The point is that Anti-Revisionism can't be reduced to upholding Stalin but rather it is about rejecting the state capitalism that took place in the Soviet Union.

And for the rest of your post, here's a short essay that I feel is tangentially applicable.


http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/09/marxism-beyond-marx-leninism-beyond.html

[Geiseric]

sMy entire point is that Khruschev's actions were the same Stalin would of taken, seeing as they were both the leaders of the state bureaucracy. Same as Mao, they were all bureaucrats in charge of a state in between Capitalism and Socialism, who wanted it to stay that way, or else they wouldn't of needed a privileged Premier and educated Nomenklatura to be the strong men in charge of defending the island of socialism. If different stances were taken by the KPD in Germany, the correct stances that were proved correct by the Russian Revolution, such as a united front with opportunists who were also threatened by Czarists (or Nazis, its the same principle), the German revolution could of worked out, and the entire role of the Russian state would be superfluous, just like how Elijah Muhammad wanted the black nationalist movement to be a cult around himself, instead of advocating a concrete, revolutionary program.

You have to recognize Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Khruschev as the state, whose only interest is to preserve itself. Socialism in One Country meant that the survival of the USSR as an island of socialism was the priority of the Bureaucracy, over actual revolutionary politics. I don't even have to point out how the Comintern fucked up in China or Spain, which is the result of the theory of SioC being dominant among the soviet state.

And as we saw, the bureaucracy which was borne out of Stalin's generation, which had the same roles, actually did restore capitalism, however Stalin did nothing to prevent that from happening, he was the godfather of Gorbachev, in the same way that George Washington is the predecessor of George Bush. If Stalin did care he would of restored the soviets democracy, and not suggested things like popular fronts, and no strike clauses in Imperialist countries during the "great patriotic war."

[YugoslavSocialist]

Generally speaking, our defense isn't for the purpose of "upholding him, but rather it's because the "Anti-Stalinism" of the Khrushchev was used to justify his revisionism and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.


All Stalinist States eventually leads back to Capitalism. So revisionism is inevitable.