The fall of the USSR

[one10]

What exactly caused the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? It's a topic I've been researching lately, and something that I can't grasp.

I know about the revolutions of 1989, the failed August coup, and that Gorbachev was pushing for reform... but what I'm asking is, what is the root of it? Where did the Soviets go wrong?

[The Idler]

Maurice Brinton argues the Soviets went wrong very early on.

concerning the role of the Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution.[4] Goodey sees these committees as 'the most powerful institution in Russia by the end of 1917' and in this he is certainly right. He is also correct in claiming that 'this power later submerged'. What is lacking in his article, however, is a serious attempt to explain what happened in between, when it happened, why it happened, and to whom it happened. The 'submergence' of which Goodey speaks was well advanced, if not virtually completed, by May 1918, i.e. before the Civil War and the 'Allied' intervention really got under way. The traditional explanations of the degeneration of the Russian revolution are just not good enough.
The first stage of the process under discussion was the subordination of the Factory Committees to the All-Russian Council for Workers' Control in which the unions (themselves already strongly under Party influence) were heavily represented. This took place very shortly after the coming to power of the Soviet Government. The second phase - which almost immediately followed the first - was the incorporation of this All-Russian Council for Workers' Control into the Vesenka (Supreme Economic Council), even more heavily weighted in favour of the unions, but also comprising direct nominees of the State (i.e. of the Party). By early 1918 the Bolsheviks were actively seeking to merge the Committees into the trade union structures.What happened in 1991 was the result of the command economy collapsing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

[tuwix]

What exactly caused the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? It's a topic I've been researching lately, and something that I can't grasp.

I know about the revolutions of 1989, the failed August coup, and that Gorbachev was pushing for reform... but what I'm asking is, what is the root of it? Where did the Soviets go wrong?

Gorbachev was the root of that. He was chosen to make reforms. And reforms dissolved the Soviet Union.

And why he was chosen? Because economy was in stagnation. Ands why was in stagnation? Due to directing the economy from ministries because the power to rule the enterprises wasn't given to workers.

[The Idler]

Gorbachev was the root of that. He was chosen to make reforms. And reforms dissolved the Soviet Union.

And why he was chosen? Because economy was in stagnation. Ands why was in stagnation? Due to directing the economy from ministries because the power to rule the enterprises wasn't given to workers.
So what you're saying is, that it wasn't a workers state? Workers weren't in control.

[one10]

So what exactly led to the Communist Party dissolving as well? Couldn't they have remained active? Or did members go on to create their own parties?

[tuwix]

They have created other parties and the rest created the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But I doubt is it communist party at all.

[DarkPast]

So what exactly led to the Communist Party dissolving as well? Couldn't they have remained active? Or did members go on to create their own parties?

Hah! The Communist Party was the most responsible for the collapse in the first place. A huge number of modern Russian oligarchs are former Soviet apparatchiks or their children. They became wealthy by ripping off former state assets, speculating in commodities, foreign exchange and property. Gorbachev's moves to introduce democracy facilitated this process, as did the extreme free market ideology that Soviet economists had introduced with the encouragement of the IMF and similar organizations.

Furthermore, since the CP was the only legal political party, many opportunists joined it despite not believing in any of its ideas.

I can't find it now, but there was a famous interview with a high-ranking member of the Communist Party in the late 80's, which went something like:
-Are you a member of the CP?
-Yes.
-Are you a communist?
-Of course not!


They have created other parties and the rest created the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But I doubt is it communist party at all.

You're right in doubting them. The CPRF is deeply infested with Russian nationalism and homophobia. In my opinion they are simply nationalist populist opportunists. This isn't different from other Eastern European "communist" parties: about half are old-school social democrats, while the other half are right-wingers who wrap themselves with a red flag to attract disgruntled workers and old nostalgics.

[Old Bolshie]

You're right in doubting them. The CPRF is deeply infested with Russian nationalism and homophobia. In my opinion they are simply nationalist populist opportunists.

The Communist Party in USSR/Russia has been like this throughout its history since Stalin took absolute power over the party in mid-30's. Despite the De-stalinization process and other makeup policies the Party never lost its chauvinistic character.

[fractal-vortex]

comrade one10! In reply to your question - why did the USSR dissolve - I can say that the bureaucracy was responsible for this. These were no communists, but people interested in privatization of state property. They became interested in privatization as they were in control of the economy, with no workers controlling them. Ultimately, I believe, it was the division of labor, inherent in the Industrial revolution, that was responsible for this. Some people became managers - bureaucrats, and most became workers. :)

[RedMaterialist]

What exactly caused the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? It's a topic I've been researching lately, and something that I can't grasp.

I know about the revolutions of 1989, the failed August coup, and that Gorbachev was pushing for reform... but what I'm asking is, what is the root of it? Where did the Soviets go wrong?

This question has been debated since 1989 without any resolution. It is still my opinion that Marx and Engels predicted the fall of the Soviet Union 150 yrs ago. In very simple terms the Soviet Union was the first successful workers' state. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. It may have degenerated into a bureaucratic worker's state, but it remained, essentially, a workers' dictatorship led by a dictator, Stalin.

The Soviet Union, under Stalin, brutally suppressed and ultimately eliminated the capitalist class (as well as millions of non-capitalists, such as Trotsky and the small peasant class; Stalin saw enemies everwhere.) This left the Soviet state with no class to suppress. The state continued for 25-30 yrs to function as a workers' bureaucracy, its only function was the "administration of things." An outstanding exception was the Afghanistan war, but even that failed.

A state exists for one purpose and one purpose only: the suppression of a specific class. Under socialism, the dictatorship of the working class suppressed the capitalist class; after the destruction of that class the state had no further reason to exist. It withered away and died.

However, the SU, when it collapsed, was surrounded by international capitalism, which rushed into the vacuum and began injecting capital which led to the reformation of a pseudo-criminal/capitalist class.

This last aspect of the collapse proves that socialism is impossible in one country for the simple reason that once a socialist state does collapse the remaining world capitalist class, if strong enough, will simply re-appear. Thus, the communist revolution must be international and must be able to suppress and destroy capitalism internationally.

[RedMaterialist]

comrade one10! In reply to your question - why did the USSR dissolve - I can say that the bureaucracy was responsible for this. These were no communists, but people interested in privatization of state property. They became interested in privatization as they were in control of the economy, with no workers controlling them. Ultimately, I believe, it was the division of labor, inherent in the Industrial revolution, that was responsible for this. Some people became managers - bureaucrats, and most became workers. :)

If the state managers wanted to privatize state property for their own benefit, why would they allow the state to collapse? There are many states in which public property is privatized without the state collapsing, in Greece, for instance. Also, in the U.S. and Britain. In fact, it is essential in these states that state power be increased to enforce the privatization.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

A state exists for one purpose and one purpose only: the suppression of a specific class. Under socialism, the dictatorship of the working class suppressed the capitalist class; after the destruction of that class the state had no further reason to exist. It withered away and died.
I don't really believe that, because there WAS a capitalist class, just outside the borders of the USSR. As you said, it was surrounded by international capitalism, so the state did have a reason to exist: to protect socialism (or whatever you want to call it) from those foreign capitalists.

I think its collapse was more like sabotage by the international bourgeoisie, as well as some bureaucrats realizing that they could become capitalists themselves, rather than the state naturally withering away.

[one10]

Is it safe to say the Russian revolution was doomed for failure since it's inception, due to Russia being far from a developed industrial nation at the time? (contrary to the Marxian idea that communist revolution will occur in developed countries first).

[RedMaterialist]

I don't really believe that, because there WAS a capitalist class, just outside the borders of the USSR. As you said, it was surrounded by international capitalism, so the state did have a reason to exist: to protect socialism (or whatever you want to call it) from those foreign capitalists.

I think its collapse was more like sabotage by the international bourgeoisie, as well as some bureaucrats realizing that they could become capitalists themselves, rather than the state naturally withering away.

Well, outside the borders of the USSR is, by definition, outside the USSR state. The Russian state did not have the power (except maybe in satellite states) to suppress the international capitalist class, only that class inside the Soviet state. It very effectively suppressed and destroyed the capitalist class inside the Soviet Union. My point is that once that suppression was completed the state collapsed, and Russian society was left open to capital invasion.

[Nevsky]

Is it safe to say the Russian revolution was doomed for failure since it's inception, due to Russia being far from a developed industrial nation at the time? (contrary to the Marxian idea that communist revolution will occur in developed countries first).

No, the Revolution definately was successfull in many ways. The fact alone that the USSR was able not only to resist but to push the hitlerite aggression back to Berlin, demonstrated that a strong, functioning socialist state emerged under the banner of marxism-leninism. Furthermore, during the years of Great Depression the capitalist world trembled at the sight of the USSR's socio-economic achievements. Consequently, the USSR's had still a lot of potential, even a few decades after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Its chances went downhill after khrushchevite revisionism took its course.

[Comrade Nasser]

What exactly caused the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? It's a topic I've been researching lately, and something that I can't grasp.

I know about the revolutions of 1989, the failed August coup, and that Gorbachev was pushing for reform... but what I'm asking is, what is the root of it? Where did the Soviets go wrong?

I know many people might disagree with me, but here goes...

I think the failed invasion and occupation of Afghanistan against the U.S. funded "freedom fighters" was probably a big reason why (although definitely not the only reason). Also the soviet economy tanked in the late 80's (partly do to the Afghan issue) and people just got "fed up" so to speak.

[one10]

No, the Revolution definately was successfull in many ways. The fact alone that the USSR was able not only to resist but to push the hitlerite aggression back to Berlin, demonstrated that a strong, functioning socialist state emerged under the banner of marxism-leninism. Furthermore, during the years of Great Depression the capitalist world trembled at the sight of the USSR's socio-economic achievements. Consequently, the USSR's had still a lot of potential, even a few decades after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Its chances went downhill after khrushchevite revisionism took its course.

So then what led to Khruschevite revisionism?

[Nevsky]

So then what led to Khruschevite revisionism?

I recommend reading Enver Hoxha's The Khrushchevites, a rather biased but nontheless very useful analysis of the post-Stalin USSR:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/index.htm

[Ismail]

One of the links in my signature (specifically this: http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RU/RP/RP7/RU-RP7.pdf ) does discuss in some detail the political basis for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

It's important to recognize that the Soviet Union after the 60's was a capitalist country with an imperialist foreign policy. The national liberation struggle against the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan was quite costly for the USSR, but its economic problems derived in large part from the dislocation of economic planning after the 50's and the reign of the market through the façade of "planning."

The CPSU likewise degenerated into a revisionist party meant to legitimize capitalist restoration.

[Sudsy]

Its hard to pinpoint an extract exact popular opinion at the time. But one thing is for certain, or at least I think that, the USSR was in time for change in the face of revision. But they could have gone in a socialist and economically democratic direction, instead, thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, the country collapsed into destructive capitalism and eventually to a mafia state as we have with Putin. So I think poor leadership had a strong role in the fall of the USSR. I`ve heard about groups in Russia demanding a trial for Mikhail Gorbachev for treason.

[subcp]

Command economies serve little function outside of accelerated industrialization of nations and regions which were still underdeveloped at the dawn of the transition from ascendent to decadent capitalism. The accelerated industrialization to try and meet the needs of international capital on the terrain of the central capitalist nations/advanced capitalist nations leads to accelerated political contradictions- ethnic and tribal tensions, modernism vs traditional lifestyles/power of religious institutions, etc.

Crisis returned to capitalism following the lengthy and 'prosperous' post-war boom (1945-1973); afterward there was a massive restructuring of capitalism on a global level. In the advanced capitalist nations, this meant Keynesian policy running up against the crisis which manifested as stagflation; the Eastern bloc economies suffered a similar fate of stagnation and inflation. But because the level of state intervention in the central capitalist nations was on a smaller scale (but still state-capitalist) than the command economies of the Warsaw Pact nations, they dealt with the return of crisis a bit better- the large scale political upheavals and wild class struggle of the era (1968-1979) was a response to this change in the economy. In the USSR and Eastern bloc, there was a delayed response of the working-class- the largest example being Poland 1980-1981 (compared to the French May 1968- 12 years earlier).

Some command economy based one-party states adjusted to the needs of international capital; Yugoslavia and PR China, SR Vietnam, etc. are good examples of this. The USSR could not liberalize and contain the internal social and political contradictions; and would have a fate more akin to Yugoslavia (internal dissolution of one-party state regime; competing ethnic nationalisms and regional competition between better off and poorer regions of the Union)- though Yugoslavia began liberalization much earlier and scrapped plans for socialist primitive accumulation along the lines of the USSR; similar to China (although they went much farther down the road of 'socialist primitive accumulation', they were able to successfully liberalize with probably the most important development of capitalism since the return of crisis- the Special Economic Zone).

Internal political and social contradictions tore apart the fabric of the regime which rested upon mystification and repression to keep them in check; the weight of the needs of capital and in the inability of the CPSU regime to adequately respond to these economic needs brought down the whole house of cards.

But capitalism never stopped existing in Russia aside from a very brief period of flux when the global revolutionary wave kicked off and the Russian working-class smashed the bourgeoisie and its state, but in short order built back everything they had just demolished- only with red flags attached to it. By 1921 the RSFSR (and after it the USSR) was just another player on the world market, on the march to become an imperialist power, equal to its brother and sister capitalist-imperialist states in the United States and Europe.

[one10]

So the command economy/Khruschevite revisionism are the root of it and Gorbachev put the nail in the coffin.

Am I getting somewhere?

[DarkPast]

So the command economy/Khruschevite revisionism are the root of it and Gorbachev put the nail in the coffin.

Am I getting somewhere?

That's the basic line of Marxists-Leninists.

I and many others would beg to disagree, however, since we believe the restoration of capitalism in Russia/USSR can be traced back to Lenin's policies. I suggest you re-read subcp's post, since he put it far more eloquently than I could. Especially his last paragraph.

[Delenda Carthago]

After the fall of USSR, KKE, perhaps the only massive communist party that didnt turned eurocommunist or disappeared at the time, had a 18 years long collective study on the history of USSR in order to understand what went wrong. The resolts of that study became this (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd).

In short, it recognises the re-introduction of the capitalist elements after WWII to the economy as the root of the course that came next, which capitalised on the 1956 congress, which was the beggining of the opportunistic turn for CPSU.

It also studies the course of working class control of the means of production and the working class power in general, something that was very usefull to make conclusions for us not to repeat the mistake of replacing it with the party's power.

[one10]

That's the basic line of Marxists-Leninists.

I and many others would beg to disagree, however, since we believe the restoration of capitalism in Russia/USSR can be traced back to Lenin's policies. I suggest you re-read subcp's post, since he put it far more eloquently than I could. Especially his last paragraph.

I tend to agree with Marxist-Leninists.

Are you referring to Lenin's New Economic Policy as the restoration of capitalism in the USSR? The move was definitely pragmatic in response to the economic conditions and famine caused in Russia after the Civil War. Russia's economy never really stabilized after WWI either. The NEP was also a response to the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921.

"Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory"

Due to the circumstances at the time, I can't disagree with Lenin there.

Russia was an undeveloped, impoverished, and feudalist country at the time of the October Revolution, completely contrary to Marx's idea that a communist revolution would first occur in a developed capitalist nation. The USSR had to further develop production and centralize the economy, Lenin saw state capitalism as a developmental stage of the revolution, it was never intended to be permanent.

By the way, what is your tendency?

[Old Bolshie]

That's the basic line of Marxists-Leninists.

I and many others would beg to disagree, however, since we believe the restoration of capitalism in Russia/USSR can be traced back to Lenin's policies.

There can't be a restoration of something that never ceased to exist. Capitalism never ended in Russia. It was impossible for the Russians in 1917 to move away from capitalism in any circumstance (it is impossible for a single country alone to move from capitalism to socialism anyway).

I don't think that the main issue of socialists (except for ML's of course) with Stalin's legacy (or Lenin's) is USSR's capitalist mode of production since anybody who thinks SIOC is impossible to realize would agree that it was unavoidable to maintain capitalism in USSR from the moment that the revolution failed to spread.

The main issue is the autocratic and authoritarian nature of the regime which developed in USSR after the revolution.

[one10]

The main issue is the autocratic and authoritarian nature of the regime which developed in USSR after the revolution.

After the Civil War, assasination attempts on Lenin/Bolshevik party members, the Kronstadt Rebellion, and increasing counter-revolutionary activity in Russia, I understand why the USSR became authoritarian under Lenin.

It was when Stalin took over that things got out of control. He abused the power he was given.

That's where I become skeptical of Marxist-Leninist ideology, I feel that it lends itself to authoritarian regimes similar to Stalin's.

It just seems like the system falls apart once the revolutionary that led the movement is no longer in charge. In the USSR's case it was Vladimir Lenin, in China's case it was Mao Zedong, and in Cuba's case it was Fidel Castro. Those men will remain the greatest leaders those countries ever had.

I'm not saying it's the root cause of it, but their revolutions seemed to lose some merit when those leaders were no longer in office.

[Old Bolshie]

After the Civil War, assasination attempts on Lenin/Bolshevik party members, the Kronstadt Rebellion, and increasing counter-revolutionary activity in Russia, I understand why the USSR became authoritarian under Lenin.

It was when Stalin took over that things got out of control. He abused the power he was given.

I wasn't referring to Lenin rule but Stalin's. USSR never assumed an autocratic shape with Lenin as it did with Stalin and the authoritarian form which in fact assumed was due to some of the reasons you mentioned above.

It's worth to remember that after the October Revolution Left SR's integrated the government alongside the Bolsheviks and were given high positions in Cheka which they used to assassinate the German Ambassador. Only when they tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks from power by force with France's support they were in fact repressed although they were allowed to be reinstated in 1919 and many of them actually joined the Bolsheviks.

Mensheviks and SR's opposed the October Revolution, walked out from the Soviets and supported Kaledin's White Army although many Left Mensheviks later joined the Bolsheviks as well.


That's where I become skeptical of Marxist-Leninist ideology, I feel that it lends itself to authoritarian regimes similar to Stalin's.

It just seems like the system falls apart once the revolutionary that led the movement is no longer in charge. In the USSR's case it was Vladimir Lenin, in China's case it was Mao Zedong, and in Cuba's case it was Fidel Castro. Those men will remain the greatest leaders those countries ever had.

I'm not saying it's the root cause of it, but their revolutions seemed to lose some merit when those leaders were no longer in office.

You can't associate Lenin with Marxism-Leninism despite the rhetoric. You look at Stalin's legacy and you would hardly find anything of Lenin in it. The main principles of Leninism were dropped by Stalin such as democratic centralism and some issues like SIOC, the lack of intra - party democracy and submission of the party (including the CC) to the political figure of the Secretary-General, Cult of personality, subordination of the international communist movement, etc... clearly put a barrier between Leninism and Stalinism.

This doesn't mean however that I consider Lenin completely exempt of responsibilities regarding the rising of Stalinism in USSR.

[one10]

You can't associate Lenin with Marxism-Leninism despite the rhetoric. You look at Stalin's legacy and you would hardly find anything of Lenin in it. The main principles of Leninism were dropped by Stalin such as democratic centralism and some issues like SIOC, the lack of intra - party democracy and submission of the party (including the CC) to the political figure of the Secretary-General, Cult of personality, subordination of the international communist movement, etc... clearly put a barrier between Leninism and Stalinism.

This doesn't mean however that I consider Lenin completely exempt of responsibilities regarding the rising of Stalinism in USSR.

What seperates Leninism from Marxist-Leninism?

[Old Bolshie]

What seperates Leninism from Marxist-Leninism?

- Socialism in one country.

- Subordination of the party and the entire political system to the Secretary-General of the party. Intra-party democracy eliminated.

- Cult of personality.

- Political alliances with the bourgeoisie (the concept of Popular Front vs United Front)

- Disregard for the international communist movement.

- Adoption of nationalistic and conservative elements.

In general, those are the most relevant points which separates Leninism from Marxism-Leninism. This is why would be more appropriate to call it Stalinism instead of Marxism-Leninism.

[one10]

- Socialism in one country.

- Subordination of the party and the entire political system to the Secretary-General of the party. Intra-party democracy eliminated.

- Cult of personality.

- Political alliances with the bourgeoisie (the concept of Popular Front vs United Front)

- Disregard for the international communist movement.

- Adoption of nationalistic and conservative elements.

In general, those are the most relevant points which separates Leninism from Marxism-Leninism. This is why would be more appropriate to call it Stalinism instead of Marxism-Leninism.

I agree that it should be called Stalinism. I don't see how one can apply the theory of Marx and Lenin to Stalin's USSR.

I must have been mistaken then, I always thought Marxist-Leninists to be Leninist and advocates of Stalin to be Stalinists. Wouldn't this make more sense?

[Ismail]

- Socialism in one country.The line of Lenin and Stalin.


- Subordination of the party and the entire political system to the Secretary-General of the party. Intra-party democracy eliminated.Indeed, Trotsky criticized it like so: "the party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single 'dictator' substitutes himself for the Central Committee." Unfortunately this was made in 1904... against Lenin. Khrushchev and Brezhnev likewise picked up this criticism and used it against Stalin.


- Cult of personality.Like Zinoviev saying that a man like Lenin came every 500 years and used outright religious terminology to describe him ("apostle of world communism," "He is the leader by the grace of God," etc.)? You mean Trotsky proposing the practice of naming cities after prominent Bolsheviks? How about the personality cults that exist/existed not only around Trotsky but around his ideological descendants (Ted Grant, Gerry Healy, and so on)?


- Political alliances with the bourgeoisie (the concept of Popular Front vs United Front)Indeed, the 1920's SPD leadership, Otto Bauer, etc. were valiant communists who opposed the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately there was that whole "endorsed the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Co." thing, and the whole "SPD was a lot more afraid of the KPD and focused more on repressing it than the Nazis" thing, but those can be overlooked, for obviously the SPD was a "workers' party." Just like British Labour, SYRIZA in Greece, etc.


- Disregard for the international communist movement.They disregarded it so much that Trotskyists are able to turn around and claim every pro-Soviet party took direct orders from Moscow and were all ruined (and run) by it.


- Adoption of nationalistic and conservative elements.I don't know what "nationalistic and conservative elements" signifies. Trotsky's ranting about "Stalinism" sure appealed to such elements in Mexico and the USA though.

[Old Bolshie]

The line of Lenin and Stalin.

Lenin never advocate the theory of Socialism in One Country. The theory itself was elaborated after Lenin died so it would have been difficult to do so.


Indeed, Trotsky criticized it like so: "the party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single 'dictator' substitutes himself for the Central Committee." Unfortunately this was made in 1904... against Lenin. Khrushchev and Brezhnev likewise picked up this criticism and used it against Stalin.

I don't care what Trotsky said in 1904. What is important to know is how the Bolshevik Party worked during Lenin leadership during which the CC never lost its primacy for another organ, specially a one-man post as it was the Secretary-General which took over the CC leading role within the party with Stalin. Lenin never had absolute power over the Bolshevik party and he faced opposition even within the CC.


Like Zinoviev saying that a man like Lenin came ever 500 years and used outright religious terminology to describe him ("apostle of world communism," "He is the leader by the grace of God," etc.)? You mean Trotsky proposing the practice of naming cities after prominent Bolsheviks? How about the personality cults that exist/existed not only around Trotsky but around his ideological descendants (Ted Grant, Gerry Healy, and so on)?

There is a huge difference between an individual praise of someone or individual homages like naming a city after prominent Bolsheviks and a state conducted mass glorification or deification of one man as it happened with Stalin.

Another difference is that Stalin was behind the promotion of that cult around him while Lenin never promoted anything remotely similar.



Indeed, the 1920's SPD leadership, Otto Bauer, etc. were valiant communists who opposed the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately there was that whole "endorsed the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Co." thing, and the whole "SPD was a lot more afraid of the KPD and focused more on repressing it than the Nazis" thing, but those can be overlooked, for obviously the SPD was a "workers' party." Just like British Labour, SYRIZA in Greece, etc.

Although the SPD leadership was far from being communist in the 1920's their support-base came essentially from the German Working Class and that was the reason behind the United Front: to drag non-revolutionary workers to the revolutionary field.


They disregarded it so much that Trotskyists are able to turn around and claim every pro-Soviet party took direct orders from Moscow and were all ruined (and run) by it.

That's precisely one of the reasons of why they disregarded the movement by submitting the international communist movement to their own national interests. Hence internationalism is replaced with nationalism. The Comintern was mainly disbanded and communist parties became more concerned with catching Trotskyists than fascists.


I don't know what "nationalistic and conservative elements" signifies. Trotsky's ranting about "Stalinism" sure appealed to such elements in Mexico and the USA though.

The return of old Tsarist laws such as homosexual punishment or anti-abortion laws, repression of minorities like the jews and the muslims, ethnic deportations, adoption of nationalistic rhetoric, etc... These are nationalistic and conservative elements.

[Ismail]

Lenin never advocate the theory of Socialism in One Country. The theory itself was elaborated after Lenin died so it would have been difficult to do so.Lenin spoke various times about the necessity of constructing socialism in Russia. See my two posts here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-one-countryi-t154339/index.html?t=154339


I don't care what Trotsky said in 1904.Of course not, because to care would mean to note that much of the attacks Trotsky made on Lenin he would later make on Stalin.


What is important to know is how the Bolshevik Party worked during Lenin leadership during which the CC never lost its primacy for another organ, specially a one-man post as it was the Secretary-General which took over the CC leading role within the party with Stalin.Stalin always noted that he was but a member of the Central Committee. In fact he had requested to resign (http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/stalin.htm) from his post in 1952 and from the 30's onwards had ceased using "General Secretary" as his title in communications.


Lenin never had absolute power over the Bolshevik party and he faced opposition even within the CC.Nor did Stalin, actually. J. Arch Getty amongst others have noted such opposition, even during the Great Purges.

Also, since we are on the subject of personality cults:

"When Feuchtwanger told Stalin how he found some manifestations of the cult tasteless and excessive, Stalin agreed, but said that he only answered one or two of the hundreds of greetings he received and did not allow most to be printed, especially the most excessive. He claimed that he did not seek to justify the practice, but to explain it: evidently the workers and peasant masses were simply delighted to be freed from exploitation, and they attributed this to one individual: 'of course that’s wrong, what can one person do – they see in me a unifying concept, and create foolish raptures around me.'

Feuchtwanger then asked a very legitimate question: why could he not stop the most excessive forms of rapture? Stalin responded that he had tried several times but that it was pointless as people assumed he was just doing so out of false modesty. For example, he had been criticised for preventing celebrations of his 55th birthday. According to Stalin, the veneration of the leader was the result of cultural backwardness and would pass with time. It was difficult to prevent people expressing their joy, and to take strict measures against workers and peasants. Feuchtwanger responded that what concerned him was not so much the feelings of workers and peasants, but the erection of busts and so on. Echoing some of his comments (above) about the abuse of the cult, Stalin answered that bureaucrats were afraid that if they did not put up a bust of Stalin, they would be criticised by their superiors. Putting up a bust was a form of careerism 'a specific form of the 'self-defence' of bureaucrats: so that they are left alone, they put up a bust'....

His interventions often reveal a concern to tone down, or to be seen to be toning down, some of the excesses of the cult... There are many examples of this. While a draft report for Pravda described a reception of a delegation of kolkhozniki of Odessa province in November 1933 as a reception by Stalin, Stalin himself added the names of Kalinin, Molotov and Kaganovich. He also criticised the writer A. Afinogenov for highlighting the 'vozhd' [leader] rather than the collective leadership of the Central Committee in his play Lozh'. When the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (IMEL) produced a history of 30 years of the party in 1933, he removed some references to himself....

Stalin continued to pay close attention to the editing of reports of Kremlin receptions for publication in Pravda. He would sometimes (but not always) cut out or tone down the references to the endless clapping which accompanied these quintessentially cultic occasions. He also tried to reduce the language of adulation, or to distribute it more equally with other colleagues....

While some members of the Politburo approved the renaming [of a electromechanical factory after Stalin in 1936], others proposed a discussion of the issue. However Stalin declared emphatically that he was not in favour, writing 'I am against. I advise that it should take the name of Kalinin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kosior, Postyshev or another of the leading comrades.' Nevertheless, despite Stalin's objections, on 25 March the Politburo went on to approve the attaching of Stalin’s name to the factory."
(Balázs Apor, Jan C. Behrends, Polly Jones & E.A. Rees (eds). The Leader Cult in Communist Dictatorships: Stalin and the Eastern Bloc. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. pp. 37-39.)


There is a huge difference between an individual praise of someone or individual homages like naming a city after prominent Bolsheviks and a state conducted mass glorification or deification of one man as it happened with Stalin.During Lenin's time there was plenty of "deification" of Lenin, with peasants exchanging icons of saints in their huts in favor of portraits of him, etc.

The point is that neither Lenin nor Stalin had complete control over this process. I have already given examples of Stalin ridiculing the cult and seeking to tone it down above. I could give others.


Although the SPD leadership was far from being communist in the 1920's their support-base came essentially from the German Working Class and that was the reason behind the United Front: to drag non-revolutionary workers to the revolutionary field.This, of course, is assuming the KPD did not seek unity with the rank-and-file of the SPD.


The Comintern was mainly disbanded and communist parties became more concerned with catching Trotskyists than fascists.In the first place, it is always good to know why the Comintern was dissolved. Besides concerns that it was hindering the initiative of various parties,

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

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

Stalin continued:

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


The return of old Tsarist laws such as homosexual punishmentHomosexuals were regarded as mentally ill or worse with or without the law's abolition. The Bolsheviks simply decriminalized homosexual practices (except in Central Asia where it was equated with misogyny), but later reversed this decision based on the (obviously mistaken) view that homosexuality was linked to pedophilia based on NKVD reports. The idea that homosexuality was connected to fascism also had a following among many communists and socialists in the 30's-40's. Anarchists weren't exempt either; Durruti spoke of the church as a den of obscurantism, legitimization of repression and poverty, and... "sodomy."


or anti-abortion laws,The decree legalizing abortion characterized it as an "evil" that would eventually cease to exist under socialism. Krupskaya noted that the decree was based on the fact that under capitalism restricting abortions harmed both the mother and the child, because so many women could not bear the economic and psychological costs of children. By the mid-30's it was felt that Soviet welfare rendered this issue moot.

It should also be noted that, as Sarah Davies points out, the public debates on abortion in the 30's were almost entirely absent of any "moral" arguments. It was a purely economic debate.


repression of minorities like the jews and the muslims,Jews and Muslims were repressed? I thought Stalin was a horrible conservative who opened the mosques in the 40's? I guess not. Unless, of course, the unveiling campaigns of the 1920's count as "repression of Muslims" (male ones, anyway...)


ethnic deportations,Based on wartime reports.


adoption of nationalistic rhetoric,Hardly. If you want nationalistic rhetoric look at Titoism, Maoism, Castroism, Juche and other nationalist deviations which posit themselves against the "dogmatism" of "Stalinism."

[Old Bolshie]

Lenin spoke various times about the necessity of constructing socialism in Russia. See my two posts here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-one-countryi-t154339/index.html?t=154339

Speaking about the necessity of constructing socialism in Russia isn't the same as supporting socialism in one country. Lenin always remained committed to spread the revolution unlike Stalin who abandoned any international commitment. That is why under Lenin's leadership the Comintern reunited every year while Stalin basically disbanded it.


Of course not, because to care would mean to note that much of the attacks Trotsky made on Lenin he would later make on Stalin.With the big difference that they were incorrectly made about Lenin and correctly about Stalin for the reasons that I already explained in my previous posts (primacy of the S-G, subordination of CC, etc).


Stalin always noted that he was but a member of the Central Committee. In fact he had requested to resign (http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/stalin.htm) from his post in 1952 and from the 30's onwards had ceased using "General Secretary" as his title in communications.A member of the CC controlled by him as the Secretary-General of the party. Requesting to resign within a party absolutely controlled by him is the same as not doing as he already known the answer to it. The title of "General Secretary" isn't what matter but the post itself and the powers contained in it.


Nor did Stalin, actually. J. Arch Getty amongst others have noted such opposition, even during the Great Purges.

Also, since we are on the subject of personality cults:

"When Feuchtwanger told Stalin how he found some manifestations of the cult tasteless and excessive, Stalin agreed, but said that he only answered one or two of the hundreds of greetings he received and did not allow most to be printed, especially the most excessive. He claimed that he did not seek to justify the practice, but to explain it: evidently the workers and peasant masses were simply delighted to be freed from exploitation, and they attributed this to one individual: 'of course that’s wrong, what can one person do – they see in me a unifying concept, and create foolish raptures around me.'

Feuchtwanger then asked a very legitimate question: why could he not stop the most excessive forms of rapture? Stalin responded that he had tried several times but that it was pointless as people assumed he was just doing so out of false modesty. For example, he had been criticised for preventing celebrations of his 55th birthday. According to Stalin, the veneration of the leader was the result of cultural backwardness and would pass with time. It was difficult to prevent people expressing their joy, and to take strict measures against workers and peasants. Feuchtwanger responded that what concerned him was not so much the feelings of workers and peasants, but the erection of busts and so on. Echoing some of his comments (above) about the abuse of the cult, Stalin answered that bureaucrats were afraid that if they did not put up a bust of Stalin, they would be criticised by their superiors. Putting up a bust was a form of careerism 'a specific form of the 'self-defence' of bureaucrats: so that they are left alone, they put up a bust'....

His interventions often reveal a concern to tone down, or to be seen to be toning down, some of the excesses of the cult... There are many examples of this. While a draft report for Pravda described a reception of a delegation of kolkhozniki of Odessa province in November 1933 as a reception by Stalin, Stalin himself added the names of Kalinin, Molotov and Kaganovich. He also criticised the writer A. Afinogenov for highlighting the 'vozhd' [leader] rather than the collective leadership of the Central Committee in his play Lozh'. When the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (IMEL) produced a history of 30 years of the party in 1933, he removed some references to himself....

Stalin continued to pay close attention to the editing of reports of Kremlin receptions for publication in Pravda. He would sometimes (but not always) cut out or tone down the references to the endless clapping which accompanied these quintessentially cultic occasions. He also tried to reduce the language of adulation, or to distribute it more equally with other colleagues....

While some members of the Politburo approved the renaming [of a electromechanical factory after Stalin in 1936], others proposed a discussion of the issue. However Stalin declared emphatically that he was not in favour, writing 'I am against. I advise that it should take the name of Kalinin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kosior, Postyshev or another of the leading comrades.' Nevertheless, despite Stalin's objections, on 25 March the Politburo went on to approve the attaching of Stalin’s name to the factory."
(Balázs Apor, Jan C. Behrends, Polly Jones & E.A. Rees (eds). The Leader Cult in Communist Dictatorships: Stalin and the Eastern Bloc. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. pp. 37-39.)I am talking about real opposition to Lenin in crucial matters like the Brest-Litvosk or the decision to spark the revolution and you show me a case that Stalin disagreed with some CC members because he did not want to be so much adulate as they want.


During Lenin's time there was plenty of "deification" of Lenin, with peasants exchanging icons of saints in their huts in favor of portraits of him, etc.

The point is that neither Lenin nor Stalin had complete control over this process. I have already given examples of Stalin ridiculing the cult and seeking to tone it down above. I could give others.Again, cult of personality is something massively fostered by the state as it was the case during Stalin's rule. It didn't happened with Lenin.

Stalin may have seek to tone it down but he was responsible for the cult in first place. Not only his but Lenin's as well.


This, of course, is assuming the KPD did not seek unity with the rank-and-file of the SPD.They were seeking unity among the German Working Class around their revolutionary aim.


In the first place, it is always good to know why the Comintern was dissolved. Besides concerns that it was hindering the initiative of various parties,

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

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

Stalin continued:

'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)First of all the Comintern was discarded when Stalin assumed absolute power in the CPSU way before 1941 despite being formally disbanded in 1941.

Secondly, the picture that Stalin gave from the Comintern had nothing to do with Lenin's time but certainly of Stalin's. And for that matter I agree with Stalin. It's preferable to have no Comintern than to have an organization entirely submitted to him. But again confirms Stalin disdain for the international movement.



Homosexuals were regarded as mentally ill or worse with or without the law's abolition. The Bolsheviks simply decriminalized homosexual practices (except in Central Asia where it was equated with misogyny), but later reversed this decision based on the (obviously mistaken) view that homosexuality was linked to pedophilia based on NKVD reports. The idea that homosexuality was connected to fascism also had a following among many communists and socialists in the 30's-40's. Anarchists weren't exempt either; Durruti spoke of the church as a den of obscurantism, legitimization of repression and poverty, and... "sodomy."That doesn't change the fact that the law returned under Stalin leadership alongside many other conservative elements which were a reminiscent from the old Tsarist order.


The decree legalizing abortion characterized it as an "evil" that would eventually cease to exist under socialism. Krupskaya noted that the decree was based on the fact that under capitalism restricting abortions harmed both the mother and the child, because so many women could not bear the economic and psychological costs of children. By the mid-30's it was felt that Soviet welfare rendered this issue moot.

It should also be noted that, as Sarah Davies points out, the public debates on abortion in the 30's were almost entirely absent of any "moral" arguments. It was a purely economic debate.The question here (and the homosexuality as well) is not so much the moral of the issue but the fact that the old tsarist conservative norms were returning to Russia after the revolutionary period during which these laws were repelled. I don't know if Lenin or the other Bolsheviks were personally against homosexuality or abortion. That is not the issue here.


Jews and Muslims were repressed? I thought Stalin was a horrible conservative who opened the mosques in the 40's? I guess not. Unless, of course, the unveiling campaigns of the 1920's count as "repression of Muslims" (male ones, anyway...)"When Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia. Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf's were outlawed".

Helene Carrere d’Encausse, The National Republics Lose Their Independence, in Edward A. Allworth, (edit), Central Asia: One Hundred Thirty Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, Duke University Press, 1994.

The Soviet government took the paranji veil that the women wore (as part of the Islamic hijab interpretation of Modesty) as evidence that the Muslim women were oppressed, and began the Hujum to try and forcefully remove it.

Crouch, Dave. "The Bolsheviks and Islam." International Socialism: A quarterly journal of socialist theory. 110. 14 Feb 2007




Based on wartime reports.No. I am mentioning periods before and after the war.



Hardly. If you want nationalistic rhetoric look at Titoism, Maoism, Castroism, Juche and other nationalist deviations which posit themselves against the "dogmatism" of "Stalinism."All those trends have something in common: they all came from Stalinism despite of the rhetoric that some of it may have against Stalin like Titoism.

Those points that I mentioned above to distance Lenin from Stalin you could apply to those trends: SIOC, personality cult, subordination of the entire political system to one man, and so on.

[Ismail]

Speaking about the necessity of constructing socialism in Russia isn't the same as supporting socialism in one country. Lenin always remained committed to spread the revolution unlike Stalin who abandoned any international commitment.Various communist parties were founded in the 1924-1953 period, communists triumphed in Eastern Europe and in China, Vietnam and the DPRK. It was through the construction of socialism that the USSR was able to give these movements not just moral and ideological assistance, but material aid as well.


I am talking about real opposition to Lenin in crucial matters like the Brest-Litvosk or the decision to spark the revolution and you show me a case that Stalin disagreed with some CC members because he did not want to be so much adulate as they want.There were all sorts of debates in Soviet society, not only within the Politburo and CC (the example I gave was because of you discussing personality cults) but in academia as well. Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars discusses such debates, including the ones on political economy.

I mentioned Getty in my last post. To actually cite him, he gives the example of Politburo decisions in August to October 1934: out of 1,038 decisions, 919 of them were made without Stalin's participation, and 15 of them he disagreed with. "Stalin either did not respond to, or routinely confirmed, his lieutenants' decisions 96 per cent of the time. Of his replies to Kaganovich's requests for guidance, he confirmed his lieutenants' proposal or decision without modification 84 per cent of the time." (Getty in Stalin: A New History, p. 96.)


Again, cult of personality is something massively fostered by the state as it was the case during Stalin's rule. It didn't happened with Lenin.It is probably better to recognize why the cult was built up. I don't think you'll deny that Stalin's personality cult, negative as it was, had a much more "natural" basis than, say, Khrushchev's or Brezhnev's. The Webbs wrote (http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm) the following:

At this point it is necessary to observe that, although Stalin is, by the constitution, not in the least a dictator, having no power of command, and although he appears to be free from any desire to act as a dictator, and does not do so, he may be thought to have become irremovable from his position of supreme leadership of the Party, and therefore of the government. Why is this? We find the answer in the deliberate exploitation by the governing junta of the emotion of hero-worship, of the traditional reverence of the Russian people for a personal autocrat. This was seen in the popular elevation of Lenin, notably after his death, to the status of saint or prophet, virtually canonised in the sleeping figure in the sombre marble mausoleum in Moscow's Red Square, where he is now, to all intents and purposes, worshipped by the adoring millions of workers and peasants who daily pass before him. Lenin's works have become ‘Holy Writ’, which may be interpreted, but which it is impermissible to confute. After Lenin's death, it was agreed that his place could never be filled. But some new personality had to be produced for the hundred and sixty millions to revere. There presently ensued a tacit understanding among the junta that Stalin should be "boosted" as the supreme leader of the proletariat, the Party and the state. His portrait and his bust were accordingly distributed by tens of thousands, and they are now everywhere publicly displayed along with those of Marx and Lenin. Scarcely a speech is made, or a conference held, without a naïve – some would say a fulsome reference to "Comrade Stalin" as the great leader of the people.

(Trotsky relates in elaborate detail what he describes as the intrigues aiming at his own exclusion from among those who, at public meetings, were given popular honours as leaders, Presently, he continues, "then the first place began to be given to Stalin. If the chairman was not clever enough to guess what was required of him, he was invariably corrected in the newspapers. It was as the supreme expression of the mediocrity of the apparatus that Stalin himself rose to his position." (My Life, by Leon Trotsky, 1930, pp. 499-500.) ....

It seems to us that a national leader so persistently boosted, and so generally admired, has, in fact, become irremovable against his will, so long as his health lasts, without a catastrophic break-up of the whole administration... For him to be dismissed from office, or expelled from the Party, as Trotsky and so many others have been, could not be explained to the people. He will therefore remain in his great position of leadership so long as he wishes to do so.


First of all the Comintern was discarded when Stalin assumed absolute power in the CPSU way before 1941 despite being formally disbanded in 1941.If you're trying to argue that it was impotent then that's obviously wrong.


"When Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia. Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf's were outlawed".And in the 40's that was reversed due to the war; you had imams praising Stalin in Soviet newspapers and saying that God was on his side.

In any case the issue here is that on one hand you're denouncing Stalin for being too radical (atheist activities during the late 20's against Christianity were also on the rise), and on the other you're denouncing Stalin for being too conservative.

[Old Bolshie]

Various communist parties were founded in the 1924-1953 period, communists triumphed in Eastern Europe and in China, Vietnam and the DPRK. It was through the construction of socialism that the USSR was able to give these movements not just moral and ideological assistance, but material aid as well.

But here is precisely where we disagree. I don't consider that Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam and the DPRK went through proletarian revolutions (and for that matter I think you agree with me as far as China, Vietnam and DPRK is concerned) and their regime mirrored USSR's model under Stalin leadership with the same elements (cult of personality, submission of the party to the leader, etc).


There were all sorts of debates in Soviet society, not only within the Politburo and CC (the example I gave was because of you discussing personality cults) but in academia as well. Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars discusses such debates, including the ones on political economy.

I mentioned Getty in my last post. To actually cite him, he gives the example of Politburo decisions in August to October 1934: out of 1,038 decisions, 919 of them were made without Stalin's participation, and 15 of them he disagreed with. "Stalin either did not respond to, or routinely confirmed, his lieutenants' decisions 96 per cent of the time. Of his replies to Kaganovich's requests for guidance, he confirmed his lieutenants' proposal or decision without modification 84 per cent of the time." (Getty in Stalin: A New History, p. 96.)

As you know under Stalin's rule it was the General Secretary who determined the composition of the Politburo and Central Committee within the Party. Stalin really didn't have to pay too much attention to the Politburo decisions since it was effectively controlled by him and I think that example mentioned above is very illustrative of how Stalin had the party under his full control.


It is probably better to recognize why the cult was built up. I don't think you'll deny that Stalin's personality cult, negative as it was, had a much more "natural" basis than, say, Khrushchev's or Brezhnev's. The Webbs wrote (http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm) the following:

It may had a much more natural basis than the ones of his weak successors but is still a negative aspect of Stalin's rule.

The general explanation for the rise of the cult of personality in USSR is that the Russian people needed new references to revere as a replacement of the old religious figures which were banned after the October Revolution.


If you're trying to argue that it was impotent then that's obviously wrong.

From the seven World Congresses realized by the Comintern in its history, five of them (one per year) were realized under Lenin's guidance (the last one in 1924 when he was already dead but you can count it as included under his influence) before the SIOC was adopted as a state policy and only 2 were realized under Stalin's rule which was much longer than Lenin's.

This illustrates of how different it was the importance of the Comintern for both men.


And in the 40's that was reversed due to the war; you had imams praising Stalin in Soviet newspapers and saying that God was on his side.

You said it right. Due to the war when Stalin also sought support from the Orthodox Church. It was a pragmatic measure destined to gather the maximum support against an external aggression.


In any case the issue here is that on one hand you're denouncing Stalin for being too radical (atheist activities during the late 20's against Christianity were also on the rise), and on the other you're denouncing Stalin for being too conservative.

I'm not denouncing Stalin for being too radical, just for being too conservative. Repressing the Muslims and other minorities was a conservative policy taken by Stalin.

[Ismail]

As you know under Stalin's rule it was the General Secretary who determined the composition of the Politburo and Central Committee within the Party. Stalin really didn't have to pay too much attention to the Politburo decisions since it was effectively controlled by him and I think that example mentioned above is very illustrative of how Stalin had the party under his full control.In other words the Soviet revisionist (and, I suppose, Trotskyist) criticism that "Stalin decided everything" is challenged by noting that there were plenty of Politburo decisions Stalin paid little attention towards and put into the hands of others to deal with. This is somehow actually proof because asking the leader of the Party for his opinion apparently constitutes said Politburo being "controlled by him."


The general explanation for the rise of the cult of personality in USSR is that the Russian people needed new references to revere as a replacement of the old religious figures which were banned after the October Revolution.Yes, and this process was already going on even when Lenin was alive. My point is that neither Lenin or Stalin cared about their cults and spoke against them. There was no "Joseph Stalin Thought" (see: Maoism) or the Kimilsungist idea that the "leader" is the epitome of revolutionary work. Soviet propaganda always portrayed Stalin as the most outstanding representative of the Party and its Central Committee, it had definite limits.


From the seven World Congresses realized by the Comintern in its history, five of them (one per year) were realized under Lenin's guidance (the last one in 1924 when he was already dead but you can count it as included under his influence) before the SIOC was adopted as a state policy and only 2 were realized under Stalin's rule which was much longer than Lenin's.Alternatively the early Comintern congresses, like early Party congresses, were held so frequently due to the fact that this was all a relatively new phenomenon and there were many debates and problems. The Sixth and Seventh Congresses of the Comintern were no less important than preceding ones in terms of laying down the general line of the international communist movement and its tactics.

In any case I do not see what yearly or every two years' worth of Comintern congresses would have done if it was all under "Stalinist" control anyway.


I'm not denouncing Stalin for being too radical, just for being too conservative. Repressing the Muslims and other minorities was a conservative policy taken by Stalin.Only if you discount the fact that this "conservative" policy (apparently conservatives demolish religious buildings) was coupled with a mass movement at unveiling women in Muslim lands, one which elicited armed response from various reactionary clergymen and husbands.

Also I don't see how "other minorities" were repressed. Any book on Soviet nationalities in the 30's (e.g. Affirmative Action Empire, Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan) would note the efforts made by the Soviet government to raise the culture and participation of said minorities, often against the interests of the Russians.

[Delenda Carthago]

The idea that "Stalin controlled everything" is one of the silliest things said about USSR under his leadership. It is known that Stalin was outvoted on many important issues on the course of socialist construction. Such as the Moscow Trials(the records show that he proposed no death penalty other than the case of Tukhachevsky), the leadership of Red Army during WWII(much less power comparing to Hitler's over the german army), and most importantly, to the most serious decision ever took on the history of USSR, the reintroduction of capitalist elements in the socialist economy, he was in the camp of "anti-market", the one that lost the debate, sadly. And if I recall correct,I bet Ismail will remember best, that was what "Problems of the socialist economy"(1952) was about.

[Grenzer]

"When Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia. Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf's were outlawed".

There are several problematic aspects of this statement.

First of all, the policy on religion did not "change, at least within the context of Central Asia. During the Russian Civil War, it was necessary to suppress Orthodox clergy because they were actively throwing their support behind reactionary movements such as the proto-fascist Black Hundreds. This is hardly controversial among Leninists, so it seems strange that would you oppose the same policy being carried out in Central Asia. While the Basmachi aren't quite equitable to the Black Hundreds, they were inspired to a large degree by reactionary religious sentiment. Many Islamic clerics denounced 'Soviet Power', just as the Orthodox clergy had done, so it became necessary in the view of the state to suppress them. One can argue that this was incorrect, but it would be the peak of hypocrisy to maintain this while simultaneously arguing that religious suppression during the Civil War was justified. It seems that for some, so long as it was carried out by Lenin rather than Stalin, then the policy was justified.

It also seems quite bizarre to me that you are criticizing the dissolution of the waqf. A waqf was a religious endowment, not terribly dissimilar from how the Catholic Church owned land in pre-modern Europe. Most Marxists would recognize the waqf in its traditional form as a Feudal institution.



The Soviet government took the paranji veil that the women wore (as part of the Islamic hijab interpretation of Modesty) as evidence that the Muslim women were oppressed, and began the Hujum to try and forcefully remove it.

So the IST holds that forced veiling isn't a sexist and oppressive policy? I think there is a question of whether the veil is inherently exist object. In certain conditions it doesn't have to be, but in a society that structurally forces women to wear veil in a way that clearly is denigratory, there is little question that it is a sexist practice. The real question then becomes what is the proper solution to the problem. The Bolsheviks were of several minds on this issue: some held that unveiling could only come as a reflection of changes in the economic base of Central Asia through industrialization and that no form of activism by itself could remedy the issue, but the majority held that a strong campaign of activism against the veil could end the practice.

Soviet propaganda held that the paranji was a timeless artifact of Islam in Central Asia and reflective of the inherently sexist nature of Islam. They were entirely wrong on this. The paranji was a recent arrival in Central Asia, only having been adopted by small segments of the population after the Imperial Russian acquisition of Khiva in the 1870's. Even by the outbreak of the Russian Civil War, few Central Asian women wore the paranji. How, then, did the paranji became ubiquitous among Uzbeks?

The Soviet nationalities policy was inarguably not oppressive from the standpoint of national self-determination, at least in the beginning, and was in full accordance with Lenin's views on the subject. The Soviet Union was demarcated into various Republics, each of which was in theory to be ruled by the titular nationality(with the exception of the RSFSR, which did not have special Russian rights enshrined within its legislative framework). These Republics were further divided into regional republics, autonomous regions, and further divided even down to the village level so that each national minority within the each republic could have self-governance and allow for the flowering of ethnic culture, religion, and identity, in theory. This policy of promoting national culture paradoxically created the paranji not only as a religious symbol, but as a signifier of national identity in Uzbekistan.

The actual Hujum was primarily organized by the Zhenotdel, and much of the activist work on the ground was carried out by women activists, but the policy never met with success. The Soviets primarily gauged success by numbers on paper and symbolic gesture. A favored Soviet ritual was the dramatic unveiling of several token Uzbek women before a crowd of bureaucrats which was supposed to show the tangible effects of the policy. On paper, large successes were achieved, but in practice the OGPU estimated that 95% of the women who had unveiled, reveiled. Since Soviet policy had been oriented around symbolic gestures, it never had been geared towards taking steps to achieve lasting success. Women who unveiled were stigmatized as prostitutes, attacked in the streets, and ostracized. While the Soviets did try to organize special spaces for women, they never took any real measures to ensure the safety of women in public spaces which ensured that most women would simply reveil rather than face the social consequences. Yet, in the end, the Soviets did succeed in making Uzbek society free of veils, but only by the 1960's. Whether this success can be attributed to the Hujum or whether it is reflective of economic changes is debatable.

It's still debatable whether this was the correct policy. While it is fairly clear that the veil in Uzbekistan was a symobl of patriarchy, Douglas Northrop argued in his work Veiled Empire that the Soviet Union was a traditional colonial empire citing a colonial division of labor between the colony and the metropole, and argued that the Hujum was a colonial cultural policy. The Soviets did not simply encourage women to unveil, but also promoted European fashions and clothing in contrast to the allegedly unhygienic nature of Uzbek national dress.

I do think this does tie into the broader issue of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why did so many countries that had no historical precedence, such as Byelorussia and Turkmenistan, emerge? Was it because the Soviet Union was an oppressive colonial power? I think that if the Soviet Union was a traditional colonial power, it would have tried to pursue a policy of cultural homogenization, yet in practice what they did was the opposite. I actually think the fate of the Soviet Union, that it broke up into various countries, some of which that had no historical precedence or pre-Soviet national consciousness, is quite damning towards Lenin's position on the national question. The Soviets alleged that their policy of encouraging ethnic nationalism was utterly incompatible with bourgeois nationalism, but we see remarkable continuity the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet states. The bourgeois politicians of the Soviet successor states merely picked up the nationalist framework that had been established by Soviet policy and carried on. This can hardly be attributed to the fruit of revision of Stalin's policies either, as the Soviet system of state sponsored, compartmentalized nationalities was extremely amenable to the Nazis during their occupation of Ukraine and Russia; they merely rearranged the hierarchy of nationalities to their preferred pyramid. To me, the manner in which the Soviet Union broke up is strong evidence against the validity of Lenin's position on the national question, but that is just my personal conclusion.

By the way Ismail, Terry Martin maintains in Affirmative Action Empire that a qualitative shift emerged in Soviet nationalities policy during the 30's in which Russian nationalism, which had been strictly repressed during the 1920's, gained acceptance by Moscow and began to increasingly influence policy. However, he also states that, in the main, the policy of state sponsored non-Russian, ethnic nationalism and self-determination remained. It's still a matter of debate among scholars, and some such as Francine Hirsch maintain that no qualitative shift in favor of Russian nationalism ever emerged. You should pick up Empire of Nations for more details, but that primarily focuses on the period of 1917-1927 and the question of Soviet policy in the 30's is of peripheral concern.

[Geiseric]

The gist of it is that the state bureaucracy divided up and claimed ownership of the country after liquidizing the working class, finishing what Trotsky predicted would happen if the USSR won WW2, if a political revolution didn't happen.

[Old Bolshie]

In other words the Soviet revisionist (and, I suppose, Trotskyist) criticism that "Stalin decided everything" is challenged by noting that there were plenty of Politburo decisions Stalin paid little attention towards and put into the hands of others to deal with. This is somehow actually proof because asking the leader of the Party for his opinion apparently constitutes said Politburo being "controlled by him."

Again, Politburo and the CC were chosen by Stalin. All of its members were subservient to him. The most important decisions regarding the country were taken by Stalin. Of course, Stalin could not look upon every minor aspect or detail regarding minor decisions.


Yes, and this process was already going on even when Lenin was alive. My point is that neither Lenin or Stalin cared about their cults and spoke against them. There was no "Joseph Stalin Thought" (see: Maoism) or the Kimilsungist idea that the "leader" is the epitome of revolutionary work. Soviet propaganda always portrayed Stalin as the most outstanding representative of the Party and its Central Committee, it had definite limits.

No, it was not going on when Lenin was alive. Again, you are confusing individual praises with a state - promotion of glorification of one individual which emerged under Stalin's rule.


Alternatively the early Comintern congresses, like early Party congresses, were held so frequently due to the fact that this was all a relatively new phenomenon and there were many debates and problems. The Sixth and Seventh Congresses of the Comintern were no less important than preceding ones in terms of laying down the general line of the international communist movement and its tactics.

Or in other words, spreading the revolution was a concern for the Bolsheviks until Lenin's death and it stopped to be when the doctrine of SIOC was implemented and Stalin consolidated its power.


In any case I do not see what yearly or every two years' worth of Comintern congresses would have done if it was all under "Stalinist" control anyway.

Here I agree with you.


Only if you discount the fact that this "conservative" policy (apparently conservatives demolish religious buildings) was coupled with a mass movement at unveiling women in Muslim lands, one which elicited armed response from various reactionary clergymen and husbands.

In a country where the muslims were oppressed during centuries of Tsarist rule, yes I consider it conservative to oppress their beliefs and practices.

"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution"

Lenin


Also I don't see how "other minorities" were repressed. Any book on Soviet nationalities in the 30's (e.g. Affirmative Action Empire, Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan) would note the efforts made by the Soviet government to raise the culture and participation of said minorities, often against the interests of the Russians.

How about the jews?

[Old Bolshie]

The idea that "Stalin controlled everything" is one of the silliest things said about USSR under his leadership. It is known that Stalin was outvoted on many important issues on the course of socialist construction. Such as the Moscow Trials(the records show that he proposed no death penalty other than the case of Tukhachevsky), the leadership of Red Army during WWII(much less power comparing to Hitler's over the german army), and most importantly, to the most serious decision ever took on the history of USSR, the reintroduction of capitalist elements in the socialist economy, he was in the camp of "anti-market", the one that lost the debate, sadly. And if I recall correct,I bet Ismail will remember best, that was what "Problems of the socialist economy"(1952) was about.

I don't know if you are being serious with this post or not, but either case affirming that he was in favor of more soft punishments against the people that he ordered to kill (Moscow Trials) is something that I never saw any ML doing since it's damn ludicrous.

As far as the leadership during the II WW is concerned, you must be forgetting that Stalin purged almost the entire official corp of the Red Army a couple of years before the WW II began.

When people affirm that Stalin controlled the entire system it doesn't mean that Stalin was behind every detail of every decisions like if the Moscow parade should have 200 or 300 cannons firing it during the hymn. The most important decisions were taken by Stalin, Stalin's opposition was purged and shot, and the party/state became a subservient instrument in Stalin's hands. This is what really matters.

[Ismail]

Again, Politburo and the CC were chosen by Stalin. All of its members were subservient to him. The most important decisions regarding the country were taken by Stalin. Of course, Stalin could not look upon every minor aspect or detail regarding minor decisions.I'm not quite sure what "chosen by Stalin" is even supposed to signify, especially since what you were originally talking about was that Stalin did everything unilaterally (which is wrong) and that there was no debate within the party organs (also wrong.) Explain how Stalin "chose" the Politburo and CC whereas Lenin (who threatened to expel members of the "Workers' Opposition" and other groups) didn't.


No, it was not going on when Lenin was alive. Again, you are confusing individual praises with a state - promotion of glorification of one individual which emerged under Stalin's rule.We've already established that under Lenin there were already instances of peasants revering him, Party leaders praising him in effusive terms, etc. There was a basis for this in the overall backwardness of Soviet society. The cult of personality built up around Stalin was an intensification of this process, but it never went beyond definite limits and never developed into nationalistic or opportunist deviations. Stalin never had his own "Juche."


Or in other words, spreading the revolution was a concern for the Bolsheviks until Lenin's death and it stopped to be when the doctrine of SIOC was implemented and Stalin consolidated its power.I suppose if you ignore the activities of communists across the world in the 20's-30's, sure.


"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution"

LeninThe Soviet revisionists seemed obsessed with using that quote (pretty much every 1960's-80's Soviet book dealing with nationalities and/or the East quotes that decree), so I'm well aware of it. Yet you are confusing the ability of Muslims to pray and whatnot in accordance with Islam with the practices of feudal reaction; the two are not synonymous. In fact it was the Tsarist authorities which made deals with the khans, mullahs and other elements of Central Asian society to further their colonial aims.


How about the jews?Well lets see, under Stalin there was a Jewish region (Birobidzhan) which attracted international interest and (as under Lenin) Jews were given unparalleled opportunities to develop secular culture. I'm not seeing any repression of Jews here.

[Old Bolshie]

There are several problematic aspects of this statement.

First of all, the policy on religion did not "change, at least within the context of Central Asia. During the Russian Civil War, it was necessary to suppress Orthodox clergy because they were actively throwing their support behind reactionary movements such as the proto-fascist Black Hundreds. This is hardly controversial among Leninists, so it seems strange that would you oppose the same policy being carried out in Central Asia.

While the Basmachi aren't quite equitable to the Black Hundreds, they were inspired to a large degree by reactionary religious sentiment. Many Islamic clerics denounced 'Soviet Power', just as the Orthodox clergy had done, so it became necessary in the view of the state to suppress them. One can argue that this was incorrect, but it would be the peak of hypocrisy to maintain this while simultaneously arguing that religious suppression during the Civil War was justified. It seems that for some, so long as it was carried out by Lenin rather than Stalin, then the policy was justified.


It also seems quite bizarre to me that you are criticizing the dissolution of the waqf. A waqf was a religious endowment, not terribly dissimilar from how the Catholic Church owned land in pre-modern Europe. Most Marxists would recognize the waqf in its traditional form as a Feudal institution.

Of course it seems strange and hypocritical to you because your ignorance equals the Orthodox Church with the Muslims in a country where the Orthodox Church constituted one of the bastions of Tsarism oppression and where the Muslims where oppressed during centuries.

Once again, Lenin:

"Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution"

The Bolsheviks didn't persecute the Orthodox Church because they liked to destroy churches and so on but because they were one of the main allies of Tsarism and the counter-revolution.

I would also like to state that I am not in favor of the veil,wafq, etc just like I think that Lenin or any other Bolshevik wouldn't be.

I actually merely presented a quote from a research work to prove that Stalin repressed the Muslims to counter Ismail argument but you strangely were unable to see that.




So the IST holds that forced veiling isn't a sexist and oppressive policy?

What I have to do with the IST?

[Ismail]

Saying that Muslims would no longer face religious discrimination on account of not being Christians, and would no longer face national and colonial oppression as was pursued by Tsarism, has nothing to do with the issue of feudalism and backward religious practices.

Both churches and mosques were targeted in the 1920's as part of anti-religious campaigns.

"The laws of our country recognise the right of every citizen to profess any religion. That is a matter for the conscience of each individual. That is precisely why we separated the church from the state. But in separating the church from the state and proclaiming freedom of conscience we at the same time preserved the right of every citizen to combat religion, all religion, by argument, by propaganda and agitation. The Party cannot be neutral towards religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against all religious prejudices because it stands for science, whereas religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is the antithesis of science. Cases such as occur in America, where Darwinists were prosecuted recently, cannot occur here because the Party pursues a policy of defending science in every way.

The Party cannot be neutral towards religious prejudices, and it will continue to conduct propaganda against those prejudices, because that is one of the best means of undermining the influence of the reactionary clergy, who support the exploiting classes and who preach submission to those classes.

The Party cannot be neutral towards the disseminators of religious prejudices, towards the reactionary clergy, who poison the minds of the labouring masses.

Have we repressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The only unfortunate thing is that they have not yet been completely eliminated. Anti-religious propaganda is the means by which the elimination of the reactionary clergy will be completely carried through. Cases occur sometimes when certain members of the Party hinder the full development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a very good thing, because there is no room for such 'Communists' in the ranks of our Party."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 10. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1954. pp. 138-139.)

[KurtFF8]

Gorbachev was the root of that. He was chosen to make reforms. And reforms dissolved the Soviet Union.

And why he was chosen? Because economy was in stagnation. Ands why was in stagnation? Due to directing the economy from ministries because the power to rule the enterprises wasn't given to workers.


I don't see how this argument makes sense. If the USR wasn't a workers state, and this fact alone caused stagnation: what explains the incredible growth in the USSR from the 1940s to the 1970s?

These simplistic explanations don't help our analysis in the realm of political or economic analysis.

[Old Bolshie]

I'm not quite sure what "chosen by Stalin" is even supposed to signify, especially since what you were originally talking about was that Stalin did everything unilaterally (which is wrong) and that there was no debate within the party organs (also wrong.) Explain how Stalin "chose" the Politburo and CC whereas Lenin (who threatened to expel members of the "Workers' Opposition" and other groups) didn't.

With Lenin the leader of Workers Opposition integrated the CC and the Congress even adopted some of its proposals while with Stalin that same man (Alexander Shlyapnikov) was shot. Thanks for having mentioned the Worker's Opposition. It was a good example of how different the party worked under Lenin and Stalin.

Regarding Stalin control of the CC and Politburo:

"Under Stalin the processes under which the leadership of the party was determined became an entirely hierarchical matter with the General Secretary (i.e. Stalin) determining the composition of the Central Committee and even that of the Politburo rather than the reverse".

There was really no democratic debate within the party once Stalin assumed absolute power over the party. You may present an example of how Stalin disagreed with so much adulation around him but you know that is a very piss pooring example to give. There was no debate since the people who presented opposition to Stalin was shot.

And yes, you could say that he took decisions unilaterally because CC and Politburo were political dead bodies once the SG controlled both.


We've already established that under Lenin there were already instances of peasants revering him, Party leaders praising him in effusive terms, etc. There was a basis for this in the overall backwardness of Soviet society. The cult of personality built up around Stalin was an intensification of this process, but it never went beyond definite limits and never developed into nationalistic or opportunist deviations. Stalin never had his own "Juche."

I didn't established anything. There was no cult of personality during Lenin's time. This process began with Stalin. Instances of peasants revering Lenin isn't the same as a state conducted mass deification of one man as I already said multiple times.



I suppose if you ignore the activities of communists across the world in the 20's-30's, sure.

You must be talking about submitting the Chinese communists to Kuomintang, Popular Fronts and other stuff like that.


The Soviet revisionists seemed obsessed with using that quote (pretty much every 1960's-80's Soviet book dealing with nationalities and/or the East quotes that decree), so I'm well aware of it. Yet you are confusing the ability of Muslims to pray and whatnot in accordance with Islam with the practices of feudal reaction; the two are not synonymous. In fact it was the Tsarist authorities which made deals with the khans, mullahs and other elements of Central Asian society to further their colonial aims.

I'm not confusing nothing. Just showing how different it was Lenin's policy towards minorities from Stalin's one. That's my point.


Well lets see, under Stalin there was a Jewish region (Birobidzhan) which attracted international interest and (as under Lenin) Jews were given unparalleled opportunities to develop secular culture. I'm not seeing any repression of Jews here.

But I am, specially in the post-war era. An anti-semitic campaign was launched not only against prominent jews (doctors, artists, etc) but ordinary jews as well because of their ethnicity.

[Old Bolshie]

Saying that Muslims would no longer face religious discrimination on account of not being Christians, and would no longer face national and colonial oppression as was pursued by Tsarism, has nothing to do with the issue of feudalism and backward religious practices.

Both churches and mosques were targeted in the 1920's as part of anti-religious campaigns.

"The laws of our country recognise the right of every citizen to profess any religion. That is a matter for the conscience of each individual. That is precisely why we separated the church from the state. But in separating the church from the state and proclaiming freedom of conscience we at the same time preserved the right of every citizen to combat religion, all religion, by argument, by propaganda and agitation. The Party cannot be neutral towards religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against all religious prejudices because it stands for science, whereas religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is the antithesis of science. Cases such as occur in America, where Darwinists were prosecuted recently, cannot occur here because the Party pursues a policy of defending science in every way.

The Party cannot be neutral towards religious prejudices, and it will continue to conduct propaganda against those prejudices, because that is one of the best means of undermining the influence of the reactionary clergy, who support the exploiting classes and who preach submission to those classes.

The Party cannot be neutral towards the disseminators of religious prejudices, towards the reactionary clergy, who poison the minds of the labouring masses.

Have we repressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The only unfortunate thing is that they have not yet been completely eliminated. Anti-religious propaganda is the means by which the elimination of the reactionary clergy will be completely carried through. Cases occur sometimes when certain members of the Party hinder the full development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a very good thing, because there is no room for such 'Communists' in the ranks of our Party."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 10. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1954. pp. 138-139.)

You cannot put the Orthodox Church and Islam on the same basis for the reasons I mentioned to Grenzer. The truth is that Muslims enjoyed a great degree of freedom under Lenin's rule (it was even tolerated a parallel legal system based on Sharia Law) which was reverted to a massive oppression by Stalin.

[Ismail]

With Lenin the leader of Workers Opposition integrated the CC and the Congress even adopted some of its proposals while with Stalin that same man (Alexander Shlyapnikov) was shot. Thanks for having mentioned the Worker's Opposition. It was a good example of how different the party worked under Lenin and Stalin.Shlyapnikov and Kollontai had accused Lenin of "terrorizing" the oppositionists into conformity (see Ulam, The Bolsheviks, p. 471.) Shlyapnikov was shot a decade later for totally different reasons and was later rehabilitated by the revisionists.


Regarding Stalin control of the CC and Politburo:

"Under Stalin the processes under which the leadership of the party was determined became an entirely hierarchical matter with the General Secretary (i.e. Stalin) determining the composition of the Central Committee and even that of the Politburo rather than the reverse".Wikipedia is not a valid source.


But I am, specially in the post-war era. An anti-semitic campaign was launched not only against prominent jews (doctors, artists, etc) but ordinary jews as well because of their ethnicity.Indeed, and Stalin disagreed with the rise in anti-semitism. Many of the Soviet revisionists, including Khrushchev, were anti-semites and anti-semitism became a significant issue by the 1970's.


You cannot put the Orthodox Church and Islam on the same basis for the reasons I mentioned to Grenzer.In other words, one should not struggle against Islam because it happened to be the religion of oppressed nationalities under Tsarism.


The truth is that Muslims enjoyed a great degree of freedom under Lenin's rule (it was even tolerated a parallel legal system based on Sharia Law) which was reverted to a massive oppression by Stalin.And yet Sharia law is religious law, it was doubtlessly a temporary phenomenon. The Soviet revisionists praised the likes of Nasser, Ben Bella and other "Islamic socialists" and tried to use the existence of Islam in the USSR to consolidate relations between the revisionist ideology and these "national socialisms." They attacked the so-called "sectarian" and "one-sided" policy of Stalin.

By the 1970's religion was a growing force in the USSR. As Hoxha pointed out in 1981, "The revisionist-capitalist policy, which is applied in the Soviet Union, has revived the old demons of the czarist empire, such as national oppression, anti-semitism, Slav racism, Orthodox religious mysticism, the cult of military castes, the aristocratism of the intelligentsia, bureaucracy in the old Russian style, etc." (Selected Works Vol. VI, pp. 436-437.)

[Old Bolshie]

Shlyapnikov and Kollontai had accused Lenin of "terrorizing" the oppositionists into conformity (see Ulam, The Bolsheviks, p. 471.) Shlyapnikov was shot a decade later for totally different reasons and was later rehabilitated by the revisionists.

If terrorizing oppositionists is allowing them to integrate the CC (both Shlyapnikov and Kollontai integrated the Bolshevik CC) than we are through this conversation. It just seems like that quote you gave from Trotsky calling Lenin a dictator. It's all rhetoric with no substance. The same with Shlyapnikov and Kollontai. I'm sure you can find much more quotes calling Lenin a brutal dictator and other things. What matters is if this corresponded to the reality or not.

Not only they weren't expelled from the party but even integrated the CC which comparing with Stalin methods to deal with internal opposition is very far from being "terrorizing".



Wikipedia is not a valid source.

I knew you wouldn't accept Wikipedia, so I quoted from another site.

http://www.polit-buro.com/

You have also the book "A Normal Totalitarian Society. How the Soviet Union Functioned and How It Col- lapsed" by Vladimir. Shlapentokh which explains in more detail how Stalin controlled the Politburo.



Indeed, and Stalin disagreed with the rise in anti-semitism. Many of the Soviet revisionists, including Khrushchev, were anti-semites and anti-semitism became a significant issue by the 1970's.

Not only he agreed with but even promoted it.

http://www.quest-cdecjournal.it/focus.php?id=212

If you wanna books you have "The Jewish Century" which deals with the subject in more detail.


In other words, one should not struggle against Islam because it happened to be the religion of oppressed nationalities under Tsarism.

You have to take the case into the Russian context in 1917, of course. As I said that policy undertaken by Lenin doesn't mean that he had any special interest for Islam.


And yet Sharia law is religious law, it was doubtlessly a temporary phenomenon. The Soviet revisionists praised the likes of Nasser, Ben Bella and other "Islamic socialists" and tried to use the existence of Islam in the USSR to consolidate relations between the revisionist ideology and these "national socialisms." They attacked the so-called "sectarian" and "one-sided" policy of Stalin.

By the 1970's religion was a growing force in the USSR. As Hoxha pointed out in 1981, "The revisionist-capitalist policy, which is applied in the Soviet Union, has revived the old demons of the czarist empire, such as national oppression, anti-semitism, Slav racism, Orthodox religious mysticism, the cult of military castes, the aristocratism of the intelligentsia, bureaucracy in the old Russian style, etc." (Selected Works Vol. VI, pp. 436-437.)

Just to make it clear I don't think that soviet revisionists as you called them were any better than Stalin despite being more moderated for sure or that USSR was better with them than with Stalin.

You did it well to put that Hoxha quote with which I completely agree. It's just my opinion that the seed of it was clearly planted by Stalin for the reasons I have been explaining about his conservative policies.

[Delenda Carthago]

I don't know if you are being serious with this post or not, but either case affirming that he was in favor of more soft punishments against the people that he ordered to kill (Moscow Trials) is something that I never saw any ML doing since it's damn ludicrous.

Yes. He ordered to get them killed, only he voted against them getting killed. Thats nice...



As far as the leadership during the II WW is concerned, you must be forgetting that Stalin purged almost the entire official corp of the Red Army a couple of years before the WW II began.Obviously not enough of them, as Vlasov example right after showed. Also, its really nice to see a person that accuses USSR of being to authoritarian defending someone that promoted the idea of the society to become a machine to exist in order to support the army(Tukhachevsky). Does all that change the fact that he hadnt as much power over R.A. as one might think, as a "dictator"? No.


When people affirm that Stalin controlled the entire system it doesn't mean that Stalin was behind every detail of every decisions like if the Moscow parade should have 200 or 300 cannons firing it during the hymn. The most important decisions were taken by Stalin, Stalin's opposition was purged and shot, and the party/state became a subservient instrument in Stalin's hands. This is what really matters.The most important decision USSR ever had to take, was the re-introduction of capitalist elements in the economy or not. Something that was noted on the way also by the West.
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/663/5pkzgmllfpkiisw.jpg



On that decision, I repeat, Stalin was outvoted. Again: on the most important decision on the socialist construction ever, the decision that changed the course of USSR, Stalin was outvoted. So much for a big bad wolf dictator huh?

[Old Bolshie]

Yes. He ordered to get them killed, only he voted against them getting killed. Thats nice...

Your ludicrous idea that Stalin wasn't behind the death of his old comrades like Bukharin led to this. I guess Stalin did his utmost to spare the poor Bukharin life but that damn Politburo and CC members (who were being shot themselves meantime) were too ruthless except that both Politburo and the CC were controlled by Stalin.



Obviously not enough of them, as Vlasov example right after showed. Also, its really nice to see a person that accuses USSR of being to authoritarian defending someone that promoted the idea of the society to become a machine to exist in order to support the army(Tukhachevsky).

Perhaps Stalin should have ordered to shot the entire Red Army. Then certainly he wouldn't find any counter revolutionary within it.

I didn't defended anybody. Just pointed that Stalin already had turned the Red Army into another subservient body.


The most important decision USSR ever had to take, was the re-introduction of capitalist elements in the economy or not. Something that was noted on the way also by the West.
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/663/5pkzgmllfpkiisw.jpg



On that decision, I repeat, Stalin was outvoted. Again: on the most important decision on the socialist construction ever, the decision that changed the course of USSR, Stalin was outvoted. So much for a big bad wolf dictator huh?

Are you referring to the Liberman reform which was taken more than ten years after Stalin died?

[Delenda Carthago]

Your ludicrous idea that Stalin wasn't behind the death of his old comrades like Bukharin led to this. I guess Stalin did his utmost to spare the poor Bukharin life but that damn Politburo and CC members (who were being shot themselves meantime) were too ruthless except that both Politburo and the CC were controlled by Stalin.


That is pointless man. You start from the position that Stalin was "guilty" and everything has to fit to that description or it dont matter. Boring thing, if you ask me...




Are you referring to the Liberman reform which was taken more than ten years after Stalin died?


No, I am referring to the re-introduction of Value in socialist economy, a process that started mostly after WWII. I posted the TIMES cover as an evidence on how important the whole "capitalistasion" of economy really was, even in 1965.

[Ismail]

Not only they weren't expelled from the party but even integrated the CC which comparing with Stalin methods to deal with internal opposition is very far from being "terrorizing".Of course you forget the fact that many of the oppositionists of the 20's, both of the "Left" and Right, retained prominent positions in Soviet society into the 30's after abandoning (at least, publicly) their former activities. The same happened with the "Workers' Opposition" and other factional groupings.


I knew you wouldn't accept Wikipedia, so I quoted from another site.And it took the quote from Wikipedia.


Not only he agreed with but even promoted it.He did not. See, for instance, Erik Van Ree's discussion on the subject in his The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, wherein he notes Stalin deploring the practice of putting Jewish surnames in brackets next to pen/marriage/etc. surnames, among other things.

As for the debate on economics, yes, Stalin put forward a defense of socialist economics against the revisionists such as Voznesensky and Varga (the latter had once sympathized with the "Left" Opposition), both of whom were rehabilitated after 1956 and whose right-wing views, together with Liberman and Co., gained support with Khrushchev and his successors.

[Old Bolshie]

No, I am referring to the re-introduction of Value in socialist economy, a process that started mostly after WWII. I posted the TIMES cover as an evidence on how important the whole "capitalistasion" of economy really was, even in 1965.

I am not getting your point here since it was Stalin himself who said that the law of value existed under the USSR's socialist economy and it was not a bad thing.

"It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system.
Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist...Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing."


Stalin, Economic problems of USSR.

[Old Bolshie]

Of course you forget the fact that many of the oppositionists of the 20's, both of the "Left" and Right, retained prominent positions in Soviet society into the 30's after abandoning (at least, publicly) their former activities. The same happened with the "Workers' Opposition" and other factional groupings.

Except those who were shot (basically all of them) for opposing Stalin.


And it took the quote from Wikipedia.

No, it didn't. Anyway I already presented a book which deals in more detail on how Stalin dismissed and replaced Politburo members, a process which generally ended with the political elimination before the physical one.


He did not. See, for instance, Erik Van Ree's discussion on the subject in his The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, wherein he notes Stalin deploring the practice of putting Jewish surnames in brackets next to pen/marriage/etc. surnames, among other things.

You just need to take a look at those sources which I provided to see that Stalin was behind the anti-semitic campaign launched in the post-WWII. I don't see how you can deny Stalin's participation in it since it was conducted through the state.

[Ismail]

Except those who were shot (basically all of them) for opposing Stalin."Opposing Stalin" was not the reason and you are no doubt aware of this.


No, it didn't.It did. I recall it being used on Wikipedia. Googling the quote would show it likewise migrated to other Wikipedia clones.


You just need to take a look at those sources which I provided to see that Stalin was behind the anti-semitic campaign launched in the post-WWII. I don't see how you can deny Stalin's participation in it since it was conducted through the state.As Furr once noted:




The "Doctors' Plot" case had nothing to do with Stalin.

Ferociously anticommunist and anti-Stalin researcher Gennadiy Kostyrchenko exposed the supposed "plan" to execute the Doctors and exile Soviet Jews in 2003, in an article titled "Deportatsiia -- Mistifikatsiia" in the Russian Jewish journal Lekhaim in September 2002 (http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/125/kost.htm).
According to anti-Stalin Soviet dissident Zhores Medvedev it was the aged Stalin who put an end to this case (Stalin i evreiskaia problema. Chapter "Stalin i 'delo vrachei'" (http://scepsis.ru/library/id_1753.html)).
According to Stalin's daughter Svetlana Allilueva (Twenty Letters To A Friend, Letter 18 (http://vlastitel.com.ru/stalin/itog/doch/18.html)) Stalin didn't believe the charges against the Doctors anyway.


Nobody can find any examples of "bestial anti-Semitism" during Stalin's time. Kostyrchenko himself, and the far-right "Memorial" organization, published a book titled State Antisemitism in the USSR. But they don't have any examples of it during Stalin's time.


I am not getting your point here since it was Stalin himself who said that the law of value existed under the USSR's socialist economy and it was not a bad thing.

"It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system.
Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist...Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing."

Stalin, Economic problems of USSR.The Soviet revisionists attacked Stalin on this point, declaring that value was "transformed" under socialism and thus an integral part of the socialist economy, that it should be not phased out (as Stalin called for) but, on the contrary, expanded, and that the law of value was "distorted" under Stalin and not allowed to assume its "proper" role in Soviet society. Stalin's work was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died.

[Old Bolshie]

"Opposing Stalin" was not the reason and you are no doubt aware of this.

Of course the official charges which pointed to a plot didn't mention opposing Stalin but the real reason behind their arrest and shooting was in fact their past and present opposition to Stalin.


It did. I recall it being used on Wikipedia. Googling the quote would show it likewise migrated to other Wikipedia clones.

I know that are another wikipedia article mentioning it but the site that I provided you wasn't an wikipedia clone.


As Furr once noted:
The Soviet revisionists attacked Stalin on this point, declaring that value was "transformed" under socialism and thus an integral part of the socialist economy, that it should be not phased out (as Stalin called for) but, on the contrary, expanded, and that the law of value was "distorted" under Stalin and not allowed to assume its "proper" role in Soviet society. Stalin's work was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died.

Stalin said that the law of value existed in USSR's economy and it was not a "bad thing". He said this in 1952. He even contested some theories which argued that the law of value had been overcome in USSR.

[Ismail]

He even contested some theories which argued that the law of value had been overcome in USSR.Well yeah, unless you want to argue to the contrary and claim that the law of value had, in fact, been overcome.

The main thrust of Stalin's attack was against those who wanted the law of value to dictate everything in the economy. As he said, "But does this mean that the operation of the law of value has as much scope with us as it has under capitalism, and that it is the regulator of production in our country too? No, it does not. Actually, the sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds. It has already been said that the sphere of operation of commodity production is restricted and placed within definite bounds by our system. The same must be said of the sphere of operation of the law of value... Totally incorrect, too, is the assertion that under our present economic system, in the first phase of development of communist society, the law of value regulates the 'proportions' of labour distributed among the various branches of production."

On Stalin's battle against these right-wingers who were later rehabilitated by the revisionists see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm
And: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/marksoc.htm

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Of course you forget the fact that many of the oppositionists of the 20's, both of the "Left" and Right, retained prominent positions in Soviet society into the 30's after abandoning (at least, publicly) their former activities. The same happened with the "Workers' Opposition" and other factional groupings.


Yes, until they and their families and friends were shot in the late 30s. A prime example of the flexibility of the Soviet Bureaucracy under Stalin.

Oh, and let's not forget, the extra years "granted" by comrade Stalin only came if the comrades in question publicly prostrated themselves and recanted positions under the threat of expulsion, imprisonment and exile (later, death). If you really believe that this is the same as co-opting oppositionists onto the CC or PB without forced denunciations of their recently held positions there is something amiss with your ability to be logical (which I seriously doubt).

[Lucretia]

Speaking about the necessity of constructing socialism in Russia isn't the same as supporting socialism in one country. Lenin always remained committed to spread the revolution unlike Stalin who abandoned any international commitment. That is why under Lenin's leadership the Comintern reunited every year while Stalin basically disbanded it.

With the big difference that they were incorrectly made about Lenin and correctly about Stalin for the reasons that I already explained in my previous posts (primacy of the S-G, subordination of CC, etc).

A member of the CC controlled by him as the Secretary-General of the party. Requesting to resign within a party absolutely controlled by him is the same as not doing as he already known the answer to it. The title of "General Secretary" isn't what matter but the post itself and the powers contained in it.

I am talking about real opposition to Lenin in crucial matters like the Brest-Litvosk or the decision to spark the revolution and you show me a case that Stalin disagreed with some CC members because he did not want to be so much adulate as they want.

Again, cult of personality is something massively fostered by the state as it was the case during Stalin's rule. It didn't happened with Lenin.

Stalin may have seek to tone it down but he was responsible for the cult in first place. Not only his but Lenin's as well.

They were seeking unity among the German Working Class around their revolutionary aim.

First of all the Comintern was discarded when Stalin assumed absolute power in the CPSU way before 1941 despite being formally disbanded in 1941.

Secondly, the picture that Stalin gave from the Comintern had nothing to do with Lenin's time but certainly of Stalin's. And for that matter I agree with Stalin. It's preferable to have no Comintern than to have an organization entirely submitted to him. But again confirms Stalin disdain for the international movement.


That doesn't change the fact that the law returned under Stalin leadership alongside many other conservative elements which were a reminiscent from the old Tsarist order.

The question here (and the homosexuality as well) is not so much the moral of the issue but the fact that the old tsarist conservative norms were returning to Russia after the revolutionary period during which these laws were repelled. I don't know if Lenin or the other Bolsheviks were personally against homosexuality or abortion. That is not the issue here.

"When Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia. Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf's were outlawed".

Helene Carrere d’Encausse, The National Republics Lose Their Independence, in Edward A. Allworth, (edit), Central Asia: One Hundred Thirty Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, Duke University Press, 1994.

The Soviet government took the paranji veil that the women wore (as part of the Islamic hijab interpretation of Modesty) as evidence that the Muslim women were oppressed, and began the Hujum to try and forcefully remove it.

Crouch, Dave. "The Bolsheviks and Islam." International Socialism: A quarterly journal of socialist theory. 110. 14 Feb 2007



No. I am mentioning periods before and after the war.


All those trends have something in common: they all came from Stalinism despite of the rhetoric that some of it may have against Stalin like Titoism.

Those points that I mentioned above to distance Lenin from Stalin you could apply to those trends: SIOC, personality cult, subordination of the entire political system to one man, and so on.

A mind as undialectical as Ismail's doesn't understand that when Lenin discusses constructing "socialism" in Russia, he is also referring to transforming Russia's relationship to other countries and facilitating the spreading of the revolution abroad. A good example of this is the March 1923 pamphlet "Better Fewer, But Better," practically all of which is about Russia's position in the international system. Yet this central dimension of the pamphlet is ignored in out-of-context quotes about "producing socialism" in Russia.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And all this cynical crap about Stalin "not controlling the CC or PB" is truly idiotic. Stalin's Modus Operandus from the late teens was to cultivate relationships based on personal loyalty, rather than on political program. Capable party comrades were replaced by hacks, loyal to Stalin. His capacity to control the Party was based on this ALONE. He was neither a good speaker nor writer. He was relatively unknown, esp in comparison with other PBer's and even CCers. It was the only way he could best Trotsky, and even Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin.

Taking an opposing view to Stalin was a CRIME, punishable by death. He would have killed his best friend and his best friend's family for opposing anything he cared about. And he did.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This question has been debated since 1989 without any resolution. It is still my opinion that Marx and Engels predicted the fall of the Soviet Union 150 yrs ago. In very simple terms the Soviet Union was the first successful workers' state. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. It may have degenerated into a bureaucratic worker's state, but it remained, essentially, a workers' dictatorship led by a dictator, Stalin.

The Soviet Union, under Stalin, brutally suppressed and ultimately eliminated the capitalist class (as well as millions of non-capitalists, such as Trotsky and the small peasant class; Stalin saw enemies everwhere.) This left the Soviet state with no class to suppress. The state continued for 25-30 yrs to function as a workers' bureaucracy, its only function was the "administration of things." An outstanding exception was the Afghanistan war, but even that failed.

A state exists for one purpose and one purpose only: the suppression of a specific class. Under socialism, the dictatorship of the working class suppressed the capitalist class; after the destruction of that class the state had no further reason to exist. It withered away and died.

However, the SU, when it collapsed, was surrounded by international capitalism, which rushed into the vacuum and began injecting capital which led to the reformation of a pseudo-criminal/capitalist class.

This last aspect of the collapse proves that socialism is impossible in one country for the simple reason that once a socialist state does collapse the remaining world capitalist class, if strong enough, will simply re-appear. Thus, the communist revolution must be international and must be able to suppress and destroy capitalism internationally.
I agree with you analysis of the the USSR -- but this was not a withering of the State -- it was a collapse/counterrevolution.

over 60 years of Stalinist misrule ultimately doomed the world's first worker's state. The population was tremendously de-politicized by a leadership that valued unquestioning followers, and massively falsified history, replacing it with an orthodox iconography.

Your conclusion is also quite correct. There can be no socialism based on a single country -- and all the comrades who try to pinpoint the degeneration of the USSR prior to 1924 lose the forest for the trees. It was critical that the USSR survive another day to help the fight for international revolution. The handling of worker's councils, that might have turned the government over to the Mensheviks is not terribly different from the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly -- doing otherwise would have resulted in rapid liquidation of the USSR.

[Ismail]

A mind as undialectical as Ismail's doesn't understand that when Lenin discusses constructing "socialism" in Russia, he is also referring to transforming Russia's relationship to other countries and facilitating the spreading of the revolution abroad.Besides your weak appeal to "dialectics" (reminiscent of Maoism), the necessity of world revolution for the final victory of socialism in the USSR was doubted by no one.

Anyone could read Stalin to understand this, for instance: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Besides your weak appeal to "dialectics" (reminiscent of Maoism), the necessity of world revolution for the final victory of socialism in the USSR was doubted by no one.

Anyone could read Stalin to understand this, for instance: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm
This is no more germaine than references to socialism sometime in the distant future. Stalin's "internationalism" included dissolving the CI and rejecting the internationalism of the first four conferences of the CI.

Stalin's myriad acts against internationalism, against world revolution, destroying the Bolshevik Party and the CI were crimes against the world working class. That is what he did. That is the program he actually carried out. Stalin changed his positions on key issues, never admitting he had changed them.

You live in some kind of parallel universe, where Stalin didn't murder all of the old Bolsheviks merely to consolidate his power; where his third-period policies stopped Hitler from coming to power; where purging the top Soviet military leaders on the eve of WWII was a good thing, where ignoring the clear reports that Germany was about to invade led to military victory.

[Lucretia]

Besides your weak appeal to "dialectics" (reminiscent of Maoism), the necessity of world revolution for the final victory of socialism in the USSR was doubted by no one.

Anyone could read Stalin to understand this, for instance: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

We're not talking "final victory" Stalinist bullshit -- which just refers to the bogus, anti-dialectical idea that although socialism can still triumph as a mode of production within individual countries, it will not achieve its incontrovertible triumph until there are no more capitalist states that might try to overturn the ones presiding over a socialist mode of production. We're talking initial victory of socialism as a mode of production, period. Nowhere in that pamphlet will you see any reference to a "final victory" of socialism as some kind of distinct stage from an initial victory. Why not? Well, because it was understood that socialism would only be victorious on a world-scale, such that its initial victory would also be its final victory. Again, this is why the entire pamphlet is caught up in international relations in the context of "producing socialism" pure and simple (NOT "producing socialism's final victory"). This was an ABC of Marxism, found in texts as early as Marx's Paris Manuscripts and the German Ideology, until Stalin "innovated" Marxian theory will all sorts of made-up distinctions and terms used to justify his bourgeois stageism and counter-revolutionary politics.

And I guess Marx and Engels, not to mention Lenin, produced works "reminiscent of Maoism" also, since they, too, appealed to dialectical logic in their works.

[RedMaterialist]

I agree with you analysis of the the USSR -- but this was not a withering of the State -- it was a collapse/counterrevolution.

"Collapse or withering" may be a distinction without a difference. I believe the withering had been underway for about a decade, then the withering became a collapse. Now, "counterrevolution" is a different matter entirely. Where is the fighting, the violence of a revolution?


... The population was tremendously de-politicized by a leadership that valued unquestioning followers, and massively falsified history, replacing it with an orthodox iconography.

This may be true, but it is also what all dictatorships do, including the "dictatorship" of the proletariat. What was important is that the bourgeois class, as a class, was eliminated. What was left was a de-politicized class of workers. With no one left to suppress (who did Gorbachev ever send to a gulag?) the raison d'etre for the state ceased to exist.


Your conclusion is also quite correct. There can be no socialism based on a single country --

And if it starts in one country, the revolution must become permanent and worldwide. Otherwise, the socialist single-country state will collapse on itself. The only remedy in that case is to return society to a mixed, socialist-capitalist economy as in China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc. (I know a lot of people here believe Stalin was a capitalist, but that is another issue.)

[Lucretia]

"Collapse or withering" may be a distinction without a difference.

No. Withering is a gradual process, whereby something over a period of time loses its vitality, its size, its strength. Collapsing is where something that is functioning at full strength one day suddenly and dramatically seizes and disintegrates the next, even if the reason for its collapse can be traced back over decades. Let's guess which of these characterizes the end of the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union.

[subcp]

Where is the fighting, the violence of a revolution?

It's naive to think that the counterrevolution will be White Guards pointing guns at you- Luxemburg noted (too late) that the counterrevolution in Germany occurred under the red flag of a radicalized Social Democracy; the Situationists, in drawing lessons from the November Revolution for future revolutionary crises, noted that 'you must disarm Noske before he can kill you'.

The subversion of the revolution from within doesn't need to be violent to be the counterrevolution.

[Ismail]

And I guess Marx and Engels, not to mention Lenin, produced works "reminiscent of Maoism" also, since they, too, appealed to dialectical logic in their works.Both the Maoists and the Soviet revisionists invoked "dialectics" to attack Stalin and justify their right-wing foreign and domestic policies. A number of Trotskyist sects used "dialectics" to justify cultic and/or idiotic views too (e.g. Gerry Healy's WRP.)

Prefacing your claims with "IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIALECTICS" makes you look like an ass.


Now, "counterrevolution" is a different matter entirely. Where is the fighting, the violence of a revolution?The Khrushchevites' takeover was relatively peaceful. They threatened a military coup and shot the head of a rival revisionist faction (Beria), but other than that they enacted the counterrevolution through bureaucratic channels while the anti-revisionists, underestimating the scope of what was going on, resorted to those same channels in their struggle and unsurprisingly lost. Albanian materials noted that this was obviously a new phenomenon in history.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

"Collapse or withering" may be a distinction without a difference. I believe the withering had been underway for about a decade, then the withering became a collapse. Now, "counterrevolution" is a different matter entirely. Where is the fighting, the violence of a revolution?



This may be true, but it is also what all dictatorships do, including the "dictatorship" of the proletariat. What was important is that the bourgeois class, as a class, was eliminated. What was left was a de-politicized class of workers. With no one left to suppress (who did Gorbachev ever send to a gulag?) the raison d'etre for the state ceased to exist.



And if it starts in one country, the revolution must become permanent and worldwide. Otherwise, the socialist single-country state will collapse on itself. The only remedy in that case is to return society to a mixed, socialist-capitalist economy as in China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc. (I know a lot of people here believe Stalin was a capitalist, but that is another issue.)
I think your reasoning is a bit confused. The withering of the state that Marx talks about would be after a successful revolution defeating the bourgeoisie around the world. The USSR did manage to eliminate it's domestic bourgeoisie, but lived in a world still dominated by capitalism/imperialism. There can be no "withering of the state in such circumstances because the imperialists will come in and use their state(s) to restore capitalism.

The USSR suffered a political Thermidor, like the French Revolution in 1924. Stalin and the "epigones" strangled the proletarian internationalism of the Bolsheviks/RCP/CI and replaced it with a conservative/opportunistic nationalistic perspective. They eliminated the opposition first by expulsion, later exile and imprisonment and finally by mass murder. But since their privilege rested upon the property forms of the D of the P, their counterrevolution was political, not social. The Russian bourgeoisie did not come back from France and wherever else the ran to after they were defeated by the Russian Revolution.

And their was plenty of violence during the period of social counterrevolution in 1991-1992. The impetus from the October Revolution largely spent, with decades of Stalinist rule and it did not take much for this rotting bureaucratic state to be overthrown. That is not to say it was not a world historic defeat for the world working class. Look at what has happened since then, both in the former USSR, and in the rest of the world. It ushered in a period of reaction and of massive decline in the living standard in the f/USSR.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

So then what led to Khruschevite revisionism?

Not just "Khruschevite" Revisionism, but the question we have to ask is: what led to Revisionism in virtually every official Communist Country?

The answer must, if we are to remain Marxists, have a materialist and not idealist answer. There are basically two to three versions of the Marxists' explanation to Revisionism. For matters of consistency, we should focus on the Russian Socialist Revolution.

Fundamentally, Russia in 1917 had just entered the bourgeois social stage out of Feudalism. 90% of its Population were Peasants. To take democratically legitimate political Power and end the mass barbarity of the Ruling Classes of Europe which was WW1, the Bolshevik faction of the Social-Democrats of Russia recognized that they had to focus their Party program to include the interests of the Peasantry ("Peace, Land, Bread"); hence including into the Proletarian party the Peasantry, two classes which have contradictory, if not at times antagonistic, objective material and hence social interests.
Including into one political Party various classes has historically proven troublesome, and is made only the worse when this Party becomes the foremost governing organ of a country. Contradictory material interests in a society form social divisions. When introduced into a political Party, they turn into intense personal rivalries, bureaucratic cliques and power struggles.

Further, the fact that the old relations of production had not ever been successfully overturned is cited by some as proof of a 'State Capitalism' existing in the USSR. Before the Revolution, Workers came to Work, gave their surplus to the Private owner of the Means of Production, and received a wage at the end of the day. After the revolution, workers came to work, gave their surplus to the Public's Means of Production, and received a wage at the end of the day. Whatever social implications this continued autocratic Socialist mode of production may have had, the truth is that it was a most likely inevitable development dictated by the material conditions of Russia and the stage of World Revolution at the time, which demanded the industrialization/proletarianization of the country and competition with the belligerent capitalist world.

There are some other leftist explanations to the reasons why the the 20th century socialist countries reneged on Marxism-Leninism, or why they fell, but the ones I left out are mostly idealist and not materialist in nature. The argument that the 'leaders' held too much individual powers is, however, not without merit.


As a personal note, to "widen the horizon" so to say, I think it helps to compare the various revolutionary countries. If you look at China for instance (in which the Communist Party's Class collaborative efforts were probably more abundant than anywhere), one sees that the in-theory united Communist Party of the Proletariat, was more divided than any other. Party Purges already starting in the late 20's were bloody, bureaucratic power struggles within the party (once in power) were more evident than anywhere, as well as the cult of the individual in Mao. Compare that to the SED 'Socialist-Unity-Party' in East Germany (where 77% of the population lived in urban areas in 1980), and one sees that, although it was a merged party of SPD 'Social-Fascists' and KPD Communists, division within the party was hardly as noticeable as in the CCP.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Admins, please delete my account.