Question for anti-Stalinists

[LewisQ]

Why didn't the Stalinist bureaucracy simply abandon state socialism/state capitalism long before the advent of perestroika and glasnost? Clearly, by the 1960s at the latest, popular support for the concept of communism in the USSR and Eastern Bloc had decayed into cynicism and discontent tempered by fear. Measured concessions to nationalism(s), economic liberalisation and managed democracy would surely have represented a more efficient means for the nomenklatura and bureaucratic caste to preserve and consolidate their privileged position.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Would economic liberalism really be good for the bureaucrats, though? I'm not sure it would...on the one hand they'd never be able to achieve the amount of wealth and power that could be obtained in certain kleptocracies, but on the other hand staying with the USSR/Eastern Bloc system meant that they'd have a position of at least some power and influence within a very structured, stable system.

(note: post-Stalin, that is.)

[Questionable]

This implies that the post-Stalin bureaucracies were all engaged in one huge conspiracy to destroy socialism, as if they were all consciously playing a game with the idea of communism like comic book villains.

Judging by all their congresses, publications, private communications, the leaders of the post-Stalin USSR and post-Mao China genuinely believed the things they were doing were good for socialism. How they could possibly think that, I cannot say for sure. But there was never a letter from Brezhnev saying "lol they think we're marxists but we aren't" or something. They all "talked Marxist" to each other.

[subcp]

Why didn't the Stalinist bureaucracy simply abandon state socialism/state capitalism long before the advent of perestroika and glasnost? Clearly, by the 1960s at the latest, popular support for the concept of communism in the USSR and Eastern Bloc had decayed into cynicism and discontent tempered by fear. Measured concessions to nationalism(s), economic liberalisation and managed democracy would surely have represented a more efficient means for the nomenklatura and bureaucratic caste to preserve and consolidate their privileged position.

The form of a command economy had a specific function in the development of underdeveloped states- to accelerate industrialization into a few short years vs the decades or centuries it took the original central capitalist nations. Russia was simply the first nation to do this- a model which would be copied by other underdeveloped nations throughout the 20th century.

The economic liberalization was not a political choice, but economic necessity. Economic liberalism in command economies (or nations trying to institute a Soviet style command economy) took place after the middle 1960's- specifically the recession of 1964 but especially with the return of crisis by 1968-1973. Crisis affected the USSR like it did the Western capitalist nations- economic stagnation and inflation. Some command economies were successful at this transition to be in line with the needs of capital; the People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia.

The politics come after the economic needs. In China, this came with the faction around Xioaping and the institution of Special Economic Zones in 1978; this model would be copied by both nominally 'socialist' and 'people's' republics and other underdeveloped nations that had not attempted a Soviet style political-economic apparatus (India for example).

The idea that the state is a tool in the service and wishes of those at its helm is instrumentalist; I think this view ignores the reality of economic needs and the structural tendency of states to be in the service of the accumulation of capital- and that the political forms will change to suit this service when the needs of the economy are not being met by the political forms in place. The USSR was very late (20 years after the return of crisis) in trying to do what China had done and liberalize in a managed fashion while keeping the forms of political power in place- but the internal contradictions of states that accelerate their development via a command economy and rapid industrialization are often too much to keep the ruling political apparatus together (Yugoslavia and USSR are examples of this).

Some say there was a crisis in the traditional worker's movement beginning with the return of crisis and restructuring of capitalism from the 1970's to today; that the Social Democratic parties and affiliated unions as well as the Communist Parties and their affiliated unions had a crisis of their own as a result of the restructuring, evident today in the declining size and influence of unions, the implosion and dissolution of what were the strongest Communist Parties in Western Europe (and crises within every official CP in the world after 1989-1992), the removal in the 1970's and 1980's of any hint at socialist phrases from party programmes of the Socialist Parties (like the UK Labour Party's rightward turn after the 1970's and New Labour) etc.

[Geiseric]

This implies that the post-Stalin bureaucracies were all engaged in one huge conspiracy to destroy socialism, as if they were all consciously playing a game with the idea of communism like comic book villains.

Judging by all their congresses, publications, private communications, the leaders of the post-Stalin USSR and post-Mao China genuinely believed the things they were doing were good for socialism. How they could possibly think that, I cannot say for sure. But there was never a letter from Brezhnev saying "lol they think we're marxists but we aren't" or something. They all "talked Marxist" to each other.

I think they all knew that it wasn't socialism in the same way Obama knows this isn't a democracy.

[Art Vandelay]

I think they all knew that it wasn't socialism in the same way Obama knows this isn't a democracy.

And as an anti-stalinist what a fucking joke. I mean this is probably one of the most brutal analysis that I have ever seen. You are in no sense a materialist, let the record state. I've often heard criticism of you, along the lines of you being a liberal (and I never wanted to take the criticism as face value) but it is entirely accurate.

[Geiseric]

And as an anti-stalinist what a fucking joke. I mean this is probably one of the most brutal analysis that I have ever seen. You are in no sense a materialist, let the record state. I've often heard criticism of you, along the lines of you being a liberal (and I never wanted to take the criticism as face value) but it is entirely accurate.

Great. I don't care. I wouldn't give the time of day for any of the totalitarian assholes who were in charge of the USSR after the great purges.

[Questionable]

I think they all knew that it wasn't socialism in the same way Obama knows this isn't a democracy.

I'm sure Obama and the US ruling class genuinely believes that Pax Americana is what's best for the world. Psychological studies have shown that the wealthier and more affluent tend to think of their own interests as society's interests.

[Rurkel]

totalitarian assholes
You're not helping to refute the accusation of liberalism :(


Measured concessions to nationalism(s), economic liberalisation and managed democracy would surely have represented a more efficient means for the nomenklatura and bureaucratic caste to preserve and consolidate their privileged position.
There were fractions who advocated a more "economically liberal" way (Kosygin, even Andropov had shown some reformist inclinations before dying), but as long as the economy was relatively fine, the majority of bureaucracy didn't think that anything substantial needs to be done.

And even "managed democracy" can be dangerous. As an example, see Putin's discarded experiment with A Just Russia. It was meant to be a "leftish-wing" pro-Kremlin party, but it soon became an ideological vessel to express and strengthen local bureaucratic disagreements and power struggles, which lead to Kremlin greatly lessening its support. In fact, something similar happened to Gorbachev!

The question is, could USSR "pull a China" and economically liberalize, while keeping the political stability in check?

[Fionnagáin]

Why didn't the Stalinist bureaucracy simply abandon state socialism/state capitalism long before the advent of perestroika and glasnost? Clearly, by the 1960s at the latest, popular support for the concept of communism in the USSR and Eastern Bloc had decayed into cynicism and discontent tempered by fear. Measured concessions to nationalism(s), economic liberalisation and managed democracy would surely have represented a more efficient means for the nomenklatura and bureaucratic caste to preserve and consolidate their privileged position.
Or perhaps it would have opened the floodgates that washed them away. That is, after all, exactly what happened in the 1980s. That a particular set of policies were in the nomenklatura's collective interest does not mean that they possessed the competence or collective will to pursue it.

[Art Vandelay]

Great. I don't care. I wouldn't give the time of day for any of the totalitarian assholes who were in charge of the USSR after the great purges.

Bah, if you want to shake off this perception of liberalism, don't go running around slinging the word 'totalitarian.' The idea that big bad Stalin just wanted to run amok and trick people into thinking the USSR was socialist is absurd. It is in no way a proper analysis and certainly is not a conclusion which stems from the Marxist method.

[JPSartre12]

Why didn't the Stalinist bureaucracy simply abandon state socialism/state capitalism long before the advent of perestroika and glasnost?

You can't abandon "state socialism" because you can't have "state socialism" in the first place. Socialism involves the revolutionary abolition of the state; if there is a state, then it is not socialism. What Stalin, the Presidium, and the CCCP presided over in Russia was not socialism - it was capitalism, but yes, you are right, it was state capitalism.

[Geiseric]

Bah, if you want to shake off this perception of liberalism, don't go running around slinging the word 'totalitarian.' The idea that big bad Stalin just wanted to run amok and trick people into thinking the USSR was socialist is absurd. It is in no way a proper analysis and certainly is not a conclusion which stems from the Marxist method.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously, bite me. If being sent to a gulag for speaking out against your boss isn't totalitarian, I don't know what is. He outright supported the Kulaks and their road to capitalist restoration until 1928 when they finally bit him and the state bureaucracy in the ass by starving the cities. The NKVD, an extension of russian foreign policy, murdered thousands of revolutionaries in Spain. Of course he wanted to say that the USSR was socialism, why else would anybody inside Russia support and tolerate him and his regime? That's why they needed the planned economy, because internally capitalism with the Kulaks threatened the bureaucracy which was based in and around the Bolshevik party, which got its support from the working class, not the peasantry.

He was an opportunist of the worst sort, he lived in a mansion while the rest of the population lived in squalor, and worked with rapists and murderers like Beria and Yezhov on a day to day basis. So they can all bite me, because they were the counter revolution, just as much as Vladamir Putin and Gorbachev. To think that its bureaucracy was somehow "genuine," socialists who had to deal with what they were burdened with is apology that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. You can't just tell people that they were like characters in an Oliver Stone movie, they shouldn't be looked at as role models for socialists.

[Geiseric]

I'm sure Obama and the US ruling class genuinely believes that Pax Americana is what's best for the world. Psychological studies have shown that the wealthier and more affluent tend to think of their own interests as society's interests.

They think of their own interests, greed, as societies interests, in a selfish sociopath way. Yeah I understand.

[MarxSchmarx]

Who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously, bite me. If being sent to a gulag for speaking out against your boss isn't totalitarian, I don't know what is. He outright supported the Kulaks and their road to capitalist restoration until 1928 when they finally bit him and the state bureaucracy in the ass by starving the cities. The NKVD, an extension of russian foreign policy, murdered thousands of revolutionaries in Spain. Of course he wanted to say that the USSR was socialism, why else would anybody inside Russia support and tolerate him and his regime? That's why they needed the planned economy, because internally capitalism with the Kulaks threatened the bureaucracy which was based in and around the Bolshevik party, which got its support from the working class, not the peasantry.

He was an opportunist of the worst sort, he lived in a mansion while the rest of the population lived in squalor, and worked with rapists and murderers like Beria and Yezhov on a day to day basis. So they can all bite me, because they were the counter revolution, just as much as Vladamir Putin and Gorbachev. To think that its bureaucracy was somehow "genuine," socialists who had to deal with what they were burdened with is apology that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. You can't just tell people that they were like characters in an Oliver Stone movie, they shouldn't be looked at as role models for socialists.


Who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously, bite me. If being sent to a gulag for speaking out against your boss isn't totalitarian, I don't know what is. He outright supported the Kulaks and their road to capitalist restoration until 1928 when they finally bit him and the state bureaucracy in the ass by starving the cities. The NKVD, an extension of russian foreign policy, murdered thousands of revolutionaries in Spain. Of course he wanted to say that the USSR was socialism, why else would anybody inside Russia support and tolerate him and his regime? That's why they needed the planned economy, because internally capitalism with the Kulaks threatened the bureaucracy which was based in and around the Bolshevik party, which got its support from the working class, not the peasantry.

He was an opportunist of the worst sort, he lived in a mansion while the rest of the population lived in squalor, and worked with rapists and murderers like Beria and Yezhov on a day to day basis. So they can all bite me, because they were the counter revolution, just as much as Vladamir Putin and Gorbachev. To think that its bureaucracy was somehow "genuine," socialists who had to deal with what they were burdened with is apology that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. You can't just tell people that they were like characters in an Oliver Stone movie, they shouldn't be looked at as role models for socialists.

I get what you're saying, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between what you are saying and 9mm points. At the end of the day, these people are human beings, which have an incredible capacity for holding multiple contradictory ideas at once. The Inquisition burned and tortured people, motivated to spread the word of a merciful and compassionate god.

Ultimately all we have to go on is the historical record. Perhaps if you could take them aside today and ask "Do you really believe in this Marxism stuff?" there might be a substantial number who would say "not really." This is certainly true of the lower level bureaucracy who were more concerned with their day to day lives and stay employed than with more abstract questions about socialism, managed democracy and economic liberalization. For them, the incentive structure was strongly skewed to maintain an authoritarian status quo.

Yet as Questionable notes, there is little in the historical record to suggest that most of the ruling elite of the USSR and later communist states were doing anything but implementing what they saw as necessary to facilitate the transition to socialism. I agree completely with the analysis that they were counter-revolutionary, but unfortunately to their credit they were rarely deliberately so. Sometimes they were cynical, often they were wrong, but I think absent historical documentation to the contrary we can't simply assign less than pure motives and leave it at that. I think it's often more complicated with people.

[Art Vandelay]

I get what you're saying, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between what you are saying and 9mm points. At the end of the day, these people are human beings, which have an incredible capacity for holding multiple contradictory ideas at once. The Inquisition burned and tortured people, motivated to spread the word of a merciful and compassionate god.

Ultimately all we have to go on is the historical record. Perhaps if you could take them aside today and ask "Do you really believe in this Marxism stuff?" there might be a substantial number who would say "not really." This is certainly true of the lower level bureaucracy who were more concerned with their day to day lives and stay employed than with more abstract questions about socialism, managed democracy and economic liberalization. For them, the incentive structure was strongly skewed to maintain an authoritarian status quo.

Except that this is entirely my point, so what you've posted here isn't somewhere in between my perspective and Broody's. I have no illusions about the counter revolutionary nature of the Stalinist bureaucracy. However to think that these people, in their minds, were thinking 'oh were going to call this socialism just trick people,' is about as absurd of an analysis as the people who consider the USSR socialism. Like I said, it is about as far from a materialist and Marxists analysis as possible. You hit the nail on the head below; far from Broody's analysis of them simply being evil sociopaths. Talk about moralistic nonsense. Ultimately these people were acting in the interests of Russian capital, which for the time being was to drape the facade of socialism over the USSR.


Yet as Questionable notes, there is little in the historical record to suggest that most of the ruling elite of the USSR and later communist states were doing anything but implementing what they saw as necessary to facilitate the transition to socialism. I agree completely with the analysis that they were counter-revolutionary, but unfortunately to their credit they were rarely deliberately so. Sometimes they were cynical, often they were wrong, but I think absent historical documentation to the contrary we can't simply assign less than pure motives and leave it at that. I think it's often more complicated with people.

[Dear Leader]

I don't think they could have kept any semblance of "legitimacy" they had, if they were to totally abandon 1917/18 that soon. Not only that, the bureaucratic caste didn't want to give cause to opposition and the workers to hold the political revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

And as an anti-stalinist what a fucking joke. I mean this is probably one of the most brutal analysis that I have ever seen. You are in no sense a materialist, let the record state. I've often heard criticism of you, along the lines of you being a liberal (and I never wanted to take the criticism as face value) but it is entirely accurate.

Let's try not to hurl "liberal" at each other, hardly a substitute for an actual argument. This falls well within the definition of flaming, especially for a moderator this is dubious. I have gotten verbal warnings for much less than this.


I think they all knew that it wasn't socialism in the same way Obama knows this isn't a democracy.

Why would they keep up the farce, insisting they genuinely believe in socialism while they don't? Who benefits from this? And similarly, why wouldn't Obama think 'this' (the US I presume) is a democracy, since by liberal democratic principles it falls (perhaps somewhat scantily) within its definition. I have no doubt that Stalin and his crew genuinely believed they were furthering socialism and the good of society, and the same goes for libertarians and fascists -- though the last time I said this I was called a fascist sympathiser and apologist.


They think of their own interests, greed, as societies interests, in a selfish sociopath way. Yeah I understand.

So you think social-democrats and the Obamas of the world are not genuinely concerned with the welfare of humanity? Before you became a Trotskyist I imagine you held social-democratic or otherwise capitalist views, were you motivated by greed then?

[Geiseric]

I don't think they could have kept any semblance of "legitimacy" they had, if they were to totally abandon 1917/18 that soon. Not only that, the bureaucratic caste didn't want to give cause to opposition and the workers to hold the political revolution.

They couldn't abandon the planned economy, after they (and the working class as a whole) were threatened too badly by Kulaks. They reverted to the old idea from the left opposition about the planned economy (many LO members even helped put it togather), and got lucky by being able to implement it in such a short amount of time with that many deaths, after postponing its implementation through the 1920s.

They are managers, bureaucrats, and careerist politicians which would revert to murder to maintain their power. That is sociopathy. They murdered communists to further socialism? That is a rediculous claim. Of course they knew they were full of shit, to the point where they used marxist lingo to justify things like abolishing the comintern! On top of the fact that they didn't do anything about fascism until they were invaded themselves. How's that for "believing you're furthering socialism"?

The people who worked and lived in the USSR thought and believed they were working for socialism as well, which is why the bureaucratic caste couldn't revert to capitalism until the generation who lived through the revolution and anybody who went through WW2 was dead by old age.

So Marcus Crassus in Ancient Rome thought he was doing the best things for the Roman republic by massacring the slave rebellions that he ended by mass crucifictions? I don't believe it.

[Art Vandelay]

Let's try not to hurl "liberal" at each other, hardly a substitute for an actual argument. This falls well within the definition of flaming, especially for a moderator this is dubious. I have gotten verbal warnings for much less than this.

Calling someone a liberal isn't flaming. It's not a personal insult but the accurate representation of a persons politics who has repeatedly called for 'communists' to focus on the building of a 'labor party,' which denies independent working class organizations and has put forth the un-materialist views that he has in this thread. I'm not going to bite my tounge when views are expressed which I find anti-Marxist just because I'm a mod and I would hope other mods wouldn't either; the board would be worse for it.

And you know what calling him a liberal was a bit harsh, it was a knee jerk reaction, but I'm far from the first to make that accusation against broody. Some of his positions, as showcased in this thread, are extremely un-Marxian. I mean Trotsky himself never even posited such an absurd premise about the Stalinist beauracracy.

[Geiseric]

Calling someone a liberal isn't flaming. It's not a personal insult but the accurate representation of a persons politics who has repeatedly called for 'communists' to focus on the building of a 'labor party,' which denies independent working class organizations and has put forth the un-materialist views that he has in this thread. I'm not going to bite my tounge when views are expressed which I find anti-Marxist just because I'm a mod and I would hope other mods wouldn't either; the board would be worse for it.

what are you talking about "denied independent working class organizations"? You made that up right now.

How is it not materialist to think that people who do bad things know fully what they're doing?

[Tim Cornelis]

Calling someone a liberal isn't flaming. It's not a personal insult but the accurate representation of a persons politics who has repeatedly called for 'communists' to focus on the building of a 'labor party,' which denies independent working class organizations and has put forth the un-materialist views that he has in this thread. I'm not going to bite my tounge when views are expressed which I find anti-Marxist just because I'm a mod and I would hope other mods wouldn't either; the board would be worse for it.

And you know what calling him a liberal was a bit harsh, it was a knee jerk reaction, but I'm far from the first to make that accusation against broody. Some of his positions, as showcased in this thread, are extremely un-Marxian. I mean Trotsky himself never even posited such an absurd premise about the Stalinist beauracracy.

You're a fascist. This is not flaming. It's an accurate representation of ... etc. Unless I substantiate this, it's absolutely meaningless, it is a personal insult, and it is flaming. You didn't explain why (s)he was a liberal, you merely asserted "you are a liberal and no materialist" without any explanation as to why you believe this to be an "accurate representation" of his or her politics. Only in this comment have you somewhat elaborated on why you believe him or her to be a liberal. You are throwing buzzwords around, meant to end any discussion. Even if (s)he is a liberal, pointing this out would not be a valid argument. You would still need to articulate why it's liberalism or idealism but more importantly why it's inaccurate (otherwise amounts to circular reasoning).

[Art Vandelay]

what are you talking about "denied independent working class organizations"? You made that up right now.

No I didn't, it's the natural extension of the labor party you propose, but regardless this is off topic.


How is it not materialist to think that people who do bad things know fully what they're doing?


Because it somehow posits that Stalin himself was never sincere in his communist views. While obviously always a bit more off strongman and not a very theoretically developed communist, do you think he joined the Bolshevik party as an agent of the Tsar? Did he join thinking, 'oh I'm just going to join the RSDLP in the hopes of there being a revolution (in risk of imprisonment and exile) so I can get myself to the top'? I sincerely doubt, or at least hope you don't, support either of those premises.

A materialist would analyze the isolation of the Russian revolution and see its degeneration (not only of the genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, but also members of the Bolsheviks who did not have a proper Marxist paradigm) as its natural conclusion. Trotsky himself wasn't infallible and degenerated with it as well, despite ultimately embodying the revolutionary potential of October. It was entirely necessitated by Russian capital to have sections of the party degenerate into a nationalistic new ruling class. That's a Marxist analysis, not 'on my god evil Stalin was just a big trickster.'

The idea that Stalin and co had an unstated secret, not captured in any official or personal documents or learned by anyone, that they were just pulling the wool over people's eyes, is a conspiracy theory on the level of the 911 truthers movement.

[Art Vandelay]

You're a fascist. This is not flaming. It's an accurate representation of ... etc. Unless I substantiate this, it's absolutely meaningless, it is a personal insult, and it is flaming. You didn't explain why (s)he was a liberal, you merely asserted "you are a liberal and no materialist" without any explanation as to why you believe this to be an "accurate representation" of his or her politics. Only in this comment have you somewhat elaborated on why you believe him or her to be a liberal. You are throwing buzzwords around, meant to end any discussion. Even if (s)he is a liberal, pointing this out would not be a valid argument. You would still need to articulate why it's liberalism or idealism but more importantly why it's inaccurate (otherwise amounts to circular reasoning).

Fair enough, I should have given a proper explanation before, which I didn't. I have now, however. I'll do my best, to be better at that in the future. I certainly wasn't trying to end debate, nor do I really consider it flaming. I wouldn't ever give out an infraction for something along those lines. I haven't even given out a single infraction as a mod. In all honesty though, I made two off hand remarks, upon broody responding I've made three lengthier replies. That's hardly not backing up what I've stated, with evidence.

[Art Vandelay]

So Marcus Crassus in Ancient Rome thought he was doing the best things for the Roman republic by massacring the slave rebellions that he ended by mass crucifictions? I don't believe it.

Seriously? Of course he did and quite obviously he was! Do you really think allowing successful slave rebellions was in the interests of the Roman republic?

[Geiseric]

No I didn't, it's the natural extension of the labor party you propose, but regardless this is off topic.



Because it somehow posits that Stalin himself was never sincere in his communist views. While obviously always a bit more off strongman and not a very theoretically developed communist, do you think he joined the Bolshevik party as an agent of the Tsar? Did he join thinking, 'oh I'm just going to join the RSDLP in the hopes of there being a revolution (in risk of imprisonment and exile) so I can get myself to the top'? I sincerely doubt, or at least hope you don't, support either of those premises.

A materialist would analyze the isolation of the Russian revolution and see its degeneration (not only of the genuine dictatorship of the proletariat, but also members of the Bolsheviks who did not have a proper Marxist paradigm) as its natural conclusion. Trotsky himself wasn't infallible and degenerated with it as well, despite ultimately embodying the revolutionary potential of October. It was entirely necessitated by Russian capital to have sections of the party degenerate into a nationalistic new ruling class. That's a Marxist analysis, not 'on my god evil Stalin was just a big trickster.'

The idea that Stalin and co had an unstated secret, not captured in any official or personal documents or learned by anyone, that they were just pulling the wool over people's eyes, is a conspiracy theory on the level of the 911 truthers movement.

I never said that he was a Tsarist agent. As soon as they gained personal power is when Stalin, Beria, Khruschev, and tons of other bolsheviks' goals became intertwined with the survival of the workers state, not the world revolution. Their goals were in making sure they kept their jobs as leaders of the bolshevik party. This is evident due to the purges, in which they murdered the other incumbents and shut out genuinely socialist programs such as collectivization.

How is supporting the N.E.P. while kulaks are starting famines as far back as 1925 a sign of genuine belief that what you're doing is best for socialism? Because Stalin sure supported the N.E.P. continuing after the first Kulak induced famine in 1925.

[Art Vandelay]

I never said that he was a Tsarist agent. As soon as they gained personal power is when Stalin, Beria, Khruschev, and tons of other bolsheviks' goals became intertwined with the survival of the workers state, not the world revolution. Their goals were in making sure they kept their jobs as leaders of the bolshevik party. This is evident due to the purges, in which they murdered the other incumbents and shut out genuinely socialist programs such as collectivization.

How is supporting the N.E.P. while kulaks are starting famines as far back as 1925 a sign of genuine belief that what you're doing is best for socialism? Because Stalin sure supported the N.E.P. continuing after the first Kulak induced famine in 1925.

No one is arguing that what they did, was objectively in favor of world revolution, it was objectively in the interests of Russian capital (no one but Stalinists doubt this); the point is that subjectively, as obvious as it is to us, they did believe that their actions were in the interests of socialism. How you may wonder, just like I said above, the dictatorship of the proletariat, along with most people involved in the Bolshevik party, degenerated right along with it. While Lenin may have died slightly too early to really show signs of this, it shows up in the majority of the party and to a lesser extent Trotsky; he himself, just like Stalin and co, could not beat the material conditions. The idea that they just all of a sudden went: 'well were just going to drop this whole communism stuff for cushy bureaucrat positions,' is idealist nonsense and you should recognize it as such.

[Geiseric]

No one is arguing that what they did, was objectively in favor of world revolution, it was objectively in the interests of Russian capital (no one but Stalinists doubt this); the point is that subjectively, as obvious as it is to us, they did believe that their actions were in the interests of socialism. How you may wonder, just like I said above, the dictatorship of the proletariat, along with most people involved in the Bolshevik party, degenerated right along with it. While Lenin may have died slightly too early to really show signs of this, it shows up in the majority of the party and to a lesser extent Trotsky; he himself, just like Stalin and co, could not beat the material conditions. The idea that they just all of a sudden went: 'well were just going to drop this whole communism stuff for cushy bureaucrat positions,' is idealist nonsense and you should recognize it as such.

it was a process but by the 1930s that's basically what happened, unless they think killing tens of thousands of spanish communists in the civil war is "for socialism" as well as the rest of the purges which resulted in not only the death or imprisonment of the main "offender" but also their families.

[Art Vandelay]

it was a process but by the 1930s that's basically what happened, unless they think killing tens of thousands of spanish communists in the civil war is "for socialism" as well as the rest of the purges which resulted in not only the death or imprisonment of the main "offender" but also their families.

Yes they did see this as necessary for the advancement for socialism because just how we perceive them as counter-revolutionaries, they saw genuine communists as being counter-revolutionary, due to the fact that while subjectively being 'socialists,' they were objectively acting in the interests of capital.

[MarxSchmarx]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broody Guthrie http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2611290#post2611290)
Who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously, bite me. If being sent to a gulag for speaking out against your boss isn't totalitarian, I don't know what is. He outright supported the Kulaks and their road to capitalist restoration until 1928 when they finally bit him and the state bureaucracy in the ass by starving the cities. The NKVD, an extension of russian foreign policy, murdered thousands of revolutionaries in Spain. Of course he wanted to say that the USSR was socialism, why else would anybody inside Russia support and tolerate him and his regime? That's why they needed the planned economy, because internally capitalism with the Kulaks threatened the bureaucracy which was based in and around the Bolshevik party, which got its support from the working class, not the peasantry.

He was an opportunist of the worst sort, he lived in a mansion while the rest of the population lived in squalor, and worked with rapists and murderers like Beria and Yezhov on a day to day basis. So they can all bite me, because they were the counter revolution, just as much as Vladamir Putin and Gorbachev. To think that its bureaucracy was somehow "genuine," socialists who had to deal with what they were burdened with is apology that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. You can't just tell people that theywere like characters in an Oliver Stone movie, they shouldn't be looked at as role models for socialists.
I get what you're saying, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between what you are saying and 9mm points. At the end of the day, these people are human beings, which have an incredible capacity for holding multiple contradictory ideas at once. The Inquisition burned and tortured people, motivated to spread the word of a merciful and compassionate god.

Ultimately all we have to go on is the historical record. Perhaps if you could take them aside today and ask "Do you really believe in this Marxism stuff?" there might be a substantial number who would say "not really." This is certainly true of the lower level bureaucracy who were more concerned with their day to day lives and stay employed than with more abstract questions about socialism, managed democracy and economic liberalization. For them, the incentive structure was strongly skewed to maintain an authoritarian status quo.

Yet as Questionable notes, there is little in the historical record to suggest that most of the ruling elite of the USSR and later communist states were doing anything but implementing what they saw as necessary to facilitate the transition to socialism. I agree completely with the analysis that they were counter-revolutionary, but unfortunately to their credit they were rarely deliberately so. Sometimes they were cynical, often they were wrong, but I think absent historical documentation to the contrary we can't simply assign less than pure motives and leave it at that. I think it's often more complicated with people. Except that this is entirely my point, so what you've posted here isn't somewhere in between my perspective and Broody's. I have no illusions about the counter revolutionary nature of the Stalinist bureaucracy. However to think that these people, in their minds, were thinking 'oh were going to call this socialism just trick people,' is about as absurd of an analysis as the people who consider the USSR socialism. Like I said, it is about as far from a materialist and Marxists analysis as possible. You hit the nail on the head below; far from Broody's analysis of them simply being evil sociopaths. Talk about moralistic nonsense. Ultimately these people were acting in the interests of Russian capital, which for the time being was to drape the facade of socialism over the USSR.

The reason I think the "truth lies in the middle" and that your point isn't the whole story is that I think inherent to Broody's critique is a very real kernel of truth: that the privileges afforded to the ruling elite by the systemic restoration of a form of capitalism practice by the Stalinist regime made them less critical of their own situation.

I think it could be that people like, say, Stalin genuinely eblieved what they were doing was advancing socialism. But the point is that they were defending their policies from a position of immense privilege. As such, their analysis was deficient and non-objective. This isn't the same as saying "evil Stalin white-washed everything". But nor is it the same saying Stalin (to take him as an example) was free of the comforts he enjoyed and that didn't factor into his analysis.

Certainly the capitalist ruling class does this all the time, with its talk about how doing things like abolishing the minimum wage actually enriches workers - no doubt some capitalists genuinely believe this, but they argue it almost excluslively from the perspective of people who don't have to live on pennies a day.

I think people who say Stalin was a consistent socialist thinker have to genuinely ask themselves whether Stalin the bank robber (or Mao the exiled librarian or what have you) would have written the same thing they did once they attained considerable power and became managers of a glorified capitalist enterprise. I think the fact that we hold in high regard the accuracy of their analysis before they gained power, but find their analysis after they gained power deficient, speaks to systemic corruption of the thinking of the elites.

[Lucretia]

I don't think there's anything controversial in saying that, whatever the Stalinist bureaucracy objectively represented at any point in time (my views on this have been made clear in other threads), that the people who staffed it obviously didn't issue socialist sounding propaganda while laughing to themselves behind closed doors about how stupid the rubes must have been to believe their nonsense. They honestly believed that their continued access to power represented the defense of socialism. They were dead wrong about that, but that's another story.

[Fionnagáin]

That seems just as speculative. It's just as probable that they didn't really care one way or the other; that their concern was the management of the Soviet state, and that socialist rhetoric was simply how they were expected to explain themselves in public. Likely, all three were true: that the Soviet bureaucracy contained cynics, idealists and pragmatists alike, in whatever proportions and in whatever combinations. That is, after all, how it works everywhere else.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think this is one of the several historical developments that the "New Class" / "Red Bourgeoisie" / "state-capitalism" approach simply can not explain. If the bureaucracy was already a "new class", a new bourgeoisie or the equivalent, why did the Soviet Union not pursue the same policies as other bourgeois dictatorships, including those that thought themselves to be "socialist" (Burma, for example)? Undoubtedly, those who support the approach will point out the Kosigyn reforms and so on, but why were many of these reforms rolled back? Why did the bureaucracy fight every movement that aimed at capitalist restoration?

The structure of the deformed workers' states was highly contradictory - on one hand, there were definite tendencies toward the emergence of an embryonic bourgeoisie, through kleptocratic means and "pragmatic" reforms, but their status as workers' states, the form of the planned economy and so on, was in contradiction to such developments. The bureaucracy, not having the relative independence that classes do, was itself highly contradictory, and pursued a confused policy that could only end in its destruction or the restoration of capitalism.

Subjectively, of course, these were all "honest men"; in general, they had no intention of destroying the planned economy, and in fact they saw their worst excesses as necessary for the preservation of "socialism". Even people like Yagoda or Beria, I think - it should be kept in mind that the purges occurred in the context of international isolation and paranoia about fascist spies. They seem to have been a case of collective hysteria exacerbated by the inefficiencies and contradictions of the Soviet bureaucratic apparatus, though there were certainly cases of abuse due to personal grudges or political maneuvering.

[Lucretia]

That seems just as speculative. It's just as probable that they didn't really care one way or the other; that their concern was the management of the Soviet state, and that socialist rhetoric was simply how they were expected to explain themselves in public. Likely, all three were true: that the Soviet bureaucracy contained cynics, idealists and pragmatists alike, in whatever proportions and in whatever combinations. That is, after all, how it works everywhere else.

You're right. It is speculation based on what seems logical. Do you have any proof that they were duplicitously saying one thing about their relationship to socialism behind closed doors, and another thing publicly? Because if you do have such proof, they would probably be the first ruling caste/class in history not to take their own rhetoric about the necessity of their own leadership seriously. I'll be waiting patiently for you to provide some.

[Fionnagáin]

I think this is one of the several historical developments that the "New Class" / "Red Bourgeoisie" / "state-capitalism" approach simply can not explain. If the bureaucracy was already a "new class", a new bourgeoisie or the equivalent, why did the Soviet Union not pursue the same policies as other bourgeois dictatorships, including those that thought themselves to be "socialist" (Burma, for example)? Undoubtedly, those who support the approach will point out the Kosigyn reforms and so on, but why were many of these reforms rolled back? Why did the bureaucracy fight every movement that aimed at capitalist restoration?
If you define the dissolution of the Soviet Union as "capitalist restoration", then you've already concluded in advance that the Soviet Union was non-capitalist, thus, obviously enough, precluding the possibility that it was capitalist. That means that you're asking your opponents to respond with a framework that assumes as a premise you're own conclusion; not only arguing with circular logic, but asking others to assume circular logic on your behalf. And you expect this to be taken seriously?


You're right. It is speculation based on what seems logical. Do you have any proof that they were duplicitously saying one thing about their relationship to socialism behind closed doors, and another thing publicly? Because if you do have such proof, they would probably be the first ruling caste/class in history not to take their own rhetoric about the necessity of their own leadership seriously. I'll be waiting patiently for you to provide some.
Why I am expected to provide "proof" (whatever that means in this context), but you are not? You argue that your position is the historical norm, but, first, that does not itself suggest anything but coincidence (empiricism 101, seriously), and, second, that itself remains an unproven claim.

Whatever methodology you're working with, here, I don't understand it.

[Geiseric]

If you define the dissolution of the Soviet Union as "capitalist restoration", then you've already concluded in advance that the Soviet Union was non-capitalist, thus, obviously enough, precluding the possibility that it was capitalist. That means that you're asking your opponents to respond with a framework that assumes as a premise you're own conclusion; not only arguing with circular logic, but asking others to assume circular logic on your behalf. And you expect this to be taken seriously?


Why I am expected to provide "proof" (whatever that means in this context), but you are not? You argue that your position is the historical norm, but, first, that does not itself suggest anything but coincidence (empiricism 101, seriously), and, second, that itself remains an unproven claim.

Whatever methodology you're working with, here, I don't understand it.

By "circular logic" do you mean dialectics?

[Art Vandelay]

Why I am expected to provide "proof" (whatever that means in this context), but you are not? You argue that your position is the historical norm, but, first, that does not itself suggest anything but coincidence (empiricism 101, seriously), and, second, that itself remains an unproven claim.

Whatever methodology you're working with, here, I don't understand it.

The point is that the burden of proof falls to the person making the rather dubious claim. The idea that the soviet bureaucracy could have kept it a secret, for its entire existence, that they were really just tricking the masses into thinking they were leading a socialist state, meanwhile behind the scenes being fully aware of the fact that they were leading a capitalist nation, is quite the conspiracy theory. The idea that this could have been hushed up, kept quiet, with no trace of evidence ever surfacing, even after the dissolution of the USSR, is absurd. So I don't see where he's out of line asking you to provide some proof given your premise and it would seem to me his line of thinking is rather logical.

[Fionnagáin]

The point is that the burden of proof falls to the person making the rather dubious claim. The idea that the soviet bureaucracy could have kept it a secret, for its entire existence, that they were really just tricking the masses into thinking they were leading a socialist state, meanwhile behind the scenes being fully aware of the fact that they were leading a capitalist nation, is quite the conspiracy theory. The idea that this could have been hushed up, kept quiet, with no trace of evidence ever surfacing, even after the dissolution of the USSR, is absurd. So I don't see where he's out of line asking you to provide some proof given your premise and it would seem to me his line of thinking is rather logical.
Surely, assuming that cynicism necessarily means explicit statements to the effect "hah, the suckers bought it!" is at least as dubious as the claim that some bureaucrats were likely cynical?


By "circular logic" do you mean dialectics?
...No.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you define the dissolution of the Soviet Union as "capitalist restoration", then you've already concluded in advance that the Soviet Union was non-capitalist, thus, obviously enough, precluding the possibility that it was capitalist. That means that you're asking your opponents to respond with a framework that assumes as a premise you're own conclusion; not only arguing with circular logic, but asking others to assume circular logic on your behalf. And you expect this to be taken seriously?

I expect people to read my posts, for one thing. I had mentioned "movements that aimed at capitalist restoration". In fact, it is possible to have such movements even though the state in question is already capitalist - in the former Yugoslavia for example. These movements are composed of people who think they are fighting for the return to capitalism, and whatnot, but who are objectively fighting for the transition from one form of capitalism into another, usually more loosely regulated. And if the bureaucracy of the Eastern Bloc formed a "red bourgeoisie", such a development could only have been in their objective interest. They would have done what any number of "socialist" states in the former colonies had done, and compromised with groups like Solidarność.


Why I am expected to provide "proof" (whatever that means in this context), but you are not?

Because you're the one making the outlandish, idealist claim.


You argue that your position is the historical norm, but, first, that does not itself suggest anything but coincidence (empiricism 101, seriously), and, second, that itself remains an unproven claim.

I think comrade Lucretia expects posters to show some familiarity with the historical facts. As for your little snide "empiricism 101" comment, empiricism is a bourgeois ideology - in fact one of the most basic and (for its time) progressive bourgeois ideologies - that fetishises observations and supposedly "unbiased" reporting (ignoring the theory-ladeness of all observation). The Marxist method has nothing to do with bourgeois empiricism, as you should be aware.

[Fionnagáin]

You're a bourgeois ideology.

[Lucretia]

If you define the dissolution of the Soviet Union as "capitalist restoration", then you've already concluded in advance that the Soviet Union was non-capitalist, thus, obviously enough, precluding the possibility that it was capitalist. That means that you're asking your opponents to respond with a framework that assumes as a premise you're own conclusion; not only arguing with circular logic, but asking others to assume circular logic on your behalf. And you expect this to be taken seriously?


Why I am expected to provide "proof" (whatever that means in this context), but you are not? You argue that your position is the historical norm, but, first, that does not itself suggest anything but coincidence (empiricism 101, seriously), and, second, that itself remains an unproven claim.

Whatever methodology you're working with, here, I don't understand it.

No. Every single thing that the Stalinist caste/class said publicly about its relationship to "socialism," it also said privately according to the massive cache of internal memos and other documents that have become available over the past 20 years. It is my assumption that this is because the caste/class, as a whole, believed their own rhetoric, and that therefore no contrary documents will ever emerge. Of course it is likely that certain individual exceptions existed, where a bureaucrat would just keep buried their own doubts about the system, and that these exceptions grew quite large by the late 1980s -- hence the collapse of the regime. But this is far different than the idea that the regime was some charade put on by talented actors.

If you want to prove that they were disingenuous, and that my assumption is wrong, then provide documentation. As I said two posts ago, I am game as far as entertaining the idea goes. But if you want to believe that the Stalinist bureaucrats were secretly laughing to themselves and passing sarcastic notes to each other behind closed doors, then you'll have to give me some proof of those notes. Just as the existing body of documents "prove" the opposite point. Otherwise, you're just as bad as the conspiratorial nutcases who think Trotsky was secretly working hand-in-hand with fascist agents in Germany, except that you have an "autonomist" tag, instead of a "Marxist-Leninist" one, attached to your nuttiness.

[Fionnagáin]

I don't believe "they" were anything. I consider the very construction ludicrous. As I said, I believe that there was diversity among the ruling Soviet class, as among any ruling class, with some tending towards cynicism, some towards idealism, and the majority towards pragmatism. That they communicated within the ideological framework of "socialism" only tells us that "socialist" ideology occupied a hegemonic position in Soviet society, and so that public expressions of political and economic belief were structured in those terms, even if their content (was mostly dreary and managerial in nature) was not.

The alternative is to assume that state documents provide valid insight into the private opinions of an entire class of people, which is absurd on the face of it.

[Lucretia]

I don't believe "they" were anything. I consider the very construction ludicrous. As I said, I believe that there was diversity among the ruling Soviet class, as among any ruling class, with some tending towards cynicism, some towards idealism, and the majority towards pragmatism. That they communicated within the ideological framework of "socialism" only tells us that "socialist" ideology occupied a hegemonic position in Soviet society, and so that public expressions of political and economic belief were structured in those terms, even if their content (was mostly dreary and managerial in nature) was not.

The alternative is to assume that state documents provide valid insight into the private opinions of an entire class of people, which is absurd on the face of it.

Of course some individuals may have cynically exploited their positions within the bureaucracy without possessing any sincere allegiance to socialism. That's not the point. The question is whether there is reason to believe that any of the officials knew that the system they were gaming, exploiting, advancing, protecting, etc., was not socialism. That, as I hope you are able to understand, is a completely separate question.

And you seem to answer it, at least implicitly, by suggesting that their worldviews were structured by socialist-sounding discourse that they employed almost reflexively as a way of collectively communicating and making sense of their positions. This view, which is correct, points to how the bureaucrats adopted the language because the language made sense to the bureaucrats, sounded true to them, by virtue of their social position nationally and internationally. In other words, the bureaucrats' material position led them to adopt certain mistaken views of themselves and their role in society -- a materialist explanation that doesn't chalk worldviews up to the whims of isolated individuals whose actual views we can never really know, even if we did have access to their diaries (mightn't they lie in their diaries to present a pretty picture to posterity?!--which is what I suppose you would say when it is pointed out to you that we have access to many such memoirs and private journals, none of which, again, presents any indication that they did not believe their own language about building socialism).

But then this contradicts any idea of the bureaucrats as putting up a massive disingenuous front of socialist verbiage they didn't really believe in. Of course they, as a general rule, believed the socialist terms they used corresponded to socialist realities. Even if those realities had nothing to do with socialism. Just as a bourgeois proprietor thinks he doesn't exploit anybody, and deserves his millions of dollars because of his brilliance and hard work. Do you think that we can't know for certain whether this talk about socialism was a charade and that when bureaucrats mentioned "the socialist construction of the nation," that they might secretly have thought to themselves -- those mendacious liars -- "exploitative capitalist development in different garb"?

Official documents are not private documents, obviously, but again, that is irrelevant. The personal views of officials do indeed show up in official documents, unless you are now positing multiple layers of deceit: bureaucrats not only engaging in a collective horse-and-pony show for the rubes, but now also for other bureaucrats. And why would they practice this deceit? Because apparently they were immuned from the materialist conditioning of their worldview that every other ruling class in world history has experienced.

[Invader Zim]

The point is that the burden of proof falls to the person making the rather dubious claim. The idea that the soviet bureaucracy could have kept it a secret, for its entire existence, that they were really just tricking the masses into thinking they were leading a socialist state, meanwhile behind the scenes being fully aware of the fact that they were leading a capitalist nation, is quite the conspiracy theory. The idea that this could have been hushed up, kept quiet, with no trace of evidence ever surfacing, even after the dissolution of the USSR, is absurd. So I don't see where he's out of line asking you to provide some proof given your premise and it would seem to me his line of thinking is rather logical.

Whatever the leadership of the Soviet bureaucracy may have believed, told themselves, or simply regurgitated for their own gain, is irrelevant. The material reality is that the Soviet Union was, for its entire existence, a capitalist state - the means of production was, and remained, in the control of an elite group. That was a material reality. While one might concede that individuals like Lenin genuinely believed that his actions, and the actions of the state, were a series of processes designed to transform the SU into a socialist state and then in turn into a series of communes - as described in the manifesto - it is extremely hard to envision how Stalin's actions squared aim or aided the transition towards socialism at all. In fact, it seems manifestly obvious, indeed a truism, that the regime once Stalin came to power moved away - and continually so until 1991 - from the tenets upon which it was founded.

And you are talking about evidence here - you contend that the leaders of the Soviet Union were indeed Marxists, i think the onus actually lies upon you to prove it. The Soviet Union existed for the vast majority of the 20th century, and between 1922 and 1991, despite the decades of "communist" leadership it would appear that, with the exception of just the few early years following the establishment of the State, few, if any, additional tangible steps were made towards establishing a true socialist system of governance let alone the establishment of communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels. Rather, they replaced the old elite with a party elite- and thus the means of production did not rest in 'popular' hands. So it seems to me that the proof is very much in the pudding - and if you want to argue that, despite the obvious fact that they established neither socialism nor communism, that these leaders of a corrupted degenerated former workers state were indeed communists, then the onus is upon you to show why their ideals did not translate into policy.

[Fionnagáin]

@Lucretia,

You seem hung on the conviction that, because the Soviet ruling class represented a class, they must have possessed a homogenous worldview. That divergent opinions could not represent any authentic diversity of opinion or experience, but simply individual aberrations, outliers of little consequence. I do not share these mechanistic presumptions, so further discussion seems fruitless. I've said my piece, and that'll have to do.

[Dave B]

We seem to be talking here I suspect about how the “class conscious workers and party leadership” or the “state capitalist class/caste” of the nomenklatura , according to your position, ideologically justified their economic position.

The orthodox western capitalist were originally no more attached to the idea that they were exploiting the working class than any ‘communist’ political ruling class would be.

The Stalinist political ruling class/caste and nomenklatura, like the western capitalists, considered that their remuneration was;



"just compensation for the labour and talent employed in governing the workers and rendering them useful to themselves and to the socialism."
Or as Karl put it;



Now, the wage-labourer, like the slave, must have a master who puts him to work and rules over him. And assuming the existence of this relationship of lordship and servitude, it is quite proper to compel the wage-labourer to produce his own wages and also the wages of supervision, as compensation for the labour of ruling and supervising him, or

"just compensation for the labour and talent employed in governing him and rendering him useful to himself and to the society."

The labour of supervision and management, arising as it does out of an antithesis, out of the supremacy of capital over labour, and being therefore common to all modes of production based on class contradictions like the capitalist mode, is directly and inseparably connected, also under the capitalist system, with productive functions which all combined social labour assigns to individuals as their special tasks
.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch23.htm

And was different from Stalin’s own original pre-revisionist vision of socialism;


Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3

[Lucretia]

@Lucretia,

You seem hung on the conviction that, because the Soviet ruling class represented a class, they must have possessed a homogenous worldview. That divergent opinions could not represent any authentic diversity of opinion or experience, but simply individual aberrations, outliers of little consequence. I do not share these mechanistic presumptions, so further discussion seems fruitless. I've said my piece, and that'll have to do.

Where did I say that the Soviet ruling class possessed a "homogenous" worldview? I said that that their social positioning atop the Soviet state conditioned them to believe that their leadership was a progressive stewardship over a socialist economy. Conditioned, as in tendentially structured their views on that issue -- not their "worldviews" in some grander scheme encompassing every aspect of a person's beliefs, as your use of the word homogenous might imply. But even then, I explicitly stated that there were likely to be outliers, just as Engels was an outlier among the bourgeoisie. Please learn to read more carefully.

You can call this "mechanistic" all you want, but you come off as little more than the typical postmodernist frothing about how any talk of systemic structuring or conditioning constitutes "reductionist" and "mechanistic" thinking. There's a been a word increasingly and appropriately applied to this view in light of the past four years of economic and political turmoil: quaint.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whatever the leadership of the Soviet bureaucracy may have believed, told themselves, or simply regurgitated for their own gain, is irrelevant. The material reality is that the Soviet Union was, for its entire existence, a capitalist state - the means of production was, and remained, in the control of an elite group. That was a material reality.

What "elite group"? The bureaucracy in general? The managers and economic executives? The Politburo, Secretariat, the GKO, or some other central body?

In fact, none of these groups exercised complete control over the means of production; not even during the height of the Kosigyn reforms or the Perestroika period could executives, bureaucrats or members of the Secretariat simply do whatever they pleased with the economic entities.


While one might concede that individuals like Lenin genuinely believed that his actions, and the actions of the state, were a series of processes designed to transform the SU into a socialist state and then in turn into a series of communes - as described in the manifesto - it is extremely hard to envision how Stalin's actions squared aim or aided the transition towards socialism at all. In fact, it seems manifestly obvious, indeed a truism, that the regime once Stalin came to power moved away - and continually so until 1991 - from the tenets upon which it was founded.

The Soviet leadership certainly had no intention of dissolving the republic into a "series of communes" - this was never part of the programme of any serious Marxist group, particularly not the RSDRP or the RKP(b). "Stalin's" actions (really, the actions of the entire triumvir and centrist leadership) made sense to quite a few people in that period - for example, the forced collectivisation was a response to the difficulties in the delivery of grain from the countryside, the purges were started due to a paranoia about fascist spies and so on.

Obviously I think these actions were incorrect; but at the same time I can see how serious, committed revolutionaries could have thought that they were a good idea.


And you are talking about evidence here - you contend that the leaders of the Soviet Union were indeed Marxists, i think the onus actually lies upon you to prove it.

There are volumes and volumes of Marxist theory from the Soviet Union; it might not be good Marxist theory (for the most part, I don't think it is), but it is Marxist theory nonetheless.


The Soviet Union existed for the vast majority of the 20th century, and between 1922 and 1991, despite the decades of "communist" leadership it would appear that, with the exception of just the few early years following the establishment of the State, few, if any, additional tangible steps were made towards establishing a true socialist system of governance let alone the establishment of communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels. Rather, they replaced the old elite with a party elite- and thus the means of production did not rest in 'popular' hands. So it seems to me that the proof is very much in the pudding - and if you want to argue that, despite the obvious fact that they established neither socialism nor communism, that these leaders of a corrupted degenerated former workers state were indeed communists, then the onus is upon you to show why their ideals did not translate into policy.

"Ideals" are fairly irrelevant when the international and the economic situation is unfavourable; in any case, at most you have proven that "the leaders" of the Soviet Union were not good, or consistent, Marxists. Again, I happen to agree, but this does not demonstrate that they weren't Marxists.

This all reeks of the "no true Scotsman" trick - "true" Marxists can and do make theoretical and political mistakes, and generally fuck up.


You can call this "mechanistic" all you want, but you come off as little more than the typical postmodernist frothing about how any talk of systemic structuring or conditioning constitutes "reductionist" and "mechanistic" thinking. There's a been a word increasingly and appropriately applied to this view in light of the past four years of economic and political turmoil: quaint.

Precisely; quite a few modern "leftists", usually associated with bourgeois academia or certain popular intellectuals, attack the very notion of a scientific explanation of social trends, preferring some sort of mysticism or moralism that usually leads to ultraleftism, reformism, or some eclectic mixture of the two. This is, of course, nothing new; these people seem to turn up whenever there is a revolutionary downswing, but I feel that we aren't as firm in confronting them as, for example, the RSDRP was in confronting the empirio-whatevers.