The simple courage of decision: a leftist tribute to Thatcher by Zizek

[Capitalist Octopus]

Latest article by Zizek. It is getting heavily criticized. Thoughts?



http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/04/simple-courage-decision-leftist-tribute-thatcher

[Os Cangaceiros]

There is absolutely nothing inherently ”Fascist” in these lines – the supreme paradox of the political dynamics is that a Master is needed to pull individuals out of the quagmire of their inertia and motivate them towards self-transcending emancipatory struggle for freedom.

Wow.

First off, the reason he needs to even put that disclaimer about "this isn't fascist!" in there is because people naturally associate what he's talking about with fascism, and for good reason; the importance of a strong singular leader is a pretty big part of traditional fascist ideology.

Secondly, no "leftist" would openly admit to such a vision of how people achieve their socio-political goals.

[Skyhilist]

He's trying to say he knows what is needed to pull us out of capitalism by winning enough people over to socialism. He does not know this. No one can know what will bring about socialism until it actually happens.

[Rurkel]

Wow.
That's because Zizek is a troll/provocateur. Mind you, I'm not using these words in sorely negative way - provocateuring the current society and making you think isn't always bad. However, it seems that he overreached with his "it's actually the opposite of common wisdom" paradoxes in that article.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just shows that Zizek doesn't understand the tiniest bit about historical materialism. He's a tool.

[The Idler]

Zizek is a troll but in the conformist circles of philosophy that can be quite exciting.

[Rafiq]

Just shows that Zizek doesn't understand the tiniest bit about historical materialism. He's a tool.

I agree to an extent, here he pre-supposes that neoliberalism is simply "thatchers doing" and that this radical shift in bourgeois politics is her doing, and not a result in changes in the capitalist mode of production


Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Ismail]

Žižek lined behind those attacking the London rioters back in 2011 and referred to said rioters as "beasts" (but of course was like "they were reduced to this state by capitalism, so I'm totally a leftist!")

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's because Zizek is a troll/provocateur. Mind you, I'm not using these words in sorely negative way - provocateuring the current society and making you think isn't always bad. However, it seems that he overreached with his "it's actually the opposite of common wisdom" paradoxes in that article.

If one is going to be a political provocateur, the jargon used should reflect those of the political community. Philosophical jargon doesn't cut it.


First off, the reason he needs to even put that disclaimer about "this isn't fascist!" in there is because people naturally associate what he's talking about with fascism, and for good reason; the importance of a strong singular leader is a pretty big part of traditional fascist ideology.

Secondly, no "leftist" would openly admit to such a vision of how people achieve their socio-political goals.

What Zizek needed to pose there was the dynamic between non-fascist Great Strongman movements and the base currents that undermine the Great Men of History projected intentionally or intentionally by said movements.

[Fionnagáin]

Zizek has some insights when it comes to cultural criticism, but in terms of politics, you'd be as well picking jargon out of a hat. Better, even, because at least then there's a chance you might get it right.

[Brutus]

I do like Žižek, but if you look to him for theory, well...just don't look to Žižek for theory.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

dear Christ...I've been really souring on Zizek lately but this reads like a self-parody.
Zizek really believes in the voluntarist-autocratic reading of Lenin, I guess, but this is...basically an exaltation of Great Men. Marx would have had a field day with Zizek.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Žižek lined behind those attacking the London rioters back in 2011 and referred to said rioters as "beasts" (but of course was like "they were reduced to this state by capitalism, so I'm totally a leftist!")

Reformism, moralism, collaboration, all disguised (fairly incompetently) by pretentious bourgeois professorial rhetoric - Žižek and his Lacan are nothing new. Before him there were Bogdanov and his Mach, Sorel and his Bergson, Struve and his Kant and so on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, after reading the article in further detail, not all of it should be dismissed. Look no further than to Ferdinand Lassalle, a "proto-Thatcher of the left" whose activities helped propel worker-class independence from bourgeois liberals. This was acknowledged even by Second International Marxists, despite Marx being more acerbic on the matter.

[blake 3:17]

I agree with Zizek on this one.

[blake 3:17]

Zizek has some insights when it comes to cultural criticism, but in terms of politics, you'd be as well picking jargon out of a hat. Better, even, because at least then there's a chance you might get it right.

Where's the jargon?

[vizzek]

Comrade, after reading the article in further detail, not all of it should be dismissed. Look no further than to Ferdinand Lassalle, a "proto-Thatcher of the left" whose activities helped propel worker-class independence from bourgeois liberals. This was acknowledged even by Second International Marxists, despite Marx being more acerbic on the matter.

ur on a roll with the social democracy this week bro

[GerrardWinstanley]

Fuck that shit. What we really need are some Cuban expats of the Left.

[ed miliband]

cut his coke with something, quick.

[blake 3:17]

Just before I saw this, the least bullshit most militant class struggle Marxist activist expressed exactly the same idea in a conversation on May Day. Brother was public enemy #1 under at least one rightwing government, but doesn't fuck around. He respected that Thatcher had real integrity and didn't fuck around either, just like a couple of other hard right governments we've fought.

Problem is lefties fuck around too much -- I dunno, gotta build consensus, let's see. No. Slam it through. You get power, you take power. That's politics. The mystic philosopher who opposes BDS was accusing me of deriving theory from politics. No. Politics is a power game. If the Left does not understand that, we are done.

[blake 3:17]

The least BS most militant Marxist I know expressed the same sentiments on May Day. And brother had been smacked hard by Thatcher. He hated her and respected her. Thatcher didn't fuck around playing nicey nice, building consensus. That's fine for some, but does not push an agenda.

I'm OK with armchair Marxists, but be honest about it, and don't criticize others for being smarter at it. Zizek is absolutely right this time -- dude is all over the place -- but this is a very good call. Our movements need leadership with backbone. Where is it?

People diss Chavez? For what? Pragmatic decisions taking on the most powerful corporations and countries in the world. Then you get Tommy Sheridan and Alex Callinocos totally blowing it over fucking bullshit.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The least BS most militant Marxist I know expressed the same sentiments on May Day. And brother had been smacked hard by Thatcher. He hated her and respected her. Thatcher didn't fuck around playing nicey nice, building consensus.

Damn, I guess he respects Hitler too for not fucking around.

The guy sounds insane.

[Per Levy]

The least BS most militant Marxist I know expressed the same sentiments on May Day. And brother had been smacked hard by Thatcher. He hated her and respected her. Thatcher didn't fuck around playing nicey nice, building consensus. That's fine for some, but does not push an agenda.

so what do you propose then? how do you want to emulate thatcher? do you have big party who can make you an minister? do you have the state under your control to break your opponents? no you dont.


I'm OK with armchair Marxists, but be honest about it, and don't criticize others for being smarter at it. Zizek is absolutely right this time -- dude is all over the place -- but this is a very good call. Our movements need leadership with backbone. Where is it?

on revleft probally, talking about how thatcher didnt fuck around and got shit done.


People diss Chavez? For what?

for being a social dem with a radical rethoric who was the head of a bourgeois state.

[Fionnagáin]

Just before I saw this, the least bullshit most militant class struggle Marxist activist expressed exactly the same idea in a conversation on May Day. Brother was public enemy #1 under at least one rightwing government, but doesn't fuck around. He respected that Thatcher had real integrity and didn't fuck around either, just like a couple of other hard right governments we've fought.

Problem is lefties fuck around too much -- I dunno, gotta build consensus, let's see. No. Slam it through. You get power, you take power. That's politics. The mystic philosopher who opposes BDS was accusing me of deriving theory from politics. No. Politics is a power game. If the Left does not understand that, we are done.

The least BS most militant Marxist I know expressed the same sentiments on May Day. And brother had been smacked hard by Thatcher. He hated her and respected her. Thatcher didn't fuck around playing nicey nice, building consensus. That's fine for some, but does not push an agenda.
Where does the working class come into this analysis? All I'm seeing is "the left", which isn't the same thing at all.

[Ismail]

I'm OK with armchair Marxists, but be honest about it, and don't criticize others for being smarter at it. Zizek is absolutely right this time -- dude is all over the place -- but this is a very good call. Our movements need leadership with backbone. Where is it? People diss Chavez? For what? Pragmatic decisions taking on the most powerful corporations and countries in the world.I don't see how you call for a "leadership with backbone" and then suddenly shift to praising Chávez for his "pragmatism."

Persons with "backbones" form in the course of struggle, you don't wait for them to fall from the sky so they can lead the workers to glory.

[RedMaterialist]

so what do you propose then? how do you want to emulate thatcher? do you have big party who can make you an minister? do you have the state under your control to break your opponents? no you dont.

That state will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thatcher showed the naked power of the capitalist state; she smashed unions, turned loose the banking wolves, and told the British people they could go fuck off.




on revleft probally, talking about how thatcher didnt fuck around and got shit done.

Stalin didn't fuck around and got shit done. He was the man of steel; Thatcher was the lady of iron (the Germans should have awarded her an honorary Iron Cross.) A state exists only for the purpose of suppressing a class of people. What counts is whom you are trying to suppress.

[Fionnagáin]

If states "exist only for the purposes of suppressing a class of people", they would never go to war, because fighting other states is entirely extraneous to the task of class-oppression. Yet, they do. So how does that work?

[Ismail]

If states "exist only for the purposes of suppressing a class of people", they would never go to war, because fighting other states is entirely extraneous to the task of class-oppression. Yet, they do. So how does that work?The main purpose of a state is to defend the interests of a particular class. When imperialist wars break out the bourgeoisie of the invading country (or countries) in question often cite the "defense of the fatherland" (or "defense against terrorism" in modern times.) It is also wrong to assume that there are no contradictions between different sections of capital: American, British, French, German, Chinese, Russian, etc. Their interests will, however, coincide when up against the threat of proletarian revolutions, as their forefathers showed when attempts were made by the forces of the Entente and Central Powers alike to strangle that which was ushered in by the October Revolution.

Of course saying the state only exists for suppressing opposing classes is a simplification, but he's otherwise not wrong.

[Fionnagáin]

I dunno, I'd contend that oversimplifying an explanation to the point where it ceases to function as an explanation qualifies you as "wrong".

[Rafiq]

Damn, I guess he respects Hitler too for not fucking around.

The guy sounds insane.

No, Zizek has stated numerous times that people credit Hitler with too much, I quote him loosely "They say, yeah yeah he did bad things, but he had balls, you know. But in actuality, this was not the case".

In reality Hitler didn't represent apocalyptic change, but merely a pawn of the intimate necessities of capital, and a moderate one at that. The more dramatic members of the nazi party were purged in the night of the long knives.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

"One should oppose the fascination with Hitler according to which Hitler was, of course, a bad guy, responsible for the death of millions — but he definitely had balls, he pursued with iron will what he wanted. … This point is not only ethically repulsive, but simply wrong: no, Hitler did not ‘have the balls’ to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change, he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive.”


Here it is

[Ismail]

I don't see how Hitler was but a pawn of capital whereas Thatcher was a "master." Žižek's claim that "even her political enemies adopted her basic economic policies" is ridiculous. He's reduced the natural tendency of social-democratic leaderships to engage in opportunism and betrayal in order to serve capitalism and have it weather crises down to "the right made them do it!"

Nor do I see how Thatcher's entire leadership wasn't one comprised of fundamental reactions. That's the point of bourgeois governments: to defend and legitimize capitalism.

[L.A.P.]

I kind of think it's funny how a Hoxhaist is criticizing Zizek's notion that emancipatory self-organization necessitates referring back to a Master-Signifier. I don't think it's all that crazy to suggest that, historically, people like to express their discontent through some charismatic Leader. I don't think that discontented sectors of society looking to some Leader is just a bourgeois phenomena redirecting discontent towards something 'more tame', slaves want their Spartacus. Even anarchists had their Makhno.

One can, of course, legitimately argue that the struggle for a classless society entails abolishing this notion of Great Leaders, but you're going to have to struggle against fundamental parts of human subjectivity before you struggle against the ruling class. I'm not really in a position to strongly argue this, but I think the whole "no gods, no masters" thing is a fraud.

[Ismail]

I kind of think it's funny how a Hoxhaist is criticizing Zizek's notion that emancipatory self-organization necessitates referring back to a Master-Signifier.Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin noted that it is the working-class that abolishes capitalism, not "great leaders." Hoxha noted this as well. The proletarian vanguard is the main subjective factor for the victory of a revolution. Leaders alone do not guarantee it.

There's nothing Marxist about Žižek's article. Again, people with "backbones," "natural leaders," those with charisma, etc. appear and make themselves felt in the course of struggle. Hoping for someone to emerge with a personality as odious as Thatcher's so that the left can achieve proletarian revolution is ridiculous. The only thing such an outlook does is give backing to types like Fidel Castro, Chávez, Mugabe, al-Assad and other bourgeois nationalists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin noted that it is the working-class that abolishes capitalism, not "great leaders." Hoxha noted this as well. The proletarian vanguard is the main subjective factor for the victory of a revolution. Leaders alone do not guarantee it.


Talk about a dramatic irony!

[Fionnagáin]

I don't see how Hitler was but a pawn of capital whereas Thatcher was a "master." zŽižek's claim that "even her political enemies adopted her basic economic policies" is ridiculous. He's reduced the natural tendency of social-democratic leaderships to engage in opportunism and betrayal in order to serve capitalism and have it weather crises down to "the right made them do it!"

Nor do I see how Thatcher's entire leadership wasn't one comprised of fundamental reactions. That's the point of bourgeois governments: to defend and legitimize capitalism.
Usually, Zizek manages to keep his genuinely insightful cultural criticism and his totally vacuous political bloviating separate, but I fear that this is one of those cases where, as you have identified, he allows them to stray close enough to become ridiculous.

[Ismail]

Talk about a dramatic irony!The only irony here are "anti-authoritarians" such as yourself who praise the likes of Castro who came to power on the basis of no working-class organization whatsoever, but who were welcomed by the Soviet revisionists and subsequently adopted "Marxist" verbiage because the "socialism" of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and onwards happened to mesh well with their existing petty-bourgeois politics.

Such is the "socialism" of commandantes, not Communists.

As Enver Hoxha once said, "In our country the leading role of the Party in every aspect of life has been and is indisputable. All the historic victories our people have achieved during these 30 years, the liberation of the country, the establishment of the people's power, the construction of the new socialist society are indissolubly linked with the Party and its wise and farsighted leadership."

[Rafiq]

I don't see how Hitler was but a pawn of capital whereas Thatcher was a "master." Žižek's claim that "even her political enemies adopted her basic economic policies" is ridiculous. He's reduced the natural tendency of social-democratic leaderships to engage in opportunism and betrayal in order to serve capitalism and have it weather crises down to "the right made them do it!"

Nor do I see how Thatcher's entire leadership wasn't one comprised of fundamental reactions. That's the point of bourgeois governments: to defend and legitimize capitalism.

Well that's the problem: Zizek fails to compile an adaquete materialist analysis. He is too much a hegelian. The analysis is not necessarily wrong, it just fails to take into account the dynamic social and material processes from which these changes are occuring.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The only irony here are "anti-authoritarians" such as yourself who praise the likes of Castro who came to power on the basis of no working-class organization whatsoever, but who were welcomed by the Soviet revisionists and subsequently adopted "Marxist" verbiage because the "socialism" of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and onwards happened to mesh well with their existing petty-bourgeois politics.

Such is the "socialism" of commandantes, not Communists.

As Enver Hoxha once said, "In our country the leading role of the Party in every aspect of life has been and is indisputable. All the historic victories our people have achieved during these 30 years, the liberation of the country, the establishment of the people's power, the construction of the new socialist society are indissolubly linked with the Party and its wise and farsighted leadership."

As i've said many times before, my admiration for Fidel Castro is rooted more in his personality than his politics. I like him as a speaker, I appreciate his longevity and his political expediency. But, as i've said many times, I don't hugely agree with his political outlook.

So essentially you've responded to my point by mis-characterising (yet again) my political views, and an Enver Hoxha quote. Brilliant.

You can talk all you want but when common sense prevails, it's quite easy to see that the leadership of Albania was the leadership - including Enver Hoxha - not the people. You can perform your gymnastics of logic as you usually do, but you should just realise how silly you end up sounding sometimes with this silly support for a little dictator like Hoxha.

[Ismail]

As i've said many times before, my admiration for Fidel Castro is rooted more in his personality than his politics. I like him as a speaker, I appreciate his longevity and his political expediency. But, as i've said many times, I don't hugely agree with his political outlook.You don't "hugely" agree with it, which means little in practice since you have praised Cuba in the past and called it something akin to the most "socialist-like" of all states. Most Trots don't "hugely" agree with Cuban revisionism either, and yet they shower Cuba with praise. I also like how you mention his "personality," which means what? His fondness for military garb? His role as Líder Máximo of Cuba? What is this "political expediency" you mention, is it that "pragmatism" which allowed him to switch from denouncing Communism upon taking power to functioning as a "gramaphone of the Soviets," as Hoxha put it, shortly afterwards?

Albania enjoyed the fruits of the dictatorship of the proletariat and led the way in the struggle against international revisionism. Cuba was and is capitalist and served as a neo-colony for Soviet social-imperialism to the extent that it not only fully endorsed Soviet revisionism in all fields, but gladly sent its forces into Angola and Ethiopia to act as mercenaries for it. For the past two decades it has praised China, and in decades before that it has promoted Che's "foco" theories which undermined the struggle of the working-class in Latin America.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think that the left "needs a Thatcher", but it seems obvious that the left could benefit if each one of us leftists learned something about being uncompromising about our political stances. And, especially, about how to be uncompromising without becoming irrelevant as a result.

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

If states "exist only for the purposes of suppressing a class of people", they would never go to war, because fighting other states is entirely extraneous to the task of class-oppression. Yet, they do. So how does that work?

There are many ways to suppress people: starvation, murder, rape, imprisonment, or sending them to fight nationalist, imperialist wars against other, usually working class, people.

[RedMaterialist]

I dunno, I'd contend that oversimplifying an explanation to the point where it ceases to function as an explanation qualifies you as "wrong".

" In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy." Engels, Introduction, The Civil War in France.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Ismail;2616508]You don't "hugely" agree with it, which means little in practice since you have praised Cuba in the past and called it something akin to the most "socialist-like" of all states. Most Trots don't "hugely" agree with Cuban revisionism either, and yet they shower Cuba with praise. I also like how you mention his "personality," which means what? His fondness for military garb? His role as Líder Máximo of Cuba? What is this "political expediency" you mention, is it that "pragmatism" which allowed him to switch from denouncing Communism upon taking power to functioning as a "gramaphone of the Soviets," as Hoxha put it, shortly afterwards?

I'm allowed to like a guy without your childish authoritarian and, frankly, invasive and dictatorial, tendencies wishing to run the rule over why i'm allowed or not allowed to like the guy.

As i've said, I like the guy, I like his speeches, I appreciate his tenacity. I don't much care for the politics of Cuba. So, just for everyone's attention, here's how this is going:

Me: "I don't support the politics of Cuba".
Ismail: "You do support the politics of Cuba".

I'll let everyone make their own minds up, since you've already performed your usual bout of mental and logical gymnastics on what i've already said.


Albania enjoyed the fruits of the dictatorship of the proletariat and led the way in the struggle against international revisionism. Cuba was and is capitalist and served as a neo-colony for Soviet social-imperialism to the extent that it not only fully endorsed Soviet revisionism in all fields, but gladly sent its forces into Angola and Ethiopia to act as mercenaries for it. For the past two decades it has praised China, and in decades before that it has promoted Che's "foco" theories which undermined the struggle of the working-class in Latin America.

Well Cuba is a capitalist country as all countries are, Hoxha's Albania included (or sorry, is that the 'people's' Albania? Or the communist party's Albania? I get confused as to who actually ruled there. Sometimes I think it was a democracy, run by the proletariat, and sometimes I think it was run by this dude you keep quoting).

[Ismail]

Me: "I don't support the politics of Cuba".
Ismail: "You do support the politics of Cuba".

I'll let everyone make their own minds up, since you've already performed your usual bout of mental and logical gymnastics on what i've already said.Hopefully their minds are influenced by the fact that someone can claim something and objectively (or even subjectively) do something else. If someone says "I don't support capitalism" but makes apologias for it then he is, in fact, a supporter of capitalism for all practical purposes. Likewise Castro can pose as an anti-imperialist all he wants, but his praise of the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan and his own country's military escapades in Africa on behalf of Soviet social-imperialism belie any such credentials.


Well Cuba is a capitalist country as all countries are, Hoxha's Albania included (or sorry, is that the 'people's' Albania? Or the communist party's Albania? I get confused as to who actually ruled there. Sometimes I think it was a democracy, run by the proletariat, and sometimes I think it was run by this dude you keep quoting).Perhaps Hoxha's own words on the subject, said in December 1984, are instructive: "I am only a member of the Party of Labour and I only serve my people. Every success achieved here has its origin in our own forces; everything has been realised with the People and in unity with it. The enemies of our country say that I am a dictator. But a single person can neither act nor work with the necessary strength without being surrounded by friends and comrades."

And the 1976 Constitution (http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm):

Article 2
The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which expresses and defends the interests of all the working people.

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is based on the unity of the people round the Party of Labour of Albania and it has as its foundation the alliance of the working class with the cooperativist peasantry under the leadership of the working class.


Article 3
The Party of Labour of Albania, the vanguard of the working class, is the sole leading political force of the state and the society.

In the People's Socialist Republic of Albania the dominant ideology is Marxism-Leninism. The entire socialist social order is developed on the basis of its principles.


Article 4
The People's Socialist Republic of Albania unceasingly develops the revolution by adhering to the class struggle and aims at ensuring the final victory of the socialist road over the capitalist road, at achieving the complete construction of socialism and communism.

Article 5
All state power in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania derives from and belongs to the working people.

The working class, the cooperativist peasantry and the other working people, exercise their state power through the representative organs as well as directly.

[L.A.P.]

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin noted that it is the working-class that abolishes capitalism, not "great leaders."

the following Great Leaders I look up to once noted that it is the working class that abolishes capitalism, not "great leaders"


Hoxha noted this as well.

God noted this as well


The proletarian vanguard is the main subjective factor for the victory of a revolution. Leaders alone do not guarantee it.

'Where then lies the difference between the classical Master and the totalitarian Leader? The trans-substantiated body of the classical Master is an effect of the performative mechanism already described by la Boétie, Pascal, and Marx: we, the subjects, think that we treat the King as a King because he is in himself the King, but in reality a King is a King because we are treating him like one. And this fact that the charismatic power of a King is an effect of the symbolic ritual performed by his subjects, must remain hidden: as subjects, we are necessarily victims of the illusion that the King is already in himself a King. That’s why the classical Master must legitimize his rule with a reference to some non-social, external authority (God, Nature, some mythical past event…). As soon as the performative mechanism which gives him his charismatic authority is unmasked, the Master loses his power.

But the problem with the totalitarian leader is that he doesn’t need this external point of reference anymore to legitimize his rule. He isn’t saying to his subjects, “You must follow me because I’m your Leader.” Quite the opposite: “In myself, I’m nothing. I am what I am only as an expression, an embodiment, an executor of your will; my strength is your strength…” To put it briefly, it is as if the totalitarian Leader is addressing his subjects and legitimizing his power precisely by referring to the above-mentioned Pascalian-Marxian argumentation, i.e., revealing to them the secret of the classical Master. Basically, he is saying to them: “I’m your master because you are treating me as your master; it is you, with your activity, who are making me your master!”

How, then, can we subvert the position of the totalitarian Leader, if the classical Pascalian-Marxian argumentation doesn’t work here any more? Here, the basic deception consists in the fact that the Leader’s point of reference, the instance to which he is referring to legitimize his rule (the People, the Class, the Nation) doesn’t exist, or, more precisely, exists only through and in its fetishistic representative, the Party and its Leader. The misrecognition of the performative dimension runs here in the opposite direction: the classical Master is the Master only insofar as his subjects are treating him as a Master, but here, the People are the “real People” only insofar as they are embodied in its representative, the Party and its Leader. The formula of the totalitarian misrecognition of the performative dimension would then be the following: the Party thinks that it is the Party because it represents the People’s real interests, because it is rooted in the People, expressing their will, but in reality, the People are the People because – or, more precisely, insofar as – they are embodied in the Party. And by saying that the People as a support of the Party don’t exist, we don’t mean the obvious fact that the majority of the people really don’t support the Party rule; the mechanism is a little bit more complicated. The paradoxical functioning of the “People” in the totalitarian universe can be most easily detected through the analysis of phrases like “the whole people supports the Party.” This proposition cannot be falsified because, behind the form of a statement of a fact, we have a circular definition of the People: in the Stalinist universe, “supporting the rule of the Party” is in the last analysis the only feature which – to use Kripkean terms – in all possible worlds defines the People. That’s why the real member of the People is only he who supports the rule of the Party: those who are working against the rule of the Party are automatically excluded from the People; they became the “enemies of the People.” What we have here is a somewhat crueller version of a well-known joke: “my fiancée never misses an appointment with me because the moment she misses one, she isn’t anymore my fiancée.” The People always support the Party because any member of the People who opposes the Party-rule automatically excludes himself from the People.'

- Zizek

[Ismail]

" Žižek asserts that in fact the very radicalization of the Slovene model of pluralism and its spread to other republics would save the part of the Tito legacy that actually has 'world historical significance.' By this he means the legacy of having stood up to Stalin in the Cominform dispute of 1948 and then having renounced the leading role of the party in society."
(Cox, John K. [I]Slovenia: Evolving Loyalties. New York: Routledge. 2005. p. 64.)

Žižek is hardly different in practice from the Eurocommunists and others who ranted about "Stalinism," "totalitarianism," etc. while adopting a veneer of "returning to Marxism." Like them, he comes to the defense of capitalism, both in his admiration of Thatcher and his denunciation of the London rioters mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Rafiq]

Zizek has changed a lot, and has learned quite a bit since the 1990's. Zizek did not exist until the late 2000's.

Zizek opposes humanist anti stalinism and actually has a strange affinity with Stalin.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Brutus]

Another example of Castro's devotion to communism


In April 1959, Castro classified communism Peronism and fascism as merely different kinds of “totalitarianism”. Castro declared that the Cuban revolution was “humanist” – capitalism bred hunger whilst communism “took away liberty”. The Cuban revolution was not red but “Olive Green”.

Early in 1959, the J26M officered police stood by as members of the Havana Civic Resistance ransacked the offices of “Hoy”, the PSP’s newspaper, an action which led its editor, Carlos Rafael Rodriguez to declare the PSP had gone underground before and could do it again.
By May 1959, a vitrolic campaign was being conducted in the pages of Revolution, the J26M’s paper, against the PSP. The Communists were denounced as “anti-revolutionary”, similar to the counter revolutionaries. Particularly singled out for attack was their encouragement of strikes for wage increases, and their involvement in peasant land seizures in San Luis.

[L.A.P.]

Žižek is hardly different in practice from the Eurocommunists ... Like them, he comes to the defense of capitalism, both in his admiration of Thatcher is denunciation of the London rioters mentioned earlier in the thread.

this is absurd

http://www.revleft.com/vb/zizek-uk-riots-t159955/index.html

'The first conclusion to be drawn from the riots, therefore, is that both conservative and liberal reactions to the unrest are inadequate. The conservative reaction was predictable: there is no justification for such vandalism; one should use all necessary means to restore order; to prevent further explosions of this kind we need not more tolerance and social help but more discipline, hard work and a sense of responsibility. What’s wrong with this account is not only that it ignores the desperate social situation pushing young people towards violent outbursts but, perhaps more important, that it ignores the way these outbursts echo the hidden premises of conservative ideology itself. When, in the 1990s, the Conservatives launched their ‘back to basics’ campaign, its obscene complement was revealed by Norman Tebbitt: ‘Man is not just a social but also a territorial animal; it must be part of our agenda to satisfy those basic instincts of tribalism and territoriality.’ This is what ‘back to basics’ was really about: the unleashing of the barbarian who lurked beneath our apparently civilised, bourgeois society, through the satisfying of the barbarian’s ‘basic instincts’. In the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse introduced the concept of ‘repressive desublimation’ to explain the ‘sexual revolution’: human drives could be desublimated, allowed free rein, and still be subject to capitalist control – viz, the porn industry. On British streets during the unrest, what we saw was not men reduced to ‘beasts’, but the stripped-down form of the ‘beast’ produced by capitalist ideology.'

Meanwhile leftist liberals, no less predictably, stuck to their mantra about social programmes and integration initiatives, the neglect of which has deprived second and third-generation immigrants of their economic and social prospects: violent outbursts are the only means they have to articulate their dissatisfaction. Instead of indulging ourselves in revenge fantasies, we should make the effort to understand the deeper causes of the outbursts. Can we even imagine what it means to be a young man in a poor, racially mixed area, a priori suspected and harassed by the police, not only unemployed but often unemployable, with no hope of a future? The implication is that the conditions these people find themselves in make it inevitable that they will take to the streets. The problem with this account, though, is that it lists only the objective conditions for the riots. To riot is to make a subjective statement, implicitly to declare how one relates to one’s objective conditions.'

- Zizek

[Ismail]

I'm aware of the Žižek quote, it's the same one I mentioned on the first page (and the same one mentioned in the WSWS article I cited.) Žižek gets to call workers "beasts" by claiming that capitalism has "reduced" them to such a state. Again, some parallels exist here with the Eurocommunists and other types (like Marcuse) who denigrated the role of the working-class in favor of the intelligentsia which they happened to be a part of.

[L.A.P.]

'On British streets during the unrest, what we saw was not men reduced to ‘beasts’, but the stripped-down form of the ‘beast’ produced by capitalist ideology.'

The way you absurdly misinterpret and structure your fake outrage around it is absurd

And the way you're trying to tie it in with eurocommunism is absurd

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Hopefully their minds are influenced by the fact that someone can claim something and objectively (or even subjectively) do something else. If someone says "I don't support capitalism" but makes apologias for it then he is, in fact, a supporter of capitalism for all practical purposes. Likewise Castro can pose as an anti-imperialist all he wants, but his praise of the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan and his own country's military escapades in Africa on behalf of Soviet social-imperialism belie any such credentials.

So, presumably NONE of your friends, or your family taht you are in contact with, have any sort of sympathy or apology for capitalism? Presumably associating, or liking any aspect, of anyone associated with an opposing political view is grounds for what? Execution? Forced labour?

Seriously, you're so perverse in your view, i'd be embarassed to parade around with all these Hoxha quotes and gymnastics of logic like you do. Give it a break. I like Fidel Castro, the person. I don't like Castroism, or 'Cuban Socialism', the political ideology. End of.


Perhaps Hoxha's own words on the subject, said in December 1984, are instructive: "I am only a member of the Party of Labour and I only serve my people. Every success achieved here has its origin in our own forces; everything has been realised with the People and in unity with it. The enemies of our country say that I am a dictator. But a single person can neither act nor work with the necessary strength without being surrounded by friends and comrades."

Yes, they're as instructive as ever. And Qaddaffi wasn't in charge of Libya, Stalin was an ordinary member of the Bolshevik Party/CPSU and in a strange twist of fate, it just so happens that the three Kims are seen, in every election, as the choice for leader of what, 99.9% of the North Korean population?


And the 1976 Constitution (http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm):

And the Soviet constitution of the 1930s didn't discriminate against jews, gays and those who went against the ruling ideology. Paper talk.

[cynicles]

Did someone make the naive mistake of taking Zizek seriously again?

[Ismail]

So, presumably NONE of your friends, or your family taht you are in contact with, have any sort of sympathy or apology for capitalism? Presumably associating, or liking any aspect, of anyone associated with an opposing political view is grounds for what? Execution? Forced labour?I don't see how you draw that conclusion. Praising revisionism (or capitalism) is different from actively seeking to implement it while in a position of power or seeking to overthrow a government that is struggling against it.

Case in point, there were various Yugoslav agents in Albania in the 40's-50's, and Soviet agents in the 50's-60's, and those who in the 70's wanted to follow China's road of "reconciliation" with American imperialism with influence among the top brass of the military. Those whose support for revisionism extended to the length of apologizing for it were expelled from the Party, those whose support extended to plotting against the government were dealt with juridically.


Seriously, you're so perverse in your view, i'd be embarassed to parade around with all these Hoxha quotes and gymnastics of logic like you do. Give it a break. I like Fidel Castro, the person. I don't like Castroism, or 'Cuban Socialism', the political ideology. End of.Except you do like Castroism. In fact you also support its epigones like Chávez, and attacked me back when he died for pointing out the fact he was a petty-bourgeois nationalist, to which I'm pretty sure you said he was "close to [your version of] Marxism" or something similar. If I recall right you've even visited Cuba before.


Yes, they're as instructive as ever. And Qaddaffi wasn't in charge of Libya, Stalin was an ordinary member of the Bolshevik Party/CPSU and in a strange twist of fate, it just so happens that the three Kims are seen, in every election, as the choice for leader of what, 99.9% of the North Korean population?Well let's see:

* Gaddafi came to power in a military coup. There was nothing whatsoever proletarian about his leadership, as Hoxha noted. He did not stand at the head of a proletarian vanguard and his "Third Universal Theory" was commended by such "Marxists" as the Yugoslavs, with bourgeois commentators drawing comparisons between the economic system of "self-management" in both states.
* Stalin was, in fact, a pretty ordinary member of the Bolsheviks. So ordinary that Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and others used this against him, spoke of his "mediocrity," his "Asiatic" mannerisms, etc.
* The Kims practice hereditary leadership and invoke religious mythology to support themselves. Castro's handing over of power to his brother was a significantly less perverse but not much less lamer version of this practice of "revolutionary families."

Of course Hoxha was the leader of Albania by virtue of being First Secretary of its vanguard, the Party of Labour. And yet he never developed Juche, he never justified anti-Marxist theories as those pushed by Castro, and he obviously wasn't an "Islamic Socialist" as Gaddafi claimed to be.


And the Soviet constitution of the 1930s didn't discriminate against jews, gays and those who went against the ruling ideology. Paper talk.You seem to have confused a constitution with a penal code. Let us also not forget that Castro as late as the last decade ranted against "maricóns."

And indeed, the rise of anti-semitism under the Soviet revisionists occurred while the 1936 Constitution was in force, though I don't recall it mentioning Jews so I don't know why you bring it up. Of course in due time they adopted their own constitution, which helped consolidate the revisionist ideology and state-capitalist nature of the regime, but that also didn't speak of Jews. What matters is that the socialist content of the 1936 Constitution, including the equality of citizens, was duly undermined by the restoration of capitalism and the establishment of a bourgeois dictatorship under the revisionists, and was thus "enforced" in such a way as to benefit the ruling class, as in capitalist states. As Hoxha noted 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."

The "ruling ideology" of the USSR until the triumph of revisionism and in Albania was Marxism-Leninism, the scientific doctrine of the proletariat. This ideology is safeguarded as that which sees through the victory of socialism and the triumph of communism on a world scale. The Titoites and other revisionists sought to distort this in order to advance their own liberal interpretations under the guise of "returning to Marxism." The Soviet revisionists similarly spoke of the dissolution of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the rise in the USSR of the "state of the whole people" and the "party of the whole people," hollowing out the fundamentals of the ideology for their own purposes.

[evermilion]

There is absolutely nothing inherently ”Fascist” in these lines ...

This is like when people say, "I'm not racist, but ..." When has that ever preceded anything that wasn't absurdly racist?

I get that strong, courageous people can inspire millions more. I get that individuals in leadership roles can do good work when it is needed of them. I believe in that.But individuals fail, saints sin, heroes fall. What I'd like to believe is that this person is saying in careless words what I've described. I won't say I'm an irrationalist, but people do find power in symbols. But even Batman had to explode in that helicopter, except not really because now he's banging Anne Hathaway in Europe forever. What a martyr.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Except you do like Castroism.

And again, nope.


In fact you also support its epigones like Chávez, and attacked me back when he died for pointing out the fact he was a petty-bourgeois nationalist, to which I'm pretty sure you said he was "close to [your version of] Marxism" or something similar.

I attacked you on Chavez because the dude had just died and you seem to have no social understanding of when to show respect. Fairly sure i've never supported Chavez politically, either. I suppose i'll now get a barrage of words about how I do actually support Chavez. :rolleyes:


If I recall right you've even visited Cuba before.

Shit. You've found me out. I've visited the country on holiday. That MUST make me a supporter of Cuba. I suppose people only visit countries because they support them politically, not because they're hot as shit, or interesting places to go, or the people are cool, or you are learning their language. :rolleyes:



* Stalin was, in fact, a pretty ordinary member of the Bolsheviks. So ordinary that Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and others used this against him, spoke of his "mediocrity," his "Asiatic" mannerisms, etc.

Ordinary members of parties and of countries often stay in the no.1 leadership position for 25 years. I guess Stalin was just that great, right? Or wait, he was ordinary, yeah? Ordinary or great? You seem to be picking whichever one to suit your circumstances.


What matters is that the socialist content of the 1936 Constitution, including the equality of citizens, was duly undermined by the restoration of capitalism and the establishment of a bourgeois dictatorship under the revisionists, and was thus "enforced" in such a way as to benefit the ruling class, as in capitalist states.

So it wasn't undermined by the great purges then? They were fine, right? :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

left vs right

boring

[Ismail]

Saying "nuh-uh!" isn't exactly convincing. The fact is that you have given a positive spin on Cuba in the past. How you interpret that spin is unimportant.

Also you said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2587726&postcount=147) that Chávez "was doing his best" (by being a bourgeois nationalist?) and referred to him as "del commandante." You somehow confused giving a brief Marxist analysis of the man with "not showing respect."


Ordinary members of parties and of countries often stay in the no.1 leadership position for 25 years. I guess Stalin was just that great, right? Or wait, he was ordinary, yeah? Ordinary or great? You seem to be picking whichever one to suit your circumstances.Why can't he be both? His greatness lay to a large extent in his ordinariness. He didn't command the Red Army as Trotsky did, he didn't build up the image of a "Marxist theorist" as Bukharin did, and his public profile before 1924 was obscurer than that of Zinoviev, Radek, Joffe, Rykov and various others.

All of his opponents used this against him. Trotsky called him a "provincial revolutionist." Khrushchev said in his "Secret Speech" that, "I will probably not sin against the truth when I say that 99 per cent of the persons present here heard and knew very little about Stalin before the year 1924, while Lenin was known to all."

It was precisely his bluntness and practicality which distinguished him, combined of course with his consistent defense of Marxism-Leninism.

Lenin was head of the Party and Soviet state while bedridden and barely able to conduct his work. No one ever thought of removing him. He could have easily been leader of the Party and the USSR for 20 more years had circumstances permitted it.


So it wasn't undermined by the great purges then? They were fine, right?The Great Purges coincided with the strengthening of working-class democracy in the trade unions and the Party itself, and the first election held after the adoption of the new constitution (and at the height of the Purges) was one which, as various bourgeois sources have noted, was marked by a significant increase in independent activity on the part of electors, a phenomenon rarely seen since the early 20's.

[Fionnagáin]

There are many ways to suppress people: starvation, murder, rape, imprisonment, or sending them to fight nationalist, imperialist wars against other, usually working class, people.
I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that the entire history of international politics is a grand conspiracy against the poor.


" In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy." Engels, Introduction, The Civil War in France.
Note "nothing less". Not "nothing more", as you argue. It is one thing to say that the state performs such-and-such function, another to say that it is reducible to this function.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Ismail;2616986]Saying "nuh-uh!" isn't exactly convincing. The fact is that you have given a positive spin on Cuba in the past. How you interpret that spin is unimportant.

Nope. Whilst i'm hardly going to claim i'm impartial - as that trait really isn't consistent with any 'opinion' - I am merely balanced about my analysis of social situations, Cuba included. As i've said, I don't hugely support the system, especially in its incarnation of the past twenty years. It's merely that they've made some achievements that, whether they sided with your buddy Hoxha or not, have made a real improvement to the lives of poor Cuban people. That's just a fact. Cuban people are literate and educated, they have potentially better access to advanced healthcare (though shortages in many basics) and, until a year or two ago, Cubans generally didn't go without a 'basic income' and the fulfilment of their necessities.

I mean, ideology aside, all i've said is that when I visited there the observed crime was low, social cohesion was lower than other places particularly in latin America (in my opinion); you have to say these things to balance out the bad. To ignore these things out of mere ideology, or 'because Hoxha said this or that', is really just crass and petty and a bit self-defeating really.


Also you said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2587726&postcount=147) that Chávez "was doing his best" (by being a bourgeois nationalist?) and referred to him as "del commandante." You somehow confused giving a brief Marxist analysis of the man with "not showing respect."

I'm sure he was doing his best. As most people who reach such high office have probably had to, in order to be successful as they are. But yes, beyond that his limits were obvious as he was generally 'for the working class' rather than 'of the working class' and thus the implications for political policy in Venezuela were to lead towards a paternalist system, rather than democratic rule 'by the working class'.


Why can't he be both? .

Because he was mysteriously re-elected for what, 25 years, despite the country going under tremendous changes in that time, despite nearly losing a war, despite half the party ending up shot 10 years into his rule, despite the initial failure of collectivised farming.

Sorry, call me a cynic, but this idea that he was a genuinely great leader is a sham. He was very clearly kept in his position by dictatorial, un-democratic means.


The Great Purges coincided with the strengthening of working-class democracy in the trade unions and the Party itself, and the first election held after the adoption of the new constitution (and at the height of the Purges) was one which, as various bourgeois sources have noted, was marked by a significant increase in independent activity on the part of electors, a phenomenon rarely seen since the early 20's.

They also coincided with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I guess you don't really give a shit about that though, just what Hoxha said. :rolleyes:

Let's hope that, with that attitude, you're never put in a position powerful enough to allow you to exercise any of these childish, inhumane thoughts that seem to come from your fingertips at the keyboard.

[Ismail]

Because he was mysteriously re-elected for what, 25 years, despite the country going under tremendous changes in that time, despite nearly losing a war, despite half the party ending up shot 10 years into his rule, despite the initial failure of collectivised farming.I don't see your point. Bukharin and others openly accused Lenin of betraying the world revolution by signing Brest-Litovsk. Reactionaries across Russia similarly said this was "proof" of Lenin's betrayal of the country to German imperialism. The Left SRs staged a revolt over the treaty. Lenin threatened to resign if it wasn't signed.

Likewise the NEP was seen in many circles as a "defeat" for the USSR, and yet Lenin mysteriously remained the dominant figure among the Bolsheviks. Maybe it's because he gave correct analyses of the situations at hand, because he demonstrated why such policies were necessary and also how they would, in the end, strengthen the cause of socialism in Russia and ultimately the world through weathering the storms the Bolsheviks faced.

Compared to those, collectivization, the Five-Year Plans, and the struggle against the Nazi invaders were undoubted victories, each with their points of doubt amongst some Party members as they were in progress.


They also coincided with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I guess you don't really give a shit about that though, just what Hoxha said.I guess we must heed the wise words of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, who called for "returning to Leninist norms" and to "socialist legality," and somehow overlook the aspects of class struggle during the Purges, attributing them solely to Stalin being a bad man who "failed to reckon" with Lenin's "Testament" as time went on, as the revisionists claimed.


I mean, ideology aside, all i've said is that when I visited there the observed crime was low, social cohesion was lower than other places particularly in latin America (in my opinion); you have to say these things to balance out the bad. To ignore these things out of mere ideology, or 'because Hoxha said this or that', is really just crass and petty and a bit self-defeating really.No one is doubting the advancement of Cuban social services since 1959. The Soviet revisionists and their epigones in Eastern Europe could parade similar services. Do you admit that Cuba was a neo-colony of the USSR, that it sent its troops to Angola and Ethiopia as mercenaries of the Soviet social-imperialists, and that Castro was one of the most obedient lackeys of the Soviet revisionists? Do you recognize that its foreign policy is not revolutionary?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Ismail;2617256]I don't see your point. Bukharin and others openly accused Lenin of betraying the world revolution by signing Brest-Litovsk. Reactionaries across Russia similarly said this was "proof" of Lenin's betrayal of the country to German imperialism. The Left SRs staged a revolt over the treaty. Lenin threatened to resign if it wasn't signed.

Likewise the NEP was seen in many circles as a "defeat" for the USSR, and yet Lenin mysteriously remained the dominant figure among the Bolsheviks. Maybe it's because he gave correct analyses of the situations at hand, because he demonstrated why such policies were necessary and also how they would, in the end, strengthen the cause of socialism in Russia and ultimately the world through weathering the storms the Bolsheviks faced.

Compared to those, collectivization, the Five-Year Plans, and the struggle against the Nazi invaders were undoubted victories, each with their points of doubt amongst some Party members as they were in progress.

No, collectivisation was not initially a success because, at least in the countryside, there were famines abound. Likewise, the shitty decisions of the USSRs wartime leaders led to the war nearly being lost.


I guess we must heed the wise words of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, who called for "returning to Leninist norms" and to "socialist legality," and somehow overlook the aspects of class struggle during the Purges, attributing them solely to Stalin being a bad man who "failed to reckon" with Lenin's "Testament" as time went on, as the revisionists claimed.

No, you can't just overlook hundreds of thousands of innocent people being murdered. Whether or not these are directly or indirectly attributable to Stalin, whether or not he is a saint or an evil man I don't really care to speculate; the fact is that this happened on his watch and it matters not whether he is 'good' or 'bad'; you're really convinced that a guy who presided over these hundreds of thousands of 'peacetime' deaths of innocents was really then voted in for another 15 years by popular vote? Give me a fucking break.


No one is doubting the advancement of Cuban social services since 1959. The Soviet revisionists and their epigones in Eastern Europe could parade similar services. Do you admit that Cuba was a neo-colony of the USSR, that it sent its troops to Angola and Ethiopia as mercenaries of the Soviet social-imperialists, and that Castro was one of the most obedient lackeys of the Soviet revisionists? Do you recognize that its foreign policy is not revolutionary?

Why do you talk like that? I'm sure that Cuba was in the pocket of the USSR. It's not a 'revolutionary' country, in the sense of breaking with capitalism.

[Ismail]

No, collectivisation was not initially a success because, at least in the countryside, there were famines abound. Likewise, the shitty decisions of the USSRs wartime leaders led to the war nearly being lost.And the famines were exacerbated by sabotage on one hand and misinformation being directed from local Ukrainian party officials to the center on the other. The campaign for collectivization was bound up with the class struggle; the campaign to get Brest-Litovsk signed and the NEP implemented was bound up with preventing the overthrow of the Soviet system. Again, Lenin faced much worse.

As for the war, the Soviet revisionists attacked Stalin's role and downgraded it. Much of their claims reading his "incompetence" were refuted by Soviet officers in their memoirs, such as Zhukov's.


you're really convinced that a guy who presided over these hundreds of thousands of 'peacetime' deaths of innocents was really then voted in for another 15 years by popular vote? Give me a fucking break.Considering that many people did not, in fact, blame Stalin for the Purges at the time (including many innocent people being shot who claimed that Stalin would oppose their execution had he investigated the cases), it's not surprising that he remained a popular figure. Again, during the Purges many workers were encouraged to increase their vigilance at work, particularly against managers, local Party and trade union officials, etc.

You also don't seem to understand that Stalin wasn't elected to public office,* his position in the Party was based on his defense of the Party's goals and his leadership qualities in relation to them.

* Deputy to the Supreme Soviet representing the people of the Stalin District of Moscow doesn't count.


Why do you talk like that? I'm sure that Cuba was in the pocket of the USSR.Because you seem like the type who would make apologetics for its role as a proxy for Soviet conflicts abroad.

How can a country be the least bit progressive when it is a pawn of an imperialist power which dominates its economy? How can a leader be praised when he comes to the defense of that superpower's imperialist intervention abroad?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And the famines were exacerbated by sabotage on one hand and misinformation being directed from local Ukrainian party officials to the center on the other.

And Britain's post-Iraq planning was sabotaged by mis-information from the Americans. So what. They're still, ultimately as leaders, responsible. That's the point. And people aren't stupid, despite what you may think. I cannot possibly think of another situation in history where a leader has presided over famines, and still been almost unanimously re-elected to office for another 20 years. It just doesn't happen, and it is more unlikely to happen when that leader is as controversial internally as Stalin (as in, he faced at least a moderate amount of domestic opposition).


As for the war, the Soviet revisionists attacked Stalin's role and downgraded it. Much of their claims reading his "incompetence" were refuted by Soviet officers in their memoirs, such as Zhukov's.

And Churchill was a war 'hero' according to British nationalist folklore, and was still booted out of office in 1945. As I said earlier, the leader of the nation (what a socialist concept!) is ultimately responsible for what happens on their watch.


Considering that many people did not, in fact, blame Stalin for the Purges at the time (including many innocent people being shot who claimed that Stalin would oppose their execution had he investigated the cases), it's not surprising that he remained a popular figure.

So would you say he was popular, or was this a manifest of the cult of personality around Stalin? In any way, there were certainly people in the country who realised what was going on. As I said before, peopl aren't stupid. When their family and friends 'disappear', they must have realised that something very wrong was going on in the country.


Because you seem like the type who would make apologetics for its role as a proxy for Soviet conflicts abroad.

You obviously haven't really paid attention to what I write, then. Given that i'm on the one hand being accused of having a go at Stalin, yet simultaneously in the same post you're accusing me of being too pro-Soviet??


How can a country be the least bit progressive when it is a pawn of an imperialist power which dominates its economy? How can a leader be praised when he comes to the defense of that superpower's imperialist intervention abroad?

Internally it was progressive. Besides, all small countries are the pawns of some imperialist power. It's not really something that's under their control. It's all to do with market power.

[Ismail]

I cannot possibly think of another situation in history where a leader has presided over famines, and still been almost unanimously re-elected to office for another 20 years.I can think of one leader who almost certainly would have: Lenin. Or did you forget that there were famines right in the heart of Russia under him?


And Churchill was a war 'hero' according to British nationalist folklore, and was still booted out of office in 1945. As I said earlier, the leader of the nation (what a socialist concept!) is ultimately responsible for what happens on their watch.You appear to be comparing bourgeois political parties with a proletarian vanguard which is the leading force of society and is tasked with transforming it.

Furthermore voters chose Labour in large part due to the upswing in pro-socialist sentiment in the country, much of it attributable to the growth of the USSR and the example set by its planned economy. The election was over the future of Britain, not Churchill's war record.

You also seem to be confusing hardship with a policy being wrong. Using that logic Lenin would have been booted out of office in any bourgeois democracy for: the massive retaliation of the Western world against the October Revolution and the related Civil War; the famines; Brest-Litovsk, and finally "War Communism" with the ensuing peasant revolts and Kronstadt. In fact NEP was probably the most broadly "popular" policy he pursued beyond the initial "land to the peasants" and national self-determination decrees, for even within the Party there was hardly any debate over its necessity, and lessened various burdens in society.

And yet Lenin remained popular among the workers and various poor peasants precisely because they understood why they were undergoing these hardships. They saw their hardships as being shared amongst each other and being part of a common goal: communism. Bourgeois society rarely engenders that kind of solidarity.

Collectivization was likewise a massive process, involving tens of thousands of workers sent from town to countryside to agitate and to carry through the policy set by the Party, many losing their lives in the campaign due to resistance.


So would you say he was popular, or was this a manifest of the cult of personality around Stalin? In any way, there were certainly people in the country who realised what was going on. As I said before, peopl aren't stupid. When their family and friends 'disappear', they must have realised that something very wrong was going on in the country.I don't get your point. I already noted that the Great Purges were in some ways a strangely democratic phenomenon, involving greater participation by the workers against managers, multi-candidate elections within the Party, etc. Furthermore Robert Thurston in his Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia assesses the concept of fear during the Purges and points out that it really wasn't like the West portrayed it. There's an early article by him on JSTOR for those who have access to it: "Fear and Belief in the USSR's 'Great Terror': Response to Arrest, 1935-1939."


Given that i'm on the one hand being accused of having a go at Stalin, yet simultaneously in the same post you're accusing me of being too pro-Soviet??Well yes, pro-Soviet revisionism, pro-an imperialist superpower which prepared for a third world war with its American opponent, pro-a regime which restored capitalism in all fields, etc. As Hoxha noted, "The peoples should not fall into the trap of the socalled 'anti-imperialist front' advertised by the Soviet social-imperialists, in which they are seeking to embroil all those who are opposed to, and fight against, United States imperialism. To join this 'front' means to sacrifice the loftiest interests of your country, to expose the people to danger, to become a minion of the social-imperialists and cannon fodder for their ambitions." (Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, p. 186.)

To be pro-Soviet in the 60's, 70's and 80's meant to be a lackey of imperialism and an exponent of its revisionist line. To be pro-Stalin meant to oppose both.


Internally it was progressive.How was it progressive when it was a neo-colony of an imperialist superpower? The revolution was progressive, in that it had an anti-imperialist character, and yet before long Castro was using any prestige he had in Latin America and elsewhere to call on the peoples to unite with Soviet social-imperialism. He turned Cuba from a neo-colony of the Americans into one of the Soviets.

By drawing down everything to "social progress" you allow for every reactionary regime to become "progressive" by virtue of welfare measures.


Besides, all small countries are the pawns of some imperialist power. It's not really something that's under their control. It's all to do with market power.So you are, in effect, saying you admire a man who calls for revolutionaries to respect "Socialism with Chinese characteristics," who called on their forefathers to support Soviet social-imperialism under the banner of "anti-imperialism," etc.

I can't help but think that Albania, which made its opinion known to the world and upheld the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, offered quite a bit more to the international communist movement compared to the most obedient Soviet revisionist lackey outside of Eastern Europe who praised Gorbachev's struggle to "perfect socialism" a year after the USSR itself collapsed. Albania did this as part of its internationalist duty, whereas the Soviets invoked that same duty to occupy Afghanistan, and Cuba invoked it to cover up the economic domination of their country by the Soviets.

Raúl Castro might as well convert to Islam and carry forth Gaddafi's legacy for all the "revolutionary" value Cuba today has, and which it has had for decades. All those red flags don't do anything other than deceive people into confusing revisionism for communism.