Tito, Ceausescu, Kim and Hoxha - split from Politics

[evermilion]

In all fairness, there's some types on this forum that make your post seem very plausible (poe's law, etc.)

I actually don't know a lot about Ceaușescu. What I hear is generally bad, but, given my connection to Juche, I am the type to play devil's advocate for pretty strange things.

[Ismail]

I actually don't know a lot about Ceaușescu. What I hear is generally bad, but, given my connection to Juche, I am the type to play devil's advocate for pretty strange things.Tito, Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu were all good friends with each other. Unsurprisingly, the foreign policies of all three were shitty and had nothing in common with proletarian internationalism. To give just one example: the PCR developed party-to-party ties with Mobutu's MPR.

"Mao received Ceausescu. Hsinhua reported only that he said to him: 'Rumanian comrades, we should unite to bring down imperialism'. As if Ceausescu and company are to bring down imperialism!! If the world waits for the Ceausescus to do such a thing, imperialism will live for tens of thousands of years. It is the proletariat and the peoples that fight imperialism." (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 536.)

[evermilion]

... the foreign policies of all three were shitty and had nothing in common with proletarian internationalism.

Why is that, though, I wonder? I don't know if I see the same problem you do, but I do see a problem. I don't see pervasive differences between what is predicted by Marxism and what's actually being practiced under the banner of socialism as the result of conspiracy of opportunistic individuals, at least not generally. I'm more interested in a broader picture of all the connected influences in a given predicament. That's more or less the mode of dialectic, as I understand it.

[Ismail]

Why is that, though, I wonder?Because Tito, Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu were nationalist deviators from Marxism-Leninism, because they presided over capitalist states, and because they in no way opposed imperialism or social-imperialism. It was thus logical for them to praise and support such figures as Mobutu and Bokassa, as well as US Presidents and the Soviet revisionists.

[evermilion]

Because Tito, Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu were nationalist deviators from Marxism-Leninism, because they presided over capitalist states, and because they in no way opposed imperialism or social-imperialism. It was thus logical for them to praise and support such figures as Mobutu and Bokassa, as well as US Presidents and the Soviet revisionists.

But why were they nationalist deviants? How did they come to preside over capitalist states? And why were they complacent with regards to imperialism? I'd have to argue that north Korea had some of its own issues with imperialism on the home front.

[Ismail]

But why were they nationalist deviants? How did they come to preside over capitalist states? And why were they complacent with regards to imperialism?In the case of Yugoslavia and the DPRK, both leaderships felt that they had in the hands "national" forms of Marxism. They resented the Marxist-Leninist line of the USSR under Stalin, because their own conceptions were idealist and conciliatory towards domestic capital. The same can be said of Mao as well. Tito, Mao and Kim Il Sung had nationalist credentials due to the fact that they were able to engage in partisan activities without dependence on Soviet support, they paraded about as "authentically" Yugoslav/Chinese/Korean and thus found it easy to develop so-called "independent" foreign policies which sought to link their countries up with Western capital.

As for Romania, Ceaușescu's predecessor Dej already distinguished himself as an opportunist. He sought friendly ties with both Tito and the Chinese. Ceaușescu's administration was one of personal corruption and an ambition to become a "world statesman," hence the great publicity about receiving awards from the West, his desire to maintain cordial relations with Israel and the PLO as part of promoting "peace" between them, and so on.

In The Khrushchevites Hoxha recalled Romania after the war: "Regardless of what the Rumanian leaders claimed, the dictatorship of the proletariat was not operating in Rumania and the Rumanian Workers' Party was not in a strong position. They declared that they were in power, but it was very evident that, in fact, the bourgeoisie was in power. It had industry, agriculture and trade in its hands and continued to fleece the Rumanian people and to live in luxurious villas and palaces. Dej personally travelled in a bullet-proof car with an armed escort, which showed how 'secure' their positions were. Reaction was strong in Rumania and, had it not been for the Red Army, who knows how things would have gone in that country." By the 80's Ceaușescu was using nationalism without pause to maintain his legitimacy. Even some fascists were rehabilitated.


I'd have to argue that north Korea had some of its own issues with imperialism on the home front.And yet Kim Il Sung praised Jimmy Carter in 1977 as "a man of justice." Albania had many issues with imperialism as well: both the USA and UK cut off diplomatic ties in 1946 and sought to overthrow the government, Yugoslavia likewise tried the same, the Soviets as well, etc., and the Greek Government maintained territorial ambitions on southern Albania until the early 70's. And yet the Albanians maintained a consistent line on imperialism and on all other questions of Marxist-Leninist theory.

[evermilion]

And yet Kim Il Sung praised Jimmy Carter in 1977 as "a man of justice." Albania had many issues with imperialism as well: both the USA and UK cut off diplomatic ties in 1946, Yugoslavia tried to overthrow its government in 1948, the Soviets cut off diplomatic ties in 1961, and the Greek Government maintained territorial ambitions on southern Albania until the early 70's. And yet the Albanians maintained a consistent line on imperialism and on all other questions of Marxist-Leninist theory.

I wasn't really asking what actions made these individuals nationalists and opportunists so much as I was asking what conditions give rise to political attitudes such as the ones that prevailed in north Korea and Romania. As you point out, Albania suffered very similarly and yet maintained a consistent Marxist-Leninist line. I will not deny that Albania is an admirable example of authentic Marxist socialism, but what was it beyond differences in personalities that resulted in this countries taking such radically different paths with regards to their development? If it was a matter of ideological deviation, what steps can be taken to predict when and where revisionism will arise and in what forms?

[Ismail]

I will not deny that Albania is an admirable example of authentic Marxist socialism, but what was it beyond differences in personalities that resulted in this countries taking such radically different paths with regards to their development?First, there were certainly various political and economic differences between what Albania did and what Yugoslavia, China, the DPRK and Romania did. For example: in China there was the "bloc of four classes" (a good read on the ridiculously right-wing economic policies in China from 1949 into the 50's can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-cannot-built-t179654/index.html?t=179654)) wherein the national bourgeoisie was told to develop itself at the expense of the working-class.

As a 1948 article notes (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/tunds.htm), "According to the present bosses of the Yugoslav Party, the trade unions are not the main support of the Party. These traitors to the proletariat have gone so far as to deny the need of trade unions as an independent organisation of the working class. Djilas, for instance, declared in January 1947 that it was senseless and mistaken to hold separate meetings of trade unions and the People’s Front organisations, and that such meetings should be held together, at the same time."

The process of collectivization in the DPRK proceeded in an opportunistic matter. Thus Kim Il Sung declared in 1961 that, "Our Party adopted the policy of gradually remoulding rich peasants as the cooperative movement developed, while strictly restricting their exploitative practices." A 1979 North Korean work also states that, "The rich peasants were remoulded into socialist working people by way of restricting their negative tendencies and educating them with patience, instead of expropriating them." (both cited here (http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/KoreaNS.htm))

[evermilion]

First, there were certainly various political and economic differences between what Albania did and what Yugoslavia, China, the DPRK and Romania did. For example: in China there was the "bloc of four classes" (a good read on the ridiculously right-wing economic policies in China from 1949 into the 50's can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-cannot-built-t179654/index.html?t=179654)) wherein the national bourgeoisie was told to develop itself at the expense of the working-class.

As a 1948 article notes (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/tunds.htm), "According to the present bosses of the Yugoslav Party, the trade unions are not the main support of the Party. These traitors to the proletariat have gone so far as to deny the need of trade unions as an independent organisation of the working class. Djilas, for instance, declared in January 1947 that it was senseless and mistaken to hold separate meetings of trade unions and the People’s Front organisations, and that such meetings should be held together, at the same time."

The process of collectivization in the DPRK proceeded in an opportunistic matter. Thus Kim Il Sung declared in 1961 that, "Our Party adopted the policy of gradually remoulding rich peasants as the cooperative movement developed, while strictly restricting their exploitative practices." A 1979 North Korean work also states that, "The rich peasants were remoulded into socialist working people by way of restricting their negative tendencies and educating them with patience, instead of expropriating them." (both cited here (http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/KoreaNS.htm))

They clearly deviated from what Marxism-Leninism predicts about the revolutionary development of socialism. There isn't any question that Albania was able to more closely act in accordance with Marxist-Leninist predictions about socialism. I still think, though, the revisionism we see here isn't so much a conspiracy on the part of individuals to do evil so much as it is an issue of lopsided material development. The policies of Hoxha's Albania are what one would want to see in the policies of one's own revolutionary government, absolutely, but I think it's important to consider why deviations from Marxist-Leninist predictions occur. I'm saying I'm not satisfied with a model of explanation that assigns the whims of individuals to the cause of the movement of entire nation-states.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The policies of Hoxha's Albania are what one would want to see in the policies of one's own revolutionary government,
Like building a million one-person concrete bunkers to defend against invasion :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Like building a million one-person concrete bunkers to defend against invasion :rolleyes:Not a bad decision considering that Albania was in a state of war with Greece. It becomes even more understandable when Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Treaty in protest of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Also understandable when Albania's own army was tiny and the doctrine of an armed populace resisting external attacks was paramount. I think a country that denounced military blocs in Europe and was pressured by both superpowers had a right to be security-conscious, especially one with so little options like Albania.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Not a bad decision considering that Albania was in a state of war with Greece. It becomes even more understandable when Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Treaty in protest of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Also understandable when Albania's own army was tiny and the doctrine of an armed populace resisting external attacks was paramount. I think a country that denounced military blocs in Europe and was pressured by both superpowers had a right to be security-conscious, especially one with so little options like Albania.
Oh come on - a million one-person concrete bunkers - :laugh: - it was a waste of time, energy, manpower and money and fed into the paranoia that Hoxha used to control Albanian society. Half of them were facing INTO the country. The things are everywhere like an uncontrollable plague of mushrooms.

http://lukebennett13.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bunkers-northern-albania.jpg?w=519&h=352

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Oh come on - a million one-person concrete bunkers - :laugh: - it was a waste of time, energy, manpower and money and fed into the paranoia that Hoxha used to control Albanian society. Half of them were facing INTO the country. The things are everywhere like an uncontrollable plague of mushrooms.

http://lukebennett13.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bunkers-northern-albania.jpg?w=519&h=352

At the risk of derailing the subject at hand, is that all? I mean, Kruscheve threatened to starve out Albania by cutting off it's access to the grain trade, that in of it's self can be interpreted as a clear declaration of war. Sure it was extreme but you can't say the bunkers were irrational. I am sure there are plenty of good points to make about Albania, but the fact that "Bunkers" always comes up only proves that either most people know very little about the subject at hand or have little solid evidence against him.

[Brutus]

The bunkers are of various size, type, and shape.

[Jolly Red Giant]

At the risk of derailing the subject at hand, is that all? I mean, Kruscheve threatened to starve out Albania by cutting off it's access to the grain trade, that in of it's self can be interpreted as a clear declaration of war. Sure it was extreme but you can't say the bunkers were irrational.
Maybe - just maybe - it would have been a better idea that instead of building bunkers - to use the money to buy grain and feed the people - rather than expect them to couch half starved on their own in a bloody concrete bunker on the expectation that some Russian tank was going to roll their way.

[Ismail]

and fed into the paranoiaBy this you mean Hoxha's paranoia of two competing imperialist superpowers, both invading countries that didn't follow their dictates, and both of which tried to overthrow the Albanian government beforehand. Sounds pretty real to me.

Not only did the uncertain situation vis-à-vis Greece and Albania's hostility to American imperialism preclude the kind of support the Americans would give to the Yugoslavs and Romanians in the event of a Soviet invasion, but even Albania's "ally," China, told Albania to subordinate its defenses to those two states and, by extension, the West.


Half of them were facing INTO the country.This was related to another security measure the Albanians took: placing spikes on vineyards and other places in order to kill/injure paratrooping forces.


Maybe - just maybe - it would have been a better idea that instead of building bunkers - to use the money to buy grain and feed the people - rather than expect them to couch half starved on their own in a bloody concrete bunker on the expectation that some Russian tank was going to roll their way.Khrushchev's threats were years before the bunker-building campaign began.

Also FYI, about 40% of Albania's grain came from the USSR in 1960, i.e. the time Khrushchev made this threat. By 1980, however, Albania had become self-sufficient in grain. Building bunkers did not undermine the other strategic objectives Albania took to fight the capitalist-revisionist blockade.

[Professional Revolution]

The Stalinist rule of the Albanian deformed workers state is very odd yet interesting. What sort of collectivization policies did Hoxha initiate?

[Ismail]

The Stalinist rule of the Albanian deformed workers state is very odd yet interesting. What sort of collectivization policies did Hoxha initiate?"Unlike other Communist countries, Albania progressively reduced the socalled private plots of collective farmers to about 10,000 square feet, less than one-quarter of an acre." (Jacques, The Albanians Vol. II, 1995, p. 535.) In relative terms of landmass, Albania was the most collectivized country in Europe. It is also worth noting that petty artisan trade, a significant force in the rest of Eastern Europe, was abolished in Albania.

Also, unlike the Soviet and Chinese revisionists who spoke of "Stalin's distrust of the peasantry," Albania retained the machine-tractor stations both states abolished, thus acting in conformity with Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., which explicitly warned against abolishing them. The Soviet revisionists and Mao himself attacked that work, whereas it played an important role in Albanian economic planning.

"In 1971, however, a new form of agricultural cooperative was established as a means of faciliating the transformation of all cooperatives into state farms... The first 'higher-type agricultural cooperative' (HTC) was inaugurated in that year, and was given excluive access to one MTS, thereby creating an agricultural unit which was intermediate between the typical cooperative farm, which shares an MTS's equipment with other cooperatives, and the state farm, which owns its own machinery. Moreover, methods of payment to the members of HTCs were made to resemble those of state farms more closely than those of other cooperatives in that ninety percent of the planned salary is paid during the year, with the remaining ten percent being paid at the end, if the plan is fulfilled... each member of the cooperative is guaranteed a minimum wage...

In addition to the HTCs, it has been claimed that Albanian agriculture has also made two other unique contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory. Firstly, previously scattered, privately-owned livestock has been brought together into joint herds, and, secondly, the extinguishing of the personal plot, in the wake of the transition to complete state farming, has been explicitly adopted as an aim of policy... it is argued that personal plots are incompatible with social ownership, and that in any case the farmer can now buy products at prices in the cooperative shop which are lower than the cost of growing them on his plot." (Dawson, Planning in Eastern Europe, 1987, pp. 45-46.)

Albania thus stood in contrast to places like Poland and Yugoslavia where the vast majority of agricultural land was in private hands, and in the rest of Eastern Europe and the USSR where collectivization had degenerated into a new form of capitalism under the revisionists.

[Old Bolshie]

Tito, Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu were all good friends with each other. Unsurprisingly, the foreign policies of all three were shitty and had nothing in common with proletarian internationalism.


Since 1925 when the SIOC was adopted as state doctrine in USSR that the foreign policy of any self-proclaimed socialist state had nothing common with proletarian internationalism.


In the case of Yugoslavia and the DPRK, both leaderships felt that they had in the hands "national" forms of Marxism. They resented the Marxist-Leninist line of the USSR under Stalin, because their own conceptions were idealist and conciliatory towards domestic capital. The same can be said of Mao as well.

And the same can be said of Castro and so on. This is a very accurate view of the nationalist deviation of the communist movement of the XX Century. However, I disagree with you when you said that they resented the ML line of Stalin. They did it rhetorical but in practice they retained it and took it to the extreme. Their national deviation was born of isolation and confrontation with the exterior pretty much like it happen with Stalin's USSR from the moment they abandoned proletarian internationalism and adopted a more pragmatic foreign policy.

[Sea]

Since 1925 when the SIOC was adopted as state doctrine in USSR that the foreign policy of any self-proclaimed socialist state had nothing common with proletarian internationalism.Socialism in one country, mind you, proposes something very different than communism within one country. By your logic, the Paris Commune had nothing to do with proletarian internationalism.


They did it rhetorical but in practice they retained it and took it to the extreme.Yugoslavia most certianly did not. I'm not sure where you come off saying this. Romania and Yugoslavia were happy to take in Western capital (Romania making no secret of the austerity that followed) as if it was some sort of reward for sticking their tongues out at the USSR.

[Old Bolshie]

Socialism in one country, mind you, proposes something very different than communism within one country. By your logic, the Paris Commune had nothing to do with proletarian internationalism.

Did the Paris Commune aim to reach communism within its borders?


Yugoslavia most certianly did not. I'm not sure where you come off saying this. Romania and Yugoslavia were happy to take in Western capital (Romania making no secret of the austerity that followed) as if it was some sort of reward for sticking their tongues out at the USSR.

Wasn't Yugoslavia nationalist? Nationalism is one of the cornerstones of Stalinism.

[evermilion]

Did the Paris Commune aim to reach communism within its borders?

Can you show that any state ever has?


Wasn't Yugoslavia nationalist? Nationalism is one of the cornerstones of Stalinism.

Define "nationalism" and name any place anywhere that doesn't fit that definition.

[Old Bolshie]

Can you show that any state ever has?

That's point. It never happen because it can only be established globally.



Define "nationalism" and name any place anywhere that doesn't fit that definition.In a brief definition: exaltation/primacy of one nation over the others with prejudice for minorities and strong commitment to preserve its old costumes.

A place that doesn't fit? Simple. USSR under Lenin.

[evermilion]

That's point. It never happen because it can only be established globally.

Actually, I'd say you've missed the point quite spectacularly. What state has aimed to reach communism within it's borders?

[Old Bolshie]

Actually, I'd say you've missed the point quite spectacularly.

That's because you weren't clear in first place. I thought you were asking which country ever reached communism.



What state has aimed to reach communism within it's borders?

USSR, just to give the most well-known example.

[Ismail]

Yugoslavia most certianly did not. I'm not sure where you come off saying this. Romania and Yugoslavia were happy to take in Western capital (Romania making no secret of the austerity that followed) as if it was some sort of reward for sticking their tongues out at the USSR.Both engaged in bourgeois nationalism. The PCR celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the "centralized and unitary" Dacian "state" in 1980, which existed throughout the ages from Burebista (ruled 1st century BC) onwards and concluded in the formation of the "Romanian unitary national state" in 1918. The Romanians also tried to use Marx's writings to call for the "return" of Bessarabia to Romania. Yugoslavia's capitalist system naturally led to inequality among the nations in it, but its ideologists also propagated views at variance with Marxism in regards to nations: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/titoites.htm

[evermilion]

That's because you weren't clear in first place. I thought you were asking which country ever reached communism.


Did the Paris Commune aim to reach communism within its borders?


Can you show that any state ever has?

I wasn't clear? How's this for clear: eat me.



USSR, just to give the most well-known example.

Can you demonstrate that the U.S.S.R. ever saw any attempt whatsoever to build a global, international stateless, classless society within its borders? I ask because I'd love to see you try.

[Ismail]

Can you demonstrate that the U.S.S.R. ever saw any attempt whatsoever to build a global, international stateless, classless society within its borders? I ask because I'd love to see you try.For what it's worth, Soviet materials under Stalin did actually discuss the transition to communism. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/gosplan.htm

Of course Khrushchev took this to ridiculous and anti-Marxist heights by basically conflating it with consumer abundance on one hand and predicting its triumph circa 1980 on the other.

[Old Bolshie]

Can you demonstrate that the U.S.S.R. ever saw any attempt whatsoever to build a global, international stateless, classless society within its borders? I ask because I'd love to see you try.

I don't see why the enthusiasm. It's a very simple answer. Supporters of "Socialism in One Country" don't consider to be necessary to build a global, international stateless, classless society to achieve communism. They think that they can build it within the borders of a country. That's why it is called "Socialism in One Country".

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't see why the enthusiasm. It's a very simple answer. Supporters of "Socialism in One Country" don't consider to be necessary to build a global, international stateless, classless society to achieve communism. They think that they can build it within the borders of a country. That's why it is called "Socialism in One Country".


Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.


~Stalin

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

[evermilion]

I don't see why the enthusiasm. It's a very simple answer. Supporters of "Socialism in One Country" don't consider to be necessary to build a global, international stateless, classless society to achieve communism. They think that they can build it within the borders of a country. That's why it is called "Socialism in One Country".

Take it away, Ismail.

[Ismail]

Take it away, Ismail."Another Boring Marxis" already did.

[Old Bolshie]

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism

I don't see how this contradicts my argument but actually corroborates what I said. It says "overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism".

[Nevsky]

Why do antistalinists so stubbornly refuse to accept the truth about "Socialism in One Country" not being a nationalist policy, even while facing obvious facts? If you ever read Stalin you'd know that he never rejected internationalism, that SiOC is part of internationalist strategy. Stalin was opposed to titoist/ceausescist "independent national ways to communism" rhetoric.

[Old Bolshie]

Why do antistalinists so stubbornly refuse to accept the truth about "Socialism in One Country" not being a nationalist policy, even while facing obvious facts? If you ever read Stalin you'd know that he never rejected internationalism, that SiOC is part of internationalist strategy. Stalin was opposed to titoist/ceausescist "independent national ways to communism" rhetoric.

Like dismantling the III International? What kind of internationalist strategy was that?

[Ismail]

Like dismantling the III International? What kind of internationalist strategy was that?One wherein he expressed concern that it was harming the communist parties.

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

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

Stalin continued:

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

The Third International really didn't succeed in any purpose other than the important goal of molding and enforcing a consistent proletarian line among its parties. Enver Hoxha had no Comintern experience whatsoever, nor did the vast majority of the Communist Party of Albania, whose sole interaction with the Comintern upon its establishment in 1941 was to send a letter requesting recognition, which was duly accepted.

As a note, at the 7th Congress of the PLA in 1976 Hoxha did briefly discuss the Comintern and noted there some calls for the establishment of a similar organization, "For the time being, it is inappropriate and it would not bring the benefits expected to the revolutionary struggles which are being and will be waged by the Marxist-Leninist parties all over the world. Our Party holds that having a correct concept of the major role formerly played by the Comintern at the time of Lenin and Stalin, we the Marxist-Leninist and workers' parties are duty bound to constantly strengthen and temper the close cooperation among our parties, of course, with none being dependent on, or taking orders from, any other. As internationalist communists, we need to exchange our experiences and, each of us, in the conditions of his own country, must act on the basis of Marxism-Leninism." (Report to the 7th Congress, pp. 249-250.)

On this basis Hoxha proposed multilateral and bilateral meetings, which were held in ensuing years, neither of which imposed organizational or other restraints on the parties concerned outside of consistently upholding Marxism-Leninism.

[TheEmancipator]

Why do antistalinists so stubbornly refuse to accept the truth about "Socialism in One Country" not being a nationalist policy, even while facing obvious facts? If you ever read Stalin you'd know that he never rejected internationalism, that SiOC is part of internationalist strategy. Stalin was opposed to titoist/ceausescist "independent national ways to communism" rhetoric.


Yet Stalin engaged in his own brand of nationalist revisionism to counter geopolitical threats (all while consolidating his power, of course). What is the difference between Tito and Ceausescu's policies, who were committed to counter Russian imperialism, and Stalin's capitalist policies that were necessary to stop German imperialism (he still signed an agreement though).

The main issue here is that people were still intent on national sovereignty despite the rhetoric, mainly because no yougoslav or romanian had any interest in being governed by Bolsheviks. Bolshevist Marxist-Leninism is a tendency that focuses on the assimilation of nation-states through imperialist means rather than the liquidation of the ruling classes in such nation states to liberate them.

I still find it highly amusing that Stalinists label others revisionist. Pot, meet kettle.

[Ismail]

What is the difference between Tito and Ceausescu's policies, who were committed to counter Russian imperialism,Actually neither Tito nor Ceaușescu cared about countering Soviet social-imperialism. Tito and Khrushchev's bourgeois allies in the third world were identical (Nasser, Nehru) and Yugoslav revisionism made up with the USSR once Soviet revisionism became ascendant and attacked Stalin for "unjustly condemning" Yugoslavia.

Of course when Stalin was alive the Yugoslavs were hysterical and echoed American imperialism:

"The climax of the CPY's anti-Stalinism was reached at its Sixth Congress (1952), when the party changed its name to League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY), a symbolic return to Marx's League of Communists. In a report to the congress, Tito assailed the Soviet Union: the USSR was responsible for creating international tensions; it had transformed the once independent East Central European countries into 'mere colonies in the heart of Europe'; Stalin was pushing North Korea into 'an aggressive war'; it was imperative to revise the 'imperialist division' of Poland and Germany, which 'favored' the Soviet Union; in the USSR, 'the condition of workers was worse than in even the most reactionary capitalist country'; Stalin's extermination of non-Russian nations 'would make Hitler envious.' Every speaker at the congress competed with Tito in hurling hostile epithets at Stalin. Kardelj accused the USSR of imperialist ambitions on a worldwide scale and stated that the 'Soviet government undoubtedly bears the largest part of responsibility for the condition of the permanent cold war.' He scorned 'various naive pacifists in the West,' advocated the unification of Germany on the basis of free elections in both parts of the country, and hinted that Yugoslavia might formally join an anti-Soviet defense pact."
(Milorad M. Drachkovitch (ed). East Central Europe: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Sanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. 1982. p. 355.)

Ceaușescu likewise did not denounce Soviet social-imperialism. He lightly criticized the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan in such a way as to remain on good terms with the Soviet revisionists on one hand, and gain the ear of the American imperialists on the other, while gaining nationalist credentials at home by showing how "maverick" his foreign policy was. His main fire was, again, directed against Stalin; against the "unjust seizure" of Bessarabia.

[Old Bolshie]

One wherein he expressed concern that it was harming the communist parties.

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

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

Stalin continued:

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

The Third International really didn't succeed in any purpose other than the important goal of molding and enforcing a consistent proletarian line among its parties. Enver Hoxha had no Comintern experience whatsoever, nor did the vast majority of the Communist Party of Albania, whose sole interaction with the Comintern upon its establishment in 1941 was to send a letter requesting recognition, which was duly accepted.

As a note, at the 7th Congress of the PLA in 1976 Hoxha did briefly discuss the Comintern and noted there some calls for the establishment of a similar organization, "For the time being, it is inappropriate and it would not bring the benefits expected to the revolutionary struggles which are being and will be waged by the Marxist-Leninist parties all over the world. Our Party holds that having a correct concept of the major role formerly played by the Comintern at the time of Lenin and Stalin, we the Marxist-Leninist and workers' parties are duty bound to constantly strengthen and temper the close cooperation among our parties, of course, with none being dependent on, or taking orders from, any other. As internationalist communists, we need to exchange our experiences and, each of us, in the conditions of his own country, must act on the basis of Marxism-Leninism." (Report to the 7th Congress, pp. 249-250.)

On this basis Hoxha proposed multilateral and bilateral meetings, which were held in ensuing years, neither of which imposed organizational or other restraints on the parties concerned outside of consistently upholding Marxism-Leninism.

I've already answered you about this in another thread. Stalin didn't need the Comintern to control outside communist parties as the Spanish Revolution clearly showed.

[evermilion]

Yet Stalin engaged in his own brand of nationalist revisionism to counter geopolitical threats (all while consolidating his power, of course). What is the difference between Tito and Ceausescu's policies, who were committed to counter Russian imperialism, and Stalin's capitalist policies that were necessary to stop German imperialism (he still signed an agreement though).

So is the anti-Stalin strategy to just, when confronted with thorough research, just to plug one's ears and restate, verbatim, the original, disproved claims?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What is "social imperialism" and how is it different from the imperialism practiced by the US and capitalist states? What do Hoxhaists see as the social basis of social imperialism? Was Soviet intervention in Afghanistan an example of social imperialism?

Could social imperialism be extended outside the Soviet bloc? Extending this futher, what do Hoxhaists think about Mao's Three Worlds Theory?

[evermilion]

What is "social imperialism" and how is it different from the imperialism practiced by the US and capitalist states? What do Hoxhaists see as the social basis of social imperialism?

Social imperialism is the imperialism practiced by states socialist in name. The post-Stalin Soviet Union is typically the state meant by "social imperialism," although China frequently comes up, too.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I wasn't really asking what actions made these individuals nationalists and opportunists so much as I was asking what conditions give rise to political attitudes such as the ones that prevailed in north Korea and Romania. As you point out, Albania suffered very similarly and yet maintained a consistent Marxist-Leninist line. I will not deny that Albania is an admirable example of authentic Marxist socialism, but what was it beyond differences in personalities that resulted in this countries taking such radically different paths with regards to their development? If it was a matter of ideological deviation, what steps can be taken to predict when and where revisionism will arise and in what forms?
Really? If Albania is what victorious socialism looks like, maybe we should all just pack it in.

Comrade, all of these regimes, including Albania, were deformed workers' states led by Stalinist bureaucracies. The specific differences were determined by national conditions in each case and the specifics of how the Stalinists came to power. Stalinism is a nationalistic and bureaucratic deformation of Marxism (and Leninism). Some of these regimes came to power based on guerilla or partisan movements (e.g., Yugoslavia). None of them ever found their way to Marxism or Leninism -- none of these regimes came to power or were ever based on the working class. Their seizure of power was an improvement over capitalism -- but a VERY far cry from socialism.

[evermilion]

Really? If Albania is what victorious socialism looks like, maybe we should all just pack it in.

Comrade, all of these regimes, including Albania, were deformed workers' states led by Stalinist bureaucracies. The specific differences were determined by national conditions in each case and the specifics of how the Stalinists came to power. Stalinism is a nationalistic and bureaucratic deformation of Marxism (and Leninism). Some of these regimes came to power based on guerilla or partisan movements (e.g., Yugoslavia). None of them ever found their way to Marxism or Leninism -- none of these regimes came to power or were ever based on the working class. Their seizure of power was an improvement over capitalism -- but a VERY far cry from socialism.

This is all very insightful-sounding, but, if I'm being corrected, I do get offended when that correction is little more than more-of-the-same without citation. The reason I'm a "Hoxhaist" or a "Stalinist" isn't because I have a different Wikipedia than you; consider users like Ismail who seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of actual research into these issues. Rather than parroting anti-communist rhetoric that tries to pass itself off as "real" communism, users like the aforementioned can actually demonstrate that most of what is "known" about Stalin is horribly ill-informed. And it's not like these demonstrations are isolated little incidents. They happen all the time.

[Sea]

Did the Paris Commune aim to reach communism within its borders?No, and nor did Stalin. I think it would behoove you to read the writings of those you speak against.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This is all very insightful-sounding, but, if I'm being corrected, I do get offended when that correction is little more than more-of-the-same without citation. The reason I'm a "Hoxhaist" or a "Stalinist" isn't because I have a different Wikipedia than you; consider users like Ismail who seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of actual research into these issues. Rather than parroting anti-communist rhetoric that tries to pass itself off as "real" communism, users like the aforementioned can actually demonstrate that most of what is "known" about Stalin is horribly ill-informed. And it's not like these demonstrations are isolated little incidents. They happen all the time.
Of course much of what has been written about Stalin is not true -- that includes the puff-pieces written by Stalinist hacks that are frequently quoted in these discussions. If you would really like a nice reading list about Stalin and Stalinism I would be happy to provide it. I don't parrot anything, comrade. If you want to live in a fantasy land where the vast majority of the leaders of the Russian Revolution became counterrevolutionary terrorists, fine (it makes no sense and it never made any sense). You can certainly find sources to back you up, although they will be, by any reasonable standard, absurdly jaundiced sources. That your critical thinking becomes so absent when you contemplate the lies and brutality of Stalin is surprising. Also if you want to live in a world where Stalin's nationalistic line of Socialism in One Country is a continuation of Leninism, bully for you. I mean it wasn't even a continuation of what Stalin had written a few months prior. Or that the settling of disputes within the party was best done by expulsion, exile and execution was a continuation of Leninist norms.

You might try reading (gasp) Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed for a start. And read several histories of the Russian Revolution and compare that to what later, under Stalin, served as the official history. Riddled with lies and inaccuracies. As with all Stalinists, history changes with the official line and the changing fortune of given comrades.

[Ismail]

I've already answered you about this in another thread. Stalin didn't need the Comintern to control outside communist parties as the Spanish Revolution clearly showed.How did the SCW show this? Plenty of works note that the PCE was often reduced to guessing what position the Comintern would want them to take on any given issue, and getting into disputes with its representatives.

Any other forms of "control" were due to the benefit of Soviet military presence in Spain itself, including the NKVD, which was obviously an exceptional situation.


What is "social imperialism" and how is it different from the imperialism practiced by the US and capitalist states?Lenin described social-imperialism as "socialism in words, imperialism in deeds." In content it is no different from "normal" imperialism if not for the lengths the Soviet revisionists went to masking it in "internationalist" hues.


What do Hoxhaists see as the social basis of social imperialism?The same social basis as that provided by modern capitalism. The USSR was transformed into an imperialist superpower, competing with US imperialism over the division of the world.


Was Soviet intervention in Afghanistan an example of social imperialism?Yes. The Albanians praised the resistance of the Afghan people against the invaders and Hoxha expressed his confidence that they would oust the Soviet social-imperialists. The clandestine pro-Albanian party in East Germany called for Soviet Army forces to defect and transform the imperialist war into a civil war.


Could social imperialism be extended outside the Soviet bloc?Yes, China also aspired to become a social-imperialist superpower. Nowadays it continues this aim, the "social" part barely existing since China itself does the bare minimum in giving its foreign affairs an ideological veneer.


Extending this futher, what do Hoxhaists think about Mao's Three Worlds Theory?Hoxha called it anti-Marxist and wrote about it at length. He noted that it substituted bourgeois geo-politics (e.g. "poor" and "rich" countries) for class struggle.

[evermilion]

Of course much of what has been written about Stalin is not true -- that includes the puff-pieces written by Stalinist hacks that are frequently quoted in these discussions.... As with all Stalinists, history changes with the official line and the changing fortune of given comrades.

"That doesn't count because I decided it doesn't. Also, Animal Farm."

[Old Bolshie]

No, and nor did Stalin. I think it would behoove you to read the writings of those you speak against.

I think you are the one who should read the writings of the people you support:


Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.


~Stalin

It says "Complete Socialism". Yes Stalin aimed to reach communism within its borders.

[Old Bolshie]

How did the SCW show this? Plenty of works note that the PCE was often reduced to guessing what position the Comintern would want them to take on any given issue, and getting into disputes with its representatives.

Any other forms of "control" were due to the benefit of Soviet military presence in Spain itself, including the NKVD, which was obviously an exceptional situation.


Comintern in this case means the same as Soviet Government. The PCE was clearly under Soviet control since the formation of the Popular Front which as you well remember was a Stalinist policy imposed upon it. I have also sources which shows how Stalin dictated if the party should integrate the government or not. Apart from this you have also the persecution of Trotskysts and the POUM by the PCE.

[Djoko]

Yugoslavia was a de facto member of nato pact since Tito-Stalin split, west financed JNA.

[Ismail]

Comintern in this case means the same as Soviet Government. The PCE was clearly under Soviet control since the formation of the Popular Front which as you well remember was a Stalinist policy imposed upon it.It was not "imposed" on the PCE, in fact the PCE actually adopted it before it became general Comintern policy. If there was some mass resistance to this policy within the PCE then I was unaware of it.

I also fail to see how the PCE, which was a relatively small party (distinguished mainly by Comintern affiliation) until the months leading up to the formation of the Front, was put "under Soviet control" as a result of forming said Front with various bourgeois and social-democratic parties.

This "X party is really just a front for COMMUNISM" (or "STALINISM") shit is why the Comintern was disbanded in the first place.


I have also sources which shows how Stalin dictated if the party should integrate the government or not.Let's hear it. One of the purposes of the Comintern was to give instructions and advice on what to do in certain situations.


Apart from this you have also the persecution of Trotskysts and the POUM by the PCE.Well yeah, that's what happens when Trots and quasi-Trots try to stab a war effort in the back. The PCE had no problem cooperating with anarcho-syndicalists (including Durruti) who supported said war effort.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It says "Complete Socialism". Yes Stalin aimed to reach communism within its borders.

Socialism, within Marxist-Leninist theory, is a state where private property has been nationalized and the DOTP is in power. It isn't Communism. Again, it would behoove you to understand the theory you clamor against.

[Old Bolshie]

Socialism, within Marxist-Leninist theory, is a state where private property has been nationalized and the DOTP is in power. It isn't Communism. Again, it would behoove you to understand the theory you clamor against.

Isn't Socialism the first stage of communism within ML theory?

Because if it is that still means reaching communism within its borders.

[Old Bolshie]

It was not "imposed" on the PCE, in fact the PCE actually adopted it before it became general Comintern policy. If there was some mass resistance to this policy within the PCE then I was unaware of it.

The Popular Front was adopted by the PCE in 1935, the same year Popular Front became general Comintern policy. The idea of Popular Front was already circulating in the Kremlin in 1934.



I also fail to see how the PCE, which was a relatively small party (distinguished mainly by Comintern affiliation) until the months leading up to the formation of the Front, was put "under Soviet control" as a result of forming said Front with various bourgeois and social-democratic parties.

I referred the Popular Front as an example of how the PCE was under soviet control. The PCE was already under soviet control before the Popular Front as it's obvious.


This "X party is really just a front for COMMUNISM" (or "STALINISM") shit is why the Comintern was disbanded in the first place.

As I told you USSR didn't need the Comintern to exercise its control over foreign parties.



Let's hear it. One of the purposes of the Comintern was to give instructions and advice on what to do in certain situations.

You have "Stalin: a biography" by Robert Service where it says:

" As the Republican armed forces were pushed on to the retreat by Franco, the Spanish Government pressed for the communists to enter the coalition. Stalin had to be phoned for consent and then Dimitrov sent the tactical instructions to communist leader José Diaz. "


Well yeah, that's what happens when Trots and quasi-Trots try to stab a war effort in the back. The PCE had no problem cooperating with anarcho-syndicalists (including Durruti) who supported said war effort.

It depends of the perspective. Trots and quasi-Trots would say that it was the contrary, i.e, PCE stabbed the war effort in the back.

Durruti died in a early stage of the War before the conflicts between Anarchists and the PCE began...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Isn't Socialism the first stage of communism within ML theory?

Because if it is that still means reaching communism within its borders.

Only in the sense that international capitalism can not transform into international communism.

Though even if it was, what's nationalist about that? Isn't building socialism in one country building it in every country, dialetically speaking, and therefore an act of internationalism?

[Ismail]

The Popular Front was adopted by the PCE in 1935, the same year Popular Front became general Comintern policy. The idea of Popular Front was already circulating in the Kremlin in 1934.And yet the call for a Popular Front in Spain was made months before it became Comintern policy, as I said. Nor was it "imposed" by "Moscow," E.H. Carr notes in his The Comintern and the Spanish Civil War that it was greeted with acclaim within the party.


I referred the Popular Front as an example of how the PCE was under soviet control. The PCE was already under soviet control before the Popular Front as it's obvious.So was every Comintern-affiliated party using this logic. Every single one, from the founding of the Comintern onwards, was financially, organizationally and ideologically backed by it.


As I told you USSR didn't need the Comintern to exercise its control over foreign parties.And why are you bringing this up? Obviously after the Comintern dissolved financial and other ties remained, they just took different forms.

The problem here is that you're taking the bourgeois view of "control," wherein these parties were "agents of Moscow" threatening all "patriotic" persons and "values." The problem of the Comintern was that its control increasingly conflicted with on-the-ground analyses and actions taken by the communist parties, many of whom had tenuous contact with the Comintern during the war due to their countries being occupied.


You have "Stalin: a biography" by Robert Service where it says:

" As the Republican armed forces were pushed on to the retreat by Franco, the Spanish Government pressed for the communists to enter the coalition. Stalin had to be phoned for consent and then Dimitrov sent the tactical instructions to communist leader José Diaz."And the PCE was also willing to not join the Caballero government, as noted in its own sources. What mattered was that said government consistently fought for the completion of the war effort. There was calls for the PCE to participate in the cabinet, so it did. Considering that Communists joining bourgeois cabinets wasn't a normal occurrence, the Comintern (and Stalin, presumably he was important too) were consulted.

The practice of Comintern-affiliated parties consulting the Soviet leadership was a pretty big part of its affairs from the beginning.


Durruti died in a early stage of the War before the conflicts between Anarchists and the PCE began...And yet he called on his followers to vote for the Popular Front, was on good terms with Soviet officers sent to Spain, and was said to have been killed by one of his own.

[Old Bolshie]

Only in the sense that international capitalism can not transform into international communism.

The only way to reach communism is internationally.


Though even if it was, what's nationalist about that? Isn't building socialism in one country building it in every country, dialetically speaking, and therefore an act of internationalism?

It is nationalist because it places the focus of the struggle in the national level and it neglects the international struggle. As history has shown to us the revolution must spread to survive and if it remains isolated it's condemned to fail.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The only way to reach communism is internationally.


It is nationalist because it places the focus of the struggle in the national level and it neglects the international struggle. As history has shown to us the revolution must spread to survive and if it remains isolated it's condemned to fail.

Perhaps, a stateless society is only pheisable when there are no other states. However I refuse to believe that communization is impossible or undesirable without a global revolution. Because what are we supposed to do then? Should we just "develop the productive forces" into infinity?

And was it really the isolation of the revolution that condemned it to fail?

I don't like these explanations. Because they assume correlation with causation and substitute one aspect of a contradiction for the principle aspect of the contradiction. In truth, I would say that while it was a factor in the degeneration of the USSR, Albania, and China, the principle factor in the loss of those countries was the failure of the class struggle in each.

[Old Bolshie]

And yet the call for a Popular Front in Spain was made months before it became Comintern policy, as I said. Nor was it "imposed" by "Moscow," E.H. Carr notes in his The Comintern and the Spanish Civil War that it was greeted with acclaim within the party.

You referred to the time that PCE adopted the policy. The calls for Popular Fronts in USSR began in 1934.

You seem to be too much concerned with the word "imposed". I could have used "dictated" or "instructed". It leads to the same thing: PCE was following soviet orders.


So was every Comintern-affiliated party using this logic. Every single one, from the founding of the Comintern onwards, was financially, organizationally and ideologically backed by it.

The international communist movement had a similar evolution of the soviet regime as far as Stalin's centralization of the regime goes. As the centralization of power became higher in the USSR so it did in the Comintern.


And why are you bringing this up? Obviously after the Comintern dissolved financial and other ties remained, they just took different forms.

The problem here is that you're taking the bourgeois view of "control," wherein these parties were "agents of Moscow" threatening all "patriotic" persons and "values." The problem of the Comintern was that its control increasingly conflicted with on-the-ground analyses and actions taken by the communist parties, many of whom had tenuous contact with the Comintern during the war due to their countries being occupied.

When I refer control I mean being instructed or following orders given by. The Comintern had its own assessors to avoid those conflicts.


And the PCE was also willing to not join the Caballero government, as noted in its own sources. What mattered was that said government consistently fought for the completion of the war effort. There was calls for the PCE to participate in the cabinet, so it did. Considering that Communists joining bourgeois cabinets wasn't a normal occurrence, the Comintern (and Stalin, presumably he was important too) were consulted.

The practice of Comintern-affiliated parties consulting the Soviet leadership was a pretty big part of its affairs from the beginning.

Stalin wasn't consulted. He was asked to consent as the text says.


And yet he called on his followers to vote for the Popular Front, was on good terms with Soviet officers sent to Spain, and was said to have been killed by one of his own.

There is nothing surprising about it since the soviets were pro-republicans and they didn't begin to repress other pro-republican forces yet.

[Ismail]

You seem to be too much concerned with the word "imposed". I could have used "dictated" or "instructed". It leads to the same thing: PCE was following soviet orders.And considering that the rank-and-file of the PCE thought those orders were totally in line with Spanish conditions, I don't see the issue. Whatever you might think of "Stalinism," the Popular Front period saw the PCE's membership balloon, it was the leading force in the army (e.g. the Fifth Regiment), and was poised to expand its influence still further under most any postwar scenario in which the Republic was victorious.


The international communist movement had a similar evolution of the soviet regime as far as Stalin's centralization of the regime goes. As the centralization of power became higher in the USSR so it did in the Comintern.Again, the parties of the Comintern were always beholden to it. In Lenin's time there were already criticisms that it was treating the leaders of other parties as "subordinates" rather than "equals."

Max Eastman, always sympathetic to Trotsky, recalled the following (Stalin's Russia and the Crisis of Socialism, 1940, pp. 96-98):

William Z. Foster was the chief American delegate during a part of my stay in Moscow, and one day Zinoviev, the president of the International, handed him a letter ostensibly addressed to the members of the American party by its executive committee, outlining the policies to be pursued. There was a space at the bottom for Foster's signature as head of the American party, but the letter had been composed by the Russian leaders in private session. It was translated into bad English and ready for Foster's signature when he first saw it....

Trotsky took me to visit the prison in which he had stayed when on his way to Siberia in early youth. As we drove through the streets of Moscow, I raised this question which so much disturbed me, telling him my opinion of Foster and relating the manner in which this document had been handed to him to sign.

"You know what it means to lead a revolution," I said. "How can you imagine that revolutions in other countries are going to be led by the kind of men who will let Zinoviev—or you, or Lenin, or anybody else—write their opinions for them? You can't treat grown-up men that way, least of all revolutionists."

Trotsky's answer was:

"Well, we treat them in general, according to what they deserve. If they're grown up, we treat them that way."

"You don't get my point," I said. "No man capable of leading a revolution is going to let you decide how he is to be treated."

Trotsky was not interested. "You'll see the Pugachevsky Tower in just a minute," he said.
Stalin wasn't consulted. He was asked to consent as the text says.Again, I don't see the issue. Besides Robert Service trying to make this an insidious occurrence, it's the PCE asking if entering the government would be a correct. And again, this was not a unique practice; Comintern-affiliated parties would try to contact Lenin (or Zinoviev) on various issues and seek their opinion, which would pretty much become the line the local party would take.

[Old Bolshie]

Perhaps, a stateless society is only pheisable when there are no other states. However I refuse to believe that communization is impossible or undesirable without a global revolution. Because what are we supposed to do then? Should we just "develop the productive forces" into infinity?

The transition from capitalism to socialism is only attainable with a global revolution. We are supposed to fight for revolution and then for spreading it even if that costs us revolutionary gains. That idea of "lets first consolidate our revolution here and lets forget about the internationalization of the revolution for now" led to failure.


And was it really the isolation of the revolution that condemned it to fail?

I don't like these explanations. Because they assume correlation with causation and substitute one aspect of a contradiction for the principle aspect of the contradiction. In truth, I would say that while it was a factor in the degeneration of the USSR, Albania, and China, the principle factor in the loss of those countries was the failure of the class struggle in each.

And the failure of the class struggle in each country was related to its isolation.

[Old Bolshie]

And considering that the rank-and-file of the PCE thought those orders were totally in line with Spanish conditions, I don't see the issue. Whatever you might think of "Stalinism," the Popular Front period saw the PCE's membership balloon, it was the leading force in the army (e.g. the Fifth Regiment), and was poised to expand its influence still further under most any postwar scenario in which the Republic was victorious.

Although I am against it, I wasn't criticizing Popular Front but merely stating as an example of how the PCE was subordinated to Moscow.


Again, the parties of the Comintern were always beholden to it. In Lenin's time there were already criticisms that it was treating the leaders of other parties as "subordinates" rather than "equals."

Max Eastman, always sympathetic to Trotsky, recalled the following (Stalin's Russia and the Crisis of Socialism, 1940, pp. 96-98):There was also criticisms of Lenin being tyrant and so on. That doesn't mean that those criticism had any grounding.

The Comintern affiliates had always autonomy from it as the Hungarian revolution shows us. Bela Kun even ignored and went contrary Lenin's advices on crucial matters.



Again, I don't see the issue. Besides Robert Service trying to make this an insidious occurrence, it's the PCE asking if entering the government would be a correct. And again, this was not a unique practice; Comintern-affiliated parties would try to contact Lenin (or Zinoviev) on various issues and seek their opinion, which would pretty much become the line the local party would take.Seek their opinion is not the same as asking permission to enter a government. Stalin didn't merely give his opinion.

[Ismail]

The Comintern affiliates had always autonomy from it as the Hungarian revolution shows us. Bela Kun even ignored and went contrary Lenin's advices on crucial matters.It's probably worth noting that Kun's was: A. actually in power; B. pretty much on his own since the Bolsheviks were unable to come to his aid. It's not too dissimilar to Mao ignoring Comintern orders.


There was also criticisms of Lenin being tyrant and so on. That doesn't mean that those criticism had any grounding.I didn't post Eastman's quote because I agreed with it (I don't), I posted it to make the point that "the Comintern controlled its parties" has always been a criticism from Lenin onwards.


Seek their opinion is not the same as asking permission to enter a government. Stalin didn't merely give his opinion.And if Stalin opposed the PCE entering the government, then what? The PCE would not have done it, of course, and yet I don't really see the fault. To all Comintern-affiliated parties Stalin was considered Lenin's successor in all fields. Any theoretical writings or views of his were taken seriously, especially on such a step as entering a bourgeois government, something that was quite a step to take back then.

And that brings us to this:

Although I am against it, I wasn't criticizing Popular Front but merely stating as an example of how the PCE was subordinated to Moscow.If Trotsky headed the Comintern and took whatever policies he'd take you'd probably be defending them, and denouncing as he would any attempts at deviation. The difference would be that Trotsky would "advance the revolution" whereas Stalin was supposedly its "gravedigger."

The fact is that every party of the Comintern was "subordinated to Moscow" in more ways than one. Its parties based themselves on the pattern of the CPSU(B), regarded the USSR as the bastion of world socialism, and had both financial and ideological assistance from it, which ensured that they would always be of second rank in some form.

"Subordination" per se isn't the issue. The issue was that by the 40's most of the parties of the Comintern had matured and adopted a better sense of conditions in their own countries at a time when the Comintern was unable to do it for them. By such a point the Comintern was becoming a hindrance, but even then Stalin told Dimitrov (as noted in the latter's diary) that perhaps in the future it could be revived in new forms. Certainly the formation of the Cominform was one step in that direction, and Stalin once remarked of making an Asian equivalent under the direction of the Chinese.

[Lucretia]

Socialism, within Marxist-Leninist theory, is a state where private property has been nationalized and the DOTP is in power. It isn't Communism. Again, it would behoove you to understand the theory you clamor against.

Within "Marxist-Leninist theory," but, curiously, nowhere to be seen in the texts of Marx, Engels, or Lenin. The dictatorship of the proletariat was the dictatorship of one class (the working class) over other classes (the peasantry and the bourgeoisie, most notably). Since socialism (the lower phase of communism, but still communism) is characterized by the absence of classes, I always found it odd that M-Ls see no contradiction between claiming there is to be a DotP under socialism.

[Ismail]

I always found it odd that M-Ls see no contradiction between claiming there is to be a DotP under socialism.The Soviet revisionists would concur: they declared that the historical mission of the DotP had been "fulfilled," ergo the USSR became a "state of the whole people" without class struggle. The revisionists attacked the view that class struggle assumes new forms under socialism and that the proletarian dictatorship continues until the victory of communism.

"For as long as the question 'who will win?' has not been solved completely and finally, for as long as the fundamental contradiction remains the contradiction between socialism and capitalism, between the socialist road and the capitalist road... Attacking the viewpoint of the Khrushchevite revisionists, who had proclaimed the class struggle a thing of the past in socialism, the 5th Congress of the PLA declared that the class struggle continues even after the elimination of the exploiting classes, and at the same time set out the arguments why and against whom the class struggle continues. This thesis is in full accord with what Lenin said, that 'the proletariat does not cease the class struggle after the seizure of the state power, but continues it until the elimination of classes', that is in communism.

At the 17th Congress of the Bolshevik Party in 1934 Stalin, also, stated bluntly: 'Classless society cannot come automatically, as you might say. It must be taken through struggle..., by strengthening the organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, by waging the class struggle, by eliminating classes, by liquidating the remnants of the capitalist classes, in struggle with both the internal and external enemies'."
(Nexhmije Hoxha, Some Fundamental Questions of the Revolutionary Policy of the Party of Labour of Albania About the Development of the Class Struggle. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1977, pp. 6-8.)

In fact the restoration of capitalism in the USSR demonstrated just how important the dictatorship of the proletariat is, and the opportunist character of those who spoke of the state "dying away" (as the Yugoslavs claimed their state was), that class struggle is "relaxed," etc.

As for the role of classes in Soviet society after socialism was built in the main:

"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry.

Both the two classes which exist in the U.S.S.R. are building socialism and come within the system of socialist economy. But although both are in the same system of socialist economy, the working class in its work is bound up with state socialist property (the property of the whole people), while the collective farm peasantry is bound up with cooperative and collective farm property which belongs to individual collective farms and to collective-farm and cooperative associations. This connection with different forms of socialist property primarily determines the different position of these classes. This also determine the somewhat different paths of further development of each of them.

What is common in the development of these two classes is that both are developing in the direction of communism. As this proceeds the difference in their class positions will be gradually obliterated until here too the last remnants of class distinctions finally disappear.

We cannot but realize that this is a long road."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

[Old Bolshie]

It's probably worth noting that Kun's was: A. actually in power; B. pretty much on his own since the Bolsheviks were unable to come to his aid. It's not too dissimilar to Mao ignoring Comintern orders.


I don't see how Kun being in power (in fact Bolshevik support began before he was in power) or the fact that the Bolsheviks failed to come to his aid (in fact they were financially aid by the Bolsheviks) would invalidate the fact that they were autonomous.



I didn't post Eastman's quote because I agreed with it (I don't), I posted it to make the point that "the Comintern controlled its parties" has always been a criticism from Lenin onwards.

But that criticism began to have grounding as Stalin's centralization increased as the SCW proves it.




And if Stalin opposed the PCE entering the government, then what? The PCE would not have done it, of course, and yet I don't really see the fault. To all Comintern-affiliated parties Stalin was considered Lenin's successor in all fields. Any theoretical writings or views of his were taken seriously, especially on such a step as entering a bourgeois government, something that was quite a step to take back then.

It just shows how the PCE was under Moscow control. That was my point from the beginning.


And that brings us to this:
If Trotsky headed the Comintern and took whatever policies he'd take you'd probably be defending them, and denouncing as he would any attempts at deviation. The difference would be that Trotsky would "advance the revolution" whereas Stalin was supposedly its "gravedigger."

The fact is that every party of the Comintern was "subordinated to Moscow" in more ways than one. Its parties based themselves on the pattern of the CPSU(B), regarded the USSR as the bastion of world socialism, and had both financial and ideological assistance from it, which ensured that they would always be of second rank in some form.

"Subordination" per se isn't the issue. The issue was that by the 40's most of the parties of the Comintern had matured and adopted a better sense of conditions in their own countries at a time when the Comintern was unable to do it for them. By such a point the Comintern was becoming a hindrance, but even then Stalin told Dimitrov (as noted in the latter's diary) that perhaps in the future it could be revived in new forms. Certainly the formation of the Cominform was one step in that direction, and Stalin once remarked of making an Asian equivalent under the direction of the Chinese.

If Trotsky had done the same thing as Stalin did I would criticize him and Moscow's control in the same degree even if I would agree with the policy adopted. I am completely against foreign control over communist parties. They should maintain its autonomy even if helped financially or in other ways by a foreign power.

[Lucretia]

The Soviet revisionists would concur: they declared that the historical mission of the DotP had been "fulfilled," ergo the USSR became a "state of the whole people" without class struggle. The revisionists attacked the view that class struggle assumes new forms under socialism and that the proletarian dictatorship continues until the victory of communism.

"For as long as the question 'who will win?' has not been solved completely and finally, for as long as the fundamental contradiction remains the contradiction between socialism and capitalism, between the socialist road and the capitalist road... Attacking the viewpoint of the Khrushchevite revisionists, who had proclaimed the class struggle a thing of the past in socialism, the 5th Congress of the PLA declared that the class struggle continues even after the elimination of the exploiting classes, and at the same time set out the arguments why and against whom the class struggle continues. This thesis is in full accord with what Lenin said, that 'the proletariat does not cease the class struggle after the seizure of the state power, but continues it until the elimination of classes', that is in communism.

At the 17th Congress of the Bolshevik Party in 1934 Stalin, also, stated bluntly: 'Classless society cannot come automatically, as you might say. It must be taken through struggle..., by strengthening the organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, by waging the class struggle, by eliminating classes, by liquidating the remnants of the capitalist classes, in struggle with both the internal and external enemies'."
(Nexhmije Hoxha, Some Fundamental Questions of the Revolutionary Policy of the Party of Labour of Albania About the Development of the Class Struggle. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1977, pp. 6-8.)

In fact the restoration of capitalism in the USSR demonstrated just how important the dictatorship of the proletariat is, and the opportunist character of those who spoke of the state "dying away" (as the Yugoslavs claimed their state was), that class struggle is "relaxed," etc.

As for the role of classes in Soviet society after socialism was built in the main:

"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry.

Both the two classes which exist in the U.S.S.R. are building socialism and come within the system of socialist economy. But although both are in the same system of socialist economy, the working class in its work is bound up with state socialist property (the property of the whole people), while the collective farm peasantry is bound up with cooperative and collective farm property which belongs to individual collective farms and to collective-farm and cooperative associations. This connection with different forms of socialist property primarily determines the different position of these classes. This also determine the somewhat different paths of further development of each of them.

What is common in the development of these two classes is that both are developing in the direction of communism. As this proceeds the difference in their class positions will be gradually obliterated until here too the last remnants of class distinctions finally disappear.

We cannot but realize that this is a long road."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

Even a superficial glance at Ismail's latest paean to Stalin-Hoxha will verify what I said in my previous post. You'll see "Marxists-Leninists" talk about a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under socialism, but you'll never, ever see them point to such talk in the writings of Marx, Engels, or Lenin. The reason, of course, is that there is no such discussion of a DotP under communism, either in its lower phase (which Lenin dubbed "socialism") or in its higher phase, in any of their writings. Why? Because it on a very basic level of definitions does not make sense to talk about a classless society, which is how Marx, Engels, and Lenin all described communism in any of its phases, while maintaining that there is a dictatorship of the working class over others in that same society, which of course is what the DotP is.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Because it on a very basic level of definitions does not make sense to talk about a classless society, which is how Marx, Engels, and Lenin all described communism in any of its phases, while maintaining that there is a dictatorship of the working class over others in that same society, which of course is what the DotP is.

How would you get from a society of classes to a classless society?

[Lucretia]

How would you get from a society of classes to a classless society?

A transitional society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, by which the working classes uses its political primacy to suppress remaining bourgeois forces and comes more and more to take full control of the economy by phasing out value and commodity production. Once that classless (communist) society -- which can only happen through international victory -- is achieved, there is no more "dictatorship" of any classes. Hence it is completely illogical to speak of a DotP under socialism. And that's not to say anything about the irony of people who dub themselves "Marxist-Leninists" departing from the writings of Marx and Lenin on this very important, perhaps central, issue.

[Ismail]

And that's not to say anything about the irony of people who dub themselves "Marxist-Leninists" departing from the writings of Marx and Lenin on this very important, perhaps central, issue.I guess it's related to the same reason Lenin called himself a Marxist, possibly having something to do with that whole "Marxism is a guide to action and not a dogma" thing of his.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed a central issue, which is precisely why revisionism attacked its continuation under socialism. So long as classes exist the class struggle must, logically, exist as well, especially considering the state is an instrument of a specific class. The alternative is to promote the dying-out of the class struggle and the idea of a supra-class state. The fact that Trotsky actually called for multiple parties in the USSR as a supposedly "natural" road to take if socialism was actually established shows the sort of mentality.

To give an example of the Yugoslav revisionists attacking Stalin from a supposedly "orthodox" position (in this case by the "market socialist" Horvat):

"Marx invariably contrasts capitalism and communism with the utmost clarity, and makes it clear that two phases may be distinguished in the future system - socialism and communism - and that between that system and capitalism there lies a transition period in which the state takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It clearly follows, therefore, that under socialism there no longer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, there are no classes or class exploitation, etc., and Stalin's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism is nothing but an anti-Marxist thesis, one more feature of his reactionary state-capitalist ideology, in which the term dictatorship of the proletariat really means the dictatorship of the bureaucracy."
(Horvat, Branko. An Essay on Yugoslav Society. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press. 1969. p. 57.)

And the Soviet revisionists, from the 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "The dictatorship of the proletariat... undergoes changes in the process of building a socialist society. As the exploiting classes in one or another country are eliminated, the function of suppressing their resistance disappears, and the process begins by which the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat grows into an all-national organization of the laborers of the socialist society. Having secured the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR and the transition of society to the construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission. From the point of view of the tasks of internal development, it has ceased to be necessary in the Soviet Union. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been transformed into an all-national socialist state and the proletarian democracy, into an all-national socialist democracy."

There is an obvious contrast between these two revisionist lines and the line of the PLA:

"In opposition to the viewpoints of the modern revisionists, who have hidden the class struggle from the life of the society and only speak about the unity of this society, our Party upholds the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint that the class struggle continues not only during the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism, when the exploiting classes still exist, but also after their liquidation as classes, during the whole period of the construction of socialist society and the transition to communism, remaining one of the main motive forces of society.

... Experience shows that... the sharp edge of the class struggle is not directed mainly or only to the external front... Even within the country this struggle is not directed only against the remnants of the exploiting classes and their agents or the foreign enemies, spies, saboteurs, and diversionists, but this struggle is extended even to the ranks of the people and the Party, it acts in all fields of political, economic, ideological and cultural, organizational and military life."
(Foto Çami in Some Questions of Socialist Construction in Albania and of the Struggle Against Revisionism. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1971. pp. 99-101.)

Indeed, it was noted that:

"Lenin supported with scientific arguments the possibility of the victory of socialism in a single country and laid the basis of the plan for the construction of socialist society. Life verified the correctness of the ideas of Lenin. Stalin further developed the Leninist theory of the socialist revolution. He emphasized that the bourgeoisie can be overthrown and the complete socialist society built with the internal forces of the people of the country of the triumphant revolution, but this victory, he pointed out, could not be called final while there still existed the capitalist encirclement and, therefore consequently, the danger of aggression and the restoration of capitalism. Although it was onesided for the lack of historical experience, this conclusion of Stalin, also, has been completely verified by practice."
(Ibid. p. 103.)

As for Stalin's attitude towards this pseudo-orthodoxy, it can probably be gauged by his criticism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/03.htm) of Zinoviev in 1926, when the latter brought up Engels' answer if a proletarian revolution could be established in one country alone:

Engels said that a proletarian revolution with the programme set forth above could not take place in one separate country. But the fact is that, in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat, the conditions of imperialism, we have in the main already accomplished such a revolution in one separate country, in our country, having carried out nine-tenths of its programme.

Zinoviev may say that we made a mistake in carrying out this programme, in carrying out these points. (Laughter.) It may well be that in carrying out these points, we have been guilty of a certain “national narrow-mindedness.” (Laughter.) That may very well be. But one thing is nevertheless clear, namely, that what Engels in the forties of the last century, in the conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism, considered impracticable and impossible for one country, became practicable and possible in our country in the conditions of imperialism.

Of course, if Engels were alive, he would not cling to the old formula. On the contrary, he would heartily welcome our revolution, and would say: “To the devil with all old formulas! Long live the victorious revolution in the U.S.S.R.!” (Applause.)

But that is not the way the gentry of the Social-Democratic camp see it. They cling to Engels’s old formula in order to use it as a screen and facilitate their fight against our revolution, against the Bolsheviks. That is their affair, of course. Only the sad thing is that Zinoviev is trying to ape these gentry, and in the present case is taking the Social-Democratic path.Anyway, for the "Stalinist" version of what the DOTP is, I present a 1952 pamphlet, The USSR: 100 Questions Answered:


99. - What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the State power of the working class that is established in a country after the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie. It continues throughout the period of the transition of society from capitalism to communism. During this transition period the working class, which is at the helm of State power, performs the following tasks:

1. It suppresses the overthrown exploiting classes in their attempts to re-establish their power, and it organises the country's defence so as to protect it from sudden attacks on the part of capitalist states.
2. It establishes and consolidates the friendly alliance with the working peasantry and other masses exploited under capitalism, drawing these masses into the work of building socialist society, exercising State guidance of these masses, enlisting them to take an active part in administering the country and educating them in the spirit of socialism.
3. It organises the planned development of the national economy, completely eliminates the exploiting classes and the capitalist elements in the national economy, works to carry through the complete victory of socialism in every sphere of life, and effects the transition to the classless communist society (see answer No. 100).

The dictatorship of the proletariat continues to exist in communist society as long as, side by side with it, capitalist countries continue to exist. The dictatorship of the proletariat (State power) will disappear when the capitalist encirclement is completely replaced by a socialist encirclement.

The State form of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not uniform. In the Soviet Union it takes the form of Soviet power (the power of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies). After the Second World War, States of proletarian dictatorship arose in Central and South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia). In these countries the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the form of governments of people's democracy. In both the Soviet Union and the people's democracies, the leading role in the State belongs to the working class, as the foremost class in society. The highest principle of dictatorship of the proletariat is the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, with the working class in the leading role. The leading and directing force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the vanguard of the working class: the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R., and the communist and Marxist workers' parties in the people's democracies.

The leading role of the communist and Marxist workers' parties has, by the will of the people, been given legislative embodiment and secured to them in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and the Constitutions of the people's democracies.

100. - What is communism?

The Soviet people have built up socialism and are now in the period of gradual transition to communism. What is communism, and in what way does it differ from socialism?

The teaching of the founders of scientific communism, Marx and Engels, a teaching developed comprehensively by V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin, propounds that socialism and communism are the two phases, two stages of development, of one and the same social system: communist society.

Socialism is the first (lower) stage; and communism is the second (higher) stage of communist society. While socialism and communism have much in common, there is, nevertheless, a difference between them. The following features are common to both socialism and communism:

Under both socialism and communism the economic foundation of society is the public ownership of the instruments and means of production and an integrated socialist system of economy. There are no contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production; there is complete conformity between them. Neither under socialism nor communism is there social oppression. There are no exploiting classes, no exploitation of many by man, and no national oppression. Under both socialism and communism the national economy is developed according to plan, and there are neither economic crises, nor unemployment and poverty among the masses. Under both socialism and communism everyone is equally bound to work according to his ability.

What then, is the difference between communism and socialism?

Socialist society affords full play for the development of the productive forces. The level reached by socialist production makes it possible for society to give effect to the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." This means that the products are distributed in accordance with the quantity and quality of the work performed. In communist society, however, the productive forces will reach an incomparably higher level of development than under socialism. The national economy will develop on the foundation of a higher technique, the production processes will be mechanised and automatised in an all-round way, and people will extensively utilise every source of energy.

The higher level of technique and productivity of labour will ensure an abundance of all consumer goods and all material and cultural wealth. This abundance of products will make it possible to meet fully the needs of all members of communist society. Social life under communism, therefore, will be guided by the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Ignoramuses and enemies of communism assert that under communism there will be a levelling of the tastes and needs of all people. This is slandering communism, for tastes and needs of people are not and cannot be the same or alike in quality or quantity, either under socialism or communism. Under communism there will be an all-round and full satisfaction of every demand of civilised people.

Under socialism there are still the working classes—the workers and peasants—and the intelligentsia, among whom there remains a difference. Under communism there will be no class differences, and the entire people will become working folk of a united, classless communist society. Under socialism there still exists a distinction between town and country. Under communism there will be no essential distinction between town and country, that is, between industry and agriculture. Under socialism there still exists an essential distinction between mental and manual labour, because the cultural and technical standards of the workers and peasants are not yet high enough. Under communism this distinction will disappear, for the cultural and technical standard of all working people will reach the standard of engineers and technicians.

Under socialism there still exist the survivals of capitalism in the minds of some members of society (indifference towards work, a tendency to take all you can get from society while giving as little as you can get away with, etc.). Under communism all survivals of capitalism will disappear. Under communism work is no longer merely a means of livelihood, but man's primary need in life.

[Lucretia]

I guess it's related to the same reason Lenin called himself a Marxist, possibly having something to do with that whole "Marxism is a guide to action and not a dogma" thing of his.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed a central issue, which is precisely why revisionism attacked its continuation under socialism. So long as classes exist the class struggle must, logically, exist as well, especially considering the state is an instrument of a specific class. The alternative is to promote the dying-out of the class struggle and the idea of a supra-class state. The fact that Trotsky actually called for multiple parties in the USSR as a supposedly "natural" road to take if socialism was actually established shows the sort of mentality.

To give an example of the Yugoslav revisionists attacking Stalin from a supposedly "orthodox" position (in this case by the "market socialist" Horvat):

"Marx invariably contrasts capitalism and communism with the utmost clarity, and makes it clear that two phases may be distinguished in the future system - socialism and communism - and that between that system and capitalism there lies a transition period in which the state takes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It clearly follows, therefore, that under socialism there no longer is a dictatorship of the proletariat, there are no classes or class exploitation, etc., and Stalin's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism is nothing but an anti-Marxist thesis, one more feature of his reactionary state-capitalist ideology, in which the term dictatorship of the proletariat really means the dictatorship of the bureaucracy."
(Horvat, Branko. An Essay on Yugoslav Society. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press. 1969. p. 57.)

And the Soviet revisionists, from the 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "The dictatorship of the proletariat... undergoes changes in the process of building a socialist society. As the exploiting classes in one or another country are eliminated, the function of suppressing their resistance disappears, and the process begins by which the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat grows into an all-national organization of the laborers of the socialist society. Having secured the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR and the transition of society to the construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission. From the point of view of the tasks of internal development, it has ceased to be necessary in the Soviet Union. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been transformed into an all-national socialist state and the proletarian democracy, into an all-national socialist democracy."

There is an obvious contrast between these two revisionist lines and the line of the PLA:

"In opposition to the viewpoints of the modern revisionists, who have hidden the class struggle from the life of the society and only speak about the unity of this society, our Party upholds the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint that the class struggle continues not only during the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism, when the exploiting classes still exist, but also after their liquidation as classes, during the whole period of the construction of socialist society and the transition to communism, remaining one of the main motive forces of society.

... Experience shows that... the sharp edge of the class struggle is not directed mainly or only to the external front... Even within the country this struggle is not directed only against the remnants of the exploiting classes and their agents or the foreign enemies, spies, saboteurs, and diversionists, but this struggle is extended even to the ranks of the people and the Party, it acts in all fields of political, economic, ideological and cultural, organizational and military life."
(Foto Çami in Some Questions of Socialist Construction in Albania and of the Struggle Against Revisionism. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1971. pp. 99-101.)

Indeed, it was noted that:

"Lenin supported with scientific arguments the possibility of the victory of socialism in a single country and laid the basis of the plan for the construction of socialist society. Life verified the correctness of the ideas of Lenin. Stalin further developed the Leninist theory of the socialist revolution. He emphasized that the bourgeoisie can be overthrown and the complete socialist society built with the internal forces of the people of the country of the triumphant revolution, but this victory, he pointed out, could not be called final while there still existed the capitalist encirclement and, therefore consequently, the danger of aggression and the restoration of capitalism. Although it was onesided for the lack of historical experience, this conclusion of Stalin, also, has been completely verified by practice."
(Ibid. p. 103.)

As for Stalin's attitude towards this pseudo-orthodoxy, it can probably be gauged by his criticism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/03.htm) of Zinoviev in 1926, when the latter brought up Engels' answer if a proletarian revolution could be established in one country alone:
Anyway, for the "Stalinist" version of what the DOTP is, I present a 1952 pamphlet, The USSR: 100 Questions Answered:

Ismail, you seem to have a problem distinguishing what Marx and Lenin said about the DotP, and what Stalin and Hoxha said about it, thereby just taking for granted that they are the same. This is the second time you've responded with large block quotes from the latter two people, when my observation - the one you're apparently trying to challenge - is that no Marxist-Leninist has ever been able to provide me with textual evidence that Marx, Engels, or Lenin wrote that there would be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under socialism. Dumping more from Hoxha's Collected Works hardly addresses this concern.

Do you have the quotes from Marx, Engels, or Lenin, or don't you? It's fine if you don't, and only have quotes from Stalin and Hoxha. It's also fine if you think the quotes from Stalin-Hoxha are the most wonderful ideas human minds have ever been able to generate, and that people who disagree with them are fascist Trotskyite scum. But please do us all a favor and stop pretending that what you're saying about the DotP and its relationship to socialism has anything to do with what Marx, Engels, or Lenin said about it.

[Ismail]

Ismail, you seem to have a problem distinguishing what Marx and Lenin said about the DotP, and what Stalin and Hoxha said about it, thereby just taking for granted that they are the same. This is the second time you've responded with large block quotes from the latter two people, when my observation - the one you're apparently trying to challenge - is that no Marxist-Leninist has ever been able to provide me with textual evidence that Marx, Engels, or Lenin wrote that there would be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under socialism. Dumping more from Hoxha's Collected Works hardly addresses this concern.

Do you have the quotes from Marx, Engels, or Lenin, or don't you? It's fine if you don't, and only have quotes from Stalin and Hoxha. It's also fine if you think the quotes from Stalin-Hoxha are the most wonderful ideas human minds have ever been able to generate, and that people who disagree with them are fascist Trotskyite scum. But please do us all a favor and stop pretending that what you're saying about the DotP and its relationship to socialism has anything to do with what Marx, Engels, or Lenin said about it.I like how you belittle the "large block quotes," it probably indicates you didn't actually read the post. I've read a number of Soviet and Albanian materials on the subject, none of them pretend that the works of Marx and Engels could adequately answer the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism. Indeed, the Albanians noted that not even Stalin could fully appreciate its role.

My point, which you can't seem to grasp, is that it was the revisionists (Soviet and Yugoslav, but also Eurocommunist, etc.) who called for "returning to Marx/Lenin" on this issue, because to call for the continuation of the class struggle in the economy and in society was obviously incompatible with their interests as the new bourgeoisie.

Lenin did speak of the importance of class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and noted that as long as this dictatorship existed so, too, did class struggle exist. History shows that the existence of the proletarian dictatorship under socialism, which was first grasped by Stalin considering that he was the first to preside over it, is fundamental to the continued existence of the socialist system and, finally, the victory of communism on a world scale.

As Lenin once noted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/jul/15.htm): "To ignore the changes which have taken place in that back ground and to continue advocating the old solutions given by Marxism, would mean being true to the letter but not to the spirit of the teaching, would mean repeating the old conclusions by rote, without being able to use the Marxist method of research to analyse the new political situation." The Soviet and other revisionists opportunistically appealed to such "orthodoxy" in a way not dissimilar to the Mensheviks, trying to pose as upholders of the letter of Marxism while depriving it of all its spirit and serving the cause of counter-revolution in the process.

[Lucretia]

I like how you belittle the "large block quotes," it probably indicates you didn't actually read the post. I've read a number of Soviet and Albanian materials on the subject, none of them pretend that the works of Marx and Engels could adequately answer the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism. Indeed, the Albanians noted that not even Stalin could fully appreciate its role.

My point, which you can't seem to grasp, is that it was the revisionists (Soviet and Yugoslav, but also Eurocommunist, etc.) who called for "returning to Marx/Lenin" on this issue, because to call for the continuation of the class struggle in the economy and in society was obviously incompatible with their interests as the new bourgeoisie.

Lenin did speak of the importance of class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and noted that as long as this dictatorship existed so, too, did class struggle exist. History shows that the existence of the proletarian dictatorship under socialism is fundamental to the continued existence of the socialist system and, finally, the victory of communism on a world scale.

As Lenin once noted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/jul/15.htm): "To ignore the changes which have taken place in that back ground and to continue advocating the old solutions given by Marxism, would mean being true to the letter but not to the spirit of the teaching, would mean repeating the old conclusions by rote, without being able to use the Marxist method of research to analyse the new political situation." The Soviet revisionists opportunistically appealed to "orthodoxy" in a way not dissimilar to the Mensheviks, trying to pose as upholders of the letter of Marxism while depriving it of all its spirit.

When I ask for quotes from Lenin, Marx, and Engels about there being a DotP under socialism, and instead you regurgitate chunks of text from Hoxha's greatest hits, it is safe to assume that I am not going to read those quotes. Perhaps if I were interested in debating the finer points of the evolution of Hoxha's political thought, I would. I am a fair person, Ismail, and wouldn't expect to you read large excerpts from Trotsky if we were having a debate on what Marx did or did not say.

And there's no doubt that Lenin thought about and wrote about the importance of the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat. So did Marx and Engels. Nobody is challenging that. What I am challenging is this bizarre notion that Marx, Engels, or Lenin thought class struggle and the DotP continue to exist under classless society -- or as Marx, Engels, and Lenin referred to it: communism (in both its lower and higher stages).

[Ismail]

When I ask for quotes from Lenin, Marx, and Engels about there being a DotP under socialism, and instead your regurgitates chunks of text from Hoxha's greatest hits,For the record I haven't even quoted Enver Hoxha in this argument.


What I am challenging is this bizarre notion that class struggle and the DotP continue to exist under classless society -- or as Marx, Engels, and Lenin referred to it: communism (in both its lower and higher stages).Then the issue isn't your conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism, but your conception of socialism to begin with. Talking about the role of the DOTP under socialism doesn't make much sense in such a debate when the very definition of socialism is different between those engaged in it (in this case, Trots and "Stalinists.")

[Lucretia]

For the record I haven't even quoted Enver Hoxha in this argument.

Then the issue isn't your conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism, but your conception of socialism to begin with. Talking about the role of the DOTP under socialism doesn't make much sense when the very definition of socialism is different between Trots and "Stalinists."

Yes, my bad. You quoted Hoxha's fellow travelers in Albania, not Hoxha himself. An amazingly important point to make. So do you have the quotes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin where they discuss the DotP under socialism, or don't you? We're all waiting for them with baited breath.

[Ismail]

Yes, my bad. You quoted Hoxha's fellow travelers in Albania, not Hoxha himself. An amazingly important point to make. So do you have the quotes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin where they discuss the DotP under socialism, or don't you? We're all waiting for them with baited breath.No, just as I don't have quotes from them discussing the atom bomb, or quotes from Marx and Engels on imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, or those two men's appraisal of the significance of Soviet power. And I already noted that the Soviets and Albanians made no attempt to pretend such quotes existed either, because Marxists treat them scientifically, not as holy writ.

I also noted that, on the contrary, both the Soviet and Yugoslav revisionists certainly took note of this absence as part of their campaigns to "return to Marxism/Leninism." Both specifically attacked the idea of class struggle under socialism, denouncing it as a "Stalinist deviation." They didn't do this because they wanted to "return" to anything, they did it because the significance of the existence of the DOTP under socialism directly conflicted with their goal of extinguishing this class struggle and restoring capitalism in all fields.

[Lucretia]

No, just as I don't have quotes from them discussing the atom bomb, or quotes from Marx and Engels on imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, or those two men's appraisal of the significance of Soviet power. And I already noted that the Soviets and Albanians made no attempt to pretend such quotes existed either, because Marxists treat them scientifically, not as holy writ.

I also noted that, on the contrary, both the Soviet and Yugoslav revisionists certainly took note of this absence as part of their campaigns to "return to Marxism/Leninism." Both specifically attacked the idea of class struggle under socialism, denouncing it as a "Stalinist deviation" from Marxism. They didn't do this because they wanted to "return" to anything, they did it because the significance of the existence of the DOTP under socialism directly conflicted with their goal of extinguishing this class struggle and restoring capitalism in all fields.

We're not debating what Albanians who were in power twenty years after Lenin's death wrote. We're note debating what "revisionists" wrote. It's very simple, Ismail. Pay very close attention: we're having a discussion about what Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote. You can quote your grandmother's diary for opinions on the DotP, and it would have just as much relevance for deciding what Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote.

I keep asking for quotes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin, in which any of them discusses or hints at the existence of a DotP (or class struggle) under communism (including its lower stage, socialism), and yet you have not provided a single quote showing this, instead falling back on a quote in which Lenin discusses class struggle under the DotP.

You'll never provide the quotes, because they don't exist. And if you want to prove that they do, you'd better post them here for all to see, instead of quoting what other people claim Lenin and Marx and Engels wrote.

[Ismail]

I keep asking for quotes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin, in which any of them discusses or hints at the existence of a DotP (or class struggle) under communism (including its lower stage, socialism), and yet you have not provided a single quote showing this, instead falling back on a quote in which Lenin discusses class struggle under the DotP.

You'll never provide the quotes, because they don't exist. And if you want to prove that they do, you'd better post them here for all to see, instead of quoting what other people claim Lenin and Marx and Engels wrote.Actually you claimed that Marxist-Leninists were somehow hypocrites; you wrote of the supposed "irony of people who dub themselves 'Marxist-Leninists' departing from the writings of Marx and Lenin on this very important, perhaps central, issue." I noted that they indeed "departed" from this conception, for the same reason they "departed" from Engels' formula in The Principles of Communism on the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country.

They "departed" precisely so that they could further the cause of the proletarian revolution, the construction of socialism, and the victory of communism. Their opponents then rushed to uphold the old schema so that they could oppose proletarian revolution (as the Mensheviks did), go against the construction of socialism (as the Trots did), and remove all revolutionary content from the phrase "building of communism" (as the Soviet revisionists did.)

Thus, as Stalin once said: "There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand by the latter."

[Lucretia]

Actually you claimed that Marxist-Leninists were somehow hypocrites; you wrote of the supposed "irony of people who dub themselves 'Marxist-Leninists' departing from the writings of Marx and Lenin on this very important, perhaps central, issue." I noted that they indeed "departed" from this conception, for the same reason they "departed" from Engels' formula in The Principles of Communism on the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country.

They "departed" precisely so that they could further the cause of the proletarian revolution, the construction of socialism, and the victory of communism. Their opponents then rushed to uphold the old schema so that they could oppose proletarian revolution (as the Mensheviks did), go against the construction of socialism (as the Trots did), and remove all revolutionary content from the phrase "building of communism" (as the Soviet revisionists did.)

So feel free to dance around declaring that neither Marx, Engels or Lenin spoke of the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism. Such "orthodoxy" has already been shown to defend counter-revolution.

The only dancing going on here is by you. There is a great irony, and I stand by that comment, in a person who calls himself a "Marxist-Leninist" but when pressed, cannot provide any evidence that his views coincide with what Marx, Engels, or Lenin actually wrote on a central topic in their political thought: the political emancipation of the working class as they struggle to use their new-found political hegemony to transition to socialism.

Three times now I have asked for quotes from Lenin, Marx, and Engels that demonstrate that any of these thinkers entertained the idea of a DotP or class struggle under socialism. You have provided zero and are engaging in ridiculous diversionary tricks to try to save face in light of the fact that you cannot root your understanding of "Marxist-Leninist" positions in the texts of either Marx or Lenin.

But feel free to keep squirming. The more posts that roll by without any of the quotes I have been asking for, the more obvious it is to people not named Ismail that such quotes cannot be provided.

[Ismail]

For the benefit of anyone else suffering from a mental inability to infer the obvious, allow me to sum up the past few posts:

* Marx, Engels and Lenin did not understand the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism considering that they did not live to see the latter being constructed in the main, ergo searching for quotes from them is futile, and neither the Soviets under Stalin or the Albanians sought to do so. This means there are no quotes from them on the DOTP under socialism, even though there are quotes from them on the continuance of class struggle wherever the DOTP exists.
* "It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life." - Lenin.
* Stalin, presiding over the construction of socialism in the main, held that the DOTP still existed under socialism because: A. capitalist encirclement still existed; B. classes still existed. After his death the Albanians, drawing on the experience of capitalist restoration in the USSR, elaborated the role of the DOTP under socialism, linking it with the uninterrupted character of the socialist revolution in all fields.
* The modern revisionists put back into the spotlight the old formulas of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the service of ending class struggle in the USSR and consolidating the new bourgeois dictatorship.
* It should then be obvious that anyone calling for an end to the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism is objectively serving the cause of capitalist restoration.
* Enver Hoxha > Trotsky.

[Lucretia]

* Marx, Engels and Lenin did not understand the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism considering that they did not live to see the latter being constructed in the main, ergo searching for quotes from them is futile, and neither the Soviets under Stalin or the Albanians sought to do so. This means there are no quotes from them on the DOTP under socialism, even though there are quotes from them on the continuance of class struggle wherever the DOTP exists.
* "It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life." - Lenin.
* Stalin, presiding over the construction of socialism in the main, held that the DOTP still existed under socialism because: A. capitalist encirclement still existed; B. classes still existed. After his death the Albanians, drawing on the experience of capitalist restoration in the USSR, elaborated the role of the DOTP under socialism, linking it with the uninterrupted character of the socialist revolution in all fields.
* The modern revisionists put back into the spotlight the old formulas of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the service of ending class struggle in the USSR and consolidating the new bourgeois dictatorship.
* It should then be obvious that anyone calling for an end to the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism is objectively serving the cause of capitalist restoration.
* Enver Hoxha > Trotsky.

You speak as if the dictatorship of the proletariat and its relationship to socialism as though it were some minor detail in the thinking of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Hell, Lenin basically devoted an entire work to the subject. But apparently they were all wrong in their theories about how the DotP related to socialism because they didn't live to see socialism being "constructed" in an actual society.

Setting aside this weird notion that the Soviet Union was not transitioning to socialism under the DotP between the October Revolution and Lenin's death (I suppose in your view it remained fully capitalist until Stalin?), your critique basically amounts to discounting what Marx and Engels and Lenin wrote about socialism. For all three of these thinkers, socialism was a classless society. Yet you cast your lot with Stalin, for whom socialism co-existed with classes, in direct contradiction to what Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote. Why should we accept this Stalinist "innovation" of Marx and Lenin? Why should we think that when Stalin talks of a "socialist" society with classes that he is talking about the same thing that Marx, Engels and Lenin were talking about when they wrote about socialism and communism? Why would you call yourself a "Marxist-Leninist" when your views contradict what Marx and Lenin wrote about the thing they cared the most about in their lives?

I guess accepting Marx's, Engels's, and Lenin's definition of socialism as a classless society is too "orthodox" for you -- the man who spends half his time on revleft quote-mongering with Hoxha's and Stalin's collected works. Hilarious.

But thank you for finally admitting for all the innocent bystanders: you cannot quote Marx or Engels or Lenin talking about a socialist society with classes, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under socialism, because none of them viewed socialism as a society in which class warfare dictated the decision of the state acting as a public authority, as a society with a dictatorship of one class over others. If this sounds hostile to your fantasy that the Soviet Union was socialist, congratulations. After years of flirting with Marxist rhetoric, you're beginning to take your first steps in the direction of authentic Marxian socialism. Your claim to be following in the tradition of Marx and Lenin is as mysterious as those non-existent quotes that M-Ls have never been able to produce.

[Ismail]

Setting aside this weird notion that the Soviet Union was not transitioning to socialism under the DotP between the October Revolution and Lenin's death (I suppose in your view it remained fully capitalist until Stalin?),Who said it wasn't transitioning to socialism under Lenin? By the time he died the NEP was in force, the main task was the reconstruction of the country and the massing of forces for new offensives in socialist construction.


Why would you call yourself a "Marxist-Leninist" when your views contradict what Marx and Lenin wrote about the thing they cared the most about in their lives?I always thought they dedicated their lives to the emancipation of labor, I guess I was wrong.


I guess accepting Marx's, Engels's, and Lenin's definition of socialism as a classless society is too "orthodox" for you -- the man who spends half his time on revleft quote-mongering with Hoxha's and Stalin's collected works. Hilarious.Obviously we must heed the wise words of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Tito and Gorbachev, and return to the source in opposition to all the "distortions" brought on by "Stalinism." Indeed, let us also uphold the Mensheviks who denounced Lenin for his "deviations" from Marxism.

You seem to forget that the "degenerated workers' state" has nothing to do with the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin either, nor did it have any revolutionary content considering that it provided cover for Soviet state-capitalism when the time came. Somehow I don't think you're going to denounce Trotsky for this, even though he was also calling for multiple political parties and other liberal measures at the time Stalin was reiterating that the dictatorship of the proletariat still existed under socialism.

Lenin consistently fought revisionism. He also forcefully argued in various ways that Marxism is a science. "Orthodoxy" means nothing when it is being deployed in the service of counter-revolution.


But thank you for finally admitting for all the innocent bystanders: you cannot quote Marx or Engels or Lenin talking about a socialist society with classes, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under socialism, because none of them viewed socialism as a society in which class warfare dictated the decision of the state acting as a public authority, as a society with a dictatorship of one class over others. If this sounds hostile to your fantasy that the Soviet Union was socialist, congratulations.I think it would only be "hostile" to those who think their role is to engage in exegeses of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.

The Trots, in the name of "the defense of Marxism," uphold the same stand as the Soviet, Yugoslav, Eurocommunist and other strands of revisionism on this question, one which calls for an end to class struggle. Claim all you want; revisionism showed what the abandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in words and deeds meant for the future of the international communist movement, Stalin and Hoxha showed what the defense of both meant for that same movement.

[Lucretia]

Who said it wasn't transitioning to socialism under Lenin?

I always thought they dedicated their lives to the emancipation of labor, I guess I was wrong.

Obviously we must heed the wise words of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Tito and Gorbachev, and return to the source in opposition to all the "distortions" brought on by "Stalinism." Indeed, let us also uphold the Mensheviks who denounced Lenin for his "deviations" from Marxism.

You seem to forget that the "degenerated workers' state" has nothing to do with the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin either, nor did it have any revolutionary content considering that it provided cover for Soviet state-capitalism when the time came. Somehow I don't think you're going to denounce Trotsky for this, even though he was also calling for multiple political parties and other liberal measures at the time Stalin was reiterating that the dictatorship of the proletariat still existed under socialism.

Lenin consistently fought revisionism. He also forcefully argued in various ways that Marxism is a science. "Orthodoxy" means nothing when it is being deployed in the service of counter-revolution.

I think it would only be "hostile" to those who think their role is to engage in exegeses of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.

The Trots, in the name of "the defense of Marxism," uphold the same stand as the Soviet, Yugoslav, Eurocommunist and other strands of revisionism on this question, one which calls for an end to class struggle. Claim all you want; revisionism showed what the abandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in words and deeds meant for the future of the international communist movement, Stalin and Hoxha showed what the defense of both meant for that same movement.

You can't dodge the point that has been clearly laid out for all to see, Ismail. Your definition of socialism might be Stalin's, Hoxha's, or even Brezhnev's, but it sure as hell isn't Marx's, Engels's, or Lenin's.

[Ismail]

Your definition of socialism might be Stalin's, Hoxha's, or even Brezhnev's,We've already established that Brezhnev's conception of the relationship of the DOTP to socialism, in which the former "fulfills its historical function" and ceases to exist along with class struggle, is no different in practice from what the Trots argue.

[Lucretia]

We've already established that Brezhnev's conception of "socialism," in which the dictatorship of the proletariat "fulfills its historical function" and ceases to exist along with class struggle, is no different in practice from what the Trots argue.

Since you've not quoted from a single historically significant "Trot," in this thread, and since the M-L definition of socialism contains classes (in contrast to the "Trot" definition, as well as the definition of Marx, Engels, and Lenin), I am quite sure that this latest diversionary post of yours is just the figment of your grandiose dreams.

[Ismail]

Since you've not quoted from a single "Trot," in this thread, and since the M-L definition of socialism contains classes (in contrast to the "Trot" definition, as well as the definition of Marx, Engels, and Lenin), I am not quite sure that this latest diversionary post of yours is anything but the figment of your grandiose dreams.And yet on the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat (and, consequently, class struggle) which we've been discussing, there is unanimity between the Trots and revisionists.

As Bland quoted in his work The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union:

"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).And again, in The Revolution Betrayed Trotsky spoke of the creation of multiple parties in the USSR as a supposedly "natural" aspect of the achievement of socialism, and attacked Stalin on this point. In the process he calls for the revocation of the leading role of the Party, a role which Lenin noted would only change once Communism had triumphed across the world. Such shows the logical outcome of denying the continued existence of class struggle so long as capitalism exists in the world.

[Lucretia]

And yet on the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat (and, consequently, class struggle) which we've been discussing, there is unanimity between the Trots and revisionists.

As Bland quoted in his work The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union:
And again, in The Revolution Betrayed Trotsky spoke of the creation of multiple parties in the USSR as a supposedly "natural" aspect of the achievement of socialism, and attacked Stalin on this point. In the process he calls for the revocation of the leading role of the Party, a role which Lenin noted would only change once Communism had triumphed across the world.

Oh dear. Your quoting of Kruschchev is irrelevant to determing what Lenin or Marx or Trotksy though as a quote from your Aunt Petunia's diary. Your mangling of Trotsky is inexcusable. He, along with Lenin, often identified the workers' state as "socialist," but never the society or the economy of which it was a part. Leave it to somebody as intellectually lazy and "orthodox" as you to think that these distinctions are irrelevant details. Provide me with a single quote where he or any published Trotskyist described the Soviet Union as "socialist."

[Ismail]

Oh dear. You are quoting a Trotskyist saying that the Soviet Union is a workers' state, in other words a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Do you not see how this is different than saying that the Soviet Union is a socialist society?Khrushchev was a Trotskyist? Well, actually he was a Trotskyist in the 20's, but otherwise what "Trotskyist" did I mention in my short post if not Trotsky himself?

Edit: Looks like you amended your post. Still, mentioning Khrushchev was once a Trot is always a nice thing to do.


He, along with Lenin, often identified the workers' state as "socialist," but never the society or the economy of which it was a part. Leave it to somebody as intellectually lazy and "orthodox" as you to think that these distinctions are irrelevant details.Why can't you read properly? We are talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the implications of claiming it ceases to have reason to exist under socialism. We are not talking about socialism, but rather if the DOTP exists during it.

Anyway, here is the quote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch10.htm) from Trotsky:

The prohibition of opposition parties was a temporary measure dictated by conditions of civil war, blockade, intervention and famine. The ruling party, representing in that period a genuine organization of the proletarian vanguard, was living a full-blooded inner life. A struggle of groups and factions to a certain degree replaced the struggle of parties. At present, when socialism has conquered “finally and irrevocably,” the formation of factions is punished with concentration camp or firing squad. The prohibition of other parties, from being a temporary evil, has been erected into a principle....

Even if in the Soviet society “there are no classes,” nevertheless this society is at least incomparably more heterogeneous and complicated than the proletariat of capitalist countries, and consequently can furnish adequate nourishing soil for several parties. In making this imprudent excursion into the field of theory, Stalin proved a good deal more than he wanted to. From his reasonings it follows not only that there can be no different parties in the Soviet Union, but that there cannot even be one party. For where there are no classes, there is in general no place for politics. Nevertheless, from this law Stalin draws a “sociological” conclusion in favor of the party of which he is the General Secretary.

[Lucretia]

Khrushchev was a Trotskyist? Well, actually he was a Trotskyist in the 20's, but otherwise what "Trotskyist" did I mention in my short post if not Trotsky himself?

Edit: Looks like you amended your post. Still, mentioning Khrushchev was once a Trot is always a nice thing to do.

Why can't you read properly? We are talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the implications of claiming it ceases to have reason to exist under socialism. We are not talking about socialism, but rather if the DOTP exists during it.

Anyway, here is the quote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch10.htm) from Trotsky:

Yes, I stupidly assumed you were quoting a Trotskyist when we started talking about what "Trots" thought and you proceeded with a quote. Silly of me, I know. I should have expected a quote from the Albanian ambassador to Chile from 1975.

As for your quote of Trotsky, what is your point? How do you think this is in some way corroborating the Stalinist view that socialism contains a DotP and classes? Are you referring to when Trotsky refers to "socialism conquering 'finally and irrevocably'"? Do you know what he's saying there or whom he is quoting?

[Ismail]

As for your quote of Trotskyist, what is your point? How do you think this is in some way corroborating the Stalinist view that socialism contains a DotP and classes?Me: The dictatorship of the proletariat is an important aspect of socialism, for it signifies the continuation of class struggle in all fields. Revoking the role of the DOTP in socialism leads to all sorts of shitty things like revisionism and liberalism. [Proceeds to quote the Soviets, Yugoslavs, and Leon Trotsky who all justify their opportunism by appeals to the works of Marx and Lenin as against those of Stalin]
You: THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT DOES NOT EXIST UNDER SOCIALISM TO STATE OTHERWISE IS ANTI-MARXIST!!!
Me: [Repeat what I just said]

That's basically been this whole conversation. I guess it really does require us to discuss the concept of socialism itself, because otherwise you're just going to cite your Trot version of it forever while ignoring the practical experience of socialism under Stalin.

But my intention in originally replying to you wasn't to debate Trotskyism, but to point out that Marxist-Leninists do not rely on the words of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism for the simple reason that it is impossible to do so, none of them witnessed it in the conditions of one country.

Thus the debate will go on in circles: you will claim (as the revisionists did) that the lack of textual support for the DOTP under socialism is proof that Stalin was "anti-Marxist" in this regard.

For this reason I will concur and conclude with the views of Enver Hoxha:

"Contrary to the views of the modern revisionists, who have declared the class struggle in socialism outdated and a thing of the past, our Party holds that class struggle remains one of the main motive forces of society, even after the exploiting classes have been eliminated. This struggle includes all fields of life...

As the experience of our country shows, this struggle is an objective and inevitable phenomenon in socialism. It is waged against the remnants of the exploiting classes, overthrown and expropriated, but... is also waged against bourgeois and revisionist ideology which is retained and expressed in various forms and degrees of intensity, as well as against the external pressure of imperialism. Thus the internal and external fronts of class struggle are interconnected, now merging into one single front, now operating separately, but always linked by the same objective: to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism.

Acceptance or non-acceptance of the class struggle in socialism is a question of principle, it is a line of demarcation between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists, between revolutionaries and betrayers of the revolution. Any deviation from the class struggle has fatal consequences for the future of socialism. Therefore, along with the struggle to increase production, to develop education and culture, along with the struggle against foreign enemies - the imperialists and revisionists, we must not neglect, must never overlook the class struggle within the country, for otherwise history will punish us severely."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. p. 165.)

[Lucretia]

Me: The dictatorship of the proletariat is an important aspect of socialism, for it signifies the continuation of class struggle in all fields. Revoking the role of the DOTP in socialism leads to all sorts of shitty things like revisionism and liberalism. [Proceeds to quote the Soviets, Yugoslavs, and Leon Trotsky who all justify their opportunism by appeals to the works of Marx and Lenin as against those of Stalin]
You: THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT DOES NOT EXIST UNDER SOCIALISM TO STATE OTHERWISE IS ANTI-MARXIST!!!
Me: [Repeat what I just said]

That's basically been this whole conversation. I guess it really does require us to discuss the concept of socialism itself, because otherwise you're just going to cite your Trot version of it forever while ignoring the practical experience of socialism under Stalin.

But my intention in originally replying to you wasn't to debate Trotskyism, but to point out that Marxist-Leninists do not rely on the words of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism for the simple reason that it is impossible to do so, none of them witnessed it in the conditions of one country.

Thus the debate will go on in circles: you will claim (as the revisionists did) that the lack of textual support for the DOTP under socialism is proof that Stalin was "anti-Marxist" in this regard.

For this reason I will concur and conclude with the views of Enver Hoxha:

"Contrary to the views of the modern revisionists, who have declared the class struggle in socialism outdated and a thing of the past, our Party holds that class struggle remains one of the main motive forces of society, even after the exploiting classes have been eliminated. This struggle includes all fields of life...

As the experience of our country shows, this struggle is an objective and inevitable phenomenon in socialism. It is waged against the remnants of the exploiting classes, overthrown and expropriated, but... is also waged against bourgeois and revisionist ideology which is retained and expressed in various forms and degrees of intensity, as well as against the external pressure of imperialism. Thus the internal and external fronts of class struggle are interconnected, now merging into one single front, now operating separately, but always linked by the same objective: to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism.

Acceptance or non-acceptance of the class struggle in socialism is a question of principle, it is a line of demarcation between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists, between revolutionaries and betrayers of the revolution. Any deviation from the class struggle has fatal consequences for the future of socialism. Therefore, along with the struggle to increase production, to develop education and culture, along with the struggle against foreign enemies - the imperialists and revisionists, we must not neglect, must never overlook the class struggle within the country, for otherwise history will punish us severely."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. p. 165.)

Somehow it seems you lost sight of my question, and have fallen back on block-quoting Hoxha. What do you think that quote from Trotsky means, and whom do you think he was quoting? You're like some automated bot on the forum that just spews random block quotes with no algorithm for producing a corresponding interpretation.

[Ismail]

What do you think that quote from Trotsky means, and whom do you think he was quoting?He was quoting the Soviet view at the time that socialism had experienced irrevocable triumph in the USSR. This, as the Albanians noted, was a one-sided view based on the obvious defeat of the exploiting classes and ability of the state organs and Red Army to defend the country from externally-imposed threats.

What's important here is what Trotsky and the revisionists drew from this conclusion, neither of which reflect favorably on them. Whereas Trotsky invoked "Marxism" to justify an end to the DOTP and called for multi-party politics,* the Soviet revisionists went with the "final and irrevocable" triumph of socialism to justify the dissolution of the DOTP in theory and practice and consequently an end to class struggle. Both conclusions had ulterior motives fatal to socialism.

* There's a part in between the two paragraphs I gave wherein Trotsky basically echoes what the Eurocommunists would decades later: that the "Stalinist" conception of classes was somehow reductionist and that one party could not adequately express the fundamental interests of all society.

[Lucretia]

He was quoting the Soviet view at the time that socialism had experienced irrevocable triumph in the USSR. This, as the Albanians noted, was a one-sided view based on the obvious defeat of the exploiting classes and ability of the state organs and Red Army to defend the country from externally-imposed threats.

What's important here is what Trotsky and the revisionists drew from this conclusion, neither of which reflect favorably on them. Whereas Trotsky invoked "Marxism" to justify an end to the DOTP and called for multi-party politics,* the Soviet revisionists went with the "final and irrevocable" triumph of socialism to justify the dissolution of the DOTP in theory and practice and consequently an end to class struggle. Both conclusions had ulterior motives fatal to socialism.

* There's a part in between the two paragraphs I gave wherein Trotsky basically echoes what the Eurocommunists would decades later: that the "Stalinist" conception of classes was somehow reductionist and that one party could not adequately express the fundamental interests of all society.

So let me get this straight: you are suggesting that Trotsky, in the Revolution Betrayed, is arguing that the Soviet Union is a socialist society? Or are you suggesting that it is a classless society? This is certainly news to Trotskyists the world over, as it very well would have been to Trotsky himself. I really don't think it's worth the effort to show how badly you mangled the excerpts you're quoting from, but here's a hint: Trotsky is citing Stalin's logic that there are no classes in the Soviet Union (notice the quotation marks?), and indicating that, if we assume that he is correct, then his position on multiple parties does not flow from his premise. Only an illiterate would draw from that text the idea that Trotsky believed that socialism contained classes, if that is indeed your point - which is difficult to discern since you keep rambling on about revisionism and other matters besides the issue of whether there is a DotP under socialism. He talks throughout the Revolution Betrayed of the different classes that existed in Soviet society, and how such classes, among other things, indicated that the transition to socialism was not complete. Of course that means that the class struggle was continuing -- as it invariably would have to for as long as capitalism existed in the world. And until then, what you would have is a transitional society striving to eliminate bureaucracy, value, competition (intranational or international, since these two aspects interpenetrate), commodities, classes, etc. Until such things were eliminated, you would not have socialism.

[Ismail]

So let me get this straight: you are suggesting that Trotsky, in the Revolution Betrayed, is arguing that the Soviet Union is a socialist society?Stop being illiterate. Trotsky is arguing that if the USSR were a socialist society it would be logical to do what he proposes (multiple parties if not the abolition of all including the CPSU(B), an end to class struggle, etc.) and because it isn't this is "proof" that Stalin is "anti-Marxist."


Trotsky is citing Stalin's logic that there are no classes in the Soviet Union (notice the quotation marks?), and indicating that, if we assume that he is correct, then his position on multiple parties does not flow from his premise.Stalin declared that antagonistic classes had ceased existence in Soviet society, and that the main tendency was the further unity of interests between those that did exist:

In conformity with these changes in the economy of the U.S.S.R., the class structure of our society has also changed.

The landlord class, as you know, had already been eliminated as a result of the victorious conclusion of the Civil War. As for the other exploiting classes, they have shared the fate of the landlord class. The capitalist class in the sphere of industry has ceased to exist. The kulak class in the sphere of agriculture has ceased to exist. And the merchants and profiteers in the sphere of trade have ceased to exist. Thus all the exploiting classes have now been eliminated.

There remains the working class.

There remains the peasant class.

There remains the intelligentsia.

But it would be a mistake to think that these social groups have undergone no change during this period, that they have remained the same as they were, say, in the period of capitalism.See: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/SC36.html


As for the rest of your post it is, again, a different definition of socialism: that practiced in the USSR and that Trotsky used for his own purposes.

[Lucretia]

Stop being illiterate. Trotsky is arguing that if the USSR were a socialist society it would be logical to do what he proposes (multiple parties if not the abolition of all including the CPSU(B), an end to class struggle, etc.) and because it isn't this is "proof" that Stalin is "anti-Marxist."

Stalin declared that antagonistic classes had ceased existence in Soviet society, and that the main tendency was the further unity of interests between those that did exist:
See: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/SC36.html


As for the rest of your post it is, again, a different definition of socialism: that practiced in the USSR and that Trotsky used for his own purposes.

There is what you and Stalin call socialism in the USSR, and then there is what Trotsky called socialism. Then there is what Marx, Engels, and Lenin called socialism. We've already established that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were clear that a socialist society was a classless society and that therefore it would make no sense to speak of a dictatorship of any class. Then you have Stalin coming along and claiming that the Soviet Union was socialist, but that it had a dictatorship of the proletariat. Meanwhile, Trotsky insisted that continued existence of classes and the continued existence of the DotP in the 1930s indicates that socialism had not yet been achieved, and could not be achieved until the victory of socialist revolutions internationally because only such a victory could lead to the ending of class antagonisms in any one society. Gee, I wonder who the revisionist here is.

Oh - and what the hell are "non-antagonistic classes"? Is this another Stalinist innovation that I have fortunately been spared from hearing about until now? Freeholding peasants and workers are antagonistic, for example, not in the sense that one exploits the other, but in the sense that the property relations entailed in how those two classes relate to the means of production contradict one another and therefore imparts different interests to the members of each class.

[Ismail]

Gee, I wonder who the revisionist here is.Considering that Tito, Khrushchev and Gorbachev made much of going "back to Marx/Lenin" (as far as anything "Stalinist" was concerned) obviously it is those who opportunistically use old formulations in the service of the counter-revolution, as I noted.


Freeholding peasants and workers are antagonistic, for example, not in the sense that one exploits the other, but in the sense that the property relations entailed in how those two classes relate to the means of production contradict one another and therefore imparts different interests to the members of each class.Indeed, and that is why the collectives were formed.

Thus, as the Albanians noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albaniaconst.htm):

The alliance of the working class with the peasantry under the leadership of the working class is a principled question of great importance to the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, a question exhaustively and scientifically treated by the classics of Marxism and especially Lenin, who has called this alliance the Alpha and Omega of the socialist state, the loftiest principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the worker-peasant alliance, he wrote, lies the strength of the proletarian state power, lies the guarantee of all the successes achieved in the road of revolution and the warrant for our final victory. Only the modern revisionists have come out against this great idea and are trying to replace the alliance with the peasantry with all kind of alliances with the bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie of the cities and especially with the intelligentsia, which some of them are trying to present as the leading forces in the revolutionary movement, because, according to them, the working class has allegedly been integrated into the capitalist system and no longer constitutes a revolutionary force.

The alliance with the peasantry remains a basic principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the entire historical period of socialism. This is due to the fact that during this entire period, the fundamental distinctions between the working class and the cooperativist peasantry still exist, they will be fully abolished only under communism when no class distinctions whatsoever will exist. As a result, the leading role of the working class in this alliance will be preserved until then, because this alliance has been formed to fight against the bourgeoisie and capitalism; for the triumph of socialism and communism. And it is only the working class, as the most progressive, organized, disciplined and conscious class that can lead this complex struggle with its own revolutionary party and theory.And as Stalin noted (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html) in his last work:

Undoubtedly, with the abolition of capitalism and the exploiting system in our country, and with the consolidation of the socialist system, the antagonism of interests between town and country, between industry and agriculture, was also bound to disappear. And that is what happened. The immense assistance rendered by the socialist town, by our working class, to our peasantry in eliminating the landlords and kulaks strengthened the foundation for the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, while the systematic supply of first-class tractors and other machines to the peasantry and its collective farms converted the alliance between the working class and the peasantry into friendship between them. Of course, the workers and the collective-farm peasantry do represent two classes differing from one another in status. But this difference does not weaken their friendship in any way. On the contrary, their interests lie along one common line, that of strengthening the socialist system and attaining the victory of communism.

[Lucretia]

Considering that Tito, Khrushchev and Gorbachev made much of going "back to Marx/Lenin" (as far as anything "Stalinist" was concerned) obviously it is those who opportunistically use old formulations in the service of the counter-revolution, as I noted.

All of Marx's, Engels's and Lenin's writings are "old formulations." The question isn't in the formulation, it's in whether the formulation is being interpreted in a plausible way, or whether it is being distorted through selective misreading or taking concepts out of context.

Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all clear: socialism was a classless society, not a society in which any class exercised a dictatorship over others. To claim that this is incorrect, whatever the reason why, is to reject Marx's and Engels's and Lenin's understanding of socialism in favor of a very different understanding. This is called revisionism.

The particular kind of revision produced by Stalin was an ideological maneuver to try to maintain, for domestic propagandistic purposes, that the bureaucratically led CPSU had (with workers playing a role as "participants") forged the world's first socialist society, while recognizing the need to continue to explain the fact that it looked nothing like what Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote about socialism. It still had all the tensions, the oppression, the violence, and - yes - the continued exploitation that were to be found in traditional bourgeois societies. How could this be? Well, because there was still obviously class struggle by which workers were exercising their dictatorship (through the Stalinist bureaucracy, who were obviously to be trusted because of their success in establishing socialism) against enemies of the socialist state.

So what we end up with a mashing together of two different stages of the revolutionary process set forth by Marx, Engels, and Lenin: the stage of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat that was to oversee a transition to socialism in an international struggle against capital, and the stage of socialism, which was to be the product of the victory of the dictatorship over its class enemies, but which Stalin redefined for his own propagandistic reasons described above.

To claim that socialism can be established within a country, with classes and its attendant antagonisms eliminated, while the world is still swarming with imperialist powers hostile to said country, is to indulge in the strangest form of utopian thinking. As if the requirements of responding to foreign threats, the compulsion to keep up with international technological developments (especially in terms of weaponry) were only an "international" issue, and not one that affected the very heart of how a society operates. As if countries were sealed off entities whose domestic politics were not heavily conditioned by international politics. If socialism is production for human need, how does one have socialism in a society where production is taking place to meet not human need, but the alien political needs dictated by the behavior of other governments and economies?

It can't. Which why, for Marx, Engels, and Lenin, socialism/communism could only exist on a global scale. And which is why Stalin and his epigones have to try to bastardize Marxist theory to suit their nationalist agendas.

[Ismail]

Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all clear: socialism was a classless society, not a society in which any class exercised a dictatorship over others. To claim that this is incorrect, whatever the reason why, is to reject Marx's and Engels's and Lenin's understanding of socialism in favor of a very different understanding. This is called revisionism.To rob the theory and practice of Marxism of its revolutionary content is revisionism. To modify propositions in light of new conditions is not. That is the difference between, say, Bernstein and Lenin.


The particular kind of revision produced by Stalin was an ideological maneuver... It still had all the tensions, the oppression, the violence, and - yes - the continued exploitation that were to be found in traditional bourgeois societies.In other words, Stalin said that the DOTP existed under socialism to justify his "dictatorship." The exact same argument the Yugoslav and Soviet revisionists made.

The rest of your post is just standard Trot stuff.

[Lucretia]

To rob the theory and practice of Marxism of its revolutionary content is revisionism. To modify propositions in light of new conditions is not. That is the difference between, say, Bernstein and Lenin.

In other words, Stalin said that the DOTP existed under socialism to justify his "dictatorship." The exact same argument the Yugoslav and Soviet revisionists made.

The rest of your post is just standard Trot stuff.

You keep parroting these cliches. The question is, how did "new conditions" required modifying Marx's, Engels's and Lenin's understanding of socialism as a classless society? What did Marx, Engels, and Lenin not foresee? That once the working class assumed power in one country that it would continue to have to battle the bourgeoisies of other countries? Nope, they foresaw that perfectly fine. What, then?

The only "new conditions" I can think of is the condition of a decayed bureaucracy attempting to justify its power over the working class using socialist sounding rhetoric. Now that *is* something that none of those three thinkers foresaw.

[mybloodisred]

I see a lot of Stalinism in this topic. Lets stop for a moment and ask ourselves what is more important: To provide the best standard of living possible for the people of the country or to blindly follow the doctrine to the letter at the cost of your own people?

Don't forget that Stalin killed millions of his own countrymen while Tito did what was one of the best things for the people of Yugoslavia at the time. The people of Yugoslavia did have a higher of standard of living than the people of the USSR.

[Ismail]

I see a lot of Stalinism in this topic. Lets stop for a moment and ask ourselves what is more important: To provide the best standard of living possible for the people of the country or to blindly follow the doctrine to the letter at the cost of your own people?It is socialism which provides the best standard of living possible.


Tito did what was one of the best things for the people of Yugoslavia at the time. The people of Yugoslavia did have a higher of standard of living than the people of the USSR.It had a "higher standard of living" except for the huge loans from the West which couldn't be paid, over 10% unemployment, austerity measures, bourgeois nationalism leading to wars and genocides, and a capitalist system which made all of this and more possible.

[mybloodisred]

It is socialism which provides the best standard of living possible.

Yes, and many would argue Yugoslavia *was* socialist.


It had a "higher standard of living" except for the huge loans from the West which couldn't be paid, over 10% unemployment, austerity measures, bourgeois nationalism leading to wars and genocides, and a capitalist system which made all of this and more possible.

It wasn't "bourgeois nationalism" which led to wars and genocide. It was religious fanaticism. They identified nations according to religion, Catholics were Croatians, Muslims were Bosnians and Orthodox were Serbian. It had little to do with actual nations, as many who lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina identified themselves as Serbian (because of their religion) and even formed their own country - Serbian Republic (Republika Srpska).

That's the reason for genocide, anyway. The reason for war was a power vacuum after Tito's death and ambition of Franjo Tudjman (Croatia) and Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia), who wanted to split Bosnia and Herzegovina amongst themselves. The war was sparked by a few inept "rebels" firing an unarmed RPG into a bus full of policemen sent to stop them. The RPG shell did not even explode. What did explode is a bunch of border clashes and the intervention of the JNA and their subsequent occupation of 2/3 of Croatian territory. "Bourgeoise nationalism" had very little to do with it.

And regarding economics, it matters which period you're talking about. The austerity measures came into force when there was a global shortage of oil. So it wasn't only Yugoslavia which suffered, the whole world suffered.

You cannot find another socialist country (in name or otherwise) which had/has a higher standard of living than Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, Yugoslavia was not a de-facto NATO member, as some have suggested in this topic. Tito started the Non-Aligned Movement to keep away from the NATO vs. Soviet bloc dispute.

I don't know what's with the Yugoslavia hate here when it is a country which came closest to a successful socialist society. Not saying it was perfect, it had it's drawbacks like the secret police, not much freedom of thought/expression of non-left ideologies, one president for a long time, but overall the people were happy.

[Ismail]

It wasn't "bourgeois nationalism" which led to wars and genocide. It was religious fanaticism. They identified nations according to religion, Catholics were Croatians, Muslims were Bosnians and Orthodox were Serbian. It had little to do with actual nations, as many who lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina identified themselves as Serbian (because of their religion) and even formed their own country - Serbian Republic (Republika Srpska).Religion cannot be confused with nationality. The fact that the Yugoslavs spoke of a Muslim "nation," for example, is something condemnable by any Marxist. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/titoites.htm

The idea that Milošević and Tuđman did what they did on the basis of "religious fanaticism" is ridiculous in any case. It was chauvinism, not a case of "holy wars" against the "infidel" or what have you. The persecution of the Kosovar Albanians was only justified in part by religious arguments.


And regarding economics, it matters which period you're talking about. The austerity measures came into force when there was a global shortage of oil. So it wasn't only Yugoslavia which suffered, the whole world suffered.And yet both Yugoslavia and its ally Romania enforced austerity measures at a time when the IMF was asking for repayment, after both continues accrued massive debts.


Furthermore, Yugoslavia was not a de-facto NATO member, as some have suggested in this topic. Tito started the Non-Aligned Movement to keep away from the NATO vs. Soviet bloc dispute.By the time he founded the Non-Aligned Movement he had already mended his ties with the USSR, which was then under the revisionists. Both sides were praising each other as "socialist." Furthermore the "Non-Aligned Movement" had such figures as the anti-communists Nasser and Nehru, who enjoyed friendly relations with the Soviet revisionists. Not to mention it had Castro, who obviously wasn't non-aligned whatsoever.

Under Stalin, however, the Yugoslavs viciously attacked the USSR and concluded a military pact with Turkey and Greece. Churchill said to the Titoites that he and they were on the same side of the barricades.

To quote Hoxha: "The slogan of 'non-aligned countries' gives the false impression that a group of states which have the possibility of 'opposing' the superpower blocs is being created. It gives the impression that these countries, all of them, are anti-imperialist, opposed to war, opposed to the dictate of others, that they are 'democratic', and even 'socialist'. This helps to strengthen the pseudo-democratic and anti-popular positions of the leading groups of some states which are participating among the 'non-aligned', and creates the impression among the peoples of these countries that when their chiefs establish or dissolve relations of any kind and nature, with the imperialists and the social-imperialists, openly or in secret, they do this not only in the capacity of 'popular governments', but also in the capacity of a group of states 'with which even the superpowers must reckon'." - Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, 1977, p. 175.


I don't know what's with the Yugoslavia hate here when it is a country which came closest to a successful socialist society.If Deng Xiaoping is seeking to emulate your economic system, you declare that the New Deal was a great example of "evolutionary socialism" (which the whole world was supposedly moving towards), and Thatcher's visiting your funeral, then odds are you're not a good socialist.

[mybloodisred]

"By the time he founded the Non-Aligned Movement he had already mended his ties with the USSR"

Damn. This thread is making me rethink things.

And I guess the economic system had some capitalist elements, like the free market. Now when I really think about it. Because I'm into the discussion and want to look at it from a few points of view.

However, Yugoslavia had a system of public ownership and worker-controlled methods of production. This did allow for a free market type place because it was a more decentralised system. It was more democratic and allowed the people to build a good standard of living.

I'm not saying that's the ideal. I'm not saying that's the kind of place I want to live in. All I'm saying is at that time, the Yugoslavian system provided a better standard of living than the Soviet system. Sure, Yugoslavia could have gone the isolationist and "self-sufficient", state-controlled way of the Soviets, after a war and occupation crippled its infrastructure. That would have been a dumb and poor move.

There's a reason communism has to be global. Only on a global scale can you get every resource out there. No country has everything. Only when communism is global can we utilise all available resources and reach the true potential. In a world where we're surrounded by capitalist states, creating a money-less society would prevent trade. Hell, the Soviets didn't want anything to do with capitalist states. They were like North Korea, except they were larger so they did a little bit better.

The course Tito took was the right one as it ended up with the greatest standard of living and greater overall happiness of the population.

I'll ask again, which is more important: better quality of life for the people or following the doctrine to the letter at the expense of the people?

[Ismail]

However, Yugoslavia had a system of public ownership and worker-controlled methods of production. This did allow for a free market type place because it was a more decentralised system. It was more democratic and allowed the people to build a good standard of living.It was only "democratic" if you think capitalism is democratic. I don't think massive unemployment qualifies as such.

Furthermore:

"What self-respecting Communist country would admit the unpalatable truth of widespread unemployment—which is by definition impossible under a socialist system—or allow 300,000 of its experts and workers to seek employment abroad and even organize their temporary migration? With public ownership of the means of production, banks, commerce, etc. workers should not strike against themselves; but this allegedly socialist country reports some two hundred work stoppages per annum... can peasants not only own their land but privately import and operate tractors; can individuals run trading businesses, restaurants, and motels? Can a Communist country ever contemplate allowing foreign investments of risk capital and setting up partnership projects? Can a ruling Communist party admit that it has turned into a brake on social development instead of remaining the infallible vanguard and motor of advance toward full communism? Whatever the answers, all this has already happened or is happening in Yugoslavia."
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. p. 52, 54.)

"But how to explain the case of the Union Bank of Belgrade, one of the largest banks in the country, which holds one-fifth of the aggressive savings deposits? ... the governor of the Central Bank explained that... his proposal that a system of special reserves be held in securities of the Central Bank had been rejected by the bankers for fear of a 'disguised centralization of funds.' Another amusing and highly revealing story was reported in the same period. From this small Balkan country no fewer than two hundred firms submitted competitive bids to build a factory for Libya. Only one-third of those enterprises would suffice to carry out such construction in Yugoslavia itself.

A few weeks later, many Yugoslav households and industries felt tangibly what J.K. Galbraith has called the 'natural inclination' of the modern corporation toward 'a brutal and anti-social egotism,' even under the conditions of socialist self-management. From one day to the next, the Electric Power Community, representing power companies in the different republics, cut off power for four hours, blaming shortages on the weather. An angry government hastened to make it clear, however, that the companies had given no advance warning and that for a considerable time the thermoelectric (coal using) plans had been working below optimal capacities. The power companies had deliberately kept the output of thermoelectric plants at low levels and overused hydroelectric power. Why? Simply because of prices and costs. Since water-generated electricity costs one-third to one-fifth as much to produce as thermal power, and since the rates charged to the customers are nevertheless the same, this meant a large—and unauthorized—profit for the electric companies. Furthermore the electric power system is not truly unified. As Borba, the leading Belgrade daily, pointedly remarked: 'Certain power communities behave in this field as if they owned it. Poor connections among the various regions, mutual bargaining and relations, which have nothing to do with real business relations, explain the curious fact that in some republics power supply has often been cut while at the same time there has been plenty of power in other republics.'"
(Ibid. pp. 89-90.)

"One hears Yugoslav Communists say things that would warm the heart of any 'free enterprise' advocate. State intervention? Must be cut to an absolute minimum. Price controls? Very undesirable—imposed temporarily for some vital goods, but to be removed as soon as possible. Taxes? Accepted with great reluctance and should not stifle efforts to maximize profits. Yet, one also catches, in addition to Adam Smith, echoes of every conceivable socialist idea—not just Marx, let alone Lenin, but the early socialists and syndicalists, Owen, even more Proudhon, plus a strong dose of anarchism or anarchosyndicalism."
(Ibid. p. 92.)


Sure, Yugoslavia could have gone the isolationist and "self-sufficient", state-controlled way of the Soviets, after a war and occupation crippled its infrastructure. That would have been a dumb and poor move.Except the Soviet revisionists relied much on the grain trade with the USA and a growing amount of investments from abroad. They weren't self-reliant at all; in fact, the Soviets denounced the Chinese and Albanians for calling for self-reliance. Soviet propaganda spoke of how without the support of the "world socialist system" any third-world country was supposedly doomed as far as constructing socialism was concerned.


The course Tito took was the right one as it ended up with the greatest standard of living and greater overall happiness of the population.This standard was only gained due to the generous credits the West was willing to give Yugoslavia in return not just for a firm anti-Soviet stance during the Stalin period, but also because of the liberal investment laws, huge amounts of Yugoslav labor sent into West Germany to help offset unemployment at home, and other measures which made Yugoslavia a darling state of the West.

And when the IMF started calling for repayments in the 80's, the Yugoslav state resorted to austerity measures to pay back the debt, just as Romania did. The "decentralization" which promoted political and economic competition between the republics caused Slovenia to accuse the rest of the federation of harming its own economic development, caused Serbia to accuse the other republics (except Montenegro) of conspiring against it, etc. And that's when the "higher standard of living" concluded into a mirage.


I'll ask again, which is more important: better quality of life for the people or following the doctrine to the letter at the expense of the people?This is a nonsensical question unless you assume that socialism breeds poverty. Tito's doctrine led to genocide, Stalin's and Hoxha's led to continuous economic and social progress by relying primarily on one's own forces.

[Nevsky]

This is a nonsensical question unless you assume that socialism breeds poverty. Tito's doctrine led to genocide, Stalin's and Hoxha's led to continuous economic and social progress by relying primarily on one's own forces.

Stalin and Hoxha both slaughtered countless innocent people and Tito's policies didn't lead to genocide. Unless you blame Hoxha for what happened in Albania after his death, too. Although we follow the marxist-leninist line, we shouldn't exaggerate the defamation of historical figures like Tito. He was obviously wrong, "titoism" worked only just with Tito in charge (and help from the west), had no real future as a socialist economy - unlike the economies in Stalin's USSR and Hoxha's Albania - but Tito still wasn't some kind of genocidal monster. Not saying that Stalin was but we shouldn't forget that for all the good he did for the development of socialism, he was a ruthless machiavellian politician who didn't hesitate a second when it came to liquidating enemies.

[Ismail]

Not saying that Stalin was but we shouldn't forget that for all the good he did for the development of socialism, he was a ruthless machiavellian politician who didn't hesitate a second when it came to liquidating enemies.What's funny is how untrue that is. Lenin actually lightly criticized Stalin at one point (as Molotov recalled in his recollections) for being too lenient. In the early-to-mid 20's Stalin had opposed expelling Trotsky from the party, arguing that it'd set a bad precedent. Many members of the "Left" and Right Oppositions were able to retain prominent posts in economics, the media and diplomacy after publicly repudiating their former views.

Tito's capitalist policies played a key role in the disintegration of Yugoslavia, his successors did nothing more than accelerate his liberal policies.

[EdvardK]

I agree with you about the highest standard of living among all the socialist states. I'm sad, on the other hand, that some in this forum just do not want to face that fact and adamantly defend Albania as the pillar of socialism...

[EdvardK]

I'll ask again, which is more important: better quality of life for the people or following the doctrine to the letter at the expense of the people?
That is exactly my point as well - being "orthodox" and follow the letter instead of adapting to circumstances and make the best out of them is a recipe for not improving the quality of life.

[Mandarin]

Yugoslavia was everything but a socialist nation. It was a country run by a particularly charismatic social democrat. No more, no less. I do not doubt that the Yugoslav people enjoyed high standards of living, but ask yourselves, is it legitimate for a leader to base his system on the frequent receival of foreign credits and call it socialist?

Yugoslavia, in a way, emulated Hungry, or the other way around. Both enjoyed relatively high standards of living while foreign debt soared and soared and soared with no end. Then came the day upon which the capitalist wished to cash their repayment and the system collapsed. Markovich destroyed what little genuine socialism by then remained to please foreign elements and that was the end of it.

Albania, however, took no foreign credits and what all that the Albanian people had they had achieved solely by hard work and tedious planning. For a nation so small and isolated, it is a great achievement to do as Albania did. Hoxha held firm while all others turned to satisfy their own rampant self indulgence. How is this evil? I would sooner consider men like Ceaucescu and Tito to be so than speak bad about Hoxha.

[Red_Banner]

Why do antistalinists so stubbornly refuse to accept the truth about "Socialism in One Country" not being a nationalist policy, even while facing obvious facts? If you ever read Stalin you'd know that he never rejected internationalism, that SiOC is part of internationalist strategy. Stalin was opposed to titoist/ceausescist "independent national ways to communism" rhetoric.

Oh c'mon, even Marx in the Manifesto alluded to that socialism would be carried out differently in different countries/societies.

"
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries."

[Ismail]

Oh c'mon, even Marx in the Manifesto alluded to that socialism would be carried out differently in different countries/societies.So did Lenin and Stalin. So did Hoxha. So does every communist. As Hoxha noted, however, "the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." (Selected Works Vol. VI, 1987, p. 447.)

The Soviet revisionists declared that "revolutionary democrats can play the leading political role in the countries with a relatively weak proletariat." (Lenin and National Liberation in the East, 1978, p. 19.) This was the theoretical foundation upon which they could declare that states like Ba'athist Iraq, Burma, etc. were pursuing "socialism," with the most important factor making this possible being the support of the "world socialist community" (i.e. praising and aligning one's economy with the social-imperialist USSR.)

The DPRK declares that, supposedly in light of new developments in the world and in accordance with Korea's own situation, the working-class is no longer the most revolutionary class in society, nor is it the leading class in the construction of socialism, but that this role is instead played by the armed forces.

Stuff like this isn't about taking into account national conditions, it's revisionism, it deprives Marxism of its revolutionary and scientific content for the benefit of opportunist and state-capitalist cliques in power, just as revisionism within the Second International was based upon the labor aristocracy of the trade unions and party leaderships.

[EdvardK]

What is more important as a country's leader - to strive for your people to have as high a standard of living as possible or is it more important first to be a full-fledged marxist leninst hoxhaist stalinist?

[Questionable]

What is more important as a country's leader - to strive for your people to have as high a standard of living as possible or is it more important first to be a full-fledged marxist leninst hoxhaist stalinist?

Following the principals of Marxism-Leninism is what will deliver the highest possible standard of living.

[Brutus]

Many members of the "Left" and Right Oppositions were able to retain prominent posts in economics, the media and diplomacy after publicly repudiating their former views.
These people were later shot or sent to Siberia in the purges. Lenient, eh?

Oh, wait! But these people were part of the zinovievite-kamenevite-Trotskyite-Bukharinite-fascist-antisoviet-imperialist-counter-revolutionary bloc that planned to kill Stalin and divide the USSR between the imperialist powers! It's not like they fought against imperialism and counter-revolution to defend the state they helped create, or anything of the sort...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Following the principals of Marxism-Leninism is what will deliver the highest possible standard of living.

Deuteronomy 39:5? A beautiful passage.

Seriously, it's amazing you can just recite such shit without any sort of critical analysis to back it up, or legitimise what you've said. It's like your gospel.

[Questionable]

Deuteronomy 39:5? A beautiful passage.

Seriously, it's amazing you can just recite such shit without any sort of critical analysis to back it up, or legitimise what you've said. It's like your gospel.

I suppose this sort of criticism is warranted if you were taking my sentence-long post as some kind of definitive text on Marxism-Leninism designed to stand the test of time, but seeing as legitimate Marxist-Leninist countries possessed a higher standard of living than revisionist nations such as EdvardK's Yugoslavia, my post works perfectly fine in that context.

[Ismail]

These people were later shot or sent to Siberia in the purges. Lenient, eh?They had their second chance and they blew it.


What is more important as a country's leader - to strive for your people to have as high a standard of living as possible or is it more important first to be a full-fledged marxist leninst hoxhaist stalinist?These two tasks are linked together. You cannot obtain ever higher standards of living by borrowing from imperialist states or organizations, for this is a mirage that will end, as it did in Yugoslavia, in disaster. Socialism allows for the continuous raising of the material and social needs of the people through the grasping of economic laws, such as the law of balanced development of the national economy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I suppose this sort of criticism is warranted if you were taking my sentence-long post as some kind of definitive text on Marxism-Leninism designed to stand the test of time, but seeing as legitimate Marxist-Leninist countries possessed a higher standard of living than revisionist nations such as EdvardK's Yugoslavia, my post works perfectly fine in that context.

No, because your sentence was futuristic in outlook - 'will deliver higher living standards...'.

It is philosophically troubling, because you are starting not from the point of view that:

the object of socialism - the means -, is to deliver working class people out of exploitation and, implicitly, to a society of living standards that are higher in terms of ANY definition (political, democratic, social, economic, psychological etc.) used,

but from the point of view that:

I have already decided that Marxism-Leninism will be the means we use to deliver political revolution, as that is the specific set of principles that I believe will deliver higher living standards.

It's problematic because you'll end up defending the ideology no matter what, because you're wedded, ideologically, to it, rather than putting the historically changing needs of the working class above mere ideology and having a bit more flexibility about your idea of socialism and emancipation.

[Ismail]

It's problematic because you'll end up defending the ideology no matter what, because you're wedded, ideologically, to it, rather than putting the historically changing needs of the working class above mere ideology and having a bit more flexibility about your idea of socialism and emancipation.I like how you use terms like "flexibility." You mean like the Cuban revisionists who took power as avowed bourgeois liberals, submitted their economy to Soviet neo-colonialism after finding themselves in conflict with US imperialism, and who today seek to make their economy ever more attractive to Western and Chinese capital in order to prop up their ailing state-capitalist economy?

"Flexibility," as well as "dogmatism," are two words that life as shown can be abused quite easily by opportunists and revisionists.

[Questionable]

No, because your sentence was futuristic in outlook - 'will deliver higher living standards...'.

This is not at all what I'm trying to say.

EdvardK created the binary view that countries must either strive to raise their people's living standards by any means necessary, including entering into trade agreements with imperialism, or cling to a useless dogma (Marxism-Leninism).

I pointed out that countries that adhered to Marxism-Leninism ended up delivering the greatest standard of living to the working-class, and that revisionist countries such as Yugoslavia did not.

Hence, EdvardK is starting from a false position, because if he is interested in delivering the highest standard of living, he should look to Marxism-Leninism.


I have already decided that Marxism-Leninism will be the means we use to deliver political revolution, as that is the specific set of principles that I believe will deliver higher living standards.I have no problem with this, as my studying of history has convinced me that Marxism-Leninism is the specific set of principles that will deliver higher living standards. However, this:


It's problematic because you'll end up defending the ideology no matter what, because you're wedded, ideologically, to it, rather than putting the historically changing needs of the working class above mere ideology and having a bit more flexibility about your idea of socialism and emancipation.appears to be as little more than slanderous charges. Because I advocate a certain approach to socialism does not mean I am "wedded" to it, or that I am completely inflexible and unwilling to put the working-class above theory. Firstly, that is a false choice similar to EdvardK's, as it implies that I can either choose between Marxism-Leninism or the working-class, when in reality I simply view Marxism-Leninism as the most effective means of reaching socialism, therefore there is no contrast for me. Secondly, it creates the impression of Marxism-Leninism as religious dogma that I am trying to make reality conform to rather than vice versa, when it is really a scientific doctrine.

Thirdly and lastly, this charge could be presented to pretty much anyone who advocates a certain approach to socialism. You could say anarchists, Trotskyists, Orthodox Marxists, or anyone is "wedded" to their ideological view. It is not true in every case, of course.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I like how you use terms like "flexibility." You mean like the Cuban revisionists who took power as avowed bourgeois liberals, submitted their economy to Soviet neo-colonialism after finding themselves in conflict with US imperialism, and who today seek to make their economy ever more attractive to Western and Chinese capital in order to prop up their ailing state-capitalist economy?

"Flexibility," as well as "dogmatism," are two words that life as shown can be abused quite easily by opportunists and revisionists.

Oh god, are you ever going to stop being a little Stalin-wannabe, following me around the forum pretending i'm some supporter of the Cubans?

Seriously. Tell you what. I'll start to follow you around and will pretend you're a supporter of something you're not. How about it?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I await what dear Enver has to say on the subject.

[Ismail]

Oh god, are you ever going to stop being a little Stalin-wannabe, following me around the forum pretending i'm some supporter of the Cubans?You're the one who posted in a thread I'm active in, I didn't follow you around whatsoever.

And your attempt to claim you don't support Cuban revisionism is as credible as TheEmancipator's claim that he opposes Tito. You both provide apologia for these regimes while occasionally uttering "criticisms" which essentially boil down to said regimes not being liberal enough.


I await what dear Enver has to say on the subject."In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point." (Selected Works Vol. IV, p. 506.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You're the one who posted in a thread I'm active in, I didn't follow you around whatsoever.

OK whatever, I can't be arsed to bring myself down to the level of a 'you started it' argument, it's frankly pathetic.


And your attempt to claim you don't support Cuban revisionism is as credible as TheEmancipator's claim that he opposes Tito. You both provide apologia for these regimes while occasionally uttering "criticisms" which essentially boil down to said regimes not being liberal enough.

You literally have no evidence to back this up. It is pretty defamatory, too, considering i've never, ever supported the Cuban Revolution in any way, shape, or form. Personal admiration for some of the non-political, personal aspects of Fidel Castro as a person do not imply such a thing, though as you've already made your mind up about what I believe, who am I to contradict your gospel word?


"In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point." (Selected Works Vol. IV, p. 506.)[/QUOTE]

Ah, irony just passes right over you.

Anyway, clearly Enver is just upset because the Cubans made a strategic partnership with the USSR while Enver's little experiment ended in isolation and then counter-revolution.

[Ismail]

Anyway, clearly Enver is just upset because the Cubans made a strategic partnership with the USSR while Enver's little experiment ended in isolation and then counter-revolution.A "strategic partnership" which resulted in Cuba becoming a Soviet neo-colony and hailing the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, while saying in 1992 that Gorbachev struggled to "perfect socialism."

And today Cuba continues its anti-Marxist strategy, extolling "socialism with Chinese characteristics." There's no doubt that Castro and Co. have strategized quite a bit; after all, he did come to power declaring that both capitalism and communism exploited men and that his was a "green" revolution, the color of the rebel army, not a "red" one. Such is the opportunism of the petty-bourgeoisie.

The Cuban counter-revolution occurred when the enthusiasm of the Cuban anti-imperialist revolution, which lacked a proletarian vanguard and thus any chance for developing into anything greater, was channeled into the construction of a state-capitalist economy led by Castro and shackled to the social-imperialist empire of the Soviet revisionists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A "strategic partnership" which resulted in Cuba becoming a Soviet neo-colony and hailing the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, while saying in 1992 that Gorbachev struggled to "perfect socialism."

And today Cuba continues its anti-Marxist strategy, extolling "socialism with Chinese characteristics."

The Cuban counter-revolution already occurred when the enthusiasm of the Cuban anti-imperialist revolution, which lacked a proletarian vanguard and thus any chance for developing into anything greater, was channeled into the construction of a state-capitalist economy led by Castro and shackled to the social-imperialist empire of the Soviet revisionists.

Indeed. Are you expecting me to disagree? Cuba was always a revolution more about nationalism and 'kicking out the US', they just aligned to the Soviets for obvious economic and geopolitical benefit, much like the Venezuelans, despite their leftist rhetoric, hanging about with shady governments like the Iranians and North Koreans.

[Ismail]

The fact that you referred to Cuba's actions as a "strategic partnership" makes it clear you continue to make apologias for its regime. The fact you contrast this to the supposed "isolation" of Albania is further proof.

Albania was not isolated, it traded with any country willing to trade with it in conditions of equality, on the stipulation that Albania would not seek credits from abroad and that no investments were allowed in its country by the bourgeois and revisionist states. In this way Albanian independence was assured. If it had engaged in a "strategic partnership" with the Soviet social-imperialists then it would have been forced to enter into the "international socialist division of labor" concocted by them, which called for Albania scaling back industrial development in order to become the "flower garden" of Comecon.

Cuba, by engaging in this "international socialist division of labor," perpetuated the sugar monoculture economy which so badly affected the country after the USSR fell.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Ismail;2662212]The fact that you referred to Cuba's actions as a "strategic partnership" makes it clear you continue to make apologias for its regime.

Hahaha, you serious? I think you're playing, though I wasn't aware you had a sense of humour, so had previously discounted this possibility. I genuinely think you're attempting to troll, though.



The fact you contrast this to the supposed "isolation" of Albania is further proof.

'Proof'. Don't ever become a lawyer, Ismail. You'd be as shit at that too.


Cuba, by engaging in this "international socialist division of labor," perpetuated the sugar monoculture economy which so badly affected the country after the USSR fell.

Indeed, their obvious reliance on trade with the US was clear in the painful demise of the Cuban economy post-1991.

[TheEmancipator]

[QUOTE]

Hahaha, you serious? I think you're playing, though I wasn't aware you had a sense of humour, so had previously discounted this possibility. I genuinely think you're attempting to troll, though. .

I'm starting to think Ismail is just one massive caricature representing your archetype Albanian apparatchik glorifying and quoting Hoxha and Stalin to his work colleagues who guffaw at every mention of revisionism.

If I am a Titoist then you are an Albanian nationalist, Ismail, it's as simple as that. Since you are an apologist of Albanian nationalism.

[Ismail]

If I am a Titoist then you are an Albanian nationalist, Ismail, it's as simple as that. Since you are an apologist of Albanian nationalism.What's funny is that actual Albanian nationalists attack Hoxha and accuse him of "betraying" Kosovo, among other things. The only thing bourgeois nationalists actually praise him for is that he kept the country independent. Otherwise you have comments like these:

"[At the 10th Congress of the PLA in June 1991, the prominent writer Dritëro] Agolli went on to say that the Communist class struggle 'was in fact the most devastating biological war known in the history of the Albanian people.' He described the destruction of religious institutions as 'the culmination of the insanity of the class struggle,' which aimed at eliminating all cults except those of Hoxha and the [PLA]. He accused the Communists of having pursued a deliberate policy of impoverishing Albania's peasantry, which 'for centuries had served as the base for Albanian patriotism.' ... 'As have all prominent Albanian writers, from Ismail Kadare and down, I have sung about the ideals and dreams of this party, few of which were realized. I have sung about Enver Hoxha, as I imagined him. I have sung about socialism, which I truly believed would transform the world and would enrich man spiritually and materially. But for a long time I have realized my mistake, and now, disappointed, I say we must abandon once and for all this mistaken path, a path that has caused misery to the Albanians, lowering their dignity and national pride.'"
(Biberaj, Elez. Albania in Transition: The Rocky Road to Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1998. pp. 104-105.)

Furthermore, the then-newly-appointed director of the Institute of History at the State University of Tirana declared in 1992 that, "History up to now has been written from a class angle, but now it will be written from the point of view of the nation." (Albanische Geschichte: Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung, p. 126.)

[EdvardK]

Under Stalin, however, the Yugoslavs viciously attacked the USSR
Are you out of your mind?



To quote Hoxha: "The ...

Oh no not again!

[EdvardK]

Tito's doctrine led to genocide, Stalin's and Hoxha's led to continuous economic and social progress by relying primarily on one's own forces.
Remind me - how many people died because of Stalin, was it 10 or 20 MILLION??? Hoxha, now there's an upstanding communist leader, leading Albania straight to the top of the worst developed countries in the world...

[EdvardK]

[QUOTE=The Boss;2662217]

I'm starting to think Ismail is just one massive caricature representing your archetype Albanian apparatchik glorifying and quoting Hoxha and Stalin to his work colleagues who guffaw at every mention of revisionism.

If I am a Titoist then you are an Albanian nationalist, Ismail, it's as simple as that. Since you are an apologist of Albanian nationalism.
You could not have said any better. I sign myself under these sentences, too!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stop mis-quotng me! TheEmancipator said that, not me!

[TheEmancipator]

Stop mis-quotng me! TheEmancipator said that, not me!

We seem to get misquoted with each other a lot? Its so weird...

I blame Stalin.

[Ismail]

Are you out of your mind?"The climax of the CPY's anti-Stalinism was reached at its Sixth Congress (1952), when the party changed its name to League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY), a symbolic return to Marx's League of Communists. In a report to the congress, Tito assailed the Soviet Union: the USSR was responsible for creating international tensions; it had transformed the once independent East Central European countries into 'mere colonies in the heart of Europe'; Stalin was pushing North Korea into 'an aggressive war'; it was imperative to revise the 'imperialist division' of Poland and Germany, which 'favored' the Soviet Union; in the USSR, 'the condition of workers was worse than in even the most reactionary capitalist country'; Stalin's extermination of non-Russian nations 'would make Hitler envious.' Every speaker at the congress competed with Tito in hurling hostile epithets at Stalin. Kardelj accused the USSR of imperialist ambitions on a worldwide scale and stated that the 'Soviet government undoubtedly bears the largest part of responsibility for the condition of the permanent cold war.' He scorned 'various naive pacifists in the West,' advocated the unification of Germany on the basis of free elections in both parts of the country, and hinted that Yugoslavia might formally join an anti-Soviet defense pact."
(Milorad M. Drachkovitch (ed). East Central Europe: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. 1982. p. 355.)

Again, after the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU in 1956 this rhetoric was ended; Yugoslav media praised to the skies Khrushchev's "exposure" of Stalin's "crimes" and merely called the USSR afterwards "bureaucratic socialism," while the Soviet revisionists praised Yugoslavia as a fellow "socialist" country that had been unjustly attacked by Stalin.

[EdvardK]

"The climax of the CPY's anti-Stalinism was ...

Again, after the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU in 1956 this rhetoric was ended; Yugoslav media praised to the skies Khrushchev's "exposure" of Stalin's "crimes" and merely called the USSR afterwards "bureaucratic socialism," while the Soviet revisionists praised Yugoslavia as a fellow "socialist" country that had been unjustly attacked by Stalin.
You call this ATTACKING military-style? You must be kidding. If this is attacking, then your hoxha was NUKING everyone with his rhetoric.
And you think that Yugoslavia's opinion mattered THAT much? So you give Yugoslavia credibility afterall? :) You always claimed Yugoslavia was utter crap.

After nearly 70 SEVENTY years you still insist that Stalin was right and made no mistakes? And everyone who claims otherwise is a nimcompoop and UNJUSTLY ATTACKING your great Stalin?
Please, have a neurosurgeon check your head, you're probably suffering from a (mental) condition.

[Ismail]

You call this ATTACKING military-style?No. "Attacking" in English can also mean denouncing. I'm surprised you don't know this.


And you think that Yugoslavia's opinion mattered THAT much? So you give Yugoslavia credibility afterall?Social-democratic parties in the West praised the Yugoslav system throughout the 50's-80's. Yugoslavia also obviously tried to pose as the head of the "non-aligned" countries.

[TheEmancipator]

Social-democratic parties in the West praised the Yugoslav system throughout the 50's-80's. Yugoslavia also obviously tried to pose as the head of the "non-aligned" countries.

Ismail, one thing that bothers me with this frequent use of argumentation is that you cannot criticise another tendency with as a main argument 'revisionist/social democrats' backed it ergo it is revisionist/social democratic. This is the equivalent of me saying that Stalin should be discredited purely because a major revisionist like Mao supported him.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I'm starting to think Ismail is just one massive caricature representing your archetype Albanian apparatchik glorifying and quoting Hoxha and Stalin to his work colleagues who guffaw at every mention of revisionism.

If I am a Titoist then you are an Albanian nationalist, Ismail, it's as simple as that. Since you are an apologist of Albanian nationalism.

*Puts popcorn in microwave, reads on...*


Ismail responds:
What's funny is that actual Albanian nationalists. . .

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/George-Costanza-Eating-Popcorn.gif

[EdvardK]

Social-democratic parties in the West praised the Yugoslav system throughout the 50's-80's. Yugoslavia also obviously tried to pose as the head of the "non-aligned" countries.
So you admit that SFRY had influence while Albania did not have it? If Albania had it, then they'd surely convince everyone of the benevolence of Albania's regime and their superiority over everyone, yes?
probably that's where your grudge is - the fact that your Albania never had any real influence and was thus trashing everyone everywhere.

[Ismail]

So you admit that SFRY had influence while Albania did not have it? If Albania had it, then they'd surely convince everyone of the benevolence of Albania's regime and their superiority over everyone, yes?Tito had influence amongst social-democratic and bourgeois-nationalist parties and movements, who he praised and who in turn praised his regime. I fail to see how this is something positive unless you think the likes of Indira Gandhi or Kim Il Sung were great socialists.


probably that's where your grudge is - the fact that your Albania never had any real influence and was thus trashing everyone everywhere.Albania had influence among the Marxist-Leninist parties and other persons who admired the genuinely independent course which the Albanian state was pursuing in international affairs.


Ismail, one thing that bothers me with this frequent use of argumentation is that you cannot criticise another tendency with as a main argument 'revisionist/social democrats' backed it ergo it is revisionist/social democratic. This is the equivalent of me saying that Stalin should be discredited purely because a major revisionist like Mao supported him.Except Mao did not support Stalin. Mao himself admitted in 1956 that Stalin saw what was going on in China as a Tito-type affair and that the Chinese were "pressured" by Stalin in various ways. During WWII Stalin refereed to the CPC as "margarine communists" in talks with American officials.

Of course in rhetoric Mao "upheld" Stalin after 1956, but the CPC also "upheld" Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and in fact to this day the CPC claims to uphold all of them. Obviously in practice it could care less about them.

It is important to know why American imperialism and Western social-democracy supported Tito, and it is precisely because he called for "non-alignment," for a "humane," "non-dogmatic" form of "socialism," for "evolution" rather than revolution, etc. Likewise the rise of the Soviet revisionists and their 20th Party Congress saw Western social-democracy's rhetoric change, praising Khrushchev and Co. for their "realism" and whatnot.