What is the appeal in Stalinism?

[celticnachos]

I have seen a lot of Marxist's defending Stalinism, and preferring it over Trotskyism, and I must ask. What is the appeal?

Face the facts Stalinists. He turned the Soviet Union into a degenerated workers state with a bureaucratic dictatorship. He killed the socialist revolution that was about to take place, he didn't support revolutions in China and Germany, and by implementing socialism in one country he killed millions. Lenin even admitted Russia wasn't the place the real revolution would take place.

I am new to this forum, and this topic has probably been brought up a lot. I am just really curious, will someone please answer my question?

Thanks, and remember that I'm learning.

[Brutus]

Lenin said that the Russian revolution was a gamble- he knew that it would be near impossible to build socialism in a semi feudal country without the support of the west, thus he was counting on a successful German revolution.

Russia was isolated. What was Trotsky's plan? Industrialisation and collectivisation! All happened under Stalin. Trotski even said that Russia should de-collectivise, when he was in exile. You can't spread revolution on the end of a bayonet.

[Brutus]

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.

But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

[Jimmie Higgins]

Russia was isolated. What was Trotsky's plan? Industrialisation and collectivisation! All happened under Stalin. Trotski even said that Russia should de-collectivise, when he was in exile. You can't spread revolution on the end of a bayonet.I really don't think the different approaches can be explained in terms of similarities and differences in policies - I think the differences are better understood as ones of orientation: international revolution or socialism in one country. Policies are misleading because this is what allowes people to say that a capitalist nationalizing this or that is somehow "socialism".

[CatsAttack]

Stalinists don't admire Stalin for some theoretical reasons, they admire him for such things as being a 'strong' leader, being powerful, defeating Hitler, deciding the fates of millions.

Same reason some 'socialists' admire Che Guevara, not because he was a 'great Marxist', since anyone can see that he wasn't, but because he was courageous, bold, willing to self-sacrifice. All qualities that can be prescribed to people of various political viewpoints, even fascists.

Mao was a great 'Marxist' because he won a civil-war, waved a red flag, and created a strong China. And other nonsense along these lines.

There is no need to discuss actual communist theory with Stalinists, as their capacity for theory, and thinking in general, is even lower than their namesake hero.

[Lokomotive293]

Stalinists don't admire Stalin for some theoretical reasons, they admire him for such things as being a 'strong' leader, being powerful, defeating Hitler, deciding the fates of millions.

Same reason some 'socialists' admire Che Guevara, not because he was a 'great Marxist', since anyone can see that he wasn't, but because he was courageous, bold, willing to self-sacrifice. All qualities that can be prescribed to people of various political viewpoints, even fascists.

Mao was a great 'Marxist' because he won a civil-war, waved a red flag, and created a strong China. And other nonsense along these lines.

There is no need to discuss actual communist theory with Stalinists, as their capacity for theory, and thinking in general, is even lower than their namesake hero.

Just... no. Maybe you should read Stalin's theoretical works, there's a lot to learn from those. And, Mao is pretty interesting to read as well, even though I'm no Maoist.
About Che Guevara, yeah, a lot of people have no idea what he stood for, otherwise, certain Trotskyists wouldn't be so positive about him. (Talking about people I've met in real life, not attacking anyone on this forum.) However, the revolution he lead was successful, so you could probably learn
from him as well.

All I'm saying is: Don't be so close-minded.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't know but if Stalin, Mao, etc etc all were heads of socialist countries, then probably a 1/3 of the world would have lived under socialism, which may be an appealing thought instead of that socialism has never existed and will not exist for a long time.

[Nevsky]

I have seen a lot of Marxist's defending Stalinism, and preferring it over Trotskyism, and I must ask. What is the appeal?

Face the facts Stalinists. He turned the Soviet Union into a degenerated workers state with a bureaucratic dictatorship.

These are not facts but trotskyist theses. I'm not even saying their wrong or right but not facts. A collection of facts about the "stalinist" USSR, Stalin and his appeal would look something like this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1941/x01/stalin.htm

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Under his leadership, Russia turned from a backwards country of little villages with illiterate starving peasants, into an industrial and military superpower with the second largest economy in the world, in only 30 years. (Development like that took liberal capitalist countries in the west at least a hundred years to do!)
And let's not forget he prepared the USSR for World War 2.

I'm no crazy Stalin worshipper, and he certainly did a whole lot of bad things too, including killing many innocent people, but his accomplishments should not be simply ignored.

[Lucretia]

The appeal is that people desire a shortcut to revolution, and are intoxicated by the idea that for a span of decades much of the globe was littered with tin-pot dictatorships that dressed themselves up in progressive-looking Marxian regalia.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The appeal is that people desire a shortcut to revolution, and are intoxicated by the idea that for a span of decades much of the globe was littered with tin-pot dictatorships that dressed themselves up in progressive-looking Marxian regalia.

I think most ML's genuinely believe that they were Marxist, and I don't think they support(ed) them because they "dressed up" that way.

[Lucretia]

I think most ML's genuinely believe that they were Marxist, and I don't think they support(ed) them because they "dressed up" that way.

My statement is compatible with ml sincerity.

[Bostana]

My guess,
the idea of great men and glorious leaders draws people in. Then, in time, they get so involved they become hardcore Stalinists

[baronci]

WW2 larpers and students brainwashed by Marcyites, mostly

[Rural Comrade]

By what I understand socialism in one country is supposed to have socialism being built in one nation while spreading socialism as opposed to a permanent revolution having the whole world under the revolution then building socialism.

[TheEmancipator]

Stalinists believe that everything that you accuse Stalin of is bourgeois or post-Stalin Soviet Union historical revisionism and propaganda. Hence why they call anybody who disagrees with them "revisionists".

They don't try to justify any of Stalin's crimes, they just deny some of those crimes even happened.

Where is Ismael when you need him most?

[baronci]

By what I understand socialism in one country is supposed to have socialism being built in one nation while spreading socialism as opposed to a permanent revolution having the whole world under the revolution then building socialism.

this isn't part of the history of "Socialism in One Country". It was a doctrine established by the Soviet state which proclaimed the USSR to be socialist despite its inability to surpass the reigns of capital. In any case, the project of world revolution was abandoned with the Popular Front and the neutrality pacts with Nazi Germany and Japan.

[Rural Comrade]

But socialism in one country is part of Stalinism and thus part of this thread. In fact it is such a major part of Stalinism it was a huge cause in the split with Trotsky.

[Nevsky]

Stalinists believe that everything that you accuse Stalin of is bourgeois or post-Stalin Soviet Union historical revisionism and propaganda. Hence why they call anybody who disagrees with them "revisionists".

They don't try to justify any of Stalin's crimes, they just deny some of those crimes even happened.

Not all "stalinists" are like that. Especially not the ones who aren't stupid enough to call themselves "stalinists" in the first place. We defend Joseph Stalin's theoretical and practical contributions to marxism. We are marxists who uphold Stalin's legacy against those who divided global communism through anti stalinism (Khrushchev, Gorbachev and company).

[baronci]

But socialism in one country is part of Stalinism and thus part of this thread. In fact it is such a major part of Stalinism it was a huge cause in the split with Trotsky.

I know that. I was just trying to correct your explanation of it.

[Brutus]

May I insist that comrade Nevsky puts scare marks around 'anti Stalinism'? De-stalinisation was just a veil to cover the capitlaist reforms and anti communism which took place under krushchev.

[TheEmancipator]

We defend Joseph Stalin's theoretical and practical contributions to marxism. We are marxists who uphold Stalin's legacy against those who divided global communism through anti stalinism (Khrushchev, Gorbachev and company).

So, you, Nevsky, the Stalinist-Stalinist aknowledge the atrocities and clear mistakes he made but still back him because he wasn't as bad the next bunch of state capitalist bureaucratic buffoons who killed nowhere near as many comrades and bolsheviks as Stalin (mind you there weren't much life by the time Uncle Joe had finished) and at least acknowledged their own remake of Marxism unlike Stalin, whose "theoritical work" has got next to nothing to do with what his actual policies were? Seems legit.

Stalin is a product of History like most individuals, but trying to uphold him against his successors is just a waste of time. A choice between Beavis and Butthead is something I'd expect from a bourgeois government...Why don't we just abandon the futile attempt at Marxist-Leninism that petered out in the 20th Century and go back to how to analyse modern society from a Marxist perspective.

[G4b3n]

Not all "stalinists" are like that. Especially not the ones who aren't stupid enough to call themselves "stalinists" in the first place. We defend Joseph Stalin's theoretical and practical contributions to marxism. We are marxists who uphold Stalin's legacy against those who divided global communism through anti stalinism (Khrushchev, Gorbachev and company).

It seems that even many "Stalinists" on this forum are not aware of the fact that name was created by the opposition. So I agree, but I find it humerus because it just shows who Stalinism really appeals to. It also helps differentiate between the Stalinists and the Marxist-Leninists, as there are significant differences that everyone other than Stalinists acknowledge.

Khruschev may have been a hopeless revisionist but at least he did one thing right, which was make public the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin.

[G4b3n]

So, you, Nevsky, the Stalinist-Stalinist aknowledge the atrocities and clear mistakes he made but still back him because he wasn't as bad the next bunch of state capitalist bureaucratic buffoons who killed nowhere near as many comrades and bolsheviks as Stalin (mind you there weren't much life by the time Uncle Joe had finished) and at least acknowledged their own remake of Marxism unlike Stalin, whose "theoritical work" has got next to nothing to do with what his actual policies were? Seems legit.

Stalin is a product of History like most individuals, but trying to uphold him against his successors is just a waste of time. A choice between Beavis and Butthead is something I'd expect from a bourgeois government...Why don't we just abandon the futile attempt at Marxist-Leninism that petered out in the 20th Century and go back to how to analyse modern society from a Marxist perspective.

The population of Tsarist Russia on the eve of revolution was higher than the population of post-Stalinist Russia. That is really saying something.

[Old Bolshie]

I have seen a lot of Marxist's defending Stalinism, and preferring it over Trotskyism, and I must ask. What is the appeal?

Face the facts Stalinists. He turned the Soviet Union into a degenerated workers state with a bureaucratic dictatorship. He killed the socialist revolution that was about to take place, he didn't support revolutions in China and Germany, and by implementing socialism in one country he killed millions. Lenin even admitted Russia wasn't the place the real revolution would take place.

I am new to this forum, and this topic has probably been brought up a lot. I am just really curious, will someone please answer my question?

Thanks, and remember that I'm learning.


Under his leadership, Russia turned from a backwards country of little villages with illiterate starving peasants, into an industrial and military superpower with the second largest economy in the world, in only 30 years. (Development like that took liberal capitalist countries in the west at least a hundred years to do!)
And let's not forget he prepared the USSR for World War 2.


a_wild_MAGIKARP gave the best answer to your question. The appeal is not so much around Stalinism (which is little more than Socialism in One Country) but around the figure of Stalin and his accomplishments.



Face the facts Stalinists. He turned the Soviet Union into a degenerated workers state with a bureaucratic dictatorship.

I never fully understood why Trotskysts refer to the Soviet state under Stalin as a workers state (even if it is degenerated) when even Lenin admitted that the soviet state was a bourgeois one.

"But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the state apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."


By what I understand socialism in one country is supposed to have socialism being built in one nation while spreading socialism as opposed to a permanent revolution having the whole world under the revolution then building socialism.

Socialism in One Country and Permanent Revolution are not opposed. Permanent Revolution is about the proletariat fulfilling the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in those backward countries where the bourgeoisie is too weak to do it. This is compatible with Socialism in One Country. The fact is that both theories were applied in Russia. Permanent Revolution is opposed to the Two Stage Theory or Stagism.

[Brutus]

The population of Tsarist Russia on the eve of revolution was higher than the population of post-Stalinist Russia. That is really saying something.

14 invading foreign armies, civil war, famine resulting from civil war and kulak resistance to collectivisation (plus the incompetence of some party officials), 600,000 executed in the purges and 20,000,000 soviets dying in WW2 was probably a result of that.

EDIT: the comrade was obviously lying, but world war two accounts for the massive population loss between 1941 and 1946.

[Geiseric]

Under his leadership, Russia turned from a backwards country of little villages with illiterate starving peasants, into an industrial and military superpower with the second largest economy in the world, in only 30 years. (Development like that took liberal capitalist countries in the west at least a hundred years to do!)
And let's not forget he prepared the USSR for World War 2.

I'm no crazy Stalin worshipper, and he certainly did a whole lot of bad things too, including killing many innocent people, but his accomplishments should not be simply ignored.

Under his leadership, hitler made Germany a superpower after being embarrassed by the treaty. He made some mistakes but his accomplishments can't be overlooked.

[La Guaneña]

Well we got to comparing to Hitler pretty quick here...

[Brutus]

Well we got to comparing to Hitler pretty quick here...

I call Godwin's law, so broody loses the argument.

[Nevsky]

So, you, Nevsky, the Stalinist-Stalinist aknowledge the atrocities and clear mistakes he made but still back him because he wasn't as bad the next bunch of state capitalist bureaucratic buffoons who killed nowhere near as many comrades and bolsheviks as Stalin (mind you there weren't much life by the time Uncle Joe had finished) and at least acknowledged their own remake of Marxism unlike Stalin, whose "theoritical work" has got next to nothing to do with what his actual policies were? Seems legit.

Stalin is a product of History like most individuals, but trying to uphold him against his successors is just a waste of time. A choice between Beavis and Butthead is something I'd expect from a bourgeois government...Why don't we just abandon the futile attempt at Marxist-Leninism that petered out in the 20th Century and go back to how to analyse modern society from a Marxist perspective.

I kind of agree with the very last idea of yours. In fact that's the reason why I don't compare Stalin and Khrushchev in terms of who was more bloodthirsty but who helped creating socialism and applying Marx and Engel's theories to the real world. Stalin appeals to me because he did the latter, and rather successfully that is. We need to learn from his achievements and simply avoid killing millions of people in the future.

[Questionable]

Lol, two pages in and still no explanation of what Marxism-Leninism actually is.

[Sotionov]

Similar to the appeal that fascism has. If you have a totalitarian mindset, but lack the nationalism and/or conservatism- you're gonna go stalinist.

[Brutus]

The population of Tsarist Russia on the eve of revolution was higher than the population of post-Stalinist Russia. That is really saying something.

One cannot simply make wild statements and not Back them up!


The Russian Empire lost territories with about 30 million inhabitants after the Russian Revolution (Poland 18 mil; Finland 3 mil; Romania 3 mil; the Baltic states 5 mil and Kars to Turkey 400 thous). World War II Losses were estimated between 25-30 million, including an increase in infant mortality of 1.3 million. Total war losses include territories annexed by Soviet Union in 1939-45.
Although the population growth rate decreased over time, it remained positive throughout the history of the Soviet Union in all republics, and the population grew each year by more than 2 million except during periods of wartime, collectivisation, and famine.
Date Population
January 1897 (Russia): 125,640,000
1911 (Russia): 167,003,000
January 1920 (Russia): 137,727,000*
January 1926 : 148,656,000[2]
January 1937: 162,500,000[2]
January 1939: 168,524,000[2]
June 1941: 196,716,000[2]
January 1946: 170,548,000[2]
January 1951: 182,321,000[2]
January 1959: 209,035,000[2]
January 1970: 241,720,000[3]
1985: 272,000,000
July 1991: 293,047,571
Our comrade was being economical.....

[G4b3n]

One cannot simply make wild statements and not Back them up!


The Russian Empire lost territories with about 30 million inhabitants after the Russian Revolution (Poland 18 mil; Finland 3 mil; Romania 3 mil; the Baltic states 5 mil and Kars to Turkey 400 thous). World War II Losses were estimated between 25-30 million, including an increase in infant mortality of 1.3 million. Total war losses include territories annexed by Soviet Union in 1939-45.
Although the population growth rate decreased over time, it remained positive throughout the history of the Soviet Union in all republics, and the population grew each year by more than 2 million except during periods of wartime, collectivisation, and famine.
Date Population
January 1897 (Russia): 125,640,000
1911 (Russia): 167,003,000
January 1920 (Russia): 137,727,000*
January 1926 : 148,656,000[2]
January 1937: 162,500,000[2]
January 1939: 168,524,000[2]
June 1941: 196,716,000[2]
January 1946: 170,548,000[2]
January 1951: 182,321,000[2]
January 1959: 209,035,000[2]
January 1970: 241,720,000[3]
1985: 272,000,000
July 1991: 293,047,571
Our comrade was being economical.....


I am aware of soviet history, but one must account for the purges and WWII deaths caused by the purging of competent leaders who could have prevented such idiocy in terms of combat.

[Brutus]

I am aware of soviet history, but one must account for the purges and WWII deaths caused by the purging of competent leaders who could have prevented such idiocy in terms of combat.

Maybe if the competent leaders hadn't been planning a coup.

[ind_com]

I have seen a lot of Marxist's defending Stalinism, and preferring it over Trotskyism, and I must ask. What is the appeal?


No tall-talk, just class war.

[TheEmancipator]

I kind of agree with the very last idea of yours. In fact that's the reason why I don't compare Stalin and Khrushchev in terms of who was more bloodthirsty but who helped creating socialism and applying Marx and Engel's theories to the real world. Stalin appeals to me because he did the latter, and rather successfully that is. We need to learn from his achievements and simply avoid killing millions of people in the future.

Stalin perhaps came closer to enforcing the kind of economic reforms Marx would have advocated, but any non-worshiper of the Stalinist cult can clearly see that he had his own interests at heart first. Then Mother Russia and the SU. Maybe, just maybe then the emancipation of the proletariat. Compare this to Trotsky, who seemed to be a fanatical Marxist intent on liberating the world proletariat, and who would have probably butchered more than Stalin in the process, yet is demonised for ultra-left tendencies.

He might right some cool theory (and some cool poetry), but ultimately if you read some extracts it sounds more like self-justification.

I don't blame Stalin on a totally moral level for political opportunism, romanticist nationalism and doing everything to ensure that they beating the fuck out of Nazi Germany and other reactionaries, but he's not somebody I would follow on a purely Marxist theoretical and also on a human standpoint. A clearly troubled, misguided man who should never have been left with so much power.


Lol, two pages in and still no explanation of what Marxism-Leninism actually is.

You're a Marxist-Leninist, why don't you enlighten us?

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Under his leadership, hitler made Germany a superpower after being embarrassed by the treaty. He made some mistakes but his accomplishments can't be overlooked.
Lol ok...
Except he didn't just "make mistakes"; he was a genocidal fascist.

[Brutus]

Lol ok...
Except he didn't just "make mistakes"; he was a genocidal fascist.

Broody is comparing hitlerites to marxist-Leninists, in a satirical way.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Broody is comparing hitlerites to marxist-Leninists, in a satirical way.
Yeah, I know he didn't actually mean that Hitler wasn't so bad. But I'm just saying there's a huge difference between Stalin doing some good things and then also some stupid things, and Hitler just being pure evil.

[Black Cross]

What is the appeal in Stalinism?

Probably Joseph's moustache. Stalin has a great moustache.


Not all "stalinists" are like that. Especially not the ones who aren't stupid enough to call themselves "stalinists" in the first place. We defend Joseph Stalin's theoretical and practical contributions to marxism. We are marxists who uphold Stalin's legacy against those who divided global communism through anti stalinism (Khrushchev, Gorbachev and company).

(italics and bold mine)

So then its a joke that Stalin is your avatar? Because i don't think that any theoretical and/or practical contributions to marxism can compensate for his unacceptable actions as head of the Russian state.

[Nevsky]

Other than being a sociopathic, racist, fascist, genocidal dictator, Hitler also left Germany in ruins. "Hitler made Germany into a superpower" is nothing more than a myth. Yes, the Third Reich grew strong under nazism but it is overrated in the end. Many of the statistics concerning the "great" decrease of unemployment are know historical falsifications. The entire german machinery's success was largely based on vague compromises with the old german bourgeoisie and industrial tycoons (look up the "Mefo bills"), it was only able to survive through the means of total war.

The enemy is not so strong as some frightened little intellectuals picture him. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted. Who can deny that our Red Army has more than once put the vaunted German troops to panic flight? If one judges, not by the boastful assertions of the German propagandists, but by the actual position of Germany, it will not be difficult to understand that the German-fascist invaders are facing disaster. Hunger and impoverishment reign in Germany to-day; in four months of war Germany has lost four and a half million men; Germany is bleeding, her reserves of man-power are giving out, the spirit of indignation is spreading not only among the peoples of Europe who have fallen under the yoke of the German invaders but also among the German people themselves, who see no end to war. The German invaders are straining their last efforts. There is no doubt that Germany cannot sustain such a strain for long. Another few months, another half-year, perhaps another year, and Hitlerite Germany must burst under the pressure of her crimes. - J.V. Stalin

Hitler lead Germany into unavoidable disaster; Stalin's legacy was the second most powerful state in the world.

[Geiseric]

Maybe if the competent leaders hadn't been planning a coup.

You're an idiot if you think that's true.

[Paul Pott]

Stalinism is actually just a cover for Satanism.

We believe the dark lord came to this world in human form to make a fashion statement as well as a political one.

[Le Socialiste]

I am curious - how do Stalinists in this thread interpret or explain Stalin's reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuality?

[ind_com]

I am curious - how do Stalinists in this thread interpret or explain Stalin's reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuality?

I think it was due to the allover lack of the international communist movement's understanding of gender and identity politics.

[ind_com]

I am curious - how do Stalinists in this thread interpret or explain Stalin's reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuality?

I think it was due to the allover lack of the international communist movement's understanding of gender and identity politics.

[Brutus]

I am curious - how do Stalinists in this thread interpret or explain Stalin's reactionary policies regarding women and homosexuality?

Quite frankly, Stalin's position on homosexuality is disgusting. I presume by his position on women you mean the restriction of abortions and divorce being harder to obtain? That was an attempt to increase the population.

This is an interesting read on women in the USSR, whether you believe it to be true or not.
http://www.marxists.org/reference//archive/stalin/works/subject/women/cccp.htm

[Le Socialiste]

I think it was due to the allover lack of the international communist movement's understanding of gender and identity politics.

Except the 1917 revolution(s) ushered in an unprecedented wave of liberatory gains for women and those within the LGBTQ community (it obviously wasn't known or considered as such in those exact terms, but for time's sake it'll suffice). These were met with direct assaults (http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/RGC2.html) from Stalin's 'wing' within the party, and eventually became the de facto line of the organization by the early 1930s. To quote from an earlier post of mine:


Homosexuality was decriminalized in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, prompting something of a small-scale - albeit short-lived - sexual liberation movement. Following the October Revolution the entire Criminal Code was done away with, and the new Russian Criminal Codes of 1922 and 1926 removed the "offense" of muzhelozhstvo from the law. These were rolled back in the 1930s, in accordance with Stalin's pro-family policies. Homosexuality was recriminalized in 1933, and the new law punished muzhelozhstvo with up to five years. At the height of the purges, raids and arrests concerning this were rather common.


The Bolsheviks were quick to set up a number of benefits that were helpful to women in the early years of the revolution prior to Stalin's rise, despite economic constraints. These included communal laundries, kitchens, and childcare centers which, while not perfect, went some way in raising women beyond the constraints of the home so they could pursue their own interests. It was easier than ever to obtain a divorce, women had the vote, and abortion services were readily available. Stalin would later argue that the state of the economy necessitated that these centers be dismantled and closed, which coincided with his views surrounding the more traditional family social unit. Policies were implemented to this effect, essentially reversing these gains; divorce became more and more difficult to obtain and one had to make sizable payments in order to get one. Abortion rights were scaled back and eventually abolished, save for exceptions where the woman's health was in question, and the government often urged women to "enjoy motherhood" in order to increase the size of the population. Mothers were awarded medals if they had nine children, essentially reducing women to their reproductive abilities.

[Le Socialiste]

Quite frankly, Stalin's position on homosexuality is disgusting. I presume by his position on women you mean the restriction of abortions and divorce being harder to obtain? That was an attempt to increase the population.

Surely you don't believe this to be a justifiable reason though (I'm not saying you think it is, just clarifying)?


This is an interesting read on women in the USSR, whether you believe it to be true or not.
http://www.marxists.org/reference//archive/stalin/works/subject/women/cccp.htm

Thank you, but I have read it before. :)

Edit - In fact, I believe it was this passage that stuck out to me the most:


The education of the children is the honourable social duty of mothers. Motherhood and the rearing of children in the U.S.S.R. are honoured and respected. The Soviet State assigns enormous funds to aid mothers with large families and unmarried mothers: 2,500,000 mothers have been awarded the Order "Motherhood Glory" and the "Motherhood Medal". The title "Mother Heroine" has been conferred on 28,500 women.

[Brutus]

Surely you don't believe this to be a justifiable reason though (I'm not saying you think it is, just clarifying)?



I don't believe in moralistically regulating what women can do with their bodies, no. I should have phrased that better.

[Nevsky]

Le Socialiste, what exactly is wrong about that passage? He is saying that large families and unmarried mothers get a lot of aid from the state. Seems like a pretty logical thing to do from a marxist perspective, considering that unmarried mothers and large families (who can't provide for all the members sufficiently) are major victims of capitalist society.

[ind_com]

Except the 1917 revolution(s) ushered in an unprecedented wave of liberatory gains for women and those within the LGBTQ community (it obviously wasn't known or considered as such in those exact terms, but for time's sake it'll suffice). These were met with direct assaults (http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/RGC2.html) from Stalin's 'wing' within the party, and eventually became the de facto line of the organization by the early 1930s. To quote from an earlier post of mine:

Homosexuality was indeed decriminalized after the Russian Revolution and recriminalized in 1933. But I haven't seen a single major communist work in that period addressing the homosexuality issue explicitly. The recriminalization oh homosexuality was for the stupidest of reasons like identification of homosexuality with fascism or attempts to increase the population. But even this move was not met by any resistance by any notable communist, both inside and outside of the USSR. That is why I think that the allover understanding of the LGBT question was extremely underdeveloped, and the decriminalization of homosexuality was more of an exception than a trend within the communist movement of that period.

[Brutus]

Homosexuality was associated with the aristocracy, so that could be a reason why it was made illegal. I'm not saying that I agree with it, just trying to shed some light on the situation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The recriminalization oh homosexuality was for the stupidest of reasons like identification of homosexuality with fascism or attempts to increase the population. But even this move was not met by any resistance by any notable communist, both inside and outside of the USSR.

If I recall correctly, Bonch-Bruevich, the Bolshevik expert on Old Believers and other minority religions, an old associate of Lenin and the former chairman of the Bonch-Bruevich Commission, the predecessor of ChK, was fairly upset by this move, especially since he had started a small library dedicated to works about male-male love. Yagoda allegedly reassured him that the law would only be used against those who participated in fascist conspiracies.

Now, the unfortunate truth is that the Bolshevik leadership didn't have a particularly enlightened view of homosexuality, unlike the communists in more advanced capitalist nations. I think most of them expected same-sex relationships to go away as the world advanced into socialism. That said, the criminalisation of male same-sex relations is problematic, of course, because it has an enormous material impact on Russian queer people, and unfortunately still does, but also because it shows the increased willingness of the Soviet state to resort to administrative measures in these matters. Likewise with the prohibition of abortion.

However, this is not in itself a valid criticism of modern Marxists-Leninists, though several ML parties have an unfortunate history of homophobia.

[G4b3n]

You're an idiot if you think that's true.

If only it were true and actually happened.

[ComradeOm]

After plenty of encounters with Stalinist's I've decided that there it has one key attraction: Stalinism involves very little independent thought.

This tends to come across in three major ways:

Superficial reading of history. Stalinists are easily wowed, as people have been for decades, by very obvious 'achievements'. Yet they're entirely incapable of looking beyond these and formulating more nuanced analyses (or even understanding the history) that goes beyond propaganda. Below is a case in point: where someone lifts entirely from a Stalin quote without looking at the likes of gender roles or comparisons

Secondhand arguments. It's very, very rare that you hear an original thought from a Stalinist. The controversies are old, the arguments tired and even the slurs decrepit

The steel core. Pin every Stalinist down and eventually they return to that iron centre that ultimately underpins every single argument: the infallibility of Stalin. How do you justify the murder and imprisonment of millions? Because Stalin was a socialist! The exploitation and immiseration of the Russian proletariat? Stalin was a socialist! The pact with Nazi Germany? Stalin was a socialist. You can't question that key tenet


Le Socialiste, what exactly is wrong about that passage? He is saying that large families and unmarried mothers get a lot of aid from the state. Seems like a pretty logical thing to do from a marxist perspective, considering that unmarried mothers and large families (who can't provide for all the members sufficiently) are major victims of capitalist society.It's defining the role of women as child-bearers and homemakers. Compare to contemporary pro-natal policies in France and Nazi Germany. Both also had medals, financial incentives and an emphasis on motherhood as a duty to the state. There is absolutely nothing Marxist about this

[Per Levy]

Stalinism is actually just a cover for Satanism.

We believe the dark lord came to this world in human form to make a fashion statement as well as a political one.

dont make yourself sound more interesting than you are. satanism at least can be seen as cool(and it has some pretty awsome imagery). also i doubt you know much about satanism.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I believe it's mostly in the hope that they'll learn Stalin's moustache-grooming secrets

[Nevsky]

After plenty of encounters with Stalinist's I've decided that there it has one key attraction: Stalinism involves very little independent thought.

This tends to come across in three major ways:

Superficial reading of history. Stalinists are easily wowed, as people have been for decades, by very obvious 'achievements'. Yet they're entirely incapable of looking beyond these and formulating more nuanced analyses (or even understanding the history) that goes beyond propaganda. Below is a case in point: where someone lifts entirely from a Stalin quote without looking at the likes of gender roles or comparisons

Secondhand arguments. It's very, very rare that you hear an original thought from a Stalinist. The controversies are old, the arguments tired and even the slurs decrepit

The steel core. Pin every Stalinist down and eventually they return to that iron centre that ultimately underpins every single argument: the infallibility of Stalin. How do you justify the murder and imprisonment of millions? Because Stalin was a socialist! The exploitation and immiseration of the Russian proletariat? Stalin was a socialist! The pact with Nazi Germany? Stalin was a socialist. You can't question that key tenet

Obviously, I can't speak for every "stalinist" out there but when it comes to myself you are wrong in almost every point.

1. According to your definition of "stalinist" I wouldn't be able to develop an individual thought. However, just recently I got flamed badly by all sorts of different communists for liking Tarkovsky and Fellini films (hipster-western bourgoeis-film snob became my title in that thread) and expressed solidarity with Slavoj Zizek.

2. Marxist-Leninists don't justify Stalin's crimes. They recognize the truth for what it ist and it is appropriate for communists to defend Stalin against grave exaggerations as said accusations are used to hurt the whole of global communism, not only Stalin and "stalinism". We don't aim to repeat his crimes but his achievements in the field of socialism.

3. I have never seen a fellow m-l defending anything Stalin did by simply stating he was a socialist. If your interested, you may look up an older Stalin thread where I defended his role in WW2 on the basis of historical documents and reason: http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalinismi-t180345/index4.html

In conclusion, your arguments may be true for "stalinists"/nazbols/russian chauvinists but not for Marxist-Leninists who base their affirmation of Stalin on a rational, modern perspective on marxism and history instead of mere propaganda.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

About Stalin's social conservatism involving women and homosexuals, maybe he was only like that to appeal to the socially conservative masses and get more support?

[Brutus]

About Stalin's social conservatism involving women and homosexuals, maybe he was only like that to appeal to the socially conservative masses and get more support?

Don't make excuses. Stalin wasn't infailable- he held reactionary views.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Don't make excuses. Stalin wasn't infailable- he held reactionary views.
I wasn't trying to make excuses or defend him at all, I was seriously asking the question.

[Brutus]

I wasn't trying to make excuses or defend him at all, I was seriously asking the question.

Revolutionaries shouldn't endorse socially conservative views because the masses do.

[ind_com]

Revolutionaries shouldn't endorse socially conservative views because the masses do.

This. A vanguard is supposed to lead by setting examples.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Revolutionaries shouldn't endorse socially conservative views because the masses do.
I know that. Of course I wasn't suggesting that would make it ok; I was just curious about his motives.

[Geiseric]

He also restored the orthodox church, one small problem.

[Brutus]

He also restored the orthodox church, one small problem.


Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, and many churches were re-opened under the German occupation. Stalin ended the anti-religious campaign in order to rally the country and prevent a large base of Nazi support (which existed in some areas in the early stages of the invasion). In September 1941, three months after the Nazi attack, the last antireligious periodicals were shut down (officially because of a paper shortage).

At least think of better criticisms!

[Geiseric]

At least think of better criticisms!

The orthodox church was basically like the inquisition. Stalin opened them for the same reason hitler did.

[Nevsky]

The orthodox church was basically like the inquisition. Stalin opened them for the same reason hitler did.

That doesn't even make any sense. Are you a troll?

[Brutus]

You would rather the nazis have a potential power base? We all know the reactionary nature of the church.
And we all know Stalin's love for the church, thus why there existed the 'militant league of the godless', and this:
http://budgettravelrussia.com/Technicals/images/Krapotinskaya/Cathedral%20demolition.jpg

[Althusser]

There's a lot of talk on this thread about how Stalin ruined world revolution with his "socialism in one country," but absolutely nothing about what the Soviet Leadership should have actually done to help the world revolution. What exactly should Stalin have done (going along with that great-man theory argument) to bring revolution everywhere else. Some of you Trots just worship at the alter of spontaneity and then turn around and blame one man, Stalin, for not being a better world revolution maker while the USSR was dealing with it's own problems.

It's not like Stalin expounded upon the theories of "socialism in one country" now and forever, as Trotskyists would have you believe. Stalin wrote The Foundations of Leninism, in which he clearly says supporting proletarian internationalism and revolution elsewhere is a main function of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Brutus]

I like how Broody always says that we talk shit or that we're stupid, but he changes the topic when we prove him wrong.

[Geiseric]

But you didn't prove me wrong. Hitler and Stalin both re opened and funded the reactionary racist orthodox church which as we know was little more than an extension of the tsarist state itself. Why wouldhe restore an extension of the former aristocratic class? Why would he require religious brainwashing of soldiers and workers to keep fighting? Is the eastern orthodox church an equitable way to rally human beings?

[CatsAttack]

But you didn't prove me wrong. Hitler and Stalin both re opened and funded the reactionary racist orthodox church which as we know was little more than an extension of the tsarist state itself. Why wouldhe restore an extension of the former aristocratic class? Why would he require religious brainwashing of soldiers and workers to keep fighting? Is the eastern orthodox church an equitable way to rally human beings?

I agree with com. Geiseric here. Nothing revolutionary about reviving the church and poisoning the youth with religious obscurantism. What if the SU was a Muslim majority nation, would it have been OK for Stalin to call for a 'jihad' to rally the masses? Oh wait, I guess he did.

[Brutus]

I refer two to this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2638372&postcount=68), which explains why Stalin allowed the church the practice again.

[Nevsky]

You guys sound as if Stalin unleashed some kind of great evil by rehabilitating the orthodox church, as if every single christian priest in his local church was such a dangerous class enemy that he needs to be fought even during harsh war time. Not everyone is a soulless atheist, especially not the soviet farmers and proletarians of 1941. It was a wise move to grant them moral support by their church (just in case an ultra-serious, humorless revlefter is about to ban me: this post includes a joke).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Other than being a sociopathic, racist, fascist, genocidal dictator, Hitler also left Germany in ruins. "Hitler made Germany into a superpower" is nothing more than a myth. Yes, the Third Reich grew strong under nazism but it is overrated in the end. Many of the statistics concerning the "great" decrease of unemployment are know historical falsifications. The entire german machinery's success was largely based on vague compromises with the old german bourgeoisie and industrial tycoons (look up the "Mefo bills"), it was only able to survive through the means of total war.

The enemy is not so strong as some frightened little intellectuals picture him. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted. Who can deny that our Red Army has more than once put the vaunted German troops to panic flight? If one judges, not by the boastful assertions of the German propagandists, but by the actual position of Germany, it will not be difficult to understand that the German-fascist invaders are facing disaster. Hunger and impoverishment reign in Germany to-day; in four months of war Germany has lost four and a half million men; Germany is bleeding, her reserves of man-power are giving out, the spirit of indignation is spreading not only among the peoples of Europe who have fallen under the yoke of the German invaders but also among the German people themselves, who see no end to war. The German invaders are straining their last efforts. There is no doubt that Germany cannot sustain such a strain for long. Another few months, another half-year, perhaps another year, and Hitlerite Germany must burst under the pressure of her crimes. - J.V. Stalin

Hitler lead Germany into unavoidable disaster; Stalin's legacy was the second most powerful state in the world.
that's all well and good, but stalin made a pact with hitler. justify the leader of a 'communist state' making a pact with a nazi. otherwise, do something about that hard-on you have for stalin because the working class isn't interested in seeing it.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You guys sound as if Stalin unleashed some kind of great evil by rehabilitating the orthodox church, as if every single christian priest in his local church was such a dangerous class enemy that he needs to be fought even during harsh war time. Not everyone is a soulless atheist, especially not the soviet farmers and proletarians of 1941. It was a wise move to grant them moral support by their church (just in case an ultra-serious, humorless revlefter is about to ban me: this post includes a joke).
what you just said would be wonderful in a machiavellian sense, but revolutionary politics isn't machiavellian. its supposedly, according to marx, the working class becoming conscious and utilizing the means of production for their own end in order to put an end to our capitalistic, classist society. the state fiddling with religious institutions is exactly the opposite - here you have the state itself manipulating an institute of the ideological state apparatus, in order to preserve its own sovereignty, which suggests that the state operates against the concerns of the masses (which, as we know, is the main feature of the state - lenin even wrote a book on it).

it isn't a battle between good and evil, its a battle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - religious institutions are bourgeois institutions, despite the fact that many of their members are proletarians. have a good read of the history of religion and then try and justify stalin's endorsement of the church, outside of any kind of machiavellian, power-hungry stance. religion has been a tool of the ruling class. 'opium of the masses' was marx's way of putting it, i believe.

[Nevsky]

that's all well and good, but stalin made a pact with hitler. justify the leader of a 'communist state' making a pact with a nazi. otherwise, do something about that hard-on you have for stalin because the working class isn't interested in seeing it.

Are you some kind of idealist? The pact was necessary to win the war, period. Many marxist historians like Kurt Gossweiler, Domenico Losurdo and Luciano Canfora confirm that. Attacking the pact on the sole basis of "Stalin made a pact with nazis" is an equally simplistic argument to "Stalin is awesome because he defeated the nazis".

Revolutionary idealism won't get you anywhere in the real world. It just happens that most people in the world (mainly non-bourgeois) are either religious or still have too much respect for religious institutions to comprehend aggressive campaigns against them. Marx spoke of the "opium of the masses"; his point was that oppressed people tend to seek salvation in the spiritual, religious field. Once the workers take the control of the means of production and the capitalists are liquidated as a class, there will be no need for the common man to resort to religion as he can pursue happiness in the real world. Religion will simply fade away, there is no need for a revolutionary to put some poor priest up against the wall and burn local churches down (rich, degenerate vatican fatasses are a different story...). The people will hate you and you'll give life to new religious martyrs in the process.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i'm not at all an idealist, but perhaps stalin was, by thinking that he could further the progression of the proletariat by making a pact with a nazi. its the same as asking the ceo of a large corporation for help in achieving a communist society - THAT is idealistic.

either way, we knew that the revolution was doomed given that russia was backwards and not even capitalist (capitalism is a necessary aspect in the development of communism, if we are to adhere to marxist theory), so what essentially happened was an industrial revolution, a bit like britain's but over a shorter time-scale.

the conditions weren't right for communism. defending stalin is defending industrialization, which is a must in terms of historical development and stalin's regime did a good job of that. however, defending stalin on the basis of communist theory is contradictory to communist theory itself. defending his pact with hitler is about as ridiculous as the 'revolutionary left' can get. remember that the basis of our revolutionary work is to emancipate the working class - remember this when you're defending stalin's pact with hitler when you speak to workers, and then remember what hitler's regime did to working people.

the most idealistic argument in this regard is that making pacts with nazis will do anything to help the working class - history itself has shown what a failure that kind of political strategy was, so feel free to defend the NAZI-pact if you wish, but try to understand how far away your absurd views are from the main tenants of communist theory. these tenants amount to the notion that classist society is wrong - nazi germany took class-division to its extreme! in this regard, you need to make an objective choice in your defence which is either based on marxist theory, machiavellian power-politics or naziism. go ahead!

to sum it up, go and tell a descendant of a german jew or homosexual working class person how great stalin's pact with the nazis was, and tell them that any other method would've been 'idealistic'.

stalinoids are the most idealistic of all, given that you idealize stalin and try to paint a picture of him as anything other than an abysmal failure and a severe dent in the cause of liberating the masses from class society. perhaps i'm being unfair - stalin was a fantastic politician, as a bourgeoisie with clever machiavellian tactics!

in seriousness, communists don't tango with nazis.

also, regarding religion, marx's point was that religion acted as a means of distraction, hence 'opium'. must like other aspects of the ideological state apparatus (television, etc). religion represents a part of the ruling class ideology and should be abolished - read into the history of religion. or try opium! that might help you to understand the metaphor.

[Turinbaar]

You guys sound as if Stalin unleashed some kind of great evil by rehabilitating the orthodox church, as if every single christian priest in his local church was such a dangerous class enemy that he needs to be fought even during harsh war time. Not everyone is a soulless atheist, especially not the soviet farmers and proletarians of 1941. It was a wise move to grant them moral support by their church (just in case an ultra-serious, humorless revlefter is about to ban me: this post includes a joke).

The church was heavily integrated with the Okhrana and and the White Armies, and until the revolution, the Tsar himself was it's official head. They fabricated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Their restoration, and subsequent praise of Stalin as a hero sent by God was the crown jewel of his negation of socialism.

[Nevsky]

Wtf? No one ever claimed that the pact helped the working class. It was exactly the contrary of idealist, an act of "Realpolitik" to win the war. You haven't provided a single argument against the pact except for "it was a pact with NAZIS and communists can't make pacts with NAZIS", that's idealism rigth there. Your initial argument about religion makes no sense, either. You say that religion is a mean of distraction for the people, an instrument for the bourgeoisie to control the workers. But in USSR there was no rule of bourgeoisie. Hence, religion couldn't be used for profits of capitalist class but to ensure the survival of the soviet state.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Wtf? No one ever claimed that the pact helped the working class. It was exactly the contrary of idealist, an act of "Realpolitik" to win the war. You haven't provided a single argument against the pact except for "it was a pact with NAZIS and communists can't make pacts with NAZIS", that's idealism rigth there. Your initial argument about religion makes no sense, either. You say that religion is a mean of distraction for the people, an instrument for the bourgeoisie to control the workers. But in USSR there was no rule of bourgeoisie. Hence, religion couldn't be used for profits of capitalist class but to ensure the survival of the soviet state.

you'll never get out of your silly mindset until you understand that 'realipolitik' is the game of the ruling class, just as religion is a tool of the ruling class.

dress it as you wish with your 'realpolitik' (which actually comes from bourgeois IR theory anyway LOL) but understand that a communist revolution should be primarily guided by the working class and should operate in their benefit - a bourgeois political system making pacts with nazis is completely against the fundamental principles of communism.

as for religion, as i said: 'opium of the masses'! its a social construct, designed by the ruling classes, in order to control populations. stalin was nothing other than machiavellian in his utilization of religion in order to establish control. machiavellian politics such as those are both a creation and a method of the bourgeoisie.

[Nevsky]

as for religion, as i said: 'opium of the masses'! its a social construct, designed by the ruling classes, in order to control populations. stalin was nothing other than machiavellian in his utilization of religion in order to establish control. machiavellian politics such as those are both a creation and a method of the bourgeoisie.

And you continue to repeat the same misconception of Marx' theory of religion. Religion was never disigned at a table a by ruling class. Religion comes from the hearts of oppressed people. It means hope for salvation in the after life. An idea which appeals to people whose real life sucks. Hence, Marx called it "opium of the people" contrary to the widespread misinterpretation "opium for the people". You use the correct terminology but adhere to the wrong idea behind it.

Once the proletariat seizes power, it becomes a ruling class until the final stage of communism, of classless society is reached. Therefore, revolutionary governments need to know how to rule, how to run a state.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

And you continue to repeat the same misconception of Marx' theory of religion. Religion was never disigned at a table a by ruling class. Religion comes from the hearts of oppressed people. It means hope for salvation in the after life. An idea which appeals to people whose real life sucks. Hence, Marx called it "opium of the people" contrary to the widespread misinterpretation "opium for the people". You use the correct terminology but adhere to the wrong idea behind it.

Once the proletariat seizes power, it becomes a ruling class until the final stage of communism, of classless society is reached. Therefore, revolutionary governments need to know how to rule, how to run a state.

no, you're wrong. religion wasn't an organic creation, it was the creation of the ruling class and it was then hung over the heads of working people so that they could conduct themselves in accordance with the desires of the ruling class and their ideology (think dialectically!). religion was ideology then just as liberal moralism is ideology today - these ideologies serve the purpose of allowing the socio-economic system to function. please read about the history of religion and stop bastardizing marx's statements against it!

you're talking from a machiavellian perspective again. revolutionary governments, by marxist standards, are comprised of a class-conscious working class. as such, they would run the state whilst conscious of certain aspects of bourgeoise-ideology, which they would disregard and undermine.

if you had a clue about marxism, you'd recognize religion as apart of the ruling ideology - marx said this himself. the next logical step, intellectually speaking, is to construct a society which escapes those ideological contraints which were imposed by the bourgeoisie. this is why communists tend to be atheists.

[Nevsky]

if you had a clue about marxism, you'd recognize religion as apart of the ruling ideology. the next logical step, intellectually speaking, is to construct a society which escapes those ideological contraints which were imposed by the bourgeoisie.

If you had a clue about Marx and Religion, you'd know what Marx' meant. Since you are so eager to make me "look up the history of religion", why don't you pinpoint the exact moment in history when the "ruling class" sat down at a table and said "hey guys, let's create religion so that we can oppress the workers, muhahahah!"?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

If you had a clue about Marx and Religion, you'd know what Marx' meant. Since you are so eager to make me "look up the history of religion", why don't you pinpoint the exact moment in history when the "ruling class" sat down at a table and said "hey guys, let's create religion so that we can oppress the workers, muhahahah!"?

so you don't think that religion is apart of bourgeois ideology, no?

[CatsAttack]

If you had a clue about Marx and Religion, you'd know what Marx' meant. Since you are so eager to make me "look up the history of religion", why don't you pinpoint the exact moment in history when the "ruling class" sat down at a table and said "hey guys, let's create religion so that we can oppress the workers, muhahahah!"?

So you think modern religion has some positive aspects and organized religion can play a positive role in modern society?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

read this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

and this, from lenin.

'Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices...' - Marx

[Rural Comrade]

Religion is never created by the ruling class but rather used and perverted by it for their needs.

[Brutus]

Religion originally started off, as Nevsky said, as a means to make people's lives happier- a pain relief from the cruelty of life- like opium.
Then it became a tool of the ruling class when they began using it to oppress and to stop the masses from rising up by telling them they would have eternal happiness if they stayed docile, whereas if they rose up they would be eternally tortured.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

So you think modern religion has some positive aspects and organized religion can play a positive role in modern society?

maybe in bourgeois society, just as charity. however, in relation to communism, these things are redundant.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Religion is never created by the ruling class but rater used and perverted by it for their needs.

all dominant ideology is actually the produce of the ruling class. religion, political theory, law etc.

[Brutus]

all dominant ideology is actually the produce of the ruling class. religion, political theory, law etc.

Religion existed under primitive communism

[Rural Comrade]

So your telling me that when Christianity was created against the Romans it was still for the ruling class and that Buddhism which was created by one who denounced his future to rule was for the ruling class?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

So your telling me that when Christianity was created against the Romans it was still for the ruling class and that Buddhism which was created by one who denounced his future to rule was for the ruling class?

yes. just like how capitalistic economic ideology was 'created against' feudalism. read the things i posted - they will explain religion, materialistically, in relation to marxist theory.

[Nevsky]

so you don't think that religion is apart of bourgeois ideology, no?

Of course it is. For example, the american republican conservatives use religion as propaganda tool to control the people. All I'm saying is that this is not the only way religion can exist. If you look at Christ's life, you can see that he was a pretty revolutionary guy and attacked the establishment of his time. His teachings gave hope to the poor and his early followers lived in pre-socialist communes. After the fall of the roman empire the christian church became an ally of the new ruling powers of Europe and christianity became the dominant (oppressive) ideology of the middel ages. From that moment on the church acted mstly as a reactionary force, I agree. But it's also true that many "revolutionary" christians strongly oppose people like Bush and Santorum because they know that these kind of asocial reactionaries are hypocrites and don't represent the way of Christ.

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" - -Matthew 19:23-24

I think that we shouldn't alienate certain anti-establishment kind of religious people through unnecessarily aggressive campaigns against religious institutions. People will emancipate from religion all by themselvs once socialism prevails as just socio-economic system.

[Rafiq]

I don't think there ever was an exclusive appeal in Stalinism. In times when class struggle was high, Stalinism was all the proletariat had to look to, there existed the Soviet Union among others as real examples they could uphold and struggle for. Tragic really. I suppose Stalinism in many regards was a very mediocre form of class consciousness, comparable to trade union consciousness, in the first world. Stalinism represented the degeneration of the October revolution, and became an ideology of capital globally, like Liberalism or Fascism.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Of course it is. For example, the american republican conservatives use religion as propaganda tool to control the people. All I'm saying is that this is not the only way religion can exist. If you look at Christ's life, you can see that he was a pretty revolutionary guy and attacked the establishment of his time. His teachings gave hope to the poor and his early followers lived in pre-socialist communes. After the fall of the roman empire the christian church became an ally of the new ruling powers of Europe and christianity became the dominant (oppressive) ideology of the middel ages. From that moment on the church acted mstly as a reactionary force, I agree. But it's also true that many "revolutionary" christians strongly oppose people like Bush and Santorum because they know that these kind of asocial reactionaries are hypocrites and don't represent the way of Christ.

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" - -Matthew 19:23-24

I think that we shouldn't alienate certain anti-establishment kind of religious people through unnecessarily aggressive campaigns against religious institutions. People will emancipate from religion all by themselvs once socialism prevails as just socio-economic system.

i completely agree that we shouldn't alienate religious people on the basis that they're religious. my only point is that religion is and always has been a part of the ruling class' ideological state apparatus and, following a marxist train of thought, utilizing religion to further the emancipation of the working class is contradictory.

calling on religion in order to establish order is exactly what the bourgeois do.

[Rural Comrade]

So your fine with religion so long as it isn't organized?

[Rafiq]

The Idealism present in Stalinism or Marxism Leninism in general is signified by their analysis of their own according societies, generally, Soviet theoreticians recognized the laws of historical motion in western countries, but not in their own. To them, the Soviet Union was an exception, by which the "proletariat" or "the people" were able to make conscious decisions that preceded material conditions, which is why Marxism Leninism reveals itself to be a great tragic joke in the end. It is almost comparable to how Fascists declared class struggle to be ended when they took control of the state. This exceptionalism (cherry topped with Nationalism or "patriotism") is a clear signification of ideology, not Marxism. The exceptionalism was necessitated in order to ideologically legitimize existent social relations in Communist countries, something proletarian Communism or Marxism would never see to. I cringe when I see Stalinists accused of being "too Marxist" or whatever, when the opposite is true: Stalinism is a gross vulgarization of Marxism, a bastardization of the theoretical foundations of Marxism to serve as an ideological state apparatus. In this sense, Stalinists are idealists, they do not recognize history as a totality and instead make idealist exceptions of their own according Stalinist countries (it varies from different trends of Marxism Leninism). To add insult to injury, it doesn't end there. Even Stalinism itself was ideologically bastardized and vulgarized by later Communist states, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, etc.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

So your fine with religion so long as it isn't organized?

that's one way of putting it, i suppose. church and state should be separated, especially if we are to have a transitionary state in order to develop a communist society.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The Idealism present in Stalinism or Marxism Leninism in general is signified by their analysis of their own according societies, generally, Soviet theoreticians recognized the laws of historical motion in western countries, but not in their own. To them, the Soviet Union was an exception, by which the "proletariat" or "the people" were able to make conscious decisions that preceded material conditions, which is why Marxism Leninism reveals itself to be a great tragic joke in the end. It is almost comparable to how Fascists declared class struggle to be ended when they took control of the state. This exceptionalism (cherry topped with Nationalism or "patriotism") is a clear signification of ideology, not Marxism. The exceptionalism was necessitated in order to ideologically legitimize existent social relations in Communist countries, something proletarian Communism or Marxism would never see to. I cringe when I see Stalinists accused of being "too Marxist" or whatever, when the opposite is true: Stalinism is a gross vulgarization of Marxism, a bastardization of the theoretical foundations of Marxism to serve as an ideological state apparatus. In this sense, Stalinists are idealists, they do not recognize history as a totality and instead make idealist exceptions of their own according Stalinist countries (it varies from different trends of Marxism Leninism). To add insult to injury, it doesn't end there. Even Stalinism itself was ideologically bastardized and vulgarized by later Communist states, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, etc.

one of the best posts i've ever seen on revleft.

[Rafiq]

So your fine with religion so long as it isn't organized?

It depends on what is meant by "fine". As Communists (with the right context of course) it is important that we on a mass scale attack religion and the social power it holds, there are no exceptions, there is no place for religion for us. No, we do not seek to stop people from privately worshiping, we seek to on a mass scale discourage it. I am not a "new atheist", I am perfectly capable of recognizing that religion isn't to be attacked because it is "socially dangerous" or whatever, religion is to be attacked not only because it is objectively anti scientific and, how should I say, invalid, objectively an incorrect understanding of all things, but because ideologically it represents the interests of classes long dead or still in power, religion is a weapon of the enemy. We should recognize religion as a tool of class repression, we should not be mystified and we should not directly attack religion superficially, i.e. "The bible sais the world is only 3000 years old" "well these things are physically impossible" "Omg the bible is so fucked up look at all this shit". You're 300 years too late for that, for bourgeois ideology already swept away the remnants of religion on a superficial level come the scientific revolution and the emergence of rationalism.

[Nevsky]

Damn Rafiq, me and my stalinist gang were ruling this thread but then you come out of nowhere and completely rape my poor ideology :lol:

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i think the basic point is that religion is apart of the dominant ideology and that the dominant ideology is that of the ruling class. if people wish to adhere to certain ideas privately then they should have the right to but it should be private. communism would only function based on class-consciousness and, as such, any specific beliefs which undermine or subvert the ideology of a communist society should be private and not allowed to affect the communist programme. its impossible to have a conscious class of people if they are divided along religious lines and this is one of the reasons that the working class is divided in itself. religion is a product of ruling class ideology and it serves the purpose of controlling people as well as dividing them - there's the dialectic.

don't forget that the whole process of statism (in a revolutionary sense) as an aspect of establishing communism is a step in the direction of creating a society which transcends class society and its inherent divisions. as such, religion wouldn't be a part of the political system given that it is a product of the ideology which helped to conduct the society we are trying to transcend.

the only legitimate ideology would be that of establishing a communist society. what's important here is that this kind of discourse would require unity - religious thought is divisional and that kind of division has always been a part of class society (hence 'divide and conquer').

[Geiseric]

Damn Rafiq, me and my stalinist gang were ruling this thread but then you come out of nowhere and completely rape my poor ideology :lol:

By "me and my gang" do you mean the amalgamated stalinoid internet pseudo intellectuals existing only on this site? :D

[Paul Cockshott]

Why does Stalin have prestige in Russia today - because the Stalin period was one of then historically unprecedented economic advance, and from the stand point of working people, then historically unprecedentedly egalitarian income distribution.

[Paul Cockshott]

The Idealism present in Stalinism or Marxism Leninism in general is signified by their analysis of their own according societies, generally, Soviet theoreticians recognized the laws of historical motion in western countries, but not in their own. To them, the Soviet Union was an exception, by which the "proletariat" or "the people" were able to make conscious decisions that preceded material conditions, which is why Marxism Leninism reveals itself to be a great tragic joke in the end. It is almost comparable to how Fascists declared class struggle to be ended when they took control of the state. This exceptionalism (cherry topped with Nationalism or "patriotism") is a clear signification of ideology, not Marxism. The exceptionalism was necessitated in order to ideologically legitimize existent social relations in Communist countries, something proletarian Communism or Marxism would never see to. I cringe when I see Stalinists accused of being "too Marxist" or whatever, when the opposite is true: Stalinism is a gross vulgarization of Marxism, a bastardization of the theoretical foundations of Marxism to serve as an ideological state apparatus. In this sense, Stalinists are idealists, they do not recognize history as a totality and instead make idealist exceptions of their own according Stalinist countries (it varies from different trends of Marxism Leninism). To add insult to injury, it doesn't end there. Even Stalinism itself was ideologically bastardized and vulgarized by later Communist states, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, etc.

It is a good point Rafiq, but this exceptionalism, this notion of concious direction of history after the revolution is not something that Stalin invented, it is back there in the writings of old Charlie. But as you say, it is a relic of philosophical idealism.

[Paul Cockshott]

If you look at Christ's life, you can see that he was a pretty revolutionary guy and attacked the establishment of his time. His teachings gave hope to the poor and his early followers lived in pre-socialist communes. After the fall of the roman empire the christian church became an ally of the new ruling powers of Europe and christianity became the dominant (oppressive) ideology of the middel ages.

I suspect you are reading more into a possibly mythical figure than the historical evidence supports. The establishment of the christ cult as an ideological state machine occured well before the fall of the empire. It happened in the late 3rd century, the Western empire did not fall until the early 5th century.

[Nevsky]

I suspect you are reading more into a possibly mythical figure than the historical evidence supports. The establishment of the christ cult as an ideological state machine occured well before the fall of the empire. It happened in the late 3rd century, the Western empire did not fall until the early 5th century.

I know. What I meant was that the church became allies with the new germanic leaders of Europe, thus paving the way for middle age european culture.

[Prairie Fire]

CelticNachos

I have seen a lot of Marxist's defending Stalinism, and preferring it over Trotskyism, and I must ask. What is the appeal?


Face the facts Stalinists. He turned the Soviet Union into a degenerated workers state with a bureaucratic dictatorship. He killed the socialist revolution that was about to take place, he didn't support revolutions in China and Germany, and by implementing socialism in one country he killed millions. Lenin even admitted Russia wasn't the place the real revolution would take place.

I am new to this forum, and this topic has probably been brought up a lot. I am just really curious, will someone please answer my question?

Thanks, and remember that I'm learning.

Your "Question" seems rhetorical from the beginning, a flimsy pretext for you to stand on the soap box and voice your own opinions.

If you are indeed as curious as you claim to be, next time you should pose your questions without the added commentary.

I think something that is being neglected on this thread is the present day situation. The question of so-called "Stalinism", it's merits and detractions compared to other schools of socialist thought, does not begin with rival historical scholarship, and a litany of dates and events.

As far as relevance to the international struggle of the working class is concerned, we must evaluate so-called "Stalinism" in this day and age.

I have my experience with the various communist parties of the world, both first-hand and through inquiry, but I am most familiar with the situation of the workers movement in my own country ( Canada). Relying on my direct experience, I will draw upon the Canadian situation to answer your question.

In Canada, the primary so-called "Stalinist" party is called the Communist Party of Canada ( Marxist-Leninist). The people who formed the party, who joined the party, who still participate in it to this day, represent a broad palette of the working class. Teachers(primary school to University Professors), nurses and medical practitioners, working people from the oil and gas industry, forestry, manufacturing and retail labourers, fiery trade union leaders, Chiefs and representatives of the aboriginal nations, artists and cultural workers... hardly the "Mao suits and military parades" aficionados that the detractors on this thread claim.

As for the reason that they were drawn to a "Stalinist" party in the first place, this has to do with the work and politics of the CPC-ML.

In Canada, this "Stalinist" party is the only serious Communist organization in the entire country. That may seem like a subjective claim, but what can objectively be established and quantified is who is tangibly organizing the working class in Canada, and who is not.

It was the ML's in Canada and the Steelworkers of Southern Ontario who organized themselves into a workers organization ( Local 1005 USW) that fights ferociously against any encroachment on their own interests, but also is conscious and political. For the last ten years, not only have they fought numerous labour actions, endured lock-outs and stood tall in the face of attacks from the employers, but they have been meeting weekly to discuss their own agenda as well as the broader spectrum of national and world events.

Where the other nominally-socialist parties produced noise and theatrics, the "Stalinists" produced a basic workers political organization on a definite basis.

This is just one example. I won't deluge you with the entire 40+ year history of the CPC-ML, suffice to say they have played an instrumental role in most major Canadian labour actions in this same time period. ( for further information see here: www.cpcml.ca (http://www.cpcml.ca))

Every party within the Canadian far left publishes a periodical; what distinguishes the "Stalinist" CPC-ML's monthly magazine ( "Workers' Forum") in Canada is that the journalism is oriented towards workers. Not "activists", not those already thoroughly immersed in socialist politics... the rank and file of the working class. The articles cover the various sectors of workers across the country, coverage of the labour struggles taking place at that time, and analysis is made of how the problems are to be solved.

Perhaps most importantly about Workers Forum, this "Stalinist" magazine is written by working people, printed by them, distributed by them, and financed by the working class readership. While the other pseudo-socialists take their newspapers exclusively to left-wing hot spots and college campuses, the Canadian "Stalinists" go directly to jobsites and distribute to the workers that they have been involved with ( and they still distribute to students and left-wing regulars as well).

In the words of the "Stalinist" CPC-ML, they 'show their colours through their deeds.' More simply put, the so-called "Stalinists" have earned their following in the course of the work that they take up, and because of the work that they take up. Their hard-won reputation and accomplishments precede them.

This is not exclusive to the CPC-ML, nor to Canada. In most of the Capitalist world, from third world colonies and neo-colonies to the advanced imperialist countries themselves, the Marxist-Leninists (what you call the "Stalinists",) were generally the party that accomplished the tasks necessary at that time.

Over the course of almost a century, millions of human beings have involved themselves with these parties, but very, very few people have taken up the "Stalinist" banner on the basis of historical minutia from another country; the 'Stalinist' parties of the world that were successful were the ones that were judged on their own merits, as any political organization should be.

As for why they didn't choose Trotskyism, again, the Trotskyist parties of the world were judged on their own merits as well.

Perhaps with the exception of Sri Lanka, the Trotskyist parties in most countries are numerically insignificant, and this is a reflection of their politics. At best, Trotskyism has existed as a gadfly body of criticism of Marxism-Leninism, but has barely materialized as a political force in it's own right. Even in Sri Lanka, where the Trotskyist party did gain a following, they simply assumed their role in a coalition government, and started gravitating towards Eurocommunism, to the point where even the fouth international expelled them.

Here in Canada, in contrast to the "Stalinist" CPC-ML, you have numerous little Trotskyist organizations. Most of them are satellites of the Social-Democratic NDP ( Many are literally members of the NDP, especially the IMT affiliated group 'FightBack!',), and the more hard-line among them who refused can be charitably described as ivory-tower intellectuals at best. If/When they do participate in the workers movement or activism, it is most often in a disruptive role, rather than furthering anything that they are a part of.

As with the so-called "Stalinist" parties, the Trotskyist parties sink or swim on their own merits.

As far asdebates on the domestic and foreign policies of the USSR are concerned, we "Stalinists" do not concede legitimacy here either, and historical work has been done. If you are interested in a purely historical discussion, I recommend that you contact Revleft user Ismail.

* * * * *
To address all of the posters on this thread who have conflated "Stalinists" with Caricatures of young military fetishists and jingoistic tankies, I won't deny that those people exist, but in the tiniest minority, and almost exclusively in cyberspace.

These type of people are generally avoided by us so-called "Stalinists".

In real political organizing and workers politics, those people almost never make appearances, and when they do, they don't have the patience for it. Impulsive, childish and thrill seeking, they generally have never investigated the political theory of J.V. Stalin; instead, they are enamored with the bogeyman rendering of him from secondary sources.

If your conception of the archetypal "Stalinist" is based exclusively on those that you have encountered on the internet, it speaks volumes about your own political inactivity.

[Darius]

In my opinion, Marxism-Leninism or "Stalinism" could only appeal to people, who more or less only acknowledge such things as "economic growth", military power, WW2 victory and so on, without encompassing sacrifices and the theory behind it. It's just a power fetish, similar to neo-Hitlerism, there mindless nazis just like to compensate their weakness by fetishising "great" historical leaders, etc. They're to detached from the scope of destruction of these practices.

Any sane Eastern European Marxist would not associate himself with anything with Stalinist brand on it, it's a political suicide. Ofcourse even in these countries, there's still few nut jobs who like to discredit left with their stalinist filth, but by default they are not considered marxists. Only in distant countries in Asia, America can people play Stalinist card, because they're too detached from real practice of Stalinism and it's theoretical, practical failings.

If we see marxism as a scientifically based worldview, we surely have to get rid of failed practical implementations of it. Ofcourse we can draw some positive theoretical and practical examples even from these failed ideologies. But we don't need to treat them as a marxist ideologies, because they're not.

[ComradeOm]

Why does Stalin have prestige in Russia today - because the Stalin period was one of then historically unprecedented economic advance, and from the stand point of working people, then historically unprecedentedly egalitarian income distribution.Except that the Stalinist period also saw a historically unprecedented peacetime drop in living standards

Which is probably why only 4% of Russians today (http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/01/stalin-puzzle-deciphering-post-soviet-public-opinion/fmz8#) think that the sacrifices that generation made 'definitely justified' the results. The entire report is well worth reading as it also explodes some other myths around Stalin's popularity. These include the likes of only 19% of Russians surveyed disagreeing that Stalin was a 'cruel and inhuman tyrant, responsible for the deaths of millions' and that only 18% would like to 'live in a country ruled by a person like Stalin'

Tellingly, the key metric is probably that which suggests that 60% of Russians value his role in the Great Patriotic War. Stalin's popularity remains highly bound up not in "income distribution" but the memory of the war, which remains highly prominent in the Russian historical memory today

Also interesting is that the importance attached to Stalin has increased since the collapse of the USSR, with a corresponding decrease in that of Lenin and Marx (35% claimed that the latter was a 'great historical figure' in 1991, just 4% said so in 2012). The memory of Stalin, in his guise as a national leader rather than communist revolutionary, is far more pliable as a legitimiser to Russia's current ruling elite

[Old Bolshie]

And we all know Stalin's love for the church, thus why there existed the 'militant league of the godless',


It was Stalin who closed it though.


Why does Stalin have prestige in Russia today - because the Stalin period was one of then historically unprecedented economic advance, and from the stand point of working people, then historically unprecedentedly egalitarian income distribution.

Actually income inequality rose substantially and reached its pinnacle during Stalin's leadership. Stalin himself spoke against egalitarian income policies.

[Brutus]

It was Stalin who closed it though.
True.

[Paul Cockshott]

Actually income inequality rose substantially and reached its pinnacle during Stalin's leadership. Stalin himself spoke against egalitarian income policies.

Are you really claiming that incomes were more equal under the Czars than in the USSR?
Can you cite evidence for this?

[Old Bolshie]

Are you really claiming that incomes were more equal under the Czars than in the USSR?
Can you cite evidence for this?

"Under Stalin, income inequality increased to reach its pinnacle in 1946."

Economic Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: Planting the Seeds by Daniel Gros, Alfred Steinherr

[connoros]

There is no "Stalinism," and the "facts" that the original poster insists we "face" have no basis in reality. I've been lurking for some time, and many posters have explained "Stalinism" much more succinctly than I can.

[Dropdead]

By "me and my gang" do you mean the amalgamated stalinoid internet pseudo intellectuals existing only on this site? :D

Says the Trot from San Francisco.

[Invader Zim]

Wtf? No one ever claimed that the pact helped the working class. It was exactly the contrary of idealist, an act of "Realpolitik" to win the war. You haven't provided a single argument against the pact except for "it was a pact with NAZIS and communists can't make pacts with NAZIS", that's idealism rigth there.

This old chestnut? The reality is that, had it not been for the Pact, there probably would have been no war. The whole reason that the Nazis made the pact was to secure their eastern front once they turned their forces west. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany would have had to heavily divide its forces, leaving significant men and materiel in the east as opposed to overrunning the Allies in the west.

For a more comprehensive analysis of the failure of the pact to aid the Soviet Union, an in fact massively aid Nazi Germany at the cost of the SU's security, see this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2597455&postcount=27

[Dropdead]

This old chestnut? The reality is that, had it not been for the Pact, there probably would have been no war. The whole reason that the Nazis made the pact was to secure their eastern front once they turned their forces west. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany would have had to heavily divide its forces, leaving significant men and materiel in the east as opposed to overrunning the Allies in the west.

Yeah because Hitler was a peaceful lover of the USSR and communism. And he certainly didn't wan't to invade any more countries.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah because Hitler was a peaceful lover of the USSR and communism. And he certainly didn't wan't to invade any more countries.

This is a total failure to address the point in question. And your problem, based on your politically conservative mode of thinking, is to think about individual desires and what Hitler wanted, as opposed to the material economic realities which governed what was actually possible regardless of individual desires. You need to get over that way of thinking, take a step back and look at the big picture. How many divisions did Germany have, how many did the Soviet Union and the Western powers have? How many divisions would it require to successfully conquer France AND defend the East against a hostile Soviet Union? What was the GDP and population size of these respective powers when compared to Germany's? Did germany have the economic output of key resources to sustain a potentially multi-front conflict in 1939/40? What was each power's military potential? What Hitler wanted is irrelevant if Germany didn't have the infrastructure to support it. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed Germany to transfer a large number of key economic and military deficits and transfer them from the minus column and into the black.

So, to address your Red Herring: of course the Nazi regime was nationalistic and militaristic, as indeed was the entire fascist 'bloc'. But that isn't the point, the point is whether the Nazis could successfully prosecute a war in the west with a hostile Soviet Union in the east. The fact is that if they believed they could, and had the resources to do so, they would have done. And there would have been no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and this discussion would be moot.

But the facts are that the Nazis had neither the armed forces nor the materiel resources to wage war in the west while sufficiently securing their eastern territories against possible invasion from the Soviet Union. And they knew it, that was, after all, the entire purpose of the Pact from the Nazi point of view - to have a free hand militarily and to evade crippling blockade. The Pact solved both fundamental problems in their entirety, which led to the fall of France, the blockade of Britain and the bloody war against the Soviet Union once the Nazis turned their attention back east. It is an unavoidable fact that without trade with the SU, resulting from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, that the Nazi regime would have lacked key resources necessary to launch Operation Barbarossa. It just couldn't have happened.

So, in short, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact served only to facilitate and encourage the militarist expansionism you highlight. It is difficult to envision what the Nazi regime could have done had the Soviet Union been a hostile power straddling the newly conquered Poland. There is no plausible route to Nazi victory had the Nazis been forced into a two front war against three different superpowers in 1939, given the state of Germany's materiel and economic situation. I've highlighted why I argue this in the post I linked to earlier - if you disagree, then present an argument.

[connoros]

How many divisions did Germany have, how many did the Soviet Union and the Western powers have? How many divisions would it require to successfully conquer France AND defend the East against a hostile Soviet Union? What was the GDP and population size of these respective powers when compared to Germany's? Did germany have the economic output of key resources to sustain a potentially multi-front conflict in 1939/40?

The question on my mind is whether Soviet leadership had the answers to all these questions and, if they did, whether they had absolute certainty in the accuracy of those answers.

Addendum: And, given that fascist sympathy was prevalent among powerful Western industrialists, especially in the United States, how sure could Soviet leadership have been that the major Western powers would have allied as they ended up doing? I think it's also important to understand what the Soviet Union would have to gain from this pact beyond some individualist notion of Stalin's mythical hunger for power.

[Nevsky]

You put a lot of effort into a lost cause. Hitler was about to attack the USSR, his entire war machinery was created for that purpose. Stalin made the pact to ensure that Hitler followed his plan to get rid of western Europe first. Thus, he isolated Nazi Germany, lured them into suicidal total war and got the Soviet Union to join the Allies in the long term. Stalin played with Hitler and eventually destroyed him.

Edit: this is a response to Invader Zim

[connoros]

You put a lot of effort into a lost cause. Hitler was about to attack the USSR, his entire war machinery was created for that purpose. Stalin made the pact to ensure that Hitler followed his plan to get rid of western Europe first. Thus, he isolated Nazi Germany, lured them into suicidal total war and got the Soviet Union to join the Allies in the long term. Stalin played with Hitler and eventually destroyed him.

Hitler made it very clear in Mein Kampf that his intent was to destroy the Soviet Union someday, but I'm afraid the above doesn't really address the issue of funding the war machine that would cause the Union to lose more men than any other belligerent. I'm not saying I buy that Stalin wanted to fund Nazism just because he was power hungry, but I am very skeptical that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was some kind of crazy Batman gambit to make Nazi Germany an acceptable target for total destruction.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The Idealism present in Stalinism or Marxism Leninism in general is signified by their analysis of their own according societies, generally, Soviet theoreticians recognized the laws of historical motion in western countries, but not in their own. To them, the Soviet Union was an exception, by which the "proletariat" or "the people" were able to make conscious decisions that preceded material conditions, which is why Marxism Leninism reveals itself to be a great tragic joke in the end. It is almost comparable to how Fascists declared class struggle to be ended when they took control of the state. This exceptionalism (cherry topped with Nationalism or "patriotism") is a clear signification of ideology, not Marxism. The exceptionalism was necessitated in order to ideologically legitimize existent social relations in Communist countries, something proletarian Communism or Marxism would never see to. I cringe when I see Stalinists accused of being "too Marxist" or whatever, when the opposite is true: Stalinism is a gross vulgarization of Marxism, a bastardization of the theoretical foundations of Marxism to serve as an ideological state apparatus. In this sense, Stalinists are idealists, they do not recognize history as a totality and instead make idealist exceptions of their own according Stalinist countries (it varies from different trends of Marxism Leninism). To add insult to injury, it doesn't end there. Even Stalinism itself was ideologically bastardized and vulgarized by later Communist states, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, etc.


All of this sounds very nice.

Except it is demonstrably false. As Stalin did believe that Class Struggle continued in the USSR. To quote him:


“Some comrades have grasped the fact of the destruction of the classes, the creation of a classless society, as the argument of the thesis of the weakening of the class struggle theory is a counter. These people can not have anything in common with our Party. They are renegades and hypocrites who must be expelled from the Party. Not achieve the elimination of classes with the weakening of the class struggle, but its amplification to the final annihilation of all other kinds of agony, and organizing to defend the country against capitalist encirclement is not to be annihilated.”

Comrade Stalin’s Collected Works, Volume II, page 546.

and from Mao:


In China, although in the main socialist transformation has been completed with respect to the system of ownership, and although the large-scale and turbulent class struggles of the masses characteristic of the previous revolutionary periods have in the main come to an end, there are still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador classes, there is still a bourgeoisie, and the remolding of the petty bourgeoisie has only just started. The class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological held between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is still not really settled.

[Invader Zim]

The question on my mind is whether Soviet leadership had the answers to all these questions and, if they did, whether they had absolute certainty in the accuracy of those answers.

Addendum: And, given that fascist sympathy was prevalent among powerful Western industrialists, especially in the United States, how sure could Soviet leadership have been that the major Western powers would have allied as they ended up doing? I think it's also important to understand what the Soviet Union would have to gain from this pact beyond some individualist notion of Stalin's mythical hunger for power.

The issue is not whether the Soviet Union had all the information, but whether, given the information available, policy makers made the correct decision - which is subtly different. And the answer is plainly no.

Forgetting everything else (intelligence, etc.), the fact that the Nazis wanted a non-aggression pact should have told the Soviets that they, the Nazis, believed they were not strong enough to face off both east and west at the same time. The fact that they wanted to import oil, rubber, magnesium and staple foodstuffs also tells us that they lacked key resources to commit to a conflict. If they believed that they had the military and economic power to wage war without these guarantees the Nazis would never have gone to the table with the Soviets in the first place.

Instead the Soviet Union chose to sacrifice the working class of France, Britain and Germany, as well as the sovereignty of numerous Eastern European states, for the leftover crumbs of imperial conquest in Eastern Europe. And it backfired, and turned out to be perhaps the worst and most costly foreign policy decision of the 20th century.

[Invader Zim]

You put a lot of effort into a lost cause. Hitler was about to attack the USSR, his entire war machinery was created for that purpose. Stalin made the pact to ensure that Hitler followed his plan to get rid of western Europe first. Thus, he isolated Nazi Germany, lured them into suicidal total war and got the Soviet Union to join the Allies in the long term. Stalin played with Hitler and eventually destroyed him.

Edit: this is a response to Invader Zim

Except this is demonstrably nonsense. How could Germany have attacked the Soviet Union in 1939 without oil or indeed sharing a border with the Soviet Union? You get that the infamous Panzers needed petrol to run, right? You get that the Luftwaffe needed magnesium to build its aircraft and incendiaries, right? You get that industry in the 20th century required rubber, right? You get that armies and industrial workers require feeding, right? In 1939 Germany ran at a deficit, in its entirely accurate projections of an invasion of the Soviet Union, in each of these key resources.

The only way for Germany to gain any of these key resources in sufficient quantities was by trading it from the Soviet Union and ALSO by annexing countries in Eastern Europe which could be exploited.The Soviet Union obliged the Nazis with both in the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Without it there would have probably been no invasion of Poland, and certainly no Operation Barbarossa. The SU didn't play Germany, Germany played the SU - like a fucking piano. And that only went wrong because the Nazis sorely underestimated the capacity of the Red Army to take unimaginable beatings virtually, if not entirely, without precedence in the span of military conflict - and that survival happened in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

[connoros]

The issue is not whether the Soviet Union had all the information, but whether, given the information available, policy makers made the correct decision - which is subtly different. And the answer is plainly no.

Forgetting everything else (intelligence, etc.), the fact that the Nazis wanted a non-aggression pact should have told the Soviets that they, the Nazis, believed they were not strong enough to face off both east and west at the same time. The fact that they wanted to import oil, rubber, magnesium and staple foodstuffs also tells us that they lacked key resources to commit to a conflict. If they believed that they had the military and economic power to wage war without these guarantees the Nazis would never have gone to the table with the Soviets in the first place.

Instead the Soviet Union chose to sacrifice the working class of France, Britain and Germany, as well as the sovereignty of numerous Eastern European states, for the leftover crumbs of imperial conquest in Eastern Europe. And it backfired, and turned out to be perhaps the worst and most costly foreign policy decision of the 20th century.

It may have told the Soviets that Nazi Germany could not hold their own against the East and West at the same time, but given that, as you've said, the Nazis were not yet bold enough to begin the Lebensraum conquest without the material resources afforded them by the Pact, what would the proper course of action have been in this case? I ask because, as I've mentioned before, while the governments of the West were ostensibly opposed to fascism, der Führer and il Duce enjoyed the sympathy of many powerful industrialists who saw fascism as a buffer against Communism. Had Hitler not the resources to expand westward and instead focused his efforts on destroying Communism in the East, how certain can we be that the Soviet Union could rely on an alliance with significant Western powers to spread thin the limited means of the Nazi war machine? Hitler may not have had what it took, at the time, to fend off both the East and West, but what was his ability to take on the East alone? And then, how certain can we be that the Western powers would have allied similarly against fascism if Hitler's efforts had been focused on destroying Communism, rather than expanding into the territories of the bourgeois democracies? For all their posturing, the governments of the West had a vested interest in halting Communism. They denounced Communism and fascism equally, but they allied themselves with the Soviet Union when fascism became the unprovoked aggressor. If the U.S.S.R. had filled that role, instead, attempting to smash or starve fascism right out of Europe, wouldn't the West have been interested in taking the Union on with the help of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito?

[Nevsky]

Except this is demonstrably nonsense. How could Germany have attacked the Soviet Union in 1939 without oil or indeed sharing a border with the Soviet Union? You get that the infamous Panzers needed petrol to run, right? You get that the Luftwaffe needed magnesium to build its aircraft and incendiaries, right? You get that industry in the 20th century required rubber, right? You get that armies and industrial workers require feeding, right? In 1939 Germany ran at a deficit, in its entirely accurate projections of an invasion of the Soviet Union, in each of these key resources.

You may go on calling proven history nonsense, I don't care. I only suggest to read primary historical documents like Hitlers secret note on the four year plan. Hitler wasn't only a fanatical german racist, he was a great european chauvinist, too. He didn't have that big of a grudge on "western democracies" (as he used to call them), he mostly despised them for supposedly being too weak to resist the Soviet Union (the center of "judeo-bolshevik" world domination conspiracy). Many radical right wingers and notable voices of press/politics in non-fascist western countries believed that, too, at the time. That's one reason why it came to the infamous "appesement" attitude towards Nazi Germany, i.e. the idea of having a strong Germany as bulwark against bolshevism.

Stalin knew about Hitlers plans on "Lebensraum" conquest in the east and about fascism's innate hate for communism. The pact was a key part of soviet strategy to delay the inevitable war against Nazi Germany and put the SU in a very good strategic position. He forced the western powers to join the SU in the global resistance fight against fascism/nazism by making sure that Hitler unleashed his wrath on Poland and France first. Many ignorant people believe that Stalin was best friends with Hitler until 1941 and was caught by extreme surprise, complete ahistorical bs. The SU used the gained time to prepare against the attack everyone knew was coming. In fact, the german forces were surprised at how well the soviets planned and put up their defense. An interesting historical document in this context are Goebbels' diaries in which he describes how bitter and angry Hitler was for letting himself get fucked over so badly by the mighty Man of Steel. Get over the fact that your historical myths are mere anti-stalinist falscifications.

[Invader Zim]

Had Hitler not the resources to expand westward and instead focused his efforts on destroying Communism in the East, how certain can we be that the Soviet Union could rely on an alliance with significant Western powers to spread thin the limited means of the Nazi war machine? Hitler may not have had what it took, at the time, to fend off both the East and West, but what was his ability to take on the East alone?

Again, this ignores the fact that Germany had no native supply of oil in 1939. War in that stage of the 20th century required oil. If the Soviet Union had denied the Nazis the opportunity to invade eastern Europe, and with it the eventual effective annexing of Romania, as well as its own oil supplies to Germany, it is very difficult to envision how the Nazis could have successfully maintained any prosecution of a war against the Soviet Union - especially while maintaining a considerable number of divisions in the West to ward off potential invasion by the BEF and the considerable French forces.

The issue is one of blockade. The French and British plan was to blockade Germany - preventing external supply of key resources, oil in particular, because they controlled the primary land route and sea routes to supply Germany. The result would have been the same was that of the 1914-1918 war - German collapse under pressure of economic attrition. However, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed the Germans to circumvent that blockade, it also allowed the German's to annex chunks of Eastern Europe without the threat of Soviet intervention - this gave them access to Romania, which turned fascist in 1940, which was oil rich.

Had Germany invaded Poland, bringing Britain and France into the war, but also brought the Soviet Union into the war or at the very least without guarantee that Germany could also effectively annex Romania (they opened the doors and 500,000 German troops walked through).

Your point regarding US industrialists doesn't really hold much sway, the main issue, and which you are right about, is western pro-fascists in Western Europe; specifically France and Britain. However, regardless of these groups, the French and British gave guarantees to Poland, Romanian,etc, while the Soviet Union sided with the Nazis to carve them up. C'est la vie.

[Invader Zim]

You may go on calling proven history nonsense, I don't care. I only suggest to read primary historical documents like Hitlers secret note on the four year plan. Hitler wasn't only a fanatical german racist, he was a great european chauvinist, too. He didn't have that big of a grudge on "western democracies" (as he used to call them), he mostly despised them for supposedly being too weak to resist the Soviet Union (the center of "judeo-bolshevik" world domination conspiracy). Many radical right wingers and notable voices of press/politics in non-fascist western countries believed that, too, at the time. That's one reason why it came to the infamous "appesement" attitude towards Nazi Germany, i.e. the idea of having a strong Germany as bulwark against bolshevism.

Stalin knew about Hitlers plans on "Lebensraum" conquest in the east and about fascism's innate hate for communism. The pact was a key part of soviet strategy to delay the inevitable war against Nazi Germany and put the SU in a very good strategic position. He forced the western powers to join the SU in the global resistance fight against fascism/nazism by making sure that Hitler unleashed his wrath on Poland and France first. Many ignorant people believe that Stalin was best friends with Hitler until 1941 and was caught by extreme surprise, complete ahistorical bs. The SU used the gained time to prepare against the attack everyone knew was coming. In fact, the german forces were surprised at how well the soviets planned and put up their defense. An interesting historical document in this context are Goebbels' diaries in which he describes how bitter and angry Hitler was for letting himself get fucked over so badly by the mighty Man of Steel. Get over the fact that your historical myths are mere anti-stalinist falscifications.

OK, I'm going to ignore all of your charges of mythmaking and falsification, on the basis that I actually like your posts regardless of our differences of opinion. And I hope that we can have serious discussion of this issue. I hope you are willing to do the same.


You may go on calling proven history nonsense

Well, thus far you have made only assertions. If you care to read the post I linked to earlier you will find that my reasoning is built on well respected histories.


I only suggest to read primary historical documents like Hitlers secret note on the four year plan.

You think that what the Nazi regime wanted in 1936 is evidence of the situation in 1940? I don't agree. The reality is, as I have already shown, that the German's were severely in the 'red', as opposed to the 'black', in key resources well into 1941. And that they would have been still further into the black without Soviet resources. For example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/GermanImports_USSRPerCent.jpg/600px-GermanImports_USSRPerCent.jpg


itler wasn't only a fanatical german racist, he was a great european chauvinist, too. He didn't have that big of a grudge on "western democracies" (as he used to call them), he mostly despised them for supposedly being too weak to resist the Soviet Union (the center of "judeo-bolshevik" world domination conspiracy).

Which, while true, doesn't alter the fact that the regime was well aware that, like in the Great War, it would be necessary to dispose of one side of the two blocs surrounding Germany to achieve victory. The Nazi answer to this was divide and conquer, which was the purpose of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.


Many radical right wingers and notable voices of press/politics in non-fascist western countries believed that, too, at the time. That's one reason why it came to the infamous "appesement" attitude towards Nazi Germany,

This is false. The British military establishment, regardless of its inherent anti-communism, had already determined that the Nazi regime was its 'ultimate enemy', as opposed to the Soviet Union, as early as 1934. This was the primary basis of appeasement, believe it or not. This is confirmed by the Chiefs of Staff verdict of 1937 which determined that Britain's primary policy should be to avoid war until the completion of rearmament. In short, they extended appeasement still further because they thought that they might well lose at that time. They went to war in 1939 because they thought they could win. More fool them.


i.e. the idea of having a strong Germany as bulwark against bolshevism.

This is a misquote and an anachronistic one. In 1920, Winston Churchill called for a "moral bulwark" against the Soviet Union. And he wrote to Lloyd George, during the same period stating that Britain:

"must trust for better or worse to peaceful influences to bring about the end of this [The Soviet Union] awful tyranny and peril."

Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life (1991), pp. 420-421.

My emphasis on both.

As you can see, the 'bulwark' against the SU was a term voiced long before the rise of fascism and was in the context of peaceful policy, not forcing a war. It was not about planning for Germany to wage a war of massive destruction against the Soviet Union which would inevitably drag in Britain.


Stalin knew about Hitlers plans on "Lebensraum" conquest in the east and about fascism's innate hate for communism.

Well, doubtless he was aware of Nazi intentions in terms of propaganda - i.e. Mein Kampf, etc., but when it came to actual military action, despite copious evidence that invasion was coming, the regime was caught thoroughly unprepared - which was partly was the response of the regime and the Red Army was so poor until December 1941.


The pact was a key part of soviet strategy to delay the inevitable war against Nazi Germany and put the SU in a very good strategic position.

How did fuelling the tanks which invaded the Soviet Union, providing the components which built the aircraft which bombed the Soviet Union, and the explosive material which rained death on Soviet troops and civilians, and providing the food which fed the german workers and soldiers fighting against the Soviet Union, place the 'SU in a very good strategic position'? None of this would have been possible without Soviet trade building up Nazi stockpiles.


He forced the western powers to join the SU in the global resistance fight against fascism/nazism by making sure that Hitler unleashed his wrath on Poland and France first.

That, I think, would have happened anyway and that everybody knew it. The guarantees made by the Western Powers were made before the MR Pact. It has to do with the military potential of those to powers to mobilise quickly.


Many ignorant people believe that Stalin was best friends with Hitler until 1941 and was caught by extreme surprise, complete ahistorical bs.

The former is, as you state, categorically false - the latter is true.


In fact, the german forces were surprised at how well the soviets planned and put up their defense.

By December, that is true, earlier that is not so. The Red Army was in full retreat until it was able to make a stand, fortunately, within sight of Moscow - had the Red Army not rallied by then the situation would have been much worse. The Red Army suffered a full 1/5 of its wartime losses in the first 5 months of war. That is staggeringly disproportionate to its wider wartime losses and entirely indicative of just how poorly prepared the RA was in 1941.


Get over the fact that your historical myths are mere anti-stalinist falscifications.

:Yawn:

[Paul Cockshott]

"Under Stalin, income inequality increased to reach its pinnacle in 1946."

Economic Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: Planting the Seeds by Daniel Gros, Alfred Steinherr



Relative to when?

Relative to Czarist Russia ?

Are you claiming that the successive elimination of the landlord class, the industrial bourgeoisie and the Kulak class increased income inequality?

What statistical data do Gros and Steinherr present to support their case?

[Paul Cockshott]

but when it came to actual military action, despite copious evidence that invasion was coming, the regime was caught thoroughly unprepared - which was partly was the response of the regime and the Red Army was so poor until December 1941.
Well that may be true but the German and Japanese armed forces were very formidable and of very high quality. All the great powers attacked by them suffered terrible initial defeats - with the exception of the sucessful defence of Siberia against Japanese attack by Zukhov. It is easy with hindsight to say that the French, the British, the Soviets and the Americans should have been better prepared. At the start of the war all these powers were confident in the superiority of their own armed forces versus the Axis ones, and practice showed that the tactics and training of the Axis forces was superior.

If you want to look for someone to blame for military unpreparedness look at the Tories. In 1918 the British armed forces were by a considerable margin the largest and most technically sophisticated in the world. Tory budgetary policies, for which Churchill as chancellor in the 20s bore heavy responsibility, meant that the doctrine was adopted that no war would occur for the next 10 years, so that in 1939 the British army was markedly inferior to the German one. It took them until 1942 to start winning battles against the German armed forces, and those only on minor fronts. Compared to British experience between 1940 and 1942, the recovery of the Red Army was remarkably swift.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think most ML's genuinely believe that they were Marxist, and I don't think they support(ed) them because they "dressed up" that way.

Why not? Soviets had some some sexy chic gear.

[connoros]

As for the Soviet Union's funding of the Nazi war machine, questions still remain. See, if it's obvious to us now that such a maneuver as the Non-Aggression Pact was such a major blunder, how was it not obvious to the Soviet leadership at the time? Exactly what did they have to gain from funding a war machine they had every reason to know would eventually turn on them?


Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact: the facts

First , it was the endeavour of the Soviet Union not to embroil herself in a war with imperialism.

Second , since it was not entirely up to her to avoid such war, then, if imperialism should be bent on waging a war against the Soviet Union, the latter should not find herself in the position of having to fight alone, let alone face the combined onslaught of the principal imperialist countries – Germany, Britain, France, the USA, Italy and Japan.

Third , to this end, divisions between the fascist imperialist states on the one hand and the democratic imperialist states on the other should be exploited to the hilt. These divisions between the two groups of imperialists were not a figment of Stalin’s imagination. They were real, based on the material interests of the two groups of states under consideration.

Uneven development of capitalism causes some states to spurt ahead and others to lag behind. The old division of the world no longer corresponds with the balance of forces, thus making necessary a new division of the world. This is precisely what the first world war was about; and this is precisely what Germany, Italy and Japan, having spurted ahead in the capitalist development of their economies, were clamouring for. On the other hand, the old imperialist countries, notably Britain and France, having lagged behind in the capitalist development of their economies in comparison with the newcomers, notably Germany, were quite happy with the old division of the world.

In demanding a new division, the fascist states were encroaching upon the material interests of the democratic imperialist states. There was thus scope for this conflict of interests to be exploited by the USSR.

Fourth , to this end, the USSR, pursuing a very complicated foreign policy, did its best to conclude a collective security pact with the democratic imperialist states to deter aggression by the fascist states, providing, in the event of such aggression taking place, for collective action against the aggressors. These attempts were made by the Soviet Union and rebuffed by Britain and others on not one, but several occasions. (i)

Fifth , when the democratic imperialist states, overcome by their hatred of communism, refused to sign a collective security pact with the USSR and continued their policy of appeasement of the fascist states, in particular that of Nazi Germany, in an effort to direct her aggression in an eastwardly direction against the Soviet Union, the latter was forced to try some other method of protecting the interests of the socialist motherland of the international proletariat.

The USSR turned the tables on the foreign policy of the democratic imperialist states by signing on 23 August 1939 the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.

Sixth , in signing this pact, the USSR not only ensured that she would not be fighting Germany alone, but also that the latter would be fighting against the very powers who had been trying, by their refusal to agree on collective security, to embroil the USSR in a war with Germany. On 1 September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. Two days later, the Anglo-French ultimatum expired, and Britain and France were at war with Germany.

Seventh , the provisions of the additional secret protocol went far enough to safeguard the Soviet ‘spheres of interest’, which proved vital to Soviet defences when the war actually reached her. Under the secret protocol it was agreed that in the Baltic “ the northern frontier of Lithuania shall represent the frontier of the spheres of interest both of Germany and the USSR ”, and in the case of Poland, “ the spheres of interest both of Germany and the USSR shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and Sau ”. (Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-45, Series D, Vol 7, London 1956, p264)

In other words, the Curzon line was to be this boundary, and in the area east of it, which had been seized by Poland from the Soviet Union after the October Revolution, Germany had agreed to the USSR taking whatever action it liked.

Finally , the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact bought the Soviet Union an extremely valuable period of two years for strengthening her defence preparedness before she entered a war she knew she could not stay out of forever.

All revolutionary and honest bourgeois historians and politicians agree on the above summary. Only the most die-hard anti-communists, including most Trotskyites, ever dare to dispute it. (ii)

[...]

(i) For example: 15 March 1939, Litvinov proposed that Britain, France, the USSR, Poland and Romania meet – rejected; 31 March 1939, Polish-British pact giving unilateral British guarantee to defend Poland announced – Soviet Union not consulted; 17 April 1939, Soviet proposal for British-French-Soviet pact of mutual assistance – Britain rejected it; 2 June 1939, Molotov proposed another British-French-Soviet pact – Britain sent junior official to Moscow – 23 July sent elderly retired Admiral Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax – arrived on 11 August to ‘talk’ not negotiate; 21 August 1939, Soviet Union adjourned talks. And this is not to mention the events of 1938, when on 28-30 September, without consulting, let alone including, the Soviet Union, France, Britain, Germany and Italy met at the Munich conference to surrender Czechoslovakia to the tender mercies of fascist Germany, while at the same time the western powers refused to respond to the Soviet proposal for a grand collective security alliance under the aegis of the League of Nations.

(ii) The above points are extracted from ‘The Soviet-German non-aggression pact’ by Harpal Brar, in 60th Anniversary of the Victory over Fascism , published by the CPGB-ML. For a very full and valuable substantiation of these points and a thorough knowledge of the war, this book is absolutely essential reading.

I just don't buy that Soviet leadership just derped and decided to fund Nazism arbitrarily. It seems to me that it isn't unlikely, given fascistic sympathies among Western capitalists, that the Nazis were going to get their oil and other supplies one way or another. To say that if the Soviet Union hadn't provided it, the Nazis and other fascists would've just given up trying to build a war machine capable of global imperialist conquest would leave me quite unsatisfied as a hypothetical. It's absolutely clear to me the West wanted the Union destroyed and hoped that the fascists would be the ones to make it happen. Through making strategic sacrifices, the Soviet Union actually managed to ally itself with the powers necessary to make a clean sweep of fascism right the fuck out of Europe.

Addendum: I should note that this "clean sweep" missed Franco, among other small fish.

[Old Bolshie]

Relative to when?

Relative to Czarist Russia ?

Are you claiming that the successive elimination of the landlord class, the industrial bourgeoisie and the Kulak class increased income inequality?

What statistical data do Gros and Steinherr present to support their case?

I think they weren't referring to the Tzarist period but rather to the first post-revolution years and the NEP period. No one here talked about Tzarist Russia except you. I don't have enough information to compare the inequality during Stalin years with those of the Tzarist period.

They used statistical data from Abram Bergson.

[Paul Cockshott]

The source you are citing appears to be a secondary one by two economists primarily concerned with ensuring a smooth transition to capitalism in Russia post Yeltsin, so they are not an ideal source to go to for. If Bergson is the source of their data you should bear in mind that this is a guy who devoted his academic career to attempting to show the superiority of free market capitalism over socialism. That by itself does not condemn his results, he may be right, may be capitalism is better than socialism and all of us here may be wasting our time. For my part I doubt that, and I have published a critique of his maths and statistics in the appendix to this paper : http://academia.edu/2687026/A_MORE_CRITICAL_LOOK_AT_MARKET_SOCIALISM
though this covers his work on total factor productivity not income inequalities, I have not seen that.

[Invader Zim]

Well that may be true but the German and Japanese armed forces were very formidable and of very high quality. All the great powers attacked by them suffered terrible initial defeats - with the exception of the sucessful defence of Siberia against Japanese attack by Zukhov. It is easy with hindsight to say that the French, the British, the Soviets and the Americans should have been better prepared. At the start of the war all these powers were confident in the superiority of their own armed forces versus the Axis ones, and practice showed that the tactics and training of the Axis forces was superior.

If you want to look for someone to blame for military unpreparedness look at the Tories. In 1918 the British armed forces were by a considerable margin the largest and most technically sophisticated in the world. Tory budgetary policies, for which Churchill as chancellor in the 20s bore heavy responsibility, meant that the doctrine was adopted that no war would occur for the next 10 years, so that in 1939 the British army was markedly inferior to the German one. It took them until 1942 to start winning battles against the German armed forces, and those only on minor fronts. Compared to British experience between 1940 and 1942, the recovery of the Red Army was remarkably swift.


Well that may be true but the German and Japanese armed forces were very formidable and of very high quality. All the great powers attacked by them suffered terrible initial defeats - with the exception of the sucessful defence of Siberia against Japanese attack by Zukhov. It is easy with hindsight to say that the French, the British, the Soviets and the Americans should have been better prepared. At the start of the war all these powers were confident in the superiority of their own armed forces versus the Axis ones, and practice showed that the tactics and training of the Axis forces was superior.

Well, the French and British were as much to blame for their defeat as the Germans. They employed the rigid strategy of the last war, despite individuals like Fuller developing the principles which would dominate the next war in 1918. As noted, the change of position of the Soviet Union, to give Germany a free hand militarily, also freed up considerable German troops and resources.

It is also important to remember that the German power has been grossly over-estimated in the post-war years. The super-mechanised Heer actually invaded the Soviet Union with 600-750 thousand horses - because they lacked the fuel and vehicles to operate a mechanised logistical train. they were also defeated within five months and would never again have as many advantages as they had in the opening months of Barbarossa. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe was defeated over the channel and the south of England by a largely outnumbered opponent. The Kriegsmarine also never came close to completing its task of preventing supplies, destined for Britain and later the Soviet Union, crossing the Atlantic.

It is also important not to write-off the significance of the North Africa theatre and to understand why the Axis powers were so determined to achieve victory there. This was, again, because of oil. Had the Axis powers captured Suez, and the oil fields East of the Allied position, the war may well have been lost. Especially given that a constant feature of German operational capacity was that it was limited due to a perpetual shortage of fuel.

[Leo]

To go back to the original question...

What's the appeal in Stalinism? Pseudo-radicalism.

[Nevsky]

@Invader Thanks for keeping the historical discussion on serious leven, I don't see it too often in the internet. I apologize for infantile rhetoric on my part. I'll join the war discussion again later when I have more time and got my sources on the topic together.

@Leo Nonsense. Most M-Ls I know from real life like Stalin for his modest, clear minded pragmatism and opposition to right and left deviations from leninism. "Trendy" radicals seem to be more fond of Trotsky...

[Leo]

Clear-minded, pragmatic Stalinists have been claiming to have abondened it and have been sweeping Stalin's legacy under the carpet since Khrushchev. Needless to say, years haven't helped much, as the brutality of Stalin's counter-revolutionary regime came out more and more.

Today, defending Stalin's legacy openly and uncritically means nothing less than defending the gulag, the murder of hundreds of thousands of communists and militant workers, a state of a nightmare for the workers who were exploited under it. Claiming this to be anything revolutionary is nothing but pseudo-radicalism, and not just in the West. Even in the Middle East, only a handful of all the organizations which used to have hardcore Stalinism in their origins seem to enjoy bringing him up much.

[Old Bolshie]

The source you are citing appears to be a secondary one by two economists primarily concerned with ensuring a smooth transition to capitalism in Russia post Yeltsin, so they are not an ideal source to go to for. If Bergson is the source of their data you should bear in mind that this is a guy who devoted his academic career to attempting to show the superiority of free market capitalism over socialism. That by itself does not condemn his results, he may be right, may be capitalism is better than socialism and all of us here may be wasting our time. For my part I doubt that, and I have published a critique of his maths and statistics in the appendix to this paper : http://academia.edu/2687026/A_MORE_CRITICAL_LOOK_AT_MARKET_SOCIALISM
though this covers his work on total factor productivity not income inequalities, I have not seen that.

I don't think this argument is valid for two facts:

1- Bergson aknowledges that the inequalities in USSR's first years (including war communism) were less than in USA in 1904 and much lower than in Czarist Russia before the revolution.

2- According to another Bergson statistic USSR in the late 60's had a more equal income distribution than Sweden itself and a much more equal than US, UK or Canada.

If it was the case of someone tendentious against socialism I doubt that he would present those two facts I mentioned above.

Besides, Stalin in a speech delivered in 1931 attacked income equalization. Kaganovich in the same year also attacked income egalitarian policies.

[Paul Cockshott]

But is Bergson actually claiming that the Czarist years were more equal than the period when Stalin was general secretary of the Communist Party?
It is pretty undisputed that under Khruschev income distribution became more equal. When I said that the Stalin years were historically unprecedented for equality I meant in the history of Russia up to then.
As to whether Bergson was an opponent of socialism, the stuff by him that I have read has been devoted to claiming the greater 'total factor productivity' of capitalist economy as compared to socialist economy.

[Old Bolshie]

But is Bergson actually claiming that the Czarist years were more equal than the period when Stalin was general secretary of the Communist Party?

No. No one claimed that as far as I know although I don't have enough information to be 100% sure if the inequalities during Stalin years didn't reach the Czarist years but I think it didn't. I think the period that was compared to Stalin's years was the first post-revolutionary years and the all period of the NEP but I am not totally sure.



It is pretty undisputed that under Khruschev income distribution became more equal. When I said that the Stalin years were historically unprecedented for equality I meant in the history of Russia up to then.
The period that preceded Stalin years was more equal than Stalin's period.

Again, I don't know if when they say "inequalities reached its pinnacle in 1946" they are solely referring to the USSR existence or if they are including the Tzarist years but I think that it's solely to the Soviet years.

[connoros]

To go back to the original question...

What's the appeal in Stalinism? Pseudo-radicalism.

It's a little preposterous to call "Stalinism" (that is, Marxism-Leninism) "pseudo-radicalism," when anti-Stalin sentiment is founded entirely on a grievous misunderstanding of history and implicit acceptance of any and all claims against the building of socialism in the Union. What seems to elude anti-Stalinists is the fact that their own haphazard and loosely connected criticisms of Stalin's Soviet Union are identical to claims made by the most revered anti-communists, including bourgeois darling Robert Conquest, who originally claimed that his findings about countless judicial deaths under Stalin would be confirmed by the opening of Soviet archives and, when the same refuted those claims, decided that the archives couldn't be trusted. What eludes anti-Stalinists, who are fundamentally anti-Leninist, is the fact that Stalin's own endeavors honor the legacy of Marxism in the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the pursuit of democratization in the Union, and the building of a strong economy democratically managed by the formerly exploited classes. To demonize Stalin is fashionable among those "socialists" whose radicalism never strays far from comfortable neoliberal mythology regarding the "atrocities" of the endeavors to free the working peoples of the world from exploitation. In this way, anti-Stalin sentiment, far from being the enlightened rejection of a tyrant and his cult as it is styled by its proponents, is the implicit acceptance of bourgeois, anti-communist propaganda and rejection of those measures that have demonstrably made gains for the exploited and challenged the hegemony of the bourgeoisie while at the same time resisting opportunism and the forces of fascism. In other words, anti-Stalinism is hipster leftism at its best, outright fascism at its worst.

I recall an English class I took some years ago. Our instructor was adamant that we learn to use our language skills persuasively and politically, so the content of our lessons was always very politicized that we might learn to articulate our worldviews clearly. In one lesson, the issue of censorship came up. The infamous removal of Yezhov from photographs came up as the subject. What sticks out in my mind, though, was the reasoning given for Yezhov's removal: a "minor political disagreement" with Comrade Stalin. Absolutely no citation was given whatsoever for the claim that Yezhov's execution and censorship arose out of a compulsive need for petty vengeance on the part of Stalin. It was simply to be accepted that Stalin was such a paranoid tyrant, so unquestioned in his absolute administrative authority, that merely disagreeing with him on some minor issue would invariably lead to one's death. This entirely ignores something even the most anti-Stalinist historians accept: that Yezhov used his own authority to falsely indict thousands of militant communists and have them purged (something for which Stalin is blamed, as if he alone perpetrated these false investigations based on some epic thirst for blood), exploiting fear of the very real threat of counter-revolutionary opportunism and fascist intelligence in order to secure his own comfortable position and win favor with the Supreme Soviet. He did this while preparing a case against Stalin himself, intending to have him purged and executed. Despite this reality, despite the reality of wreckers and conspirators and fascists and opportunists, Stalin is still remembered in the popular consciousness as being unduly fearful, of being "paranoid." This brings me to my point: almost all of what is claimed about Stalin and the Soviet Union during his time, while patently false and conceded to be false even by bourgeois historians, gains credence not through accuracy or rigidity of method, but through sheer volume. Anti-Stalin sentiment perpetuates itself much in the same way creationist claims do: they have absolutely no business being taken seriously, but their delusional proponents, even when confronted with contrary evidence, simply continue to make the same disproved claims over and over and over again in the hopes that, in giving their lies more exposure, they will somehow gain legitimacy over the truth. The same is true of fascist, conservative, and racist rhetoric; the method their proponents use is not strict rigidity of method and legitimacy through demonstrable truth. The idea is to simply repeat the claims enough in the hopes that fact can somehow be drowned out. And, unfortunately, these types tend to succeed, because they at once appeal to the desire of the ruling class to suppress revolution and to the sartorial preferences of leftists who desperately seek to appeal to bourgeois sentiment.

[Paul Cockshott]

No. No one claimed that as far as I know although I don't have enough information to be 100% sure if the inequalities during Stalin years didn't reach the Czarist years but I think it didn't. I think the period that was compared to Stalin's years was the first post-revolutionary years and the all period of the NEP but I am not totally sure.


The period that preceded Stalin years was more equal than Stalin's period.

Again, I don't know if when they say "inequalities reached its pinnacle in 1946" they are solely referring to the USSR existence or if they are including the Tzarist years but I think that it's solely to the Soviet years.

Well the Stalin years start in 1922 so you are distinguishing subperiods of these years.
The most recent analysis of comparative income inequalities globally that I can find is The Changing Shape of Global Inequality 1820-2000:
Exploring a new dataset Jan Luiten van Zanden, Utrecht University who provides a lot of very intresting information. His data series are for large areas of the world, but given the great size of Russia within Eastern Europe it is reasonable to assume that trends for income inequality in Eastern Europe were driven by Russian ones and of course from the late 40s the Soviet economic model developed in the Stalin period was widely adopted in Eastern Europe.
Gini Coefficients
Western Europe Eastern Europe
1820 53.7 53
1850 48.6 52.3
1870 51.8 48.3
1890 47.0 47.1
1910 48.5 46.8
1929 50.1 40.7
1950 46.3 35.4
1960 43.2 30.2
1970 39.2 25.7
1980 36.7 25.9
1990 38.0 28.2
2000 39.3 39.8
These figures show that the Soviet model had much lower income inequality than Western Europe, and that income inequality declined throughout the Soviet period until Perestroika.

[Old Bolshie]

Well the Stalin years start in 1922 so you are distinguishing subperiods of these years.

Stalin years start in 1922? It was not until the defeat of the Left Opposition and Bukharin in the late 20's that Stalin became de facto leader of USSR, ending a period of power struggle which began after Lenin's illness and death.



The most recent analysis of comparative income inequalities globally that I can find is The Changing Shape of Global Inequality 1820-2000:
Exploring a new dataset Jan Luiten van Zanden, Utrecht University who provides a lot of very intresting information. His data series are for large areas of the world, but given the great size of Russia within Eastern Europe it is reasonable to assume that trends for income inequality in Eastern Europe were driven by Russian ones and of course from the late 40s the Soviet economic model developed in the Stalin period was widely adopted in Eastern Europe.

Gini Coefficients
Western Europe Eastern Europe
1820 53.7 53
1850 48.6 52.3
1870 51.8 48.3
1890 47.0 47.1
1910 48.5 46.8
1929 50.1 40.7
1950 46.3 35.4
1960 43.2 30.2
1970 39.2 25.7
1980 36.7 25.9
1990 38.0 28.2
2000 39.3 39.8
These figures show that the Soviet model had much lower income inequality than Western Europe, and that income inequality declined throughout the Soviet period until Perestroika.

My issue with your comment was not to compare inequalities of USSR with those of the West but with those of USSR before Stalin. I have other sources backing my argument:

"As we have seen in preceding chapters, the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath had egalitarian effects on income distribution through the confiscation of property and virtual abolition of property income.
Under Stalin, wage inequality grew, stimulated largely by a desire to encourage the acquisition of labor skills perceived to be strategic for industrialization. Peasant incomes also differed significantly, based on differential labor and skills, and were substantially lower than those of industrial workers, perpetuating and extending labor income inequalities. After Stalin's death, notably in the Khrushchev years, Soviet wage inequality decreased dramatically..."

The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism, Alex F. Dowlah, John E. Elliott.

[connoros]

As we have seen in preceding chapters, the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath had egalitarian effects on income distribution through the confiscation of property and virtual abolition of property income.
Under Stalin, wage inequality grew, stimulated largely by a desire to encourage the acquisition of labor skills perceived to be strategic for industrialization. Peasant incomes also differed significantly, based on differential labor and skills, and were substantially lower than those of industrial workers, perpetuating and extending labor income inequalities. After Stalin's death, notably in the Khrushchev years, Soviet wage inequality decreased dramatically...

Given that this had the effect of rapidly industrializing what had up to that point been a largely backward part of the world, I wonder if maybe this temporary, strategic sacrifice of income egalitarianism resulted in an overall gain for the formerly exploited classes of the region.

[TheEmancipator]

@Leo Nonsense. Most M-Ls I know from real life like Stalin for his modest, clear minded pragmatism and opposition to right and left deviations from leninism. "Trendy" radicals seem to be more fond of Trotsky...

Except most of the political mainstream in terms of pseudo-leftist radicalism is trotskyite. Seen WWI and PSL much?

People like Stalin because they like to think they are tough guys for supporting a bloke who killed blokes for fun. Or (like Ismail) to troll liberals. I'm OK with the latter.

[Nevsky]

Except most of the political mainstream in terms of pseudo-leftist radicalism is trotskyite. Seen WWI and PSL much?

People like Stalin because they like to think they are tough guys for supporting a bloke who killed blokes for fun. Or (like Ismail) to troll liberals. I'm OK with the latter.

All sorts of people on this thread mentioned the "tough guy" theory already. It doesn't get more true if you repeat it for the 100th time. I don't deny the existance of these kind of "stalinists" but you are unlikely to find any of those on a leftist forum. The M-Ls here have a purely marxist interest in Stalin. Besides I'm into zizekian trolling of liberals and as you said, the Man of Steel is perfectly suited for that purpose.

[Rafiq]

"Under Stalin, income inequality increased to reach its pinnacle in 1946."

Economic Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: Planting the Seeds by Daniel Gros, Alfred Steinherr




Under Stalin, yes, not "In the history of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union"

[Rafiq]

All of this sounds very nice.

Except it is demonstrably false. As Stalin did believe that Class Struggle continued in the USSR. To quote him:


Explain how that is different from the rhetorical bating of enemies of bourgeois states? That isn't a signification that he believed "class struggle existed in the USSR" but that the enemies of the Soviet state continued to run amok (which was, granted, true). This isn't a demonstration that Stalin applied the historical laws of motion to the USSR either, it is just if anything a bizarre understanding of what class struggle actually is, which is definitely not a product of conscious will or the state going after it's enemies.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

@Leo Nonsense. Most M-Ls I know from real life like Stalin for his modest, clear minded pragmatism and opposition to right and left deviations from leninism.

Because things like putting ethnic Kalmyks on mass death-marches into Siberia because a small number of the population helped nazis is so pragmatic and clear minded.

[Rafiq]

To go back to the original question...

What's the appeal in Stalinism? Pseudo-radicalism.

I disagree. As a user already pointed out, Trotsky takes the cake for that sort of thing.

As I said, the appeal in Stalinism is it's existential legitimacy. Stalin embodied a strong man who was in control of an apparently (but to whom?) proletarian state. He was a man that people could rally around and pledge fealty to.

[Paul Cockshott]

Stalin years start in 1922? It was not until the defeat of the Left Opposition and Bukharin in the late 20's that Stalin became de facto leader of USSR, ending a period of power struggle which began after Lenin's illness and death.



My issue with your comment was not to compare inequalities of USSR with those of the West but with those of USSR before Stalin.
Well have it your way as to when the Stalin years began, my understanding was that he was General Secretary from 1922, but even if we say they did not start till the late 20s, the time series I produced shows the GINI coefficient falling from 40 in 1929 to 35 in 1950 which was towards the end of Stalin's life.


"As we have seen in preceding chapters, the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath had egalitarian effects on income distribution through the confiscation of property and virtual abolition of property income.
Under Stalin, wage inequality grew, stimulated largely by a desire to encourage the acquisition of labor skills perceived to be strategic for industrialization. Peasant incomes also differed significantly, based on differential labor and skills, and were substantially lower than those of industrial workers, perpetuating and extending labor income inequalities. After Stalin's death, notably in the Khrushchev years, Soviet wage inequality decreased dramatically..."

The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism, Alex F. Dowlah, John E. Elliott.
What about inequalities between Kulaks and poor peasants?

[Paul Cockshott]

Also bear in mind that a shift from agriculture to industry would have tended to reduce income inequality.

[Old Bolshie]

Under Stalin, yes, not "In the history of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union"

"Under Stalin income inequality increased" means that income distribution was more equal before Stalin years thus making untrue the statement that there was an unprecedented egalitarian income distribution during Stalin's period.

The text begins precisely with " Incomes in the USSR were radically equalised in the earliest post-revolutionary years..."

[Darius]

From Tony Cliff biography about Trotsky:


The industrial drive was accompanied by a sharp decline in workers’ living standards. Donald Filtzer writes in Soviet Workers and Stalinist Industrialisation: Western estimates of the fall in the standard of living vary slightly, but all show a catastrophic decline between 1928 and 1932. Solomon Schwarz and Naum Jasny calculate real wages in 1932 at about 50 percent of their 1928 level. Eugene Zaleski puts the figure lower, at 43 percent.

How can there be any talk about income equality under Stalin, then huge population were coerced to work in inefficient kolhozes, which extracted surplus for very little reward in exchange. Also let's not forget millions of slave laborers in concentration camps under Stalin, who generated a lot of additional surplus. Also a lot of insane quotas, taxes put on various strata of individual peasants while they resisted collectivization. Not to mention millions who perished in the process of collectivization. Constant concentration on heavy industry left majority of population with very poor purchasing power so their wages were in reality small.

Even if in the end of the 30s' income equalized a little bit, it hardly compensated for all the sacrifices, and lost potential.

[Paul Cockshott]

You have produced a couple of people saying that income inequality rose in the period leading up to 1946, but the more recent source that I gave shows something quite different - a fall in income inequality throughout the soviet period, including the period 1929 to 1950. What is indisputable was that the introduction of piece rates during the 1930s widened differentials between more productive and less productive wage workers in a given trade, but this is something quite different from a widening of household income inequalities in society as a whole. This is affected by a whole range of other factors - the level of employment, the number of people in the household with jobs, the distribution of the population between self employed and waged workers, the existence or not of an employing and trading class etc. It is thus possible for take home pay differentials in a given trade to rise whilst overall social distribution of income became more equal as shown by the falling GINI coefficient.
Incidentally it is worth pointing out that the policy of payment by output adopted in the 1930s was argued to be what Marx himself advocated for the first stage of communism. Marx certainly said that such differential were inevitable in the early stages of communist society, but I am not arguing that the USSR in was in the first stage of communism - the retention of money and private trade in agricultural products indicated that the economy was not yet at that level.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You have produced a couple of people saying that income inequality rose in the period leading up to 1946, but the more recent source that I gave shows something quite different - a fall in income inequality throughout the soviet period, including the period 1929 to 1950. What is indisputable was that the introduction of piece rates during the 1930s widened differentials between more productive and less productive wage workers in a given trade, but this is something quite different from a widening of household income inequalities in society as a whole. This is affected by a whole range of other factors - the level of employment, the number of people in the household with jobs, the distribution of the population between self employed and waged workers, the existence or not of an employing and trading class etc. It is thus possible for take home pay differentials in a given trade to rise whilst overall social distribution of income became more equal as shown by the falling GINI coefficient.
Incidentally it is worth pointing out that the policy of payment by output adopted in the 1930s was argued to be what Marx himself advocated for the first stage of communism. Marx certainly said that such differential were inevitable in the early stages of communist society, but I am not arguing that the USSR in was in the first stage of communism - the retention of money and private trade in agricultural products indicated that the economy was not yet at that level.

Could you share any material on these 1930's Soviet worker payment methods? As far as I'm aware, the Soviet Ruble was a kind of 'Labor Money' as Cuba still has, no?

[Old Bolshie]

Well have it your way as to when the Stalin years began, my understanding was that he was General Secretary from 1922,

The General Secretary post wasn't created as the supreme political body of USSR in 1922. It had initially purely administrative functions. It happens that Stalin through the following years used the post to accumulate power and influence around him and inherently around the post of Secretary-General in detriment of the other political bodies such as the CC and the Politburo.


but even if we say they did not start till the late 20s, the time series I produced shows the GINI coefficient falling from 40 in 1929 to 35 in 1950 which was towards the end of Stalin's life.I don't see how you can assume that the Gini Index of Eastern Europe was coincidental with the Gini Index of USSR when the Gini Index of the different countries within Eastern Europe weren't equal.


What about inequalities between Kulaks and poor peasants?It wasn't higher than inequalities in the following years during Stalin's leadership according to those sources. Remember that in USSR any peasant who opposed the soviet government was called a Kulak. It is known cases of poor peasants who were qualified as kulaks for opposing the collectivization and were arrested or killed.


Also bear in mind that a shift from agriculture to industry would have tended to reduce income inequality.

It is not surprise the rise of inequalities in Stalin years though when Stalin himself said in 1931: "we must abolish wage equalization and discard the old wage scales".

[Old Bolshie]

You have produced a couple of people saying that income inequality rose in the period leading up to 1946, but the more recent source that I gave shows something quite different - a fall in income inequality throughout the soviet period, including the period 1929 to 1950. What is indisputable was that the introduction of piece rates during the 1930s widened differentials between more productive and less productive wage workers in a given trade, but this is something quite different from a widening of household income inequalities in society as a whole. This is affected by a whole range of other factors - the level of employment, the number of people in the household with jobs, the distribution of the population between self employed and waged workers, the existence or not of an employing and trading class etc. It is thus possible for take home pay differentials in a given trade to rise whilst overall social distribution of income became more equal as shown by the falling GINI coefficient.

Your source is not valid here since we are talking about specifically of the USSR and not the entire Eastern Europe and there were differences between the Gini Index of different Eastern Europe countries as there were between different Western Countries. For instance, in 1976 Bulgaria had a Gini Index of 18.4 while USSR had one of 26.0.



Incidentally it is worth pointing out that the policy of payment by output adopted in the 1930s was argued to be what Marx himself advocated for the first stage of communism. Marx certainly said that such differential were inevitable in the early stages of communist society, but I am not arguing that the USSR in was in the first stage of communism - the retention of money and private trade in agricultural products indicated that the economy was not yet at that level.Karl Marx had his say about the piece-wage system but I think it doesn't coincide with what you said:

"piece wages become . . . the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds committed by the capitalists."

"the piece wage is the form of wage most appropriate to the capitalist mode of production."

Capital

[Ace High]

I know there is probably a very specific discussion going on here, but I am going to answer the original question.

I think people obsess over Stalin because he was the typical strong figurehead and representative of communism even though he did pretty much the opposite of what communists are supposed to do. People are attracted to strong figureheads that represent their ideology.

Personally, I think Stalinists are some of the most confused people in the world. Stalin certainly was. How can you defend a man who made a perverse mockery of a wonderful ideology and subjugated the people in Russia to the same exploitation that occurred under good old Nicholas II? Stalin was a paranoid coward who attempted to singlehandedly destroy Marxism. We should denounce him and focus on who the REAL revolutionary heroes were.

[connoros]

I know there is probably a very specific discussion going on here, but I am going to answer the original question.

I think people obsess over Stalin because he was the typical strong figurehead and representative of communism even though he did pretty much the opposite of what communists are supposed to do. People are attracted to strong figureheads that represent their ideology.

Personally, I think Stalinists are some of the most confused people in the world. Stalin certainly was. How can you defend a man who made a perverse mockery of a wonderful ideology and subjugated the people in Russia to the same exploitation that occurred under good old Nicholas II? Stalin was a paranoid coward who attempted to singlehandedly destroy Marxism. We should denounce him and focus on who the REAL revolutionary heroes were.

You're going to be very embarrassed of these posts in a very short period of time once you become more familiar with Marxism. Not necessarily because you'll come to view Stalin as some kind of hero; you'll find that the movement of history is hardly attributable to the shortcomings of individuals.

[Ace High]

You're going to be very embarrassed of these posts in a very short period of time once you become more familiar with Marxism. Not necessarily because you'll come to view Stalin as some kind of hero; you'll find that the movement of history is hardly attributable to the shortcomings of individuals.

I understand bashing Stalin on a leftist forum is inevitably going to cause conflict. And I truly do not want conflict or drama, especially since we are both working towards the same cause. But my claim is that Stalin did not use any method at all attributable to Marxism. I am claiming that we are falsely seeing him as someone who tried to implement a Marxist model which he didn't do at all.

If Stalin wanted true communism why did he
-Create a personality cult centered around him?
-Abandon international communism?
-Starve millions to death intentionally? (I do not read biased media, there are statistics to back it up)
-Create a bourgeois military elite to replace the capitalist elite?
-Arbitrary mass murder of people in his own government?

If you are curious as to who I view as admirable regarding past Marxist leaders, I will say.....at the risk of sounding like a hipster teenager following the latest trend, I do think Che Guevara was about the greatest revolutionary to have lived. Cliche I know, but his ideals are SUPER different from Stalin's. Opposite, really. And his ideals matched up with the Marxist model. Interesting, huh.

So that is my rationale for bashing Stalin. Hope you understand that I'm not trying to cause division in the movement. I am actually trying to strengthen it by understanding the differences in our beliefs, even if they are petty.

[Brutus]

-Create a personality cult centered around him?
This was Khrushchev's doing, Stalin didn't agree with it; he still didn't do much to stop it though.


Starve millions to death intentionally?
It wasn't intentional- it was due to the ineptness of the bureaucracy and party officials.

[Ace High]

This was Khrushchev's doing, Stalin didn't agree with it; he still didn't do much to stop it though.


It wasn't intentional- it was due to the ineptness of the bureaucracy and party officials.

But Stalin was the head of state. He had ultimate control over that bureaucracy. Allowing something to happen is just as bad as doing it intentionally if you have the power to stop it.

[Darius]

You're going to be very embarrassed of these posts in a very short period of time once you become more familiar with Marxism. Not necessarily because you'll come to view Stalin as some kind of hero; you'll find that the movement of history is hardly attributable to the shortcomings of individuals.

That is this mystical "movement of history"?? There are particular conditions yes, but there is also particular people in these conditions who call the shots, and have choices. Stalin and his clique had the choice to follow much more calmer, capitalist accumulation of surplus in the country side, by letting kulaks and other peasants to expand their households naturaly. He even admitted himself what he had this choice in one of his speeches. But instead he launched his Genghis Khan style, barbaric mass attack on peasantry and called it "collectivization".

[Geiseric]

That is this mystical "movement of history"?? There are particular conditions yes, but there is also particular people in these conditions who call the shots, and have choices. Stalin and his clique had the choice to follow much more calmer, capitalist accumulation of surplus in the country side, by letting kulaks and other peasants to expand their households naturaly. He even admitted himself what he had this choice in one of his speeches. But instead he launched his Genghis Khan style, barbaric mass attack on peasantry and called it "collectivization".

The richer peasants were causing famines as far back as 1925; the left opposition were the ones who wanted to deal with it an a balanced fashion instead of the "race to the bottom" campaign that Stalin had to institute. The central government's attempt at emulating, in a majorly rushed fashion, the actual industrialization and collectivization modeled by the left opposition in 1925 was a catastrophe because they didn't really have the time to organize anything. This is funny because Stalin supported continuing the N.E.P. during the mid 20's, strengthening the bourgeois in the countryside.

[asiankaos]

i completely agree that we shouldn't alienate religious people on the basis that they're religious. my only point is that religion is and always has been a part of the ruling class' ideological state apparatus

There is no way that when Christiananity started they were the ruling class. i agree now it is used as a tool to control people by the ruling class, but to say always seems crazy.

[Paul Cockshott]

Your source is not valid here since we are talking about specifically of the USSR and not the entire Eastern Europe and there were differences between the Gini Index of different Eastern Europe countries as there were between different Western Countries. For instance, in 1976 Bulgaria had a Gini Index of 18.4 while USSR had one of 26.0.


You are quite right that we can not simply assume that the figures for
the USSR and the figures for eastern europe were identical, but the
eastern europe figures are likely to have been dominated by those of
the USSR since in the period we are considering 1929 to 1950 it made up
around 70% or more of the Eastern Europe population ( I know that
not all of the USSR was in Europe, but for the regional population analysis
we are speaking of, the whole USSR is assigned to the East Europe region).
We can thus expect movements, particularly if they are substantial movements
in inequality, in Eastern Europe to be dominated by movements in the USSR.

The figures show a 5% drop in GINI over that period. If your contention was
right that the Stalin period in the USSR led to greater inequality, then the
GINI coefficient for the USSR would have risen. You have not said by how
much you think it rose, but let us be conservative and say your hypothesis is that it rose by 2%.
We can readily write down an equation to estimate the fall in the GINI coefficient
that would have been required in the rest of Eastern Europe if this was to be consistent with your hypothesis. Let E be the hypothetical change in GINI in
the rest of Eastern Europe required to be compatible with your hypothesis.
The equation is

-5 = 0.7x2 + 0.3E

ie, E would have to be -21

A fall in the GINI coefficient by 21 % in 21 years is so far outside what has been observed historically as to be very implausible since there is very little evidence that the Eastern European countries other than the USSR had any kind of egalitarian social policy during most of this period. Are you really claiming that Poland, Hungary, etc were societies with rapidly equalising income during this period. What social change do you claim produced this rapid improvement?

Never mind Stalin, you seem to be claiming that Pilsudski and Horthy were by far and away the most socially progressive leaders in history.

But this is obvious nonsense. The only radical change that occured was
after the establishment of these countries as Peoples Democracies after 1948.
Of course you may say that since the end year was 1950, all the changes
occured between 1948 and 1950 when the Stalinist model was imposed on them.
But this compresses even further the time period for the change - the implication would be that the GINI coefficient was falling by 10% a year between
1948 and 1950 in the non Soviet eastern block.

So, for your hypothesis that the Stalin period led to greater social inequality to be true you either have to conclude:

That Pilsudski, Horthy etc were radical egalitarians or
That although Stalinism in Russia led to less equaltiy, when it was applied to other countries it led to astonishingly rapid rates of social equalisation






Karl Marx had his say about the piece-wage system but I think it doesn't coincide with what you said:

"piece wages become . . . the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds committed by the capitalists."

"the piece wage is the form of wage most appropriate to the capitalist mode of production."

Capital
Yes we all know what Marx says about piece rates under capitalism, but that is in a society where private capitalists appropriate the surplus as profit. For a communist society in its first stage he advocates a piece rate system using labour tokens, the important difference being that labour is now the only source of income. Within the state sector of the Soviet economy labour was the only source of income.

Incidentally you mention that by 1976 the Bulgarian GINI had fallen to 18%. I can believe it. I visited most of the East European countries during the 70s and 80s and Bulgaria was the most ultra stalinist and egalitarian of the lot. The Stakhanovite piece work system was taken to levels of detail that I would not have believed possible. I remember talking to women doing data entry work, and to teachers both of whom were paid by results - by the amount of data they entered in one case, and in the case of teachers there were bonuses for the number of pages of teaching notes they produced for their classes. Given that you recognise how equal Bulgarian society was in those days, is it not a paradox to you that the most Ultra Stalinist country in Comecon should have been so equal?

It wasn't higher than inequalities in the following years during Stalin's leadership according to those sources. Remember that in USSR any peasant who opposed the soviet government was called a Kulak. It is known cases of poor peasants who were qualified as kulaks for opposing the collectivization and were arrested or killed.

I would not be in the least surprised if some poor peasants sided with the rich ones in the struggle. You are all familiar with working class people who vote for conservative candidates. But that does not mean that there was no class differentiation in the peasantry. It would be as invalid to conclude that as to conclude from the existence of working class Tories that Britain was a classless society. We know right back from Lenin's Development of Capitalism in Russia, that the differentialtion of the peasantry into rich peasants, poor peasants and rural proletarians had been going on since the late 19th century. This class differentiaton was ended by collectivisation.

[connoros]

But Stalin was the head of state. He had ultimate control over that bureaucracy. Allowing something to happen is just as bad as doing it intentionally if you have the power to stop it.

"Ultimate" is a bit of a stretch. He had responsibility for the bureaucracy, but remember that the leadership of the Soviet Union, as with any country, was a very intricate system of many individuals governing many different departments, jurisdictions, etc. This isn't to say Stalin himself had no responsibility with regards to famine conditions brought on by the struggles in the Ukraine, as one example, but it would be a mistake to attribute them to incompetence or malice on the part of the individual or to some ideological shortcoming within Marxism-Leninism itself. I'm also skeptical that millions died, given the state of census data taken during that time. Some scholars estimate the deaths resultant from starvation conditions to have been in the hundreds of thousands, still hundreds of thousands too many granted.

[Paul Cockshott]

From Tony Cliff biography about Trotsky:



How can there be any talk about income equality under Stalin, then huge population were coerced to work in inefficient kolhozes, which extracted surplus for very little reward in exchange. Also let's not forget millions of slave laborers in concentration camps under Stalin, who generated a lot of additional surplus. Also a lot of insane quotas, taxes put on various strata of individual peasants while they resisted collectivization. Not to mention millions who perished in the process of collectivization. Constant concentration on heavy industry left majority of population with very poor purchasing power so their wages were in reality small.

Even if in the end of the 30s' income equalized a little bit, it hardly compensated for all the sacrifices, and lost potential.
There was a fall from 29 to 32 of about 20% in real wages followed by a very rapid rise for the rest of the 30s until the costs of rearmament produced another fall. How do you expect to achieve rapid long term growth in consumption without temporarily devoting a higher proportion of output to investment initially.
Check figure 4 in this paper for the data : http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/archive/noticeboard/bergson/allen.pdf

[Old Bolshie]

You are quite right that we can not simply assume that the figures for
the USSR and the figures for eastern europe were identical, but the
eastern europe figures are likely to have been dominated by those of
the USSR since in the period we are considering 1929 to 1950 it made up
around 70% or more of the Eastern Europe population ( I know that
not all of the USSR was in Europe, but for the regional population analysis
we are speaking of, the whole USSR is assigned to the East Europe region).
We can thus expect movements, particularly if they are substantial movements
in inequality, in Eastern Europe to be dominated by movements in the USSR.

The figures show a 5% drop in GINI over that period. If your contention was
right that the Stalin period in the USSR led to greater inequality, then the
GINI coefficient for the USSR would have risen. You have not said by how
much you think it rose, but let us be conservative and say your hypothesis is that it rose by 2%.
We can readily write down an equation to estimate the fall in the GINI coefficient
that would have been required in the rest of Eastern Europe if this was to be consistent with your hypothesis. Let E be the hypothetical change in GINI in
the rest of Eastern Europe required to be compatible with your hypothesis.
The equation is

-5 = 0.7x2 + 0.3E

ie, E would have to be -21

A fall in the GINI coefficient by 21 % in 21 years is so far outside what has been observed historically as to be very implausible since there is very little evidence that the Eastern European countries other than the USSR had any kind of egalitarian social policy during most of this period. Are you really claiming that Poland, Hungary, etc were societies with rapidly equalising income during this period. What social change do you claim produced this rapid improvement?

Never mind Stalin, you seem to be claiming that Pilsudski and Horthy were by far and away the most socially progressive leaders in history.

But this is obvious nonsense. The only radical change that occured was
after the establishment of these countries as Peoples Democracies after 1948.
Of course you may say that since the end year was 1950, all the changes
occured between 1948 and 1950 when the Stalinist model was imposed on them.
But this compresses even further the time period for the change - the implication would be that the GINI coefficient was falling by 10% a year between
1948 and 1950 in the non Soviet eastern block.

So, for your hypothesis that the Stalin period led to greater social inequality to be true you either have to conclude:

That Pilsudski, Horthy etc were radical egalitarians or
That although Stalinism in Russia led to less equaltiy, when it was applied to other countries it led to astonishingly rapid rates of social equalisation

I already said and provided a source stating that under Khrushchev inequalities decreased dramatically and USSR didn't dropped the Stalinist economic model during Khrushchev period. USSR had a Gini Index comparable with those of Nordic Countries such as Sweden with the Stalinist model. So it's not too hard to imagine that the Stalinist model could have produced equalization of wages in Eastern Europe as it did and Bulgaria was a great example of it.


The issue here is not the model but a deliberate policy of differentiation of wages implemented by Stalin in the first years of USSR industrialization to incentive productivity among other things which produced high inequalities in USSR.


As far as your graphic goes, as I said the social inequalities differed from country to country and it's not possible to determine from those numbers the variations of social inequalities in USSR through the years and compare different periods (War communism, NEP, Planned Economy under Stalin, etc). [/QUOTE]



Yes we all know what Marx says about piece rates under capitalism, but that is in a society where private capitalists appropriate the surplus as profit. For a communist society in its first stage he advocates a piece rate system using labour tokens, the important difference being that labour is now the only source of income. Within the state sector of the Soviet economy labour was the only source of income. But the issue here is that USSR didn't reach the first stage of Communism thus remaining a capitalist economy with all the capitalist elements.


Incidentally you mention that by 1976 the Bulgarian GINI had fallen to 18%. I can believe it. I visited most of the East European countries during the 70s and 80s and Bulgaria was the most ultra stalinist and egalitarian of the lot. The Stakhanovite piece work system was taken to levels of detail that I would not have believed possible. I remember talking to women doing data entry work, and to teachers both of whom were paid by results - by the amount of data they entered in one case, and in the case of teachers there were bonuses for the number of pages of teaching notes they produced for their classes. Given that you recognise how equal Bulgarian society was in those days, is it not a paradox to you that the most Ultra Stalinist country in Comecon should have been so equal?No because as I said above the problem was not the economic model but a specifically policy of wage differentiation advocated by Stalin which led to those high inequalities in Stalin years.



I would not be in the least surprised if some poor peasants sided with the rich ones in the struggle. You are all familiar with working class people who vote for conservative candidates. But that does not mean that there was no class differentiation in the peasantry. It would be as invalid to conclude that as to conclude from the existence of working class Tories that Britain was a classless society. We know right back from Lenin's Development of Capitalism in Russia, that the differentialtion of the peasantry into rich peasants, poor peasants and rural proletarians had been going on since the late 19th century. This class differentiaton was ended by collectivisation.

The traditional class differentiation between rich and poor peasants ended as private property was abolished but that didn't mean that inequalities between peasants disappeared. As one of my sources show there was significant differentiation on peasants incomes based on differential labor and skill. The incomes of peasants were also substantially lower than those of industrial workers.

[Paul Cockshott]

[/LIST]
I already said and provided a source stating that under Khrushchev inequalities decreased dramatically and USSR didn't dropped the Stalinist economic model during Khrushchev period. USSR had a Gini Index comparable with those of Nordic Countries such as Sweden with the Stalinist model. So it's not too hard to imagine that the Stalinist model could have produced equalization of wages in Eastern Europe as it did and Bulgaria was a great example of it.
Well we all agree that there was continued progress under Stalin's sucessors in terms of income equality. But a GINI of 18% for Bulgaria was well below that of the Nordic countries.

So you are saying that Stalinism was just great, except in the USSR?




The issue here is not the model but a deliberate policy of differentiation of wages implemented by Stalin in the first years of USSR industrialization to incentive productivity among other things which produced high inequalities in USSR.
No the issue here is whether there was any increase in social inequality under Stalin, the evidence that I have been presenting shows the reverse - that Stalinist economic policies produced a steady equalisation of incomes.




As far as your graphic goes, as I said the social inequalities differed from country to country and it's not possible to determine from those numbers the variations of social inequalities in USSR through the years and compare different periods (War communism, NEP, Planned Economy under Stalin, etc).
You can not compare war communism with the NEP, but you can compare NEP with the developed soviet system at the end of Stalin's life, and the data shows a 5% improvement in equality. As I showed the maths necessary to compensate for the fact that the figure includes other countries means that if you deny that social equality improved under the Stalinist system in the USSR you either have to hold up Horthy and Pilsudski as heroes, or claim that in two years from 1948 to 1950 they Stalinist system in Poland, Hungary etc reduced the GINI coefficient by 20%. Which of these do you hold to?





But the issue here is that USSR didn't reach the first stage of Communism thus remaining a capitalist economy with all the capitalist elements.


.
Well it was arguably not in the first stage of communism because they had not yet introduced labour tokens, but the economy certainly did not retain all capitalist elements. There was no property income, private ownership of industry no longer existed, private ownership of land no longer existed, private firms no longer existed. It would be more accurate to say that the economy retained no capitalist elements but retained money - which of course is not something specifically capitalist - having existed in precapitalist society as well.

[Old Bolshie]

Well we all agree that there was continued progress under Stalin's sucessors in terms of income equality. But a GINI of 18% for Bulgaria was well below that of the Nordic countries.

So you are saying that Stalinism was just great, except in the USSR?

I already said in my previous post that the inequality problem during Stalin years was not inherent to the Planned economy but rather to a specific policy of wage differentiation advocated by Stalin. This policy of unequal salaries was not put in practice in the other planned economies.


No the issue here is whether there was any increase in social inequality under Stalin, the evidence that I have been presenting shows the reverse - that Stalinist economic policies produced a steady equalisation of incomes.You didn't show any evidence. All you have is a graphic concerning all the Eastern Europe and as I showed to you the Gini Index differed from country to country. I already provided two different sources concerning specifically Stalin years and both highlight the same thing: Under Stalin inequalities grew in USSR. If you have any source (concerning USSR and not the all Eastern Europe) which states the contrary feel free to show it. Meanwhile I will give you another different source backing my argument:

"Socioeconomic inequality, to be sure, was not unknown in the Stalinist period. In fact, huge wage differentials emerged precisely during the intensive industrialization of the 1930's. Stalin defined egalitarianism as a "peasant attitude" having nothing in common with Marxism declaring...that Bolshevik policy demanded a "resolute struggle against egalitarians as accomplices of the class enemy...""

Socioeconomic inequality and Changes in Soviet Ideology,
Victor Zaslavsky


A fall in the GINI coefficient by 21 % in 21 years is so far outside what has been observed historically as to be very implausible since there is very little evidence that the Eastern European countries other than the USSR had any kind of egalitarian social policy during most of this period

This has been your problem during all this discussion. Stalin ATTACKED egalitarianism calling it ANTI-MARXIST and ANTI-LENINIST. He push for a new wage system with strong differentiation among wages specially between skilled and unskilled workers.


You can not compare war communism with the NEP, but you can compare NEP with the developed soviet system at the end of Stalin's life, and the data shows a 5% improvement in equality. As I showed the maths necessary to compensate for the fact that the figure includes other countries means that if you deny that social equality improved under the Stalinist system in the USSR you either have to hold up Horthy and Pilsudski as heroes, or claim that in two years from 1948 to 1950 they Stalinist system in Poland, Hungary etc reduced the GINI coefficient by 20%. Which of these do you hold to?First, I don't know which was the Gini Index of Hungary and Poland in the interwar period. If you have any information about it you can show it together with the USSR Gini Index of the interwar period and compare it.

Secondly, Eastern Europe was more than just Poland or Hungary. You had other countries like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia or the Baltic States. Are you able to find the Gini Index of all those countries so we can compare it with the USSR in Stalin's years?


Well it was arguably not in the first stage of communism because they had not yet introduced labour tokens, but the economy certainly did not retain all capitalist elements. There was no property income, private ownership of industry no longer existed, private ownership of land no longer existed, private firms no longer existed. It would be more accurate to say that the economy retained no capitalist elements but retained money - which of course is not something specifically capitalist - having existed in precapitalist society as well.Lets see: it retained capital, wage labor, money, generalized commodity production, capital accumulation... I would say that all the capitalist elements are here. Private ownership was replaced by state ownership.

[Ace High]

"Ultimate" is a bit of a stretch. He had responsibility for the bureaucracy, but remember that the leadership of the Soviet Union, as with any country, was a very intricate system of many individuals governing many different departments, jurisdictions, etc. This isn't to say Stalin himself had no responsibility with regards to famine conditions brought on by the struggles in the Ukraine, as one example, but it would be a mistake to attribute them to incompetence or malice on the part of the individual or to some ideological shortcoming within Marxism-Leninism itself. I'm also skeptical that millions died, given the state of census data taken during that time. Some scholars estimate the deaths resultant from starvation conditions to have been in the hundreds of thousands, still hundreds of thousands too many granted.

But see that is all I wanted you to recognize. Whether it was due to malice and incompetence or not doesn't matter. What matters is the statistics of starvation death. Glad you brought up Ukraine as the entire nation was starved.

[Paul Cockshott]

I already said in my previous post that the inequality problem during Stalin years was not inherent to the Planned economy but rather to a specific policy of wage differentiation advocated by Stalin. This policy of unequal salaries was not put in practice in the other planned economies.


This is simply not true. You gave the example of Bulgaria as having a very low GINI index. Bulgaria had exactly the type of piece work system of payment that you claim is responsible for a rise in inequality in the USSR. If it produced a rise in the USSR why did it produce the opposite in Bulgaria|?



You didn't show any evidence. All you have is a graphic concerning all the Eastern Europe and as I showed to you the Gini Index differed from country to country.
First, I don't know which was the Gini Index of Hungary and Poland in the interwar period. If you have any information about it you can show it together with the USSR Gini Index of the interwar period and compare it.

Secondly, Eastern Europe was more than just Poland or Hungary. You had other countries like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia or the Baltic States. Are you able to find the Gini Index of all those countries so we can compare it with the USSR in Stalin's years?


I am the only one who has produce any GINI index tables ( not a graphic ). You have produced none. I agree that the one I have been able to find covers the whole of Eastern Europe not just the USSR, but as I showed with my equation, if you assume that the fall in the GINI was entirely in Eastern Europe and that
in the USSR it actually rose, then you have to make unrealistic assumptions about the fall in the GINI index in a group of countries which for the bulk of the period were under right wing governments. I have looked for GINI data on the individual countries but do not yet have it. It is you that is claiming an unprededented improvement in social equality in these right wing countries without a shred of evidence not me.


I already provided two different sources concerning specifically Stalin years and both highlight the same thing: Under Stalin inequalities grew in USSR. If you have any source (concerning USSR and not the all Eastern Europe) which states the contrary feel free to show it. Meanwhile I will give you another different source backing my argument:

"Socioeconomic inequality, to be sure, was not unknown in the Stalinist period. In fact, huge wage differentials emerged precisely during the intensive industrialization of the 1930's. Stalin defined egalitarianism as a "peasant attitude" having nothing in common with Marxism declaring...that Bolshevik policy demanded a "resolute struggle against egalitarians as accomplices of the class enemy...""

Socioeconomic inequality and Changes in Soviet Ideology,
Victor Zaslavsky

It is indisputable that the USSR introduced the marxist policy of payment according to labour under the 5 year plans. What is in dispute is whether this marxist policy results in a general rise in social inequality.
The GINI evidence, both for the USSR and for Bulgaria is that it does not.
The reasons why it did not need investigation but plausible hypotheses would be

Payment according to labour works in one trade and that differences between mental and manual labour which have historically been more significant could still be narrowed if for example coal miners were paid more.
That the abolition of an exploiting class in the countryside and of private NEP traders narrowed social inequality
That differences between men and womens incomes reduced due to the greater opportunities for women opened up by socialism
That urbanisation tended to reduce the significance of town country differentials : recall that this was a major objective set in the Communist Manifesto




This has been your problem during all this discussion. Stalin ATTACKED egalitarianism calling it ANTI-MARXIST and ANTI-LENINIST. He push for a new wage system with strong differentiation among wages specially between skilled and unskilled workers.
Well the Soviets justified this policy using the following passage from Marx:
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

So long as payment is according to labour, somebody who is stronger and delivers more labour gets a larger income. So the policy of making wages proportional to labour done was justifiable by reference to the standard concepts in Marx, both here, and in the passages on abstract socially necessary labour in Capital.

What they had not yet done was

Replace the Rouble with non circulating labour accounts
[list =2]
Introduce a progressive income tax to finance public expenditure


However it is disingenuous to project the failure to take such measures onto Stalin since none of the soviet leadership candidates advocated them. Trotsky's contribution to policy on this question was to call for a return to the gold standard in the USSR and for a great role for market relations.



Lets see: it retained capital, wage labor, money, generalized commodity production, capital accumulation... I would say that all the capitalist elements are here. Private ownership was replaced by state ownership.

No capital was not retained. Means of production were gifted to enterprises in the Stalin period, no interest was charged on their value so they were not capital. There was not generalised commodity production since transfers of major means of production were not by commodity exchange. Without capital there was obviously no capital accumulation. It was not until the 1950s that Soviet economists started to argue that the means of production should be treated as capital and that interest or capital charges should be levied on them. This was the sort of thing argued by Novozilov. For a review of the issue of the nature of investment in means of production in the 30s versus 50s see :http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

[DDR]

But see that is all I wanted you to recognize. Whether it was due to malice and incompetence or not doesn't matter. What matters is the statistics of starvation death. Glad you brought up Ukraine as the entire nation was starved.

In the US, in the great depresion, died 12 million people of starvation and yet none calls Hoover or FDR murderers or genocidals.

[Invader Zim]

In the US, in the great depresion, died 12 million people of starvation and yet none calls Hoover or FDR murderers or genocidals.

Because it isn't true. This has already been debunked on this forums in this informative thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-depression-american-t175697/index.html?p=2522996#post2522996

[Old Bolshie]

This is simply not true. You gave the example of Bulgaria as having a very low GINI index. Bulgaria had exactly the type of piece work system of payment that you claim is responsible for a rise in inequality in the USSR. If it produced a rise in the USSR why did it produce the opposite in Bulgaria|?

Because the wage scales of one system weren't the same as the other and Bulgaria didn't have the exact type of piece work system of payment that functioned in USSR under Stalin. The piece work system in USSR under Khrushchev was already different from Stalin's one after the introduction of the Wage Reform in the Soviet Union 1956-1962. As I said the model is not issue here but specific policy of wage differentiation. What is so difficult to understand here?



I am the only one who has produce any GINI index tables ( not a graphic ). You have produced none. I agree that the one I have been able to find covers the whole of Eastern Europe not just the USSR, but as I showed with my equation, if you assume that the fall in the GINI was entirely in Eastern Europe and that
in the USSR it actually rose, then you have to make unrealistic assumptions about the fall in the GINI index in a group of countries which for the bulk of the period were under right wing governments. I have looked for GINI data on the individual countries but do not yet have it. It is you that is claiming an unprededented improvement in social equality in these right wing countries without a shred of evidence not me.

LOL. Typical Stalinist argument: if you are against Stalin you are an anti-communist supporter of right wing. Just for the record I only stated that I don't have information about the Gini Index of those countries to determine from that what was the Gini Index of USSR. Your assumption is simply ludicrous. I provided reliable sources of economists and academics who certainly dispose of way more information than me and you. If you have a source contradicting my sources about Stalin show it. If you don't that's your problem. And don't forget that one of those sources based its information on Bergson data.


It is indisputable that the USSR introduced the marxist policy of payment according to labour under the 5 year plans. What is in dispute is whether this marxist policy results in a general rise in social inequality.
The GINI evidence, both for the USSR and for Bulgaria is that it does not.
The reasons why it did not need investigation but plausible hypotheses would be

Payment according to labour works in one trade and that differences between mental and manual labour which have historically been more significant could still be narrowed if for example coal miners were paid more.
That the abolition of an exploiting class in the countryside and of private NEP traders narrowed social inequality
That differences between men and womens incomes reduced due to the greater opportunities for women opened up by socialism
That urbanisation tended to reduce the significance of town country differentials : recall that this was a major objective set in the Communist Manifesto

As I stated above the wage policy under Stalin was different from Khrushchev's period and Bulgaria. Under Stalin skilled workers received much higher incomes than unskilled workers just to give you one example.




Well the Soviets justified this policy using the following passage from Marx:

So long as payment is according to labour, somebody who is stronger and delivers more labour gets a larger income. So the policy of making wages proportional to labour done was justifiable by reference to the standard concepts in Marx, both here, and in the passages on abstract socially necessary labour in Capital.

What they had not yet done was

Replace the Rouble with non circulating labour accounts
[list =2]
Introduce a progressive income tax to finance public expenditure


However it is disingenuous to project the failure to take such measures onto Stalin since none of the soviet leadership candidates advocated them. Trotsky's contribution to policy on this question was to call for a return to the gold standard in the USSR and for a great role for market relations.

Well, that would be true but under Stalin's system quantity was not the only measure of work. Quality played an even more important role in measuring the work. That's why skilled workers received much more than unskilled workers even if both had produced the same amount of work. So while Marx claims that "labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity" Stalin adds " and quality".



No capital was not retained. Means of production were gifted to enterprises in the Stalin period, no interest was charged on their value so they were not capital. There was not generalised commodity production since transfers of major means of production were not by commodity exchange. Without capital there was obviously no capital accumulation. It was not until the 1950s that Soviet economists started to argue that the means of production should be treated as capital and that interest or capital charges should be levied on them. This was the sort of thing argued by Novozilov. For a review of the issue of the nature of investment in means of production in the 30s versus 50s see :http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

And here you are wrong once gain according to Stalin himself:

"Certain comrades affirm that the Party acted wrongly in preserving commodity production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then...These comrades are profoundly mistaken."

Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR

It's somewhat ironic that I have been resorting to Stalin to back my arguments.:D

As far as capital accumulation is concerned I think it's so obvious that it existed in Soviet Union especially in the form of forced capital accumulation that I don't need to provide sources but if you insist I can provide you.

[Ace High]

In the US, in the great depresion, died 12 million people of starvation and yet none calls Hoover or FDR murderers or genocidals.

Well actually, the Great Depression was caused directly and intentionally by the Federal Reserve. The corrupt banking cartel intentionally did starve those people.

Now, what the hell is your point? It's like I'm not allowed to criticize the USSR without someone pointing out a capitalist atrocity as if I'm not aware of that. You think I don't hate capitalism? I'm posting on a leftist forum for godsake.

[ComradeOm]

There was a fall from 29 to 32 of about 20% in real wages followed by a very rapid rise for the rest of the 30s until the costs of rearmament produced another fall. How do you expect to achieve rapid long term growth in consumption without temporarily devoting a higher proportion of output to investment initially.
Check figure 4 in this paper for the data : http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/archive/noticeboard/bergson/allen.pdfAllen's figures are wrong and have been criticised by Davies and Wheatcroft (who produced the original series on which these were based). They're also contradicted by most other economic historians who have written on the subject (such as the aforementioned and Gregory, Nove, Harrison, etc) and pretty much all the archival evidence (see Rossman and Murphy)

Allen is one of the very few who would argue (and again, his numbers are wrong) with Nove when he asserts that the Stalinist industrialisation drive saw "the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in history". Nove's own figures show a fall in real wages by 25-40% between 1928 and 1937, while Chapmen contends that they had failed to recover to 1928 levels as late as 1953. Even Allen admits that "all measurements of real wages in the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1937 show a decline"

As for the previous period, Davies (The Soviet Economy in Turmoil) notes that the NEP "brought greater equality of income not only between masses and rulers but also within the industrial working class itself. The differentiation of earnings between higher-paid and lower-paid workers declined substantially between 1914 and 1928. This was the result of deliberate policy". Yet you'd have us believe that the abandonment of wage equalisation, plus the introduction of piece rates and abolition of the partmaksimum, actually reduced social inequality? That's pretty silly

[Paul Cockshott]

As for the previous period, Davies (The Soviet Economy in Turmoil) notes that the NEP "brought greater equality of income not only between masses and rulers but also within the industrial working class itself. The differentiation of earnings between higher-paid and lower-paid workers declined substantially between 1914 and 1928. This was the result of deliberate policy".
This may be true but since industrial workers were only a minority of the population then, movements in inequality within this section of the population will only have had a minor effect on overall social equality.


Yet you'd have us believe that the abandonment of wage equalisation, plus the introduction of piece rates and abolition of the partmaksimum, actually reduced social inequality? That's pretty silly
Well that is what tables 9 and 10 of van Zanden et al tell us.
Table 10 gives the weighted average gini coefficient for the Eastern Europe region falling from 40 in 1929 to 35 in 1950. Old Bolshie wants to claim that this fall was entirely due to improvements in equality in East Europe excluding the USSR. As I have pointed out several times, his hypothesis requires there to have been an extreme fall in the GINI coefficients of all countries other than the USSR well beyond the plausible range that has been observed historically. My claim is that it was the improvement in equality in the USSR that brought the weighted average GINI down for the whole region. I have now noticed that Table 9 gives the unweighted average for eastern Europe, which fell only from 39.6 to 37.7. If your and old Bolshie's hypothesis was correct, ie that the fall in inequality was due to falls in the Balkans, Hungary, Poland and Czechslovakia, then the unweighted average would have fallen more than the weighed average - within which the USSR played a much bigger role. Since it did not then your and Old Bolshie's hypothesis is clearly wrong, and most of the fall in inequality was due to the USSR becoming more equal during the Stalin period.

Old Bolshie notes that van Zanden et al cite Bergson as one of their sources. Well they cite many sources, over 70, including Robert Allen incidentally, though not on the USSR. Can Om say where Davies and Wheatcroft have published criticisms of Allen's figures on Soviet real wages?

To return to some of the other points raised by Old Bolshie.

Of course there were commodities in the USSR. Consumer goods were in large part distributed as commodities. This was inevitable given the survival of an element of private peasant agriculture and of cooperatives in agriculture. The question is not whether there were commodities but whether there was generalised commodity production, and whether there was capital and all the features of capitalism.

You are right that the payment of differential rates to skilled labour occured. This was done to incentivise people to train themselves - often at night school, to obtain the technical skills necessary for a rapidly industrialising economy.
Skilled labour does represent, in Marxist theory, a multiple of unskilled labour because of the stored up labour of training - labour done both by the trainee and the trainers. It therefore should be costed by the units of production as more than unskilled labour. But it does not follow that in the long run this skilled labour has to be paid more.
Once a socialist economy has industrialised this training process can be handled by the education system with people getting paid whilst they are students. At this point it is no longer necessary to pay people more to compensate for the time they spent in training. It would however be necessary to charge the projects that the skilled people were working on more for using skilled than unskilled labour otherwise there would be a waste of skilled labour.

It is pretty clear that a whole set of features of capitalism did not exist.

1. There was no class of capitalists, and no property income.

2. The means of production did not take the form of capital - they were allocated as grants to the units of production. There was no interest charged on it.

3. Private landownership did not exist, and the state did not charge rent on land.

4. There was no unemployment. Unemployment and a reserve army of labour are essential to maintaining capitalist exploitation. It was the absence of the need to exploit labour power for a profit that allowed the socialist economy to operate without unemployment.

5. Production was not regulated by the market but by the plan. This is a non capitalist institution.

[Old Bolshie]

Well that is what tables 9 and 10 of van Zanden et al tell us.
Table 10 gives the weighted average gini coefficient for the Eastern Europe region falling from 40 in 1929 to 35 in 1950. Old Bolshie wants to claim that this fall was entirely due to improvements in equality in East Europe excluding the USSR. As I have pointed out several times, his hypothesis requires there to have been an extreme fall in the GINI coefficients of all countries other than the USSR well beyond the plausible range that has been observed historically. My claim is that it was the improvement in equality in the USSR that brought the weighted average GINI down for the whole region. I have now noticed that Table 9 gives the unweighted average for eastern Europe, which fell only from 39.6 to 37.7. If your and old Bolshie's hypothesis was correct, ie that the fall in inequality was due to falls in the Balkans, Hungary, Poland and Czechslovakia, then the unweighted average would have fallen more than the weighed average - within which the USSR played a much bigger role. Since it did not then your and Old Bolshie's hypothesis is clearly wrong, and most of the fall in inequality was due to the USSR becoming more equal during the Stalin period.


And if your hypothesis was right I am sure that you would find something to back it up. So far I presented already FOUR different sources from economists and academics pointing for the same conclusion: inequality rose in Stalin's years. You have presented none so far to contradict my sources. And none of those sources is partial in its analysis regarding USSR since they all recognize the equalization period during the first years of USSR's existence. Now ComradeOM presents a new source regarding the NEP period.

I also don't understand why you keep insisting that inequalities must have been much higher in other Eastern Countries than in USSR when Stalin specifically attacked egalitarian policies in a violent manner (even calling egalitarians accomplices of the enemy classes), discarded the equalization of wages and strongly pushed for the differentiation of income.

Again, I don't have information to say if inequalities were higher in USSR when compared to other Eastern Countries or not but saying something with 100% sure without statistics available for that period just because there was right-wing governments is wrong, specially if you consider Stalin's speech about egalitarianism.


Of course there were commodities in the USSR. Consumer goods were in large part distributed as commodities. This was inevitable given the survival of an element of private peasant agriculture and of cooperatives in agriculture. The question is not whether there were commodities but whether there was generalised commodity production, and whether there was capital and all the features of capitalism.

Stalin refers specifically that commodity production was retained by the USSR in the quote that I provided in my previous post. And the capital was also there too.



You are right that the payment of differential rates to skilled labour occured. This was done to incentivise people to train themselves - often at night school, to obtain the technical skills necessary for a rapidly industrialising economy.
Skilled labour does represent, in Marxist theory, a multiple of unskilled labour because of the stored up labour of training - labour done both by the trainee and the trainers. It therefore should be costed by the units of production as more than unskilled labour. But it does not follow that in the long run this skilled labour has to be paid more.
Once a socialist economy has industrialised this training process can be handled by the education system with people getting paid whilst they are students. At this point it is no longer necessary to pay people more to compensate for the time they spent in training. It would however be necessary to charge the projects that the skilled people were working on more for using skilled than unskilled labour otherwise there would be a waste of skilled labour.

Skilled labor receiving higher income than unskilled labor is something that one can perfectly understand. The problem with Stalin's system is that the differentiation between wages was too much excessive.


It is pretty clear that a whole set of features of capitalism did not exist.

1. There was no class of capitalists, and no property income.

2. The means of production did not take the form of capital - they were allocated as grants to the units of production. There was no interest charged on it.

3. Private landownership did not exist, and the state did not charge rent on land.

4. There was no unemployment. Unemployment and a reserve army of labour are essential to maintaining capitalist exploitation. It was the absence of the need to exploit labour power for a profit that allowed the socialist economy to operate without unemployment.

5. Production was not regulated by the market but by the plan. This is a non capitalist institution.

You are confusing "features of capitalism" with "features of a market economy". Those features that you highlighted are typical of a market economy which the USSR obviously wasn't. However, capitalism doesn't resume to market economy. State Capitalism is just another form of capitalism with all the capitalist elements in it as I mentioned in my previous posts. There was still capital, wage labor, commodity of production, etc... Market economy and planned economy are two different sides of the same coin: capitalism.

[Paul Cockshott]

You are confusing "features of capitalism" with "features of a market economy". Those features that you highlighted are typical of a market economy which the USSR obviously wasn't. However, capitalism doesn't resume to market economy. State Capitalism is just another form of capitalism with all the capitalist elements in it as I mentioned in my previous posts. There was still capital, wage labor, commodity of production, etc... Market economy and planned economy are two different sides of the same coin: capitalism

This is a retrospective redefinition to suit your political prejudices. You will not find socialists as opposed to anarchists arguing this kind of thing prior to Kautsky inventing it in the 20s to justify the SPD's oppostion to the Soviet Union. It is ironic since all of these features were advocated by Kautsky himself in the Social Revolution, and were absolute orthodoxy in social democracy.

I am not denying the obvious, there was obviously commodity production in the USSR, but what is at issue is whether it was general and whether capital existed. You have no answer for my point that no interest was charged on productive assets, so how were they capital?

[Old Bolshie]

This is a retrospective redefinition to suit your political prejudices. You will not find socialists as opposed to anarchists arguing this kind of thing prior to Kautsky inventing it in the 20s to justify the SPD's oppostion to the Soviet Union. It is ironic since all of these features were advocated by Kautsky himself in the Social Revolution, and were absolute orthodoxy in social democracy.

Contrary to what you may think I am not criticizing or condemning the Soviet Union for having those capitalist features such as commodity of production. As someone who thinks that socialism in one country is impossible it's perfectly normal for me that USSR had those capitalist elements. I don't think that USSR or any other country could ever move beyond those limits as long as the capitalist mode of production isn't overthrown.


I am not denying the obvious, there was obviously commodity production in the USSR, but what is at issue is whether it was general and whether capital existed. You have no answer for my point that no interest was charged on productive assets, so how were they capital?

Once more I will resort to Stalin. Stalin himself recognized the existence of capital and capital accumulation in USSR:

"Inseparably connected with the first achievement of the Party is its second achievement. This second achievement of the Party consists in the fact that during the past year we have in the main successfully solved the problem of accumulation for capital construction in heavy industry, we have accelerated the development of the production of means of production and have created the prerequisites for transforming our country into a metal country...

The past year has shown that, in spite of the overt and covert financial blockade of the U.S.S.R., we did not sell ourselves into bondage to the capitalists, that by our own efforts we have successfully solved the problem of accumulation and laid the foundation for heavy industry...

Indeed, since, in the first place, capital investments in large-scale industry last year amounted to over 1,600,000,000 rubles, of which about 1,300,000,000 rubles were invested in heavy industry, while capital. investments in large-scale industry this year will amount to over 3,400,000,000 rubles, of which over 2,500,000,000 rubles will be invested in heavy industry; and since, in the second place, the gross output of large-scale industry last year showed an increase of 23 per cent, including a 30 per cent increase in the output of heavy industry, while the increase in the gross output of large-scale industry this year should be 32 per cent, including a 46 per cent increase in the output of heavy industry—is it not clear that the problem of accumulation for the building up of heavy industry no longer presents insuperable difficulties for us?

But from this it follows that, in spite of important achievements in the sphere of accumulation, which are of vital significance for heavy industry..."

J.V. Stalin, A Year of Great Change

[Paul Cockshott]

Contrary to what you may think I am not criticizing or condemning the Soviet Union for having those capitalist features such as commodity of production. As someone who thinks that socialism in one country is impossible it's perfectly normal for me that USSR had those capitalist elements. I don't think that USSR or any other country could ever move beyond those limits as long as the capitalist mode of production isn't overthrown.

why is the existence of commodity production capitalist, given that it has existed in slave economy, petty commodity economy, feudal economy?

what do you think is the distinguishing feature of socialism vis a vis capitalism?

what evidence do you have that your ideas on what the distinguishing features of socialism are, were ideas that were generally accepted by the socialist movement historically?





Once more I will resort to Stalin. Stalin himself recognized the existence of capital and capital accumulation in USSR:

"Inseparably connected with the first achievement of the Party is its second achievement. This second achievement of the Party consists in the fact that during the past year we have in the main successfully solved the problem of accumulation for capital construction in heavy industry, we have accelerated the development of the production of means of production and have created the prerequisites for transforming our country into a metal country...

The past year has shown that, in spite of the overt and covert financial blockade of the U.S.S.R., we did not sell ourselves into bondage to the capitalists, that by our own efforts we have successfully solved the problem of accumulation and laid the foundation for heavy industry...

Indeed, since, in the first place, capital investments in large-scale industry last year amounted to over 1,600,000,000 rubles, of which about 1,300,000,000 rubles were invested in heavy industry, while capital. investments in large-scale industry this year will amount to over 3,400,000,000 rubles, of which over 2,500,000,000 rubles will be invested in heavy industry; and since, in the second place, the gross output of large-scale industry last year showed an increase of 23 per cent, including a 30 per cent increase in the output of heavy industry, while the increase in the gross output of large-scale industry this year should be 32 per cent, including a 46 per cent increase in the output of heavy industry—is it not clear that the problem of accumulation for the building up of heavy industry no longer presents insuperable difficulties for us?

But from this it follows that, in spite of important achievements in the sphere of accumulation, which are of vital significance for heavy industry..."

J.V. Stalin, A Year of Great Change

Stalin was wrong here, he is using the term capital in the way bourgeois economists do, to refer to any means of production. If there are no self reproducing capitals which reproduce via the circuit mcm' then there are means of production but not capital.

[Old Bolshie]

why is the existence of commodity production capitalist, given that it has existed in slave economy, petty commodity economy, feudal economy?

what do you think is the distinguishing feature of socialism vis a vis capitalism?

what evidence do you have that your ideas on what the distinguishing features of socialism are, were ideas that were generally accepted by the socialist movement historically?

You are moving from your original claim very fast here. First you denied the existence of commodity production in USSR, then you admitted solely the existence of commodities in USSR and now you admit the existence of commodity production in USSR but you rise another question: why commodity production is purely capitalist?

Commodity production existed in slave economy. Was USSR a slave economy? No.

Commodity production existed in feudal economy. Was USSR a feudal economy? No.

Does socialism produces commodities? No.

This narrows it down to capitalism.

Commodity production did exist in other modes of production but wasn't generalized as it is in capitalism. So what makes it capitalist is its generalization and wage labor.


Stalin was wrong here, he is using the term capital in the way bourgeois economists do, to refer to any means of production. If there are no self reproducing capitals which reproduce via the circuit mcm' then there are means of production but not capital.So Stalin is wrong, multiple economists and experts are wrong and you are the only person illuminated here. Yes there was capital in Soviet Union as it's obvious and Stalin himself admitted.

[Paul Cockshott]

How do you know that socialism does not produce commodities?
What is your evidence?

So Stalin is wrong, multiple economists and experts are wrong and you are the only person illuminated here. Yes there was capital in Soviet Union as it's obvious and Stalin himself admitted.
Later in Economic Problems of Socialism he recognised that the use of capitalist economic terminology like this was a mistake. My point distinguishing between capital - a social relation - and means of production isnot original, it is a standard part of the criticism of bourgeois economics by marxist economists.

Note also that in the passages you cite Stalin means by accumulation the build up of physical means of production, this build up of use values was the objective. For a capitalist the objective is the accumulation of monetary value whether these be instruments of debt, commodities or shares. As a side effect this accumulation of monetary value can lead to the accumulation of real means of production, but this is not the objective and it is not what always happens, as every financial crisis shows. Because the objectives of a socialist economy are defined by the plan in terms of a mix of use values, and fullfillment of these serves as the objective function, not the maximisation of profit - you simply do not get in socialist economies the sort of financial crises which periodically disrupt capitalist ones.

I have never denied the existence of commodity production in the USSR. I have denied the existence of generalised commodity prodution.

[ComradeOm]

This may be true but since industrial workers were only a minority of the population then, movements in inequality within this section of the population will only have had a minor effect on overall social equalityThat makes sense. I suppose that the collapse of the peasantry into mass starvation and famine would have completely off-set the fall of the working class living standards. Oh wait...


Well that is what tables 9 and 10 of van Zanden et al tell us.
Table 10 gives the weighted average gini coefficient for the Eastern Europe region falling from 40 in 1929 to 35 in 1950I'm sorry but at what point did an estimated aggregate for 'Eastern Europe' trump... well, everything else? Unless you're going to suggest that the complete collapse in Soviet living conditions under Stalin was somehow a good thing in that everyone was equal in poverty?


Can Om say where Davies and Wheatcroft have published criticisms of Allen's figures on Soviet real wages?Funnily enough, 'Om' can indeed point to Wheatcroft's Russian and Soviet Living Standards: Secular growth and Conjunctural Crises. As a bonus, 'Paul' can also have Ellman's Soviet Industrialization: A Remarkable Success?

[TheEmancipator]

Well actually, the Great Depression was caused directly and intentionally by the Federal Reserve. The corrupt banking cartel intentionally did starve those people.

Now, what the hell is your point? It's like I'm not allowed to criticize the USSR without someone pointing out a capitalist atrocity as if I'm not aware of that. You think I don't hate capitalism? I'm posting on a leftist forum for godsake.

Don't you know, anybody who isn't a Marxist-Leninist here is a counter-revolutionary bourgeois proto-fascist and agent of capital. It's one of the wonderful aspects of their ideology - if you don't adhere to their set of beliefs and analysis, brought to you exclusively by "The Party", you no longer exist!

http://t.qkme.me/3v8igr.jpg

[RedMaterialist]

The appeal of Stalin? He saved the Russian people from the bestiality of Hitler, forced Russia into the gigantic industrialism of the 20th century, saved the Russian working class from starvation by appropriating the land of the Kulaks and eliminating them as a class. He was a dictator of the proletarian class.

He was no utopian, no idealist; he was a vulgarian Marxist; he also prevented Eastern Europe from reorganizing into a fascist, anti-communist threat to the SU. He also, by building the hydrogen bomb, made sure the U.S. would not attack the SU. Oddly enough, in the same month as Stalin's death, the great Russian reactionary, Solzhenitsyn, was released from prison.

[TheEmancipator]

The appeal of Stalin? He saved the Russian people from the bestiality of Hitler, forced Russia into the gigantic industrialism of the 20th century,

And you think Stalin is responsible for this. And here was I thinking Marxists didn't attribute historical change to individuals.:(

Firstly, any kind of German aggression would have been countered by any kind of regime in Russia, because ultimately the Russian people leading up to 1917 were still heavily nationalist even if they wanted peace more than anything. Do you honestly think if the Tsar had stayed on or if the liberals had taken over they wouldn't have sent millions of conscripts to fight Nazism.

No wiat, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the Brest-Livostsk pact, not the Germano-Soviet pact, and just ruined Germany senseless enough for them to never pose a threat to Western Europe, and they certainly wouldn't have left Hitler to do his thing knowing that Germany prime geopolitical enemy for the past few years had been...Russia!


Secondly, if you think Lenin and Stalin were the only ones prepared to industrialise Russia then you are mistaken. Most of the Populist Revolutionary movements in Russia were keen on industrialization. Even the Tsar was starting to employ the services of industrials from France, etc.

Had we had a bourgeois liberal revolution, as history had planned, Russia would've been as industrialised and as patriotic enough as possible to counter Hitler. I am not saying that this is a better alternative than the Bolsheviks, but what it does mean is that your arguments are totally void.


saved the Russian working class from starvation by appropriating the land of the Kulaks and eliminating them as a class.

By replacing them with just a series of new Kulaks, only this time it was "The People's Kulaks" ie "party members" loyal to his regime.

Have you read Victor Serge?



He was a dictator of the proletarian class.

But a not a member of the proleteriat.



He was no utopian, no idealist; he was a vulgarian Marxist;

:lol:


he also prevented Eastern Europe from reorganizing into a fascist, anti-communist threat to the SU.

What nonsense. Eastern Europe under Nazi agression was also liberated by Communist Partizans from their own countries, not just Stalin. Hence why Tito came to power in Yugoslavia, for example, and didn't want to bend over backwards to social imperialists like Stalin. Same for Hungary, Czechoslovakia both of whose main opposition to Stalin were left wing) Only Poland held an anti-communist view, and that is largely Stalin's fault for his actions there. Still, their resistance also came in the form of worker unions.



He also, by building the hydrogen bomb, made sure the U.S. would not attack the SU.

Again, why do you think Stalin is personally responsible for this? Do you not think any old Soviet leader would've gone ahead and done this.

Stalin was not this indispensable saviour of WW2 and preventor of the Cold War. He was a power hungry megalomaniac.


Oddly enough, in the same month as Stalin's death, the great Russian reactionary, Solzhenitsyn, was released from prison.

What has this got to do with anything? Another attack on post-Stalin leaders? That is the very definition of the Stalinist strawman.

[Paul Cockshott]

That makes sense. I suppose that the collapse of the peasantry into mass starvation and famine would have completely off-set the fall of the working class living standards. Oh wait...

The transformation of a peasant population into an industrial population is what
produced the equalisation effect.


I'm sorry but at what point did an estimated aggregate for 'Eastern Europe' trump... well, everything else? Unless you're going to suggest that the complete collapse in Soviet living conditions under Stalin was somehow a good thing in that everyone was equal in poverty?

1. Because it is the only GINI time series produced in the debate so far, you and old Bolshie have produced no contrary evidence on overall social equality. Do the articles you cite below have GINI time series for the USSR/
if so can you transcribe the tables for us.

2. Because there was not an overall fall in Soviet living conditions but a rise according to the sources available to me so far.



Funnily enough, 'Om' can indeed point to Wheatcroft's Russian and Soviet Living Standards: Secular growth and Conjunctural Crises. As a bonus, 'Paul' can also have Ellman's Soviet Industrialization: A Remarkable Success?

I will see if I can download a copy of either of these.

[Old Bolshie]

How do you know that socialism does not produce commodities?
What is your evidence?

My evidence is that if socialism produce commodities then it's not socialism but something else.


Later in Economic Problems of Socialism he recognised that the use of capitalist economic terminology like this was a mistake. My point distinguishing between capital - a social relation - and means of production isnot original, it is a standard part of the criticism of bourgeois economics by marxist economists.

If you call capital with another word it stops being capital???


Note also that in the passages you cite Stalin means by accumulation the build up of physical means of production, this build up of use values was the objective. For a capitalist the objective is the accumulation of monetary value whether these be instruments of debt, commodities or shares. As a side effect this accumulation of monetary value can lead to the accumulation of real means of production, but this is not the objective and it is not what always happens, as every financial crisis shows. Because the objectives of a socialist economy are defined by the plan in terms of a mix of use values, and fullfillment of these serves as the objective function, not the maximisation of profit - you simply do not get in socialist economies the sort of financial crises which periodically disrupt capitalist ones.

No, he means accumulation for capital investment. This is very clear in the quotes which I provided you and even highlighted the terms.

[Paul Cockshott]

I have read Wheatcrofts paper, the other one is behind a paywall. Wheatcroft is overall sympathetic to Allen, and his graph on page 14 showing a rise in percapita calorie consumption from 1933 to just before the war is almost identical in shape to that I cited from Allen showing a rise in overall consumer goods consumption over the same period. Wheatcroft provides no data on changes in social equality, so I dont see that this paper undermines any of the points that I have been making.
I note that Wheatcroft attributes the food shortages of the early 30s primarily to climatic conditions along with a failure to build up sufficient grain reserves to ward off possible future crises:

A single good harvest year of 1930 was not used to
advantage to restore grain reserves, and was used to impose Collectivization on
the population. A serious drought in 1931 again shifted the centre of the famine to
the rural areas. Unlike the drought of 1921/22, the drought of 1931/32 was
followed by yet another harvest failure, and it is this additional year 1932/33 that
accounts for the extremely high mortality of this famine. Epidemic illness was not
particularly high.

[Paul Cockshott]

My evidence is that if socialism produce commodities then it's not socialism but something else.

That is not evidence that is just a statement of belief on your part flying in the face of evidence. You are not putting forward a scientific hypothesis here as you are formulating it in such a way that it becomes in principle unfalsifiable.

It is as if I asked someone what evidence he had for a hypothesis that mammals are viviparous, and he simply said that that was the definition of a mammal and that anything that was not viviparous was not a mammal.

In fact it is worse, since the 18th century biologists who took this view at least had hundreds of empirical viviparous mammals to go on. You have not a single non commodity producing socialism to base your theory on. Whereas all socialist societies so far have produced commodities.

[Old Bolshie]

That is not evidence that is just a statement of belief on your part flying in the face of evidence. You are not putting forward a scientific hypothesis here as you are formulating it in such a way that it becomes in principle unfalsifiable.

It is as if I asked someone what evidence he had for a hypothesis that mammals are viviparous, and he simply said that that was the definition of a mammal and that anything that was not viviparous was not a mammal.

In fact it is worse, since the 18th century biologists who took this view at least had hundreds of empirical viviparous mammals to go . You have not a single non commodity producing socialism to base your thoneory on. Whereas all socialist societies so far have produced commodities.

First off, there hasn't been any socialist society so far.

Secondly, my position coincides with Marx, Engels and Lenin's positions on the matter as the three denied the existence of commodities under Socialism.

Thirdly, if in a post-capitalist economy it still exist commodity production then it's not socialism but any other mode of production.

[ComradeOm]

1. Because it is the only GINI time series produced in the debate so far, you and old Bolshie have produced no contrary evidence on overall social equality. Do the articles you cite below have GINI time series for the USSR/if so can you transcribe the tables for us.I'm not really why you're harping on about that. You're taking a single aggregate indicator for an entire region, from a single paper, that's contradicted by actual historians in the field and you're treating it like gospel. Are you just desperately clinging to a single figure that supports your argument or do you genuinely think that the only way to express social inequality is via a single comparative indicator?


2. Because there was not an overall fall in Soviet living conditions but a rise according to the sources available to me so far.I wouldn't take pride in ignorance. I've pointed out numerous authors above who disagree with that claim and I've provided papers that criticise the one author who does happen to agree with you. Real wages fell, consumption fell, housing conditions worsened, etc. There's not a huge amount to say on this other than that you're wrong and need to do some reading


I have read Wheatcrofts paper, the other one is behind a paywall. Wheatcroft is overall sympathetic to Allen, and his graph on page 14 showing a rise in percapita calorie consumption from 1933 to just before the war is almost identical in shape to that I cited from Allen showing a rise in overall consumer goods consumption over the same period. Wheatcroft provides no data on changes in social equality, so I dont see that this paper undermines any of the points that I have been making.Perhaps you missed the bit where Wheatcroft explicitly takes issue with Allen's numbers and effectively rubbishes them?

But then it's possible that you only skimmed the pictures. I say this not just because the curves are not "almost identical in shape" (Allen's being much lower during the pre-revolution period and spiking in the late 1930s... a time of near-famine throughout the USSR). Rather because you've clearly ignored the first half of the graph in order to fit your argument. Yes, consumption increased from the mid-1930s after crashing circa 1930 and never reaching late NEP levels. To use this as evidence of rising living standards under Stalin is perverse

(Incidentally, from the version of that paper presented to conference in 2006: "I do disagree with a few points, especially his claim that by the late 1930s, living standards and per capita consumption in the USSR were significantly higher than they had been in the 1920")

[Delenda Carthago]

This.

MGfA-w6x9i4



I come from a country that without what you call "stalinism", as it is a curse, without the presence of the Communist Party, who has offer to this shithole that we call "homeland" thousands and thousands of dead freedom fighters, thousands exiled, thousands wounded, there would be nothing but fascist dictatorships, petit bourgeois "democratic parties" based on the client relationships they built with their voters and left wing excuses for the system of expoitation.

95 years now, that thing that you call "stalinism" keeps whats left from Greece's dignity.
So fuck yeah "Stalinism".

[D-A-C]

I come from a country that without what you call "stalinism", as it is a curse, without the presence of the Communist Party, who has offer to this shithole that we call "homeland" thousands and thousands of dead freedom fighters, thousands exiled, thousands wounded, there would be nothing but fascist dictatorships, petit bourgeois "democratic parties" based on the client relationships they built with their voters and left wing excuses for the system of expoitation.

95 years now, that thing that you call "stalinism" keeps whats left from Greece's dignity.
So fuck yeah "Stalinism".

You do know that Stalin played a crucial role in sabotaging the Greek Communist Party's efforts at revolution during the 1946-49 period of the civil war?

There is the alleged 'percentage agreement' with Churchill over Soviet/Allied Post-War Sphere's of influence, when Stalin allegedly promised not to intervene and support revolution in the country.

Also, the split with Tito, meant that when the Greeks sided with Stalin, Tito closed the borders of Yugoslavia to Communist militants with helped secure their defeat at the hands of the British/American backed right-wing Monarchist forces.

My history of the subject isn't the best, so I apologize if I'm mistaken. But I wouldn't be thanking Stalin for much in Greece.


As for Stalinism, the term itself is often confusing and is incredibly problematic due to its connotation as a form of slander amongst comrades on the Left and as a term designating 'dictatorship', 'purges', 'gulags', 'totalitarianism' etc on the Right.

Personally I think there are two types of approaches to Stalin:

1. Those of us who simply accept that he was leader of the USSR from roughly 1927-1953 and attempt to discern from his helmsmanship of the country during this period positive and negative lessons for future attempts at the construction of Socialism.

2. Those who believe there is a working and theoretically functional set of doctrines that constitute enough of a break with Marxist-Leninism to warrant the creation of a subset of a 'Stalinist-deviation' or 'Stalinism' within Marxist theory.

If a comrade wants to admire some or all of the percieved historical successes of Stalin (industrialisation, defeat of Nazism, expansion of Socialism etc) then that's fine with me as long as they acknowledge his faults and what he got wrong as well.

If a comrade wants to argue for Stalinism as a theory, that's fine with me as well, but in that case they will be subject to criticism from competing interpretations and theories, and must be prepared to defend themselves theoretically to cross examination from opposing perspectives.

Who care's if a comrade is a Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist etc?

Sure when it comes to the implentation of tactics and strategies for political action this will cause problems, but why not simply let internal Party democracy take its course and if a plan of action is voted for that you disagree with, still give it your all, whilst simultaniously maintaining careful observations of the tactics weaknesses, so the next time there is a vote you can present a case for a new course due to the failings of the present one.

Marxists get so caught up with being, this or that type of Marxist, that I think we all tend to forget it would be much better to settle our differences in the highest chambers of political office of the country, than in a backroom somewhere country still at the mercy of capitalism.

I'd work with any comrade whether he found Stalin appealing or not. Can anyone provide a sound reason why that shouldn't be the case?

[Delenda Carthago]

You do know that Stalin played a crucial role in sabotaging the Greek Communist Party's efforts at revolution during the 1946-49 period of the civil war?

There is the alleged 'percentage agreement' with Churchill over Soviet/Allied Post-War Sphere's of influence, when Stalin allegedly promised not to intervene and support revolution in the country.

Also, the split with Tito, meant that when the Greeks sided with Stalin, Tito closed the borders of Yugoslavia to Communist militants with helped secure their defeat at the hands of the British/American backed right-wing Monarchist forces.

My history of the subject isn't the best, so I apologize if I'm mistaken. But I wouldn't be thanking Stalin for much in Greece.




The fact that greek communists, the ones that gave the struggle and fought and lost and died for it, are supporting Stalin nowdays, should give the answer I think.

Plus, I dont like to talk about Stalin himself, that is totaly antiscientific. I talk about USSR and the communist movement during periods and periods. Because even under the days of Stalin's leadership, there were many politics applied, and some times contradictory. Also, Stalin did not himself made the calls on everything. As a matter of fact his opinion was not the one that finally was choosen by CPSU, at least at the two most critical moments at CCCP history. So what "stalinism" to begin with?

I know that kinda messes the whole "evil cruel dictator" that many morons have, but thats their problem.

[Teacher]

I have read Wheatcrofts paper, the other one is behind a paywall.

Ellman's review of Allen has no substance. Ellman is a right-winger who believes Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasants. His criticisms do not undermine Allen's data at all and basically amount to "Okay, so the numbers say this, but what about all the murders Stalin did?!" He brings up anecdotes about shortages in the 1930s as if they completely undermine the fact that living standards still could have increased overall in the period. His approach is not scientific and his article is mostly an emotional screed against Allen for daring to suggest that the Soviet experience might have been positive in some ways.

ComradeOm does not like evidence unless it comports with his personal crusade against Marxism-Leninism.

[Delenda Carthago]

Speaking of the Devil(Stalin:crying:)

II
Organise Mass Criticism from Below

The second question concerns the task of combating bureaucracy, of organising mass criticism of our shortcomings, of organising mass control from below.
Bureaucracy is one of the worst enemies of our progress. It exists in all our organisations—Party, Y.C.L., trade-union and economic. When people talk of bureaucrats, they usually point to the old non-Party officials, who as a rule are depicted in our cartoons as men wearing spectacles. (Laughter.) That is not quite true, comrades. If it were only a question of the old bureaucrats, the fight against bureaucracy would be very easy. The trouble is that it is not a matter of the old bureaucrats. It is a matter of the new bureaucrats, bureaucrats who sympathise with the Soviet Government, and finally, communist bureaucrats. The communist bureaucrat is the most dangerous type of bureaucrat. Why? Because he masks his bureaucracy with the title of Party member. And, unfortunately, we have quite a number of such communist bureaucrats.
Take our Party organisations. You have no doubt read about the Smolensk affair, the Artyomovsk affair and so on. What do you think, were they matters of chance? What is the explanation of these shameful instances of corruption and moral deterioration in certain of our Party organisations? The fact that Party monopoly was carried to absurd lengths, that the voice of the rank and file was stifled, that inner-Party democracy was abolished and bureaucracy became rife. How is this evil to be combated? I think that there is not and cannot be any other way of combating this evil than by organising control from below by the Party masses, by implanting inner-Party democracy. What objection can there be to rousing the fury of the mass of the Party membership against these corrupt elements and giving it the opportunity to send such elements packing? There can hardly be any objection to that.
Or take the Young Communist League, for instance. You will not deny, of course, that here and there in the Young Communist League there are utterly corrupt elements against whom it is absolutely essential to wage a ruthless struggle. But let us leave aside the corrupt elements. Let us take the latest fact of an unprincipled struggle waged by groups within the Young Communist League around personalities, a struggle which is poisoning the atmosphere in the Young Communist League. Why is it that you can find as many "Kosarevites" and "Sobolevites" as you like in the Young Communist League, while Marxists have to be looked for with a candle? (Applause.) What does this indicate, if not that a process of bureaucratic petrification is taking place in certain sections of the Y.C.L. top leadership?
And the trade unions? Who will deny that in the trade unions there is bureaucracy in plenty? We have production conferences in the factories. We have temporary control commissions in the trade unions. It is the task of these organisations to rouse the masses, to bring our shortcomings to light and to indicate ways and means of improving our constructive work. Why are these organisations not developing? Why are they not seething with activity? Is it not obvious that it is bureaucracy in the trade unions, coupled with bureaucracy in the Party organisations, that is preventing these highly important organisations of the working class from developing?
Lastly, our economic organisations. Who will deny that our economic bodies suffer from bureaucracy? Take the Shakhty affair as an illustration. Does not the Shakhty affair indicate that our economic bodies are not speeding ahead, but crawling, dragging their feet?
How are we to put an end to bureaucracy in all these organisations?
There is only one sole way of doing this, and that is to organise control from below, to organise criticism of the bureaucracy in our institutions, of their shortcomings and their mistakes, by the vast masses of the working class.
I know that by rousing the fury of the masses of the working people against the bureaucratic distortions in our organisations, we sometimes have to tread on the toes of some of our comrades who have past services to their credit, but who are now suffering from the disease of bureaucracy. But ought this to stop our work of organising control from below? I think that it ought not and must not. For their past services we should take off our hats to them, but for their present blunders and bureaucracy it would be quite in order to give them a good drubbing. (Laughter and applause.) How else? Why not do this if the interests of the work demand it?
There is talk of criticism from above, criticism by the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, by the Central Committee of our Party and so on. That, of course, is all very good. But it is still far from enough. More, it is by no means the chief thing now. The chief thing now is to start a broad tide of criticism from below against bureaucracy in general, against shortcomings in our work in particular. Only by organising twofold pressure —from above and from below—and only by shifting the principal stress to criticism from below, can we count on waging a successful struggle against bureaucracy and on rooting it out.
It would be a mistake to think that only the leaders possess experience in constructive work. That is not true, comrades. The vast masses of the workers who are engaged in building our industry are day by day accumulating vast experience in construction, experience which is not a whit less valuable to us than the experience of the leaders. Mass criticism from below, control from below, is needed by us in order that, among other things, this experience of the vast masses should not be wasted, but be reckoned with and translated into practice.
From this follows the immediate task of the Party: to wage a ruthless struggle against bureaucracy, to organise mass criticism from below, and to take this criticism into account when adopting practical decisions for eliminating our shortcomings.
It cannot be said that the Young Communist League, and especially Komsomolskaya Pravda, have not appreciated the importance of this task. The shortcoming here is that often the fulfilment of this task is not carried out completely. And in order to carry it out completely, it is necessary to give heed not only to criticism, but also to the results of criticism, to the improvements that are introduced as a result of criticism.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1928/05/16.htm


Oh, that evil dictator...

[Ace High]

Ok let's say Stalin did do a good job and that he was a true Marxist, whatever.

I still don't understand the emotional attachment many people have with him. It's almost like an obsession. It's ironically as if his extensive personality cult was so thorough that today, in 2013, you have this generation glorifying him just because he was supposed to be "on the left". If you read much by actual modern-day communists, they don't have alot of good things to say about Stalin because they recognize that he did not really hold Marxist ideals. You cannot defend a man who killed off more of the proletariat than most anti-communists! That is just absurd.

[ComradeOm]

Ellman's review of Allen has no substance. Ellman is a right-winger who believes Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasants....

ComradeOm does not like evidence unless it comports with his personal crusade against Marxism-LeninismPlaying the man, check.


His criticisms do not undermine Allen's data at all...Perhaps you missed the paragraphs that Ellman spends doing just that. The approach is less direct than that of Wheatcroft but he still puts his finger of the key point, asking if "Allen's conclusion simply indicates that his calculations of the calories available before 1914 are not comparable with the data for the Soviet period". He goes on to point raise issues with the methodologies and point out conflicts with other work in the field


He brings up anecdotes about shortages in the 1930s as if they completely undermine the fact that living standards still could have increased overall in the period.Do you want to explain to me how living standards in 1936-37 could be approaching those of the decade previously when those later years were marked by near-famine and mass shortages? There is ample evidence, both archival and statistical, that 1936-37 were years of extreme hardship; hence raised eyebrows when Allen's calculations claim otherwise

[Delenda Carthago]

Ok let's say Stalin did do a good job and that he was a true Marxist, whatever.

I still don't understand the emotional attachment many people have with him. It's almost like an obsession. It's ironically as if his extensive personality cult was so thorough that today, in 2013, you have this generation glorifying him just because he was supposed to be "on the left". If you read much by actual modern-day communists, they don't have alot of good things to say about Stalin because they recognize that he did not really hold Marxist ideals. You cannot defend a man who killed off more of the proletariat than most anti-communists! That is just absurd.
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/13459893/Slavoj+Zizek+zizek+bed.jpg

Actual modern day communist.


I vomit on 99% of "actual modern-day communists".

[Geiseric]

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/13459893/Slavoj+Zizek+zizek+bed.jpg

Actual modern day communist.


I vomit on 99% of "actual modern-day communists".

He's not an actual modern day communist. I don't know why you'd think that since he's at most a left intellectual.

[Nevsky]

Ok let's say Stalin did do a good job and that he was a true Marxist, whatever.

I still don't understand the emotional attachment many people have with him. It's almost like an obsession. It's ironically as if his extensive personality cult was so thorough that today, in 2013, you have this generation glorifying him just because he was supposed to be "on the left". If you read much by actual modern-day communists, they don't have alot of good things to say about Stalin because they recognize that he did not really hold Marxist ideals. You cannot defend a man who killed off more of the proletariat than most anti-communists! That is just absurd.

Why should a man who doesn't really hold marxist ideals, who only cares for his personal power waste his time on writing numerous articles and books about marxist theory? Stalin caused more harm to the proletariat than Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Suharto, Pinochet and so on? Absolutely not. As our greek comrade pointed out, the sheer presence of Stalin as figurehead of communism inspired countless worker struggles throughout the world.

[TheEmancipator]

He's not an actual modern day communist. I don't know why you'd think that since he's at most a left intellectual.

If Zizek isn't the epitome of a modern day communist, whether you like it or not, then I don't know who is?

[Delenda Carthago]

He's not an actual modern day communist. I don't know why you'd think that since he's at most a left intellectual.
Actually I dont consider him anything more than a clown, best case scenario. Thats what I m sayin. "Modern day communists", as an intelexual regime, is consisted by arm-chair, sell out clowns. I dont have much respect for an intelexual, I give more basis on the analyses of organisations and parties.


PS. There are still very interesting people to search for. Sergio Bologna, Kurt Gossweiler, even some of Badiou works and few others. But they are exceptions, not the rule.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Why should a man who doesn't really hold marxist ideals, who only cares for his personal power waste his time on writing numerous articles and books about marxist theory? Stalin caused more harm to the proletariat than Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Suharto, Pinochet and so on? Absolutely not. As our greek comrade pointed out, the sheer presence of Stalin as figurehead of communism inspired countless worker struggles throughout the world.

It is true, Stalin is a gigantic figure of communism. However, Stalin was the leader of a State, the USSR. This State had tactical interests which at times, in order to strengthen the continued existence of this socialist state, conflicted with the independent interests of the international Proletariat.

Looking at it now, Stalin and the USSR were a blip in history. They existed and did everything to keep the Communist path of progress in power, and failed. In the end the material conditions of the USSR (and the rest of 20th century socialist states) had simply not advanced enough yet to enhance democratic Proletarian rule and advance to communism. We in the west now have the conditions of a majority proletarian population to organize into a Party.

In comparison to what Stalin and the 20th century Communists did, we have to realize that we have much greater tasks which we as individuals and organizationally need to grow to: that is, to make sure that western bourgeois democracy will be replaced by democratic proletarian Party rule.

[Darius]

This.
I come from a country that without what you call "stalinism", as it is a curse, without the presence of the Communist Party, who has offer to this shithole that we call "homeland" thousands and thousands of dead freedom fighters, thousands exiled, thousands wounded, there would be nothing but fascist dictatorships, petit bourgeois "democratic parties" based on the client relationships they built with their voters and left wing excuses for the system of expoitation.

So you want to say what you now live in communism or something? :D Because you're country IS ruled by "petit bourgeois" (stupid term.) parties, and fascists as i see are on the rise in your country. And KKE is changing nothing.


95 years now, that thing that you call "stalinism" keeps whats left from Greece's dignity.

As i mentioned before, Stalinism or sympathy for Stalinist politics is only possible in distant countries from the actual stalinist practices, and your post proves it. Just because your grandparents etc. there misguided by that day situations and fought for USSR propaganda, does not mean what marxism-leninism approach is right. It's pure metaphysics, and apologetics on your side. You'll hardly find any useful today applicable, Lenin-Stalin line theories or practices, most of it is pure dictatorial solutions for backward half-feudal countries, or just propaganda really. So whats left is only sympathy for Stalin fetish, Stalin icon, religious sentiments.

[Karlorax]

Too many people evaluate Stalin outside his historical context. Stalin was a man of his times. The Soviet Union was facing hard times. They had just come out of one world war and had another one right around the corner where they'd lose 27 million people. They had to industrialize or be destroyed in another world war. Stalin made the hard choice to go forward with modernization at a breakneck pace. That implied a lot of social disruption and a police state. However, had he not pushed the way he did, the Soviet Union would have probably lost world War 2. The Nazis would have probably won. Stalin was a hard guy for bad times, but sometimes you need a tough guy.

[Delenda Carthago]

So you want to say what you now live in communism or something? :D Because you're country IS ruled by "petit bourgeois" (stupid term.) parties, and fascists as i see are on the rise in your country. And KKE is changing nothing.



As i mentioned before, Stalinism or sympathy for Stalinist politics is only possible in distant countries from the actual stalinist practices, and your post proves it. Just because your grandparents etc. there misguided by that day situations and fought for USSR propaganda, does not mean what marxism-leninism approach is right. It's pure metaphysics, and apologetics on your side. You'll hardly find any useful today applicable, Lenin-Stalin line theories or practices, most of it is pure dictatorial solutions for backward half-feudal countries, or just propaganda really. So whats left is only sympathy for Stalin fetish, Stalin icon, religious sentiments.
So you are accusing m-l for not winning the war? OK. I suppose you know a way that we can do it better, right? I am listening.

[Paul Cockshott]

First off, there hasn't been any socialist society so far.

Secondly, my position coincides with Marx, Engels and Lenin's positions on the matter as the three denied the existence of commodities under Socialism.

Thirdly, if in a post-capitalist economy it still exist commodity production then it's not socialism but any other mode of production.

Again even if the holy trinity said it... Which they did not, how would you know that they were right. They had never seen a socialist economy so they might have been wrong.

[Paul Cockshott]

Wheatcrofts graph starts in early 30s

[Paul Cockshott]

Also Allen also says wages felll but the average consumption rose because alotmore people were in payed employment. You keep focussing omn wages not consumption level of whole population Allens long term data on agricultural yields are credible because of his detailed cross comparisions with contemporary Canadian yields.

[Comrade Jacob]

Many people make the mistake that "Stalinists" are impractically fans of Stalin, being a Stalinist just means supporting the idea of socialism in one country over the trotskyist idea of permanent revolution which Stalinists say is reactionary and revisionist against Marxist-Leninism.
Stalinism =/= oppression (another mistake by trotskyists)
Stalin on the other hand could be argued to have been somewhat oppressive.
I am a Stalinist because I support the idea of socialism in one country and not permanent revolution.
If you don't like Stalin you can still like socialism in one country (Stalinism), it is called separating the message from the messenger.

[Old Bolshie]

Again even if the holy trinity said it... Which they did not, how would you know that they were right. They had never seen a socialist economy so they might have been wrong.

“The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer.”

F. Engels

"As for exchange relations, Lenin (1962:151, 1963a:121) excludes commodity production (and money) from socialism. The end of capitalism would signify the suppression of commodity production."

The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics


They had never seen a socialist economy neither you nor me because it never existed but socialism as it's conceived by Marxists and anarchists doesn't have commodities.

[Paul Cockshott]

“The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer.”

F. Engels

"As for exchange relations, Lenin (1962:151, 1963a:121) excludes commodity production (and money) from socialism. The end of capitalism would signify the suppression of commodity production."

The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics


They had never seen a socialist economy neither you nor me because it never existed but socialism as it's conceived by Marxists and anarchists doesn't have commodities.Well you have the problem that not all Marxists agree on this. We now know that Engels hypothesiswas wrong. History has shown that taking over the means of production is not enough to suppress commodiry production.
Lenin of course famously claimed that socialism was no more than state capitalism under the control of the workers state. He did not make the absence of commodity production a defining feature. The key feature is the expropriation of the capitalists. socialism is a precondition for but not a sufficient condition for eliminating commodity production.

[Old Bolshie]

Well you have the problem that not all Marxists agree on this. We now know that Engels hypothesiswas wrong. History has shown that taking over the means of production is not enough to suppress commodiry production.

Why he was wrong? Because of the soviet experience? Stalin answers you once again:

"Let us examine Engels' formula. Engels' formula cannot be considered fully clear and precise, because it does not indicate whether it is referring to the seizure by society of all or only part of the means of production, that is, whether all or only part of the means of production are converted into public property. Hence, this formula of Engels' may be understood either way.


Elsewhere in Anti-Duhring Engels speaks of mastering "all the means of production," of taking possession of "all means of production." Hence, in this formula Engels has in mind the nationalization not of part, but of all the means of production, that is, the conversion into public property of the means of production not only of industry, but also of agriculture.
It follows from this that Engels has in mind countries where capitalism and the concentration of production have advanced far enough both in industry and in agriculture to permit the expropriation of all the means of production in the country and their conversion into public property. Engels, consequently, considers that in such countries, parallel with the socialization of all the means of production, commodity production should be put an end to. And that, of course, is correct.


There was only one such country at the close of the last century, when Anti-Duhring was published - Britain. There the development of capitalism and the concentration of production both in industry and in agriculture had reached such a point that it would have been possible, in the event of the assumption of power by the proletariat, to convert all the country's means of production into public property and to put an end to commodity production.


I leave aside in this instance the question of the importance of foreign trade to Britain and the vast part it plays in her national economy. I think that only after an investigation of this question can it be finally decided what would be the future of commodity production in Britain after the proletariat had assumed power and all the means of production had been nationalized.


However, not only at the close of the last century, but today too, no country has attained such a degree of development of capitalism and concentration of production in agriculture as is to be observed in Britain. As to the other countries, notwithstanding the development of capitalism in the countryside, they still have a fairly numerous class of small and medium rural owner-producers, whose future would have to be decided if the proletariat should assume power.


But here is a question: what are the proletariat and its party to do in countries, ours being a case in point, where the conditions arc favourable for the assumption of power by the proletariat and the overthrow of capitalism, where capitalism has so concentrated the means of production in industry that they may be expropriated and made the property of society, but where agriculture, notwithstanding the growth of capitalism, is divided up among numerous small and medium owner-producers to such an extent as to make it impossible to consider the expropriation of these producers?"

So, Stalin acknowledges that in USSR not all the means of production were socialized and therefore argues for the existence of commodity of production in USSR. He also recognizes the validity of Engels quote.


Lenin of course famously claimed that socialism was no more than state capitalism under the control of the workers state. He did not make the absence of commodity production a defining feature. The key feature is the expropriation of the capitalists. socialism is a precondition for but not a sufficient condition for eliminating commodity production.

The quote I provided you was very clear: Lenin excluded commodity production of socialism.

[ComradeOm]

Wheatcrofts graph starts in early 30sEvery graph in that paper I referenced, every one, starts before 1930. Either you've downloaded the wrong paper or you simply haven't read it

The key graph in the paper (Fig 1 - the compilation of nutritional reports) has a break in 1928-32 that corresponds to the abolition of the central Soviet statistical agency during those years


Also Allen also says wages felll but the average consumption rose because alotmore people were in payed employment. You keep focussing omn wages not consumption level of whole population Allens long term data on agricultural yields are credible because of his detailed cross comparisions with contemporary Canadian yields.And Allen's figures lose all credibility because:

1) The numbers are botched. Allen combined two different data series while failing to apply the necessary corrections to the first. Simples

2) The conclusions are squarely contradicted by the archival evidence. According to Allen, consumption in 1936 was on par with 1927 and the heights of the NEP. This is despite the fact that in 1936 the country was gripped by severe drought. The nutritional surveys (Wheatcroft), documentary evidence (Fitzpatrick, Murphy, etc) all point to these being years of extreme hardship. Even Soviet figures (from Davies and Harrison, Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union) indicate that the 1936 harvest was as bad as those of the early 1930s. Yet Allen's calculations suggest that things were never so good?

[Killer Enigma]

What's the appeal of Marxism-Leninism? Marxist-Leninists are the only ones to have ever led successful socialist revolutions, outside of a couple obscure instances in this city or that sparsely populated territory for a <5 year period.

It's always, "The Stalinists sabotaged this!" "The state repressed that!" "Conditions weren't right!" etc. Forgetting the particular political questions for a minute, the failure itself casts real doubt on the efficacy of these other so-called strategies or ideologies on the left. I'd imagine if anarchists had led massive revolutions that successfully established "Free People's Territories" in 50% of the world, I'd want to be an anarchist.

[scmarxist]

I am new here. I realize historical analysis is of value. I think the most important thing at this time is the future. Unity and solidarity are our weapons against capitalism. Let's build each other up and tear down the establishment!

[Karlorax]

I don't know why people get so into the cult of personality in this day and age, but Stalin represented, in part, one of the major attempts at constructing socialism while at the same time defeating fascism. I can see why people would identify with those lofty actions.

[Paul Cockshott]

Every graph in that paper I referenced, every one, starts before 1930. Either you've downloaded the wrong paper or you simply haven't read it

I am using XIV International Economic History Congress, Helsinki 2006
Session 50
Paper presented to Conference on Historical Standards of Living: Eurasian and
American Countries, Keio University, Japan, May 31, 2006
Russian and Soviet living standards: Secular growth and conjunctural
crises, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, University of Melbourne, Australia
Look on Page 14 and you will find a graph starting in 1933 which backs up Fig 4 in Allen's paper http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/archive/noticeboard/bergson/allen.pdf

[Popular Front of Judea]

Interesting redefinition of Stalinism as being merely pursuing 'socialism in one country' as versus 'permanent revolution'. For many including myself Bukharin represents a great historical what-if. Would Bukharin be considered a Stalinist by this minimalist definition of Stalinism?

[Paul Cockshott]

To Old Bolshie, I know that Stalin argued that the reason commodity production still existed in the USSR was the persistence of private plots and coops in in agriculture, but that was in the early 50s. We have seen socialist economies that were considerably more developed - the DDR Bulgaria and CSSR in the 80s for example, where state farms or in Bulgaria integrated agroindustrial complexes were the predominant form. Wages, money, and the sale of consumer goods as commodities still existed. The means of production had been socialised, but commodity production continued. So the prediction that the taking over of the means of production would abolish commodity production was false. To do actually abolish commodities and money would have required :
1) an entirely new system of social accounting through out the economy, and none of the classical marxist writers other than Marx gave any idea how this might be done, and even Marx said very little explicitly on it - one has to search through his works for asides to get some idea of what he might have suggested had he written explicitly about it.
2) A capacity to calculate and manage information about the integration of the economy in kind that did not exist until the 1980s and which could not even have been concieved of before the invention of computer technology in the late 40s.

Public ownership of industry and agriculture is a precondition for getting rid of commodity production, but nowhere near a sufficient condition. Socialist economies were forced to have a combination of in kind calculation and planning for the broad outline of the industrial structure - of the order of 10K goods in the 50s according to Dobb - with specification of plan targets for aggregate outputs still being provided in monetary form. There was just not the computational technology to do anything more.

Until people actually had to run a socialist economy these practical problems were simply not appreciated. It was not a simple question of ownership as Engels and Stalin believed, it was a problem of information processing capacity.

The later Lenin was much more pragmatic than you make him out to be the passage I was refering to is this
To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.

The German war economy that he was refering to was one that planned the output of a certain number of key products, but still retained monetary accounting and prices. Here he says that to make it socialist all you need is a change in the class content.

[ComradeOm]

I am using XIV International Economic History Congress, Helsinki 2006
Session 50
Paper presented to Conference on Historical Standards of Living: Eurasian and
American Countries, Keio University, Japan, May 31, 2006
Russian and Soviet living standards: Secular growth and conjunctural
crises, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, University of Melbourne, Australia
Look on Page 14 and you will find a graph starting in 1933 which backs up Fig 4 in Allen's paper http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/archive/noticeboard/bergson/allen.pdfReally, I don't know what you think you're doing here. Wheatcroft's figures directly contradict, not support, those of Allen. Simple as. To elaborate:

1) I suggest that you look at the final published paper, in which Wheatcroft's figures for the 1920s are available. They do not support Allen's conclusions. Period. Stop arguing out of ignorance. In fact, let's leave you no excuse; Wheatcroft's nutritional series look something like this:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/GreaterDCU/Misc/Calories.jpg

2) But then those figures presented in the conference paper don't support Allen either. Wheatcroft shows in the Figure you reference that nutritional intake improved as the USSR emerged from famine. That's all. That's something that no one, ever, has contested. The two graphs aren't even directly comparable - with one in kcals and the other expressing consumption in roubles

3) While you're reading that conference version, I'll direct you to pg 19 where proper consumption norms are compared and Allen's numbers criticised

[Geiseric]

News to stalinoids: bukharin was the first person to argue socialism in one country was possible.

[Brutus]

News to stalinoids: bukharin was the first person to argue socialism in one country was possible.

He also planned to kill Lenin and Stalin, then divide the USSR between the imperialist powers...

I mean, it's not like they tortured him and threatened his family to get a confession or anything.

[Old Bolshie]

To Old Bolshie, I know that Stalin argued that the reason commodity production still existed in the USSR was the persistence of private plots and coops in in agriculture, but that was in the early 50s. We have seen socialist economies that were considerably more developed - the DDR Bulgaria and CSSR in the 80s for example, where state farms or in Bulgaria integrated agroindustrial complexes were the predominant form. Wages, money, and the sale of consumer goods as commodities still existed. The means of production had been socialised, but commodity production continued. So the prediction that the taking over of the means of production would abolish commodity production was false. To do actually abolish commodities and money would have required :
1) an entirely new system of social accounting through out the economy, and none of the classical marxist writers other than Marx gave any idea how this might be done, and even Marx said very little explicitly on it - one has to search through his works for asides to get some idea of what he might have suggested had he written explicitly about it.
2) A capacity to calculate and manage information about the integration of the economy in kind that did not exist until the 1980s and which could not even have been concieved of before the invention of computer technology in the late 40s.

Public ownership of industry and agriculture is a precondition for getting rid of commodity production, but nowhere near a sufficient condition. Socialist economies were forced to have a combination of in kind calculation and planning for the broad outline of the industrial structure - of the order of 10K goods in the 50s according to Dobb - with specification of plan targets for aggregate outputs still being provided in monetary form. There was just not the computational technology to do anything more.

Until people actually had to run a socialist economy these practical problems were simply not appreciated. It was not a simple question of ownership as Engels and Stalin believed, it was a problem of information processing capacity.

Well, that have been my point the all arguing: it was impossible for Stalin's USSR or any other country alone to do away with commodities and achieve socialism. The only point of divergence here between you and me is that you call USSR's economy a socialist one while I consider it capitalist (State capitalism). You persist to call it a socialist economy while for me USSR or any other country/region (including the Free Territory of Ukraine or Spain) at no point of its existence went beyond capitalism precisely because it was impossible to do so.




The later Lenin was much more pragmatic than you make him out to be the passage I was refering to is this

The German war economy that he was refering to was one that planned the output of a certain number of key products, but still retained monetary accounting and prices. Here he says that to make it socialist all you need is a change in the class content.

He says "you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism". He doesn't say "you have socialism". At no point he refers specifically to commodities. The quote I gave to you the commodities and money are referred specifically. He also states in that quote that you have a soviet state and socialism is stateless and classless. He probably refers to the transitional phase between capitalism and socialism.

[OHumanista]

The appeal is that you can pretend to be part of some "official line" of communism (as if such a thing could ever exist). You also spare yourself of the sadness of knowing that there is no socialist country in modern times and of discovering every previous one either wasn't ever socialist or was corrupted at some point. You also get extra pride from deluding yourself you're part of the branch of socialism that achieved the most success. (despite of the fact that stalinists managed to destroy their own states from the inside, did nothing remotely similar to actual socialism and that a good portion of their eastern european leadership are now capitalists and conservative politicians)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wow, a Stalin thread that has actually brought up some useful stuff.

Economic History always saves the day, even when it's Bob Allen! ;) Very itneresting stuff ComradeOm & Paul Cockshott!

[Paul Cockshott]

OM, you have to do a basic sanity check when presented with a time series like this.

Those early time series by Wheatcroft are frankly implausible. They show a per capita food supply in the USSR in 1923 that is above leading agricultural nations like France or Canada in 2008. He shows urban calories per head in the 1920s at levels that the industrialised world as a whole is not expected to reach until after 2050. (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2793/T1.expansion.html) The post 1930 Wheatcroft data are much more plausible on the basis of international comparisons. For the whole time period the Allen figures are more plausible.

I agree that the Allen graph is for consumption in Roubles at 1937 prices not calories, but food would have made a relatively large if declining share of expenditure over the period, so we would expect the graphs to be similar in shape. Allen shows total consumption rising somewhat more in percentage terms than Wheatcroft shows calorie consumption rising, this is what is to be expected : as income rises food consumption will go up, but not by as much as income, as an increasing portion of income will have been spent on industrial products rather than food.

[Paul Cockshott]

Well, that have been my point the all arguing: it was impossible for Stalin's USSR or any other country alone to do away with commodities and achieve socialism. The only point of divergence here between you and me is that you call USSR's economy a socialist one while I consider it capitalist (State capitalism). You persist to call it a socialist economy while for me USSR or any other country/region (including the Free Territory of Ukraine or Spain) at no point of its existence went beyond capitalism precisely because it was impossible to do so.

You may want to call socialism state capitalism, but then you are making a big thing about your sectarian use of words. The socialist countries called what you are calling socialism communism, and all agreed that they were not yet communist.
You are berating them for not using a particular sectarian terminology.





He says "you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism". He doesn't say "you have socialism". At no point he refers specifically to commodities. The quote I gave to you the commodities and money are referred specifically. He also states in that quote that you have a soviet state and socialism is stateless and classless. He probably refers to the transitional phase between capitalism and socialism.
Late Leninism viewed socialism as the transition phase between capitalism and communism. By the late teens Lenin was less ignorant than before. I really can not understand your glorification of ignorance. Whether socialism would be stateless and classless was pure speculation prior to the Russian revolution. We now know from historical experience that socialism occupies a prolonged historical period during which classes and class struggle still continue.

[ComradeOm]

OM, you have to do a basic sanity check when presented with a time series like thisI've already done that, some time ago. A calorie intake of 3,000+ is far from unusual (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1829869&postcount=59) in pre-industrial and industrialising nations. Nor is this is linear trend; it will vary significantly with diet and the nature of work. A diet based primarily on grain and potatoes (ie early 20 C Russia) can hardly be compared to modern diets or occupations. Similarly, the recommended daily calories intake for today's office worker (2500 kcal) would barely sustain a factory worker a century ago

And again, Allen's calculations are flatly contradicted by Wheatcroft's calculations, Soviet nutritional surveys and a host of archival evidence. Hence the questioning of them as 'implausible'


I agree that the Allen graph is for consumption in Roubles at 1937 prices not calories, but food would have made a relatively large if declining share of expenditure over the period, so we would expect the graphs to be similar in shape. Allen shows total consumption rising somewhat more in percentage terms than Wheatcroft shows calorie consumption rising, this is what is to be expected : as income rises food consumption will go up, but not by as much as income, as an increasing portion of income will have been spent on industrial products rather than food.Except that this completely ignores prices. Which, while something that I really don't want to go into right now, was a massive policy area for Soviet governments. They particularly tended to veer all over the place in the period in question. For example, do Allen's calculations take into account the jump in food prices that accompanied the end of rationing in 1935?

[Teacher]

OM, you have to do a basic sanity check when presented with a time series like this.

Those early time series by Wheatcroft are frankly implausible. They show a per capita food supply in the USSR in 1923 that is above leading agricultural nations like France or Canada in 2008. He shows urban calories per head in the 1920s at levels that the industrialised world as a whole is not expected to reach until after 2050. (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2793/T1.expansion.html) The post 1930 Wheatcroft data are much more plausible on the basis of international comparisons. For the whole time period the Allen figures are more plausible.

I agree that the Allen graph is for consumption in Roubles at 1937 prices not calories, but food would have made a relatively large if declining share of expenditure over the period, so we would expect the graphs to be similar in shape. Allen shows total consumption rising somewhat more in percentage terms than Wheatcroft shows calorie consumption rising, this is what is to be expected : as income rises food consumption will go up, but not by as much as income, as an increasing portion of income will have been spent on industrial products rather than food.

Obviously Stalin and his hangmen were having feasts in which they consumed such massive numbers of calories that it skewed the averages. Or perhaps Wheatcroft is counting the caloric impact of all the children who were cannibalized by the communist bureaucrats during that time.

[ComradeOm]

Obviously Stalin and his hangmen were having feasts in which they consumed such massive numbers of calories that it skewed the averages. Or perhaps Wheatcroft is counting the caloric impact of all the children who were cannibalized by the communist bureaucrats during that time.Funny you should mention that. In the first place, no, women and children were omitted from the Soviet survey figures that Wheatcroft has presented. And, secondly, life at the top was certainly lavish; to quote from Davies (Crisis and Progress in the Soviet Economy):

"On major state and party occasions lavish supplies of food were made available off the ration for those attending. The 500 delegates and guests at the party plenum of Sept 1932 were each allocated per person, for a period of 15 days, 20kg of meat, 8kg of fish, 1.2kg of cheese and even 600g of caviare. At this time the highest individual meat ration, when it was available, was 3kg per month. One thousand guests at a banquest in the spring of 1933, the worst period of the famine, were allocated 800g of meat and fish for a single meal"

I know that that wasn't your point but then I don't think you had one. Beyond implicitly suggesting that everyone who doesn't adhere to the Stalin line is some sort of rabid anti-communist who secretly draws inspiration from Mein Kampf. Thanks for the opportunity anways

[Delenda Carthago]

This (http://books.google.gr/books/about/Soviet_local_government.html?id=GCw5AQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y)gives a very nice answer to the question of the beggining. I have only found it in greek, but it is amazing.

[Old Bolshie]

You may want to call socialism state capitalism, but then you are making a big thing about your sectarian use of words. The socialist countries called what you are calling socialism communism, and all agreed that they were not yet communist.
You are berating them for not using a particular sectarian terminology.

If someone has been using sectarian distortions of Marxism here is you with your stupid Stalinoids remarks like calling a socialist an economy where wage labor and money still exists.


Late Leninism viewed socialism as the transition phase between capitalism and communism. By the late teens Lenin was less ignorant than before. I really can not understand your glorification of ignorance. Whether socialism would be stateless and classless was pure speculation prior to the Russian revolution. We now know from historical experience that socialism occupies a prolonged historical period during which classes and class struggle still continue.

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

Karl Marx

Lenin never refuted this Marx assertion. If someone is showing fucking ignorance here is you. Your entire argumentation is based on Stalinists distortions of Marxism.

[Remus Bleys]

Well actually, the Great Depression was caused directly and intentionally by the Federal Reserve. The corrupt banking cartel intentionally did starve those people.
Oh Jesus. I hate when anarchists say shit like this.
First, it makes the radical left look like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
Second, the Great Depression was caused by Capitalism. Even without the Central Bank, it would have happened. Depressions are a part of capitalism.
Third, when you say shit like this, it gives weight to those dumb ass "an"caps and libertarians- "Capitalism isn't the problem, Capitalism is good. Capitalism killed no one. No death was the result of capitalism, it was the result of the New World Order." :rolleyes:

[Paul Cockshott]

If someone has been using sectarian distortions of Marxism here is you with your stupid Stalinoids remarks like calling a socialist an economy where wage labor and money still exists.

This was also the view of almost the entire socialist movement world wide for most of the 20th century aside from small sects like the SPGB, which is why I label that minority sectarian. I myself am not in favour of retaining money, I am in favour of moving to labour accounts as soon as possible, but I know that that view is one which had very little support in the 20th century socialist movement ( as opposed to the early movement in the 19th century). The orthodox position of the socialist movement was set by Kautsky in the Social Revolution in the first decade of the 20th century when he argued for the necessity of socialism retaining money and wage payments for the forseeable future.





“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

Karl Marx

Lenin never refuted this Marx assertion. If someone is showing fucking ignorance here is you. Your entire argumentation is based on Stalinists distortions of Marxism.
Of course Lenin was in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but he argued that an economy like that of wartime Germany, if under the dictatorship of the proletariat with the banks and cartels nationalised would be socialist.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

“The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer.”

F. Engels

"As for exchange relations, Lenin (1962:151, 1963a:121) excludes commodity production (and money) from socialism. The end of capitalism would signify the suppression of commodity production."

The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics


They had never seen a socialist economy neither you nor me because it never existed but socialism as it's conceived by Marxists and anarchists doesn't have commodities.

Socialism is "conceived" by Marxists? Sure, we know Anarchists like to conceive a lot. But since when do Marxists "conceive" Socialism?
When does Marx mention Socialism? I've read a fair share of Marx's work, and I can't think of one time that I ran across the man even mentioning Socialism.
He mentions Capitalism, a lot. He mentions Communism very seldomly. But when he does, he makes clear that there must be certain conditions met for this cooperative mode of production of the workers to take hold.

[Paul Cockshott]

OM, what were those time series you produced then, were they calorie consumption per head of population or per active worker. I recognise that an active worker eats more, but FAO practice is to give calorie counts per head of population. Does Wheatcroft give this?
Allens calculations in The Standard of Living in the Soviet Union, 1928-1940 , The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), are all in terms of consumption per head of population. He goes in detail into the index number problem and explains the strengths and weaknesses of the different possible index numbers. What are your specific criticisms of this?