Class struggle in the USSR !

[EverythingNothing]

Was Marx's class struggle still present in the soviet union ?(the later days,after Lenin)
As class struggle i don't mean bourgeois and proletarians,but rather nomenclatura and proletars ?

[Blake's Baby]

I don't really care whether you mean nomenklatura and proletarians, as the nomenklatura was de facto a bourgeoisie, it's the same as bourgoisie and proletarians anyway.

Yes, obviously there was class struggle. Class societies have class struggle. It's that simple.

[EverythingNothing]

Really,that's what I meant,
Fully agreed!

[Stalinist Speaker]

yes classes only disappear when you reach communism, but the classes were minimal through the majority of the time the USSR existed.

[reb]

I think you meant the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

[reb]

yes classes only disappear when you reach communism, but the classes were minimal through the majority of the time the USSR existed.

Don't Stalinists believe that socialism is the lowest phase of communism?

[Tim Cornelis]

yes classes only disappear when you reach communism, but the classes were minimal through the majority of the time the USSR existed.

Between whom, which two classes, was class struggle waged? Incidentally, class struggle in the Netherlands is also minimal and it has been for decades.

[reb]

It is also absurd to say that the proletariat existed in the Soviet Union but not capitalism. This shows a total ignorance as to what the proletariat is and of historical materialism. The proletariat is a product of capitalism.

[Delenda Carthago]

I don't really care whether you mean nomenklatura and proletarians, as the nomenklatura was de facto a bourgeoisie, it's the same as bourgoisie and proletarians anyway.

Yes, obviously there was class struggle. Class societies have class struggle. It's that simple.
Seriously? From all the class struggle that did occured on Soviet Union, between workers and NEPmen, kolkhoze farmers, industrial managers, all you have to point out is the "nomeklatura"?

Anyway, the thing we are talking about is called "aggravation of class struggle in socialism" and yes indeed, Stalin for the most part was a fan of that theory, as it was the basis on the construction of socialism. But, since things are not black or white, that wasnt what happened in general in USSR. In the constitution of 1936 there is a declaration of the end of class struggle. That was the stepping stone for the theory of "all people's state" that mostly elaborated during the revisionists era.

We can say that as long as the struggle against the remainings of the boirgeois happened, socialism was getting deeper. When that stopped, the deconstruction begun. What the antirevisionists fail to see though, is that begun under Stalin's leadership, only to capitalise in 1956. It didnt fall from the sky...

[Leftsolidarity]

It is also absurd to say that the proletariat existed in the Soviet Union but not capitalism. This shows a total ignorance as to what the proletariat is and of historical materialism. The proletariat is a product of capitalism.

have you heard of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

[reb]

have you heard of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

Yes, and I think that I might have a better understanding of what that means in marxian terms then you do apparently. Have you ever read Capital?

[Blake's Baby]

have you heard of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

Of course he has. Have you?

What does the Critique of the Gotha Programme (Pt iv) say?

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So... in capitalist society, the proletariat begins its revolution. After the revolutionary proletariat has transformed capitalist society, socialist society begins - when there is no proletariat, because society has been transformed. The very existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat guarantees that socialist society has not been brought about.

Not that the SU (which is what we were talking about) was 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' anyway of course.

[erupt]

Class antagonisms existed under Lenin, as well.

[Leftsolidarity]

I forgot y'all are ultra-Leftists. I dipped into the wrong discussion cuz I'm not about to bounce around with all your semantics as usual. Think your silliness if you wish.

[Brotto Rühle]

I forgot y'all are ultra-Leftists. I dipped into the wrong discussion cuz I'm not about to bounce around with all your semantics as usual. Think your silliness if you wish.

Well leave if you refusevto contribute to this thread. The arguments of the ultraleft are far from semantics, they are rooted in Marx.

[reb]

I forgot y'all are ultra-Leftists. I dipped into the wrong discussion cuz I'm not about to bounce around with all your semantics as usual. Think your silliness if you wish.

You can continue putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the subject. What is being written here isn't just a reply to your dogmatic, non-marxist positions that only you can read.

[Radio Spartacus]

I forgot y'all are ultra-Leftists. I dipped into the wrong discussion cuz I'm not about to bounce around with all your semantics as usual. Think your silliness if you wish.

A non argument, by any standard. Good luck convincing the working class to jump on board with anything resembling the Soviet Union, if that's your goal. It's hard to tell unless you contribute a positive idea to the thread

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My opinion? Yes, there was struggle, profound struggle.

[Alexios]

I forgot y'all are ultra-Leftists. I dipped into the wrong discussion cuz I'm not about to bounce around with all your semantics as usual. Think your silliness if you wish.

It's not "semantics." The dictatorship of the proletariat is and always has been the assertion of class authority by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It's not a society brought about by the destruction of bourgeois rule but an act of revolution - occupying factories, negation of work, insurrection, etc. The DOTP in Russia died as soon as the Communist Party consolidated its rule over the state.

[Remus Bleys]

I forgot y'all are ultra-Leftists. I dipped into the wrong discussion cuz I'm not about to bounce around with all your semantics as usual. Think your silliness if you wish.
Real funny coming from a WWPer.
Tell us, oh, anti-revisionist, of the true communist path of Milosevic and Kim Il-Sung

:laugh: @ you so hard right now

[Red_Banner]

Yes, class struggle was present.

You had greedy Kulaks price gouging grain to make extra bucks.

[RedMaterialist]

Between whom, which two classes, was class struggle waged? Incidentally, class struggle in the Netherlands is also minimal and it has been for decades.

Does the Netherlands still even have a state? They can't even collect the money Iceland owes them.

[Remus Bleys]

Does the Netherlands still even have a state? They can't even collect the money Iceland owes them.
wait...wait... are you saying the netherlands is stateless now?

[motion denied]

wait...wait... are you saying the netherlands is stateless now?

Just like the USSR, I suppose.

[RedMaterialist]

wait...wait... are you saying the netherlands is stateless now?

cornelius said class struggle in the netherlands is "minimal." Just wondering if the netherlands state is likewise minimal. sort of withering, you know, like becoming minimal? what does an amsterdam cop do anyway?

[RedMaterialist]

Just like the USSR, I suppose.

The USSR was the state. Remus supposedly is trying to find out what happened to it, but only left-communists are allowed to speak about it.

[Alexios]

Does the Netherlands still even have a state? They can't even collect the money Iceland owes them.

So not only are you an obnoxious troll, but you're also a national chauvinist?

[Alexios]

Yes, class struggle was present.

You had greedy Kulaks price gouging grain to make extra bucks.

lol yeah because any sane peasant would have taken the state's word that collectivization would bring about prosperity for all despite being a poorly-thought-out policy promoted by idealists

[EverythingNothing]

This shows a total ignorance as to what the proletariat is and of historical materialism. The proletariat is a product of capitalism.

-No,not ignorance
-This shows,absurdity,maybe,but with a reason: If in the USSR truly the was the dictatorship of the proletariat why 4 million proletars died during the Holodomor (man made famine) and why the participants in the Kronstadt rebellion affirmed: "Down with the new bourgeoisie,down with the new Tsars"

[Blake's Baby]

The USSR was the state. Remus supposedly is trying to find out what happened to it, but only left-communists are allowed to speak about it.

Because Remus wants to know what the Left Communist position(s) on the collapse of the USSR are.

He might have wanted to know what the Maoists said about Turkey or the Trotskyists thought about the Space Race. Framing a question to a particular tendency about a particular subject is perfectly reasonable.

He didn't ask you what your positions are, because he didn't want to know. So by continually trying to make the thread about your positions, you are trolling. Please stop and go away.

If you want to start a thread on 'why the USSR really collapsed' and fill it with your batshit theories, go right ahead.

[Per Levy]

since there were classes in the SU there of course was also class struggle in the SU as well, wich the soviet state had quite some fun to supress. this also hasnt to do anything with being ultra-left but with looking at facts and not useing phrases, slogans and semantics to somehow wash away the class atagonism that were at work in the SU.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

cornelius said class struggle in the netherlands is "minimal." Just wondering if the netherlands state is likewise minimal. sort of withering, you know, like becoming minimal? what does an amsterdam cop do anyway?

Class struggle is never "Minimal", it exists at the point at which surplus value is extracted. Hence as long as capitalism exists class struggle continues at the same rate, it is only a matter of which class is winning or losing at a present epoch.

[Tim Cornelis]

I suppose to redshifted it would make sense for the Dutch state to wither away. I've given up expecting any sensibility from him/her.


Class struggle is never "Minimal", it exists at the point at which surplus value is extracted. Hence as long as capitalism exists class struggle continues at the same rate, it is only a matter of which class is winning or losing at a present epoch.

That's not true. The extraction of surplus value is the class relations or class dynamics, not class struggle. If capitalists are pursuing an increase in the rate of exploitation then that would constitute class struggle -- the exploitation itself is not. A situation in which there are frequent strikes and a militant labour movement versus a period of working class inactivity can definitely be described in different gradations of class struggle, high and low. The level of class struggle is not a constant.

[Red_Banner]

lol yeah because any sane peasant would have taken the state's word that collectivization would bring about prosperity for all despite being a poorly-thought-out policy promoted by idealists


Well lthe Kulaks weren't bringing prosperity.

Only for themselves.

[reb]

Yes, class struggle was present.

You had greedy Kulaks price gouging grain to make extra bucks.

This is pretty stupid. Kulaks have no objective class difference from any other peasant. Kulak isn't a class definition because a rich peasant is still a peasant.

The issue here isn't so much that there was antagonisms between the proletariat and peasants, which is obviously an issue because the proletarian class interests mean a struggle for a wage, which is at the heart of capitalism, and a peasant struggles for land, which isn't. The issue here is that there was a proletariat in the first place and it's struggle for emancipation being suppressed and then all worker agitation suppressed by the capitalist state.

[Sea]

Yes, and I think that I might have a better understanding of what that means in marxian terms then you do apparently. Have you ever read Capital?Either you're being terribly clever, or you've never read Capital yourself.
Does the Netherlands still even have a state? They can't even collect the money Iceland owes them.I was going to 'like' this post because it made me chuckle, but then I realized that you are serious.

[reb]

Either you're being terribly clever, or you've never read Capital yourself.

The first. I don't know why self declared marxists haven't read it.

[RedMaterialist]

This is pretty stupid. Kulaks have no objective class difference from any other peasant. Kulak isn't a class definition because a rich peasant is still a peasant.

The issue here isn't so much that there was antagonisms between the proletariat and peasants, which is obviously an issue because the proletarian class interests mean a struggle for a wage, which is at the heart of capitalism, and a peasant struggles for land, which isn't. The issue here is that there was a proletariat in the first place and it's struggle for emancipation being suppressed and then all worker agitation suppressed by the capitalist state.

Kulaks were a petit-bourgeois class who owned their own land and hired peasants to work it in an exploitative class relationship. A peasant might become a Kulak if he managed to acquire enough land to produce a surplus. If you believe Kulaks and peasants were not different classes, then you believe a small business owner is not part of a different class than his/her minimum wage workers.

Marx's description of the relationship between the petit-bourgeois and the worker, from the Communist Manifesto:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen."

The Kulaks, particularly in the Ukraine, developed as a class in the late 19th and early 20th century.

[reb]

Kulaks were a petit-bourgeois class who owned their own land and hired peasants to work it in an exploitative class relationship. A peasant might become a Kulak if he managed to acquire enough land to produce a surplus. If you believe Kulaks and peasants were not different classes, then you believe a small business owner is not part of a different class than his/her minimum wage workers.

What the fuck are you talking about? You just agreed with me when you said that "A peasant might become a Kulak if he managed to acquire enough land to produce a surplus". Now where is the objective difference? A Kulak is a rich peasant, like you said. You are the one that is saying, by analogy, that a small business owner is not part of a different class than his/her minimum wage workers. How can you make such a confusing fucking mess? Do you not understand what relations to the means of production means?

[RedMaterialist]

I suppose to redshifted it would make sense for the Dutch state to wither away. I've given up expecting any sensibility from him/her.



According to you, the class struggle in the Netherlands has been minimal for decades. And, according to you, class struggle only exists when capitalists are increasing the rate of exploitation. Which means that Dutch capitalists have not been pursuing an increase in the rate of exploitation for decades.

There is probably a correlation in a country of the rate of profit, the rate of class struggle, and the intensity of state control. As I said, as class struggle disappears, the function of the state disappears. A state is an armed force used for the purpose of suppressing a particular class.

The conditions in Holland are probably about the same as in Belgium. I remember reading somewhere that Belgium has gone for about 10 yrs without an official government. The state appears to be withering in not only Holland but also Belgium.

[RedMaterialist]

What the fuck are you talking about? You just agreed with me when you said that "A peasant might become a Kulak if he managed to acquire enough land to produce a surplus". Now where is the objective difference? A Kulak is a rich peasant, like you said. You are the one that is saying, by analogy, that a small business owner is not part of a different class than his/her minimum wage workers. How can you make such a confusing fucking mess? Do you not understand what relations to the means of production means?

You need to take some Xanax. A change in quantity results in a change in quality. If a peasant acquires one acre, then five, then 20, and then hires a peasant to work for wage-labor, then the first peasant becomes petit-bourgeois.

If small business owners increase their production, sales, etc., and then hire wage-workers, they become petit-bourgeois. If they manage to expand their business through competition, then at a certain they become capitalists. If their businesses fail, they drop into the petit-bourgeois and sometimes worker classes.

Nobody is born objectively to be a capitalist, kulak, peasant or worker.

[LiamChe]

Without a doubt there was class struggle in the USSR. Every day in the USSR (well before it became social-imperialist and state-capitalist) was a fight against the petit-bourgeoisie Kulaks in Russia and the global Bourgeoisie imperialists. There was still capitalistic elements within the USSR, but in the 30s and 40s, the USSR took a more harsh stance on these elements.

[Per Levy]

Without a doubt there was class struggle in the USSR. Every day in the USSR (well before it became social-imperialist and state-capitalist) was a fight against the petit-bourgeoisie Kulaks in Russia and the global Bourgeoisie imperialists. There was still capitalistic elements within the USSR, but in the 30s and 40s, the USSR took a more harsh stance on these elements.

there was mostly class struggle between the owners of the means of production and the exploited, alienated working masses. the proles didnt own the means of production, the state did. the workers didnt controll the state either, so i find it a bit weak to say that there was only class struggle between peasants and workers. also i find it interesting that you seem to see the SU state as something neutral that can just decide if there is more or less class struggle.

[Tolstoy]

HOLY FUCK

I have never run into a thread with a dumber premise. Obviously if class conflict hadnt existed in the USSR, than it would have been the final utopian communist society. There has never been any place without class conflict, that is the goal of the dictatorship of the proleteriat to attain