Accusations of Trotsky's collaborations with fascists [Archive]

Geiseric

19th November 2013, 18:23

No Trotsky didn't collaborate with the fascists. In fact he pretty much continually urged the Soviet Union to fight the fascists, for which he was labelled... a fascist. I think the reasoning in Moscow was something like this: 'the Soviet Union cannot win a war against Nazi Germany; someone who wants the Soviet Union to enter a war it cannot win is an enemy of the Soviet Union; fascists are enemies of the Soviet Union; therefore, anyone who wants the Soviet Union to fight the fascists must be a fascist'.

He did however say that if it came to a war between (as a hypothetical situation) an 'imperialist' Britain and a 'fascist' (but 'non-imperialist') Brazil, then it was the job of communists to support the hypothetical fascist Brazil. I don't know whether this was one of those 'for all time' statements or one of those 'in the present circumstance' statements, but it does demonstrate that, whatever Trotskyists might say, his opposition to fascism was not absolute.

He made it clear that if there was a "fascist brazil," the population and national independence wouldn't be defended from imperialism by the fascist state. Independence would be impossible unless the working class took up arms, swept away the british and then would by necessity sweep away the Brazilian bourgeois, since the working class would now realize that they are the ones in the drivers seat. A working class force in Brazil would like the Partisans in Yugoslavia inevitably seize power for itself if the fascist state and the english were done away with.

"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"

from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm

'Anti-Imperialist Struggle is the key to liberation', 1938

Sort of implies that the Trotskyists should have supported the Galtieri regime in the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982...

There's the difference between "supporting the independence of a country which has been forced to nationalize key resources by the working class," and "supporting the state." It isn't even a question of lesser evils.

Sabot Cat

19th November 2013, 22:04

I recommend looking into the results of the Dewey Commission, recorded in the book appropriately titled "Not Guilty" or in this link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/).

Regardless, I find it grimly amusing that Stalin of all people (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H27337,_Moskau,_Stalin_und_Ribbentrop_im_Kreml.jpg )accused his perceived enemies of consorting with fascists.

Rafiq

19th November 2013, 22:39

Tuchachevsky was accused of being a fascist collaborator when in fact there is evidence that the SS orchestrated his downfall. He warned of a German invasion as early as the mid 30's.

Geiseric

19th November 2013, 22:50

Tuchachevsky was accused of being a fascist collaborator when in fact there is evidence that the SS orchestrated his downfall. He warned of a German invasion as early as the mid 30's.

Hitler warned of a german invasion when he wrote his book.

Invader Zim

19th November 2013, 23:28

Hitler warned of a german invasion when he wrote his book.

No. Just no.

Just because Hitler wrote a load of shit in the 1920s does not, for a second, imply that the vast array of structural and functional forces far beyond Hitler's, or even the Nazi state's, control did not have to all come into line for an invasion of the Soviet Union to ever seriously be on the cards. Hitler predicted fuck all.

Geiseric

19th November 2013, 23:41

No. Just no.

Just because Hitler wrote a load of shit in the 1920s does not, for a second, imply that the vast array of structural and functional forces far beyond Hitler's, or even the Nazi state's, control did not have to all come into line for an invasion of the Soviet Union to ever seriously be on the cards. Hitler predicted fuck all.

He realized that German Capitalism couldn't survive without a war before the German capitalists did, because of the contradictions both internally and internationally with the existence of a workers state compiled with the labor movement in Germany.

Sea

20th November 2013, 00:25

There were some fashy types in the SI but that doesn't mean Kautsky was a fascist, and the fact that he wasn't a fascist doesn't make him a prophet either.

Trotsky didn't collaborate with fascists. He only collaborated with "social-fascists". :rolleyes:
He realized that German Capitalism couldn't survive without a war before the German capitalists did, because of the contradictions both internally and internationally with the existence of a workers state compiled with the labor movement in Germany.So that was the extent of the Hitler-Trotsky collaboration? He gave Hitler a crystal ball back in the day?

erupt

20th November 2013, 13:41

No. Just no.

Just because Hitler wrote a load of shit in the 1920s does not, for a second, imply that the vast array of structural and functional forces far beyond Hitler's, or even the Nazi state's, control did not have to all come into line for an invasion of the Soviet Union to ever seriously be on the cards. Hitler predicted fuck all.

Other than empty promises to potential party members and supporters, what didn't he say he would do in Mein Kampf and not follow through with in some degree.

If anything, his threats were watered down to a pretty significant degree to not scare away petty-bourgeoisie.

freecommunist

20th November 2013, 17:27

Sort of implies that the Trotskyists should have supported the Galtieri regime in the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982...

That would be the classic Trotskyist position and which then lead to the victory to Iraq banner on the demo's against the war in 91 carried by RCP, Workers Power, the Sparts and the various leftovers from the implosion of the WRP in the 80's.

Blake's Baby

20th November 2013, 20:28

Forgot about that.

To be fair, I've only ever met 2 Sparts, and never seen them on any demos. The RCP however would support any old psychopath, like Milosovic for example. Most Trotskyists in my experience are happier trumpeting the most 'democratic' side, whatever that means. But then again, that's maybe because to me 'most Trotskyists' means the CWI.

Paul Cockshott

20th November 2013, 21:12

He realized that German Capitalism couldn't survive without a war before the German capitalists did, because of the contradictions both internally and internationally with the existence of a workers state compiled with the labor movement in Germany.

Fischer showed in From Kaiserreich to Third Reich that the policy of agression towards the USSR was not something developed by Hitler but was a long standing strategic goal of the German ruling class, and that the National Socialist regime took over strategic plans already developed under Weimar.

Paul Cockshott

20th November 2013, 21:14

grover fucking furr, go to hell. seriously no one but stalinists take this guy serious and for good reason. if you have to cite furr you know you have nothing.

This is an ad hominem argument rather than a response of substance.

reb

21st November 2013, 12:51

This is an ad hominem argument rather than a response of substance.

Neither is Furr's work anything of substance.

Paul Cockshott

22nd November 2013, 22:05

Neither is Furr's work anything of substance.

Well he has done a substantial amount of research in previously secret soviet archives and has collected what evidence he has been able to find there supporting the claim that Trotsky did collaborate with Japanese and German intelligence. He has also reviewed Trotsky's defence of himself to the Dewey commission. Why is this 'nothing of substance'?

Invader Zim

22nd November 2013, 22:12

Well he has done a substantial amount of research in previously secret soviet archives and has collected what evidence he has been able to find there supporting the claim that Trotsky did collaborate with Japanese and German intelligence. He has also reviewed Trotsky's defence of himself to the Dewey commission. Why is this 'nothing of substance'?

Because, like David irving who also did a lot of "research", nothing Grover Furr says can be taken at face value - because he is not an historian, historians are duty bound by the nature of the profession to tell the truth as best they can, including when the sources do not suit their initial hypothesis.

Paul Cockshott

22nd November 2013, 22:30

Because, like David irving who also did a lot of "research", nothing Grover Furr says can be taken at face value - because he is not an historian, historians are duty bound by the nature of the profession to tell the truth as best they can, including when the sources do not suit their initial hypothesis.
This is nonsense. You are saying that neither Furr nor Irving are professional historians and they are not to be trusted. But that is neither true not logical. For a start Irving is a professional historian, he has made his living for years writing books on history. Irving is not to be trusted despite being a professional historian. But to establish that he is not to be trustred requires scholarly critique of Irvings work. Furr is not a professional historian, he is a Prof of Medieval literature, but that does not disqualify him from doing historical research. Many of the academic skills required - including the need to critically read documents in other languages, are ones that he has to use in his own discipline. Moreover interdisciplinary research is by no means unknown. I am not a professional economist, I am a computer scientist, but that does not disqualify me from doing research on and publishing in political economy.

You are right that historians are duty bound to seek the truth even if it does not correspond to their initial assumptions, but that is something that could be said of all historians and indeed of all academic disciplines. It only becomes a relevant point if you can show that he is ignoring or falsifying evidence, and showing that requires an engagement with what he actually writes rather than general ad-hominen points.

Paul Cockshott

22nd November 2013, 23:26

Notice that Furr makes essentially the same point as you on page 13 of the document

reb

22nd November 2013, 23:33

Well he has done a substantial amount of research in previously secret soviet archives and has collected what evidence he has been able to find there supporting the claim that Trotsky did collaborate with Japanese and German intelligence. He has also reviewed Trotsky's defence of himself to the Dewey commission. Why is this 'nothing of substance'?

Considering that Furr appears to be about as batshit insane as you are I am not surprised that you find any problems with Furr. He's a Medieval Literature specialist, none of his work is peer reviewed, he publishes mostly in Russian because only Russian nationalists will swallow his shit and he has no evidence that there was a Trotsky Imperial Japan and/or Nazi Germany alliance apart from Stalin thinking there was one. Like I said, nothing of substance.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

22nd November 2013, 23:52

Considering that Furr appears to be about as batshit insane as you are I am not surprised that you find any problems with Furr. He's a Medieval Literature specialist, none of his work is peer reviewed, he publishes mostly in Russian because only Russian nationalists will swallow his shit and he has no evidence that there was a Trotsky Imperial Japan and/or Nazi Germany alliance apart from Stalin thinking there was one. Like I said, nothing of substance.

You can't talk in such a disrespectful way to comrades on the forum, it's unacceptable. Take this as a warning.

reb

23rd November 2013, 00:07

You can't talk in such a disrespectful way to comrades on the forum, it's unacceptable. Take this as a warning.

Cockshott thinks that Marx believed in two different modes of production called socialism and communism, not through any sort of theoretical reasoning, but because Marx happened to use both the words to describe two different things, both of which were utopian, and Cockshott teaches in a university and writes books. If you think that this isn't totally crazy, then I think you need to have a long hard look in the mirror. If I have to hold your hand as we stroll through the utopian garbage that he spews out constantly then why are you a mod?

Invader Zim

23rd November 2013, 01:02

This is nonsense.

No Paul, it is the basis of all scholarship - be it in history or any other discipline. As you say, scholars build interpretation on an honest appraisal of facts. I have seen no compelling reason to believe that Grover Furr meets this standard in his 'contributions' to the past - at least where 20th Russia is concerned.

You are saying that neither Furr nor Irving are professional historians and they are not to be trusted.

No, I'm saying that neither are historians by any coherent definition of the term - because I don't think that either has any interest in producing a fair-minded appraisal of the past, at least in the fields in which their work is deemed 'controversial'. But you are pedantically focussing on my application of the term 'the profession', which is an oversight on my part as a member of the professional body of historians. Of course I'm not saying that being paid by a University, or a funding body, is necessary to be an historian. There are plenty of 'amateur' or independent historians, many without any formal training, who are excellent, first rate, scholars - I happen to know a great many. I also know a great many scholars, with training in other fields, including English literature, who have made important contributions to the state of historical knowledge from other disciplines, but again I see no reason to believe that Furr is among them.

For a start Irving is a professional historian, he has made his living for years writing books on history.

No. Irving is a professional writer. He ceased being able to have legitimate claim to the term 'historian' the moment he lied about the past, which, as Richard J. Evans proved, (in the courts, no less), was in his very first book and then sustained throughout his career. Historians write about the past - that which actually happened, and they then interpret that history that actually happened. Individuals like Irving do not do so, they distort what happened to further their own political, financial, egotistical, ad infinitum, aims. For an appraisal of what an historian is and does see:

R. J. Evans, In Defence of History (Granta, 1997).

Irving is not to be trusted despite being a professional historian.

Irving is not to be trusted in his writings about the past because he is not an historian full-stop, professional or otherwise. Nor does he engage in scholarship of any description. I presume that Furr does, in the field of English literature (which, contrary to your belief, does not provide training or the skill set to write history - because textual criticism and literary theory are not the same thing as historical criticism, no matter how much those in the sciences want to lump those of us in the humanities together into one homogenous group to be sneered at), but he does not do so in the field of the history of the Soviet Union.

But to establish that he is not to be trustred requires scholarly critique of Irvings work.

Indeed it is. And the fact that Grover Furr has only one, just one, lone article (that I've ever come across anyway) that has ever passed the peer review process in the field of Soviet history is de facto evidence that either his work has indeed failed to pass scholarly mustor or that he knows it won't and therefore does not submit it for precisely such critique - and no Cultural Logic is not a journal in the field of Soviet history, a discipline in the humanities, or even, as far as I'm concerned, hard research for that matter.

So basically, if Grover Furr is a real 'scholar' and historian of Soviet history, as opposed to a barely noticed extremist writer on the edges, why has he not published his research in peer-reviewed journals of relevance to the topic? The answer is because he can't. So yeah, he gets critiqued by scholars all the time, which is why he can't publish what he writes in serious journals.

but that does not disqualify him from doing historical research.

You're right, what disqualifies him is that he doesn't engage in scholarship within the field of history - he writes about the past but he does not enage in historical scholarship when it comes to the Soviet Union. If you disagree, please cite a bibliography of his work in reputable peer-reviewed journals dedicated to the subject of Soviet history (actually, fuck it, any history), or indeed a bibliography of serious scholars who cite Furr as a legitimate authority. Can you point me in the direction of his, if our American colleagues have such a thing, REF score or equivalent?

Many of the academic skills required - including the need to critically read documents in other languages, are ones that he has to use in his own discipline.

Being able to read multiple languages does not an historian make. And, indeed, nor is it necessary for a professor of medieval English literature. What is necessary is an expertise in medieval English literature and literary theory. To be an expert in modern Soviet history is an exercise in Soviet history and historical analysis. Neither of which I have seen any evidence, what so ever, that Furr, and vast quantities of evidence (namely Furr's own work) which suggests he lacks it or chooses to ignore it - because he's not an historian.

I am not a professional economist, I am a computer scientist, but that does not disqualify me from doing research on and publishing in political economy.

No, it doesn't. However, if you approached the field with an axe to grind, produced work which ignores and/or scorns every other piece of work on the topic, ignored/disregarded every source which disagrees with your position and uncritically accepted every source which confirmed it without judgement - then no, you wouldn't be a political economist, in fact you wouldn't be a scholar of any description, you'd be a charlatan fucking hack.

Paul Cockshott

23rd November 2013, 23:11

Cockshott thinks that Marx believed in two different modes of production called socialism and communism,

I write quite the opposite. I say that this distinction of socialism and communism as historical phases originates with Lenin and the Russian communists and that Marx was a communist not a socialist.

I believe are certain misunderstandings of what Marx meant by the word Communism as opposed to Socialism.

The word Communism was used in the Manifesto of the Communist Party to denote a working class political tendency opposed to a variety of socialist tendencies: petty-bourgeois socialism, reactionary socialism etc. So the opposition Communism/Socialism was used in a political sense. It was the difference between the radical proletariat who aimed at the the abolition of private property, and various ideologues of the property owning classes who wanted to use the power of the state to ameliorate the conditions being created by industrial capitalism.

In Lenin's writing the idea is presented that socialism and communism are two historical phases: first comes socialism, then comes communism. Lenin's view is based on the opposition that Marx made between:

a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Marx (1970)

Marx contrasts this phase where

the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case. 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.

He then goes on to argue that this is bound to be a right in inequality, since people have different capacities to work and if one person is superior in physical or mental ability they will supply more labour per hour and thus be paid more. So it is clear that what Marx had in mind for the first phase of communism was a society in which there was payment by labour vouchers based on something like a piecework system. He then goes on to say that needs are also unequal:

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 share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer.

He says that in a later phase of communist society when the distinction between mental and manual labour have been abolished, and when productivity is higher:

only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needsIt should be noted that Marx was here quoting a slogan of the French Socialist leader Louis Blanc!

What we have in this brief article by Marx, one that he did not even chose to publish in his own life, is a distinction between two phases of communism. Lenin rewrote this as a distinction between socialism and communism, identifying what Marx had called the first phase of communism as socialism, and restricting the word communism for the second phase. Why?

To understand this you have to recognise that up until the Russian revolution Lenin was a self identified Social Democrat not a communist. Social Democracy was the second phase of the worker's movement in Germany. After the failure of the 1848 revolution, the original Communist Party became illegal. Its leaders were driven into exile in Britain and America. Gradually a new political worker's movement arose that was far less radical. In the face of Bismark's repression it did not even dare declare itself socialist, far less communist. Instead they called themselves Social Democrats and the programme they adopted was essentially one of democratic reform. One of Marx's main worries was that this new movement was not even consistently democratic, that it was too tempted by compromise with the aristocratic government of Bismark, something analogous to the 'reactionary socialism'(We know from history that reactionary socialism was to remain a significant force in German politics. It eventually triumphed with the comming to power of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) led by the reactionary socialist Hitler in the 1930s). criticised in the Communist Manifesto.

In this political atmosphere, socialism, which Marx and Engels had politicised against was seen as something very radical, and communism was beyond the pale. Something so dangerous that no German politician could openly associate himself or herself with.

The objectives of the Social Democrats were much more modest than those of the old Communist Party, and Marx's radical aims of abolishing commodity product were dismissed as impractical. The leading theorist of Social Democracy, Karl Kautsky argued that there was no foreseeable alternative to monetary economy. He envisaged the aim of the party as an economy not unlike what is now called 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics'. The economy would be mainly publicly owned but money wages, commodity production etc. would be retained.

Finally when Social Democrats came to power in Germany 1969, they like the Swedish Social Democrats placed very little emphasis on public ownership and gave much more attention to what Marx had seen as the tasks of the second phase of communism: the creation of a welfare state. This provided substantial allocations according to need: state subsidies for children, subsidised health and education etc. Some other European working class parties like the French Socialists and the British Labour Party continued to call themselves socialists and aimed for the gradual extension of state ownership of the economy whilst also providing many of what were now seen as 'Social Democratic' welfare measures.

In Russia the Social Democratic party led by Lenin changed its name once it came to power to Communist Party, but its initial economic objective remained the same as that of the old pre 1914 Social Democrats : to create a publicly owned economy. The long term strategy of the new party was set out by Bukharin and Preobrazhenskĭı (1969) who interpreted communism as a stage that would be reached after the economy was fully industrialised and automated and all goods could be distributed freely.

This was an old anarchist idea that Marx never advocated. In all passages where Marx discussed communism in Capital or in programmatic documents he talked about allocation using labour vouchers or according to need. The anarchist idea of free distribution is both impractical and almost the opposite of what Marx meant by distribution according to need. It is clear that what he refers to is the fact that those with children or disabilities have greater needs and should, in a truly equitable situation get a higher income.

Bukharin took what was a purely pragmatic observation by Marx that welfare measures are easier to afford in a wealthy society, and turned it into a way of postponing communism into the distant future. This same position of Bukharin was revived by Khrushchev in the 1950s, except that he was rash enough to suggest that this anarchist utopia would be achieved by the 1980s.

Of course when the 1980s arrived, although the USSR was far richer and technically more advanced than anyone could have imagined possible in Marx's day, it became obvious how phony Bukharin and Khrushchev idea of communism had been. Although society was much richer, resources were still finite. Most goods still had to be distributed via money and could not simply be handed out for free.

Ismail

24th November 2013, 03:18

And the fact that Grover Furr has only one, just one, lone article (that I've ever come across anyway) that has ever passed the peer review process in the field of Soviet history is de facto evidence that either his work has indeed failed to pass scholarly mustor or that he knows it won't and therefore does not submit it for precisely such critique - and no Cultural Logic is not a journal in the field of Soviet history, a discipline in the humanities, or even, as far as I'm concerned, hard research for that matter.

So basically, if Grover Furr is a real 'scholar' and historian of Soviet history, as opposed to a barely noticed extremist writer on the edges, why has he not published his research in peer-reviewed journals of relevance to the topic? The answer is because he can't. So yeah, he gets critiqued by scholars all the time, which is why he can't publish what he writes in serious journals.I don't think Furr minds critiques of his work; he responds to any public criticisms easily enough. I don't know where "he gets critiqued by scholars all the time." Roger Keeran, a pro-Soviet revisionist professor, wrote a review (http://mltoday.com/khrushchev-lied-but-what-is-the-truth) of Furr's book Khrushchev Lied that acknowledged the correctness of Furr's claim that the "Secret Speech" was self-serving and that many of Khrushchev's claims were indeed false, yet concluding that the book is a "much needed but deeply flawed re-assessment" of said speech. Furr wrote a lengthy reply (http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/grover-furr-rejoinder-to-roger-keeran/) to a lengthy review.

I also think you place too much stock in the peer-review process as the criterion of quality. To my knowledge The German Revolution by the Trot historian Pierre Broué wasn't peer-reviewed, and yet it's recognized as a must-read work on the subject, ditto The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James (who wasn't an accredited historian at all and who at the time of writing was an incredibly shrill Trot) in regards to the Haitian Revolution.

I think this fixation on Furr's lack of academic credentials is largely diversionary, considering that no one would care to bring up the fact that Tony Cliff wrote a four-volume biography of Lenin with no particular credentials to his name, or that Ted Grant wrote a book (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm) that dealt with subjects as diverse as philosophy, genetics and mathematics with a similar dearth of credentials. It should also be noted that at no point has Furr ever called himself a historian (unlike Irving.)

I know that in the past you've cited people like Hobsbawm enjoying respect in the British establishment despite their relatively left-wing views, but I think it's telling that Hobsbawm was a supporter of Eurocommunism and denounced Allende's supposedly "sectarian" (rather than the reverse) policy towards bourgeois parties in Chile as a prime reason for his downfall. His politics certainly were not revolutionary.

It is also worth noting, of course, the fact that anti-communism does rule in the institutions, some evidently in a more subtle manner than others. Thus one person who studies Marxist economics has noted (http://mccaine.org/2013/10/17/zombifying-marx/) that, "Ben Fine, Professor of Economics at SOAS and to my mind one of the best Marxist economists alive today, has mentioned that he has attempted many times to publish his articles in mainstream papers, only to have every single one of them rejected. The same fate happens to all other heterodox theorists, so that the old institutionalist economists have to resort to their house journal – the Journal of Economic Issues – and the post-Keynesians have their own publications too. The main exception is the Cambridge Journal of Economics, the journal from [Joan] Robinson’s own alma mater: precisely because of its tradition of heterodoxy and its history as a center of methodological critique of neoclassical economics!"

Paul Cockshott

24th November 2013, 11:25

I don't think Furr minds critiques of his work; he responds to any public criticisms easily enough. I don't know where "he gets critiqued by scholars all the time." Roger Keeran, a pro-Soviet revisionist professor, wrote a review (http://mltoday.com/khrushchev-lied-but-what-is-the-truth) of Furr's book Khrushchev Lied that acknowledged the correctness of Furr's claim that the "Secret Speech" was self-serving and that many of Khrushchev's claims were indeed false, yet concluding that the book is a "much needed but deeply flawed re-assessment" of said speech. Furr wrote a lengthy reply (http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/grover-furr-rejoinder-to-roger-keeran/) to a lengthy review.

I also think you place too much stock in the peer-review process as the criterion of quality. To my knowledge The German Revolution by the Trot historian Pierre Broué wasn't peer-reviewed, and yet it's recognized as a must-read work on the subject, ditto The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James (who wasn't an accredited historian at all and who at the time of writing was an incredibly shrill Trot) in regards to the Haitian Revolution.

I think this fixation on Furr's lack of academic credentials is largely diversionary, considering that no one would care to bring up the fact that Tony Cliff wrote a four-volume biography of Lenin with no particular credentials to his name, or that Ted Grant wrote a book (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm) that dealt with subjects as diverse as philosophy, genetics and mathematics with a similar dearth of credentials. It should also be noted that at no point has Furr ever called himself a historian (unlike Irving.)

It is also worth noting, of course, the fact that anti-communism does rule in the institutions, some evidently in a more subtle manner than others. Thus one person who studies Marxist economics has noted (http://mccaine.org/2013/10/17/zombifying-marx/) that, "Ben Fine, Professor of Economics at SOAS and to my mind one of the best Marxist economists alive today, has mentioned that he has attempted many times to publish his articles in mainstream papers, only to have every single one of them rejected. The same fate happens to all other heterodox theorists, so that the old institutionalist economists have to resort to their house journal – the Journal of Economic Issues – and the post-Keynesians have their own publications too. The main exception is the Cambridge Journal of Economics, the journal from [Joan] Robinson’s own alma mater: precisely because of its tradition of heterodoxy and its history as a center of methodological critique of neoclassical economics!"
I would concur with what you say about economics journals. The C J is. One of the few that will take marxian stuff but even that is only taking marxian stuff about capitalism stuff on socialist planning is rejected on the grounds that this is now historically passe. That kind of thing has to be published in Chinese edited journals now.

Per Levy

24th November 2013, 12:38

words

besides the point that you put furr in a line with clr james, wich is an insult to the latter. it seems to me that you dont want to get it. no one, absoloutly no one, except stalin fanboys, like yourself, take grover furr in any way serious. wich isnt suprising since furr is a stalin fanboy himself. he has written nothing of worth and is a historic revisionist. and in that he is very much in the same group as people like david irving.

Ismail

24th November 2013, 16:54

besides the point that you put furr in a line with clr james, wich is an insult to the latter.I didn't do it to compare Furr's work with James (which would be impossible seeing as how Furr wrote a book on Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" whereas James wrote a book on the Haitian Revolution), I did it to point out that many self-described Marxists write books independently of the peer review process, and that many such works are considered to have value within them if not actually recognized as classics in the field.

it seems to me that you dont want to get it. no one, absoloutly no one, except stalin fanboys, like yourself, take grover furr in any way serious. wich isnt suprising since furr is a stalin fanboy himself. he has written nothing of worth and is a historic revisionist. and in that he is very much in the same group as people like david irving.Well first off, I don't think you'd take any "Stalinist" seriously to begin with. Ludo Martens, an actual historian, wrote Another View of Stalin which I'd imagine would be scoffed at by the vast majority of RevLeft since, after all, it seeks to defend him in some way. Second, even if you don't take Furr seriously, that has little in common with his academic credentials or lack thereof.

Furthermore, what does "FURR IS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY ANYONE" even mean in practical terms? J. Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, and Lars Lih among others have made positive comments on Furr's work while obviously disagreeing with his politics. As Lih wrote, "One does not have to share Furr's reconstruction of events to learn a great deal from the evidence gathered together in this book. Furr's strictly document-based approach gives the reader a sense of the outlook of the Stalinist elite in the 1930s that is hard to obtain elsewhere... Furr's argument throws new light, not only on the thirties, but also on the background and construction of Khrushchev's speech in the 1950s."

Paul Cockshott

24th November 2013, 21:41

He's a Medieval Literature specialist, none of his work is peer reviewed, he publishes mostly in Russian because only Russian nationalists will swallow his shit and he has no evidence that there was a Trotsky Imperial Japan and/or Nazi Germany alliance apart from Stalin thinking there was one. Like I said, nothing of substance.
Well peer review is not everything. I am not aware that Marx or Engels writings were ever peer reviewed. In a field like Soviet Studies in the West, which is highly influenced by international politics, the reviewing process will itself not be politically neutral. The impression that a writer is strongly sympathetic to the Stalin government in the USSR is likely to have some impact on the acceptability of their contributions to some journals. Ismail has pointed out that a similar ideological bias operates in economics journals towards writers whose divergence from political acceptability is much more mild than an advocacy of Stalinism.

I am reading the document that was linked to and have got to about page 45 and he has already got beyond saying that Stalin believed Trotsky to be a collaborator. He is citing sources that he claims say that the Japanese war minster claimed to be in touch with oppositionists in Russia who were providing intelligence, and another document which cites the German Ambassador to Czechoslovakia as saying that Hitler was aware of a planned coup in the USSR by high ranking millitary figures. He does not claim that this evidence proves that Trotsky himself was involved, but he says it does show that there is non-soviet evidence for the existence of at least the sort of conspiracies that were alleged at the Moscow trials. After that he goes on to show that Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission about there not being a block between his supporters and the right, and to show that claims made to the Dewey Commission about the 'Hotel Bristol' at which Trotsky was alleged to have met a conspirator were misleading.

This goes beyond just saying that Stalin thought Trotsky a spy, which would indeed only be evidence of Stalins frame of mind.

Also to say that it is discreditable to publish works about Russian History initially in Russian seems a bit odd. Where is the greatest readership for books on Russian history to be if not in Russia. It is like saying that Ferguson is totally implausible as a historian because he first publishes his books about UK history in English of all things rather than in a civilised language like Chinese or Hindi. This of course just proves that Ferguson is only wanting to appeal to the nationalist prejudices of the English.

Ismail

25th November 2013, 00:27

As far as the trials themselves go, there's no real evidence that any of the defendants were actually tortured. Even then it'd be amazing for every single defendant to have been "broken" by such torture, including those who had braved Tsarist prisons years earlier. Even Trotsky at the Dewey Commission had to cite "Tibetan drugs" being used on the defendants as a possible cause, something no one else took seriously.

Then there's the idea that all of the defendants, in three separate trials, in front of various Western diplomats, journalists and other observers, consistently told nothing but lies. For instance, in Origins of the Great Purges Getty notes (p. 208) that, "If Stalin had used Iagoda to assassinate Kirov, it would have been very dangerous to allow him to appear later before the micro-phones of the world press. Iagoda knew that he would be shot anyway, and it would have been easy for him to let slip that Stalin put him up to it."

Then there's the claim that "oh, well, they were probably promised mercy if they lied and did what they were told," meaning that the defendants of the second trial were unaware of the death sentences passed in the first trial, or that the defendants of the third trial (which included Yagoda) were unaware of the sentences passed in the first and second trials. Let alone the fact that many of these defendants were admitting to crimes that obviously allowed for the death penalty if convicted.

John N. Hazard, a bourgeois authority on Soviet law, reviewed the transcript of the third trial back when it was released and found it believable. Among others, American diplomat and lawyer Joseph E. Davies personally witnessed the third trial and found the proceedings and behavior of the defendants credible.

Yeah I think it's a known fact that the accusations were bullshit designed to discredit Trotsky. Stalin at the time was selling Russian oil and steel and negotiated with Hitler to split Poland so it wasn't the Trots making those deals.Well first off the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't until 1939 (the three trials were held respectively in 1936, 1937 and 1938.) Secondly a few of the defendants actually were stationed in Germany during the early-mid 30s for legitimate purposes, as noted in the Trials, such as diplomacy and trade.

Geiseric

25th November 2013, 00:56

How Ismail always consider bourgeois statesmen and historians to be automatically correct on these issues, ill never know. The United states didn't show Trotsky into the country, and also was undergoing purges of socialists, so Davies was acting on behalf of anti communists as much as Stalin.

Ismail

25th November 2013, 01:11

How Ismail always consider bourgeois statesmen and historians to be automatically correct on these issues, ill never know.The Dewey Commission was full of liberals (starting with Dewey himself) and pseudo-leftists who later became avowed anti-communists. See for instance the two posts by IsItJustMe in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/fewer-outsiders-better-t124508/index.html

Not to mention that the bourgeois narrative of the Moscow Trials is very clear: they were supposedly a total fraud. Nowadays the accounts by Davies and others are attacked as naïve, displaying their status as "useful idiots" at best.

The United states didn't show Trotsky into the country, and also was undergoing purges of socialists, so Davies was acting on behalf of anti communists as much as Stalin.The FBI established contact with Trotsky after the Trials and Trotsky himself vowed to testify before the Dies Committee (the same committee involved in anti-communist activities): http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

Also you forget that the third trial, which he observed, was concerned mainly with the Right (Bukharin, Yagoda and the like), as opposed to the first and second.

Teacher

29th November 2013, 19:12

Trotsky was also able to use the New York Times as his personal mouthpiece during his time in exile.

Geiseric

29th November 2013, 23:37

The Dewey Commission was full of liberals (starting with Dewey himself) and pseudo-leftists who later became avowed anti-communists. See for instance the two posts by IsItJustMe in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/fewer-outsiders-better-t124508/index.html

Not to mention that the bourgeois narrative of the Moscow Trials is very clear: they were supposedly a total fraud. Nowadays the accounts by Davies and others are attacked as naïve, displaying their status as "useful idiots" at best.

The FBI established contact with Trotsky after the Trials and Trotsky himself vowed to testify before the Dies Committee (the same committee involved in anti-communist activities): http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

Also you forget that the third trial, which he observed, was concerned mainly with the Right (Bukharin, Yagoda and the like), as opposed to the first and second.

Sorry Trotsky didn't talk to any committee, that's a false statement. He wasn't allowed into the US due to this fact, he was only allowed in Mexico.

Sea

30th November 2013, 21:54

Trotsky was also able to use the New York Times as his personal mouthpiece during his time in exile.I don't think that collaborating with people from New York is tantamount to collaborating with fascists. It is pretty damn close though.

Also, this was interesting. From the page Ismail linked:

"'Adolf Hitler read Trotsky's autobiography as soon as it was published. Hitler's biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells in 'Der Fuehrer' how the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in 1930 by bursting into rapturous praise of Trotsky's book' ('The Great Conspiracy Against Russia,' Kahn and Sayers)."From the horse's mouth:
In 1930, Hitler surprised a circle of his friends by asking them if they had read the just-published autobiography of Leon Trotzky, the great Jewish leader of the Russian Revolution, and what they thought of it. As might have been expected, the answer was: 'Yes... loathsome book... memoirs of Satan... ' To which Hitler replied: 'Loathsome? Brilliant! I have learned a great deal from it, and so can you.'(Konrad Heiden, Der Fuehrer pg. 308)

So there you have Hitler's opinions of that most hated Judeo-Bolshevik posterboy.That still really doesn't guarantee that the feelings were mutual, though. Is there any damning evidence about what Trotsky thought of Hitler? That would be a lot more juicy methinks.

Geiseric

1st December 2013, 19:29

I don't think that collaborating with people from New York is tantamount to collaborating with fascists. It is pretty damn close though.

Also, this was interesting. From the page Ismail linked:

From the horse's mouth:(Konrad Heiden, Der Fuehrer pg. 308)

So there you have Hitler's opinions of that most hated Judeo-Bolshevik posterboy.That still really doesn't guarantee that the feelings were mutual, though. Is there any damning evidence about what Trotsky thought of Hitler? That would be a lot more juicy methinks.

Maybe you should read what Trotsky wrote instead of what other people wrote about him.

Ismail

4th December 2013, 02:06

Sorry Trotsky didn't talk to any committee, that's a false statement. He wasn't allowed into the US due to this fact, he was only allowed in Mexico.I never claimed he actually testified before the Dies Committee, merely that he intended to do so before external circumstances prevented it.

That still really doesn't guarantee that the feelings were mutual, though. Is there any damning evidence about what Trotsky thought of Hitler? That would be a lot more juicy methinks.It was never claimed anywhere in the Moscow Trials that Trotsky actually admired Hitler. The Trots sought to use the Nazis to help get into power themselves. Already in 1927 Trotsky had his "Clemenceau thesis" that made clear his faction would take power if it could in the event of an external invasion, ostensibly to "save" the revolution and its gains. He likewise argued elsewhere that the USSR could not win a war with Nazi Germany so long as the "Stalinist bureaucracy" remained in power. In the Trials defendants like Radek made the same sort of arguments as to the theoretical justifications for their actions.

Geiseric

5th December 2013, 01:17

I never claimed he actually testified before the Dies Committee, merely that he intended to do so before external circumstances prevented it.

It was never claimed anywhere in the Moscow Trials that Trotsky actually admired Hitler. The Trots sought to use the Nazis to help get into power themselves. Already in 1927 Trotsky had his "Clemenceau thesis" that made clear his faction would take power if it could in the event of an external invasion, ostensibly to "save" the revolution and its gains. He likewise argued elsewhere that the USSR could not win a war with Nazi Germany so long as the "Stalinist bureaucracy" remained in power. In the Trials defendants like Radek made the same sort of arguments as to the theoretical justifications for their actions.

What are you even talking about? He NEVER claimed to testify before the Dies Committee. That's a made up fact that you pulled out of your arse.

Ismail

5th December 2013, 05:11

What are you even talking about? He NEVER claimed to testify before the Dies Committee. That's a made up fact that you pulled out of your arse.
What are you even talking about? He NEVER claimed to testify before the Dies Committee. That's a made up fact that you pulled out of your arse.Again, I never claimed he actually did manage to testify before it, merely that he fully intended to do so.

"In 1939, Trotsky was in contact with the Congressional Committee headed by Representative Martin Dies of Texas. The Committee, set up to investigate un-American activities, had become a forum for anti-Soviet propaganda. Trotsky was approached by agents of the Dies Committee and invited to testify as an 'expert witness' on the menace of Moscow. Trotsky was quoted in the New York Times of December 8, 1939, as stating he considered it his political duty to testify for the Dies Committee. Plans were discussed for Trotsky's coming to the United States. The project, however, fell through." (Sayers and Kahn, The Great Conspiracy, 1946, pp. 318-319.)

It's a bit strange you're ignorant about this event. James P. Cannon and various other Trots came to the defense of their master, while Isaac Deutscher likewise wrote about it in his biography of Trotsky.

Remus Bleys

5th December 2013, 13:34

Lol ismail. Did you just deride someone for upholding trotsky as their master?
Pot meet kettle.

How anyone can take trotskys accusation of being fascist seriously is beyond me.

Ismail

6th December 2013, 00:43

How anyone can take trotskys accusation of being fascist seriously is beyond me.No one argued that Trotsky was a fascist. For instance, Stalin in 1937 noted (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm)the following:

Can it be said that present-day Trotskyism, the Trotskyism, let us say, of 1936, is a political tendency in the working class? No, it is impossible to say this. Why? Because the present-day Trotskyists are afraid to show their real face before the working class, afraid to reveal to it their real aims and tasks; they assiduously conceal from the working class their political physiognomy, afraid that if the working class finds out their real intentions it will swear at them as people alien from the working class and will drive them away. This, in fact, explains why the basic method of Trotskyist work is not now open and honest propaganda of its views before the working class, but rather the masking of its views: the servile and groveling praise of the views of their opponents, the pharisaical and false trampling of their own views in the mud.

At the trial in 1936, if you remember, Kamenev and Zinoviev flatly denied that they had any kind of political platform. They had a full opportunity to unfold their political platform at the trial. Nevertheless, they did not do so, declaring that they had no political platform whatsoever. There can be no doubt that they both lied in denying that they had a platform. Now even the blind can see that they had a political platform. But why did they deny the existence of any political platform? Because they were afraid to disclose their real political face, they were afraid to demonstrate their real political platform of restoring Capitalism in the USSR; they were afraid that such a platform would arouse revulsion in the working class.

At the trial in 1937, Piatakov, Radek, and Sokolnikov took a different course. They did not deny that the Trotskyists and Zinovievists had a political platform. They admitted they had a definite political platform, admitted it and unfolded in their testimony. But they unfolded it not in order to rally the working class, to rally the people to support the Trotskyist platform, but rather to damn it and brand it as an anti-people and anti-proletarian platform. The restoration of capitalism, the liquidation of the collective farms and state-farms, the re-establishment of a system of exploitation, alliance with the Fascist forces of Germany and Japan to bring nearer a war with the Soviet Union, a struggle for war and against the policy of peace, the territorial dismemberment of the Soviet Union with the Ukraine to the Germans and the Maritime Province to the Japanese, the scheming for the military defeat of the Soviet Union in the event of an attack on it by hostile states and, as a means for achieving these aims: wrecking, diversionism, industrial terror against the leaders of Soviet power, espionage on behalf of Japano-German Fascist forces—such was the political platform of present-day Trotskyism as unfolded by Piatakov, Radek, and Sokolnikov. Naturally the Trotskyists could not but conceal such a platform from the people, from the working class. And they concealed it not only from the working class, but also from the Trotskyist rank and file as well, and not only from the Trotskyist rank and file, but even from the upper Trotskyist leadership, comprised of a small group of 30 or 40 people. When Radek and Piatakov demanded permission from Trotsky to convene a small conference of 30 or 40 Trotskyists in order to provide information on the character of this platform, Trotsky forbade them to do so, saying that it was inexpedient to speak of the true character of this platform even to a small group of Trotskyists, since such an "operation" might lead to a split.

"Political figures" concealing their views and their platform not only from the working class but also from the Trotskyist rank and file, and not only from the Trotskyist rank and file, but also from the upper leadership of the Trotskyists — such is the physiognomy of contemporary Trotskyism.

But from this it follows that contemporary Trotskyism can no longer be called a political tendency within the working class.

Contemporary Trotskyism is not a political trend within the working class, but an unprincipled and intellectually devoid band of wreckers, diversionists, intelligence agents, spies, and killers; a band of sworn enemies of the working class in the hire of the intelligence service organs of foreign states.

Such is the indisputable result of the evolution of Trotskyism in the past seven or eight years.

Such is the difference between Trotskyism in the past and Trotskyism in the present.There also exists the 1947 Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on Trotskyism translated into English, and it does not call it a fascist ideology, nor Trotsky himself a fascist.

Hit The North

6th December 2013, 01:13

Ismail

6th December 2013, 01:17

Ismail, who would give a fuck what that liar and murderer of Bolshevism, Stalin, has to say about anything - especially characterisations of his enemies? Good point, if Trots believe the Soviet line was that Trotsky was a fascist, it doesn't matter what the actual initiators and maintainers of that line (the Soviet press, academic works, Joseph Stalin himself, etc.) say, only what Trots say it is. Thanks for clarifying things.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

6th December 2013, 02:06

Ismail, who would give a fuck what that liar and murderer of Bolshevism, Stalin, has to say about anything - especially characterisations of his enemies?

And the idea that Trotskyism was "intellectually devoid" and this coming from a dunce like Stalin is laughable on a cosmic level.

Yes, your mystical "Bolshevism" was buried in Russia - but its burial was not administered by the monstrous, deceitful, conniving dunce Joseph oh-terror Stalin, but by Lenin.

The failure of Communist construction and eventual defeat in Russia and everywhere else, stems from practical problems of economy and Imperialism that proved to be too much resistance to communist vigilance. Not by some "evil" individual.

The only rational thing for Lenin to do under the political situation in Russia was to pervert the Party by letting in Peasants and once gaining power, holding on to government in hope of Revolution in and economic help from Europe. Democracy within the Communist Party of Russia already degenerated as early as 1918, and with (under those conditions) the necessary ban on factions pushed through by Lenin fully set the conditions for "Stalinism" to flourish.

This whole discussion is very silly in my opinion. Do all of you on Revleft also feel the urge in real life to turn onto roads with a "Dead End"?

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 03:14

Good point, if Trots believe the Soviet line was that Trotsky was a fascist, it doesn't matter what the actual initiators and maintainers of that line (the Soviet press, academic works, Joseph Stalin himself, etc.) say, only what Trots say it is. Thanks for clarifying things.
What?

Ismail

6th December 2013, 03:23

I don't see how letting in peasants (as if the Bolsheviks didn't try to appeal to them pre-1917) was a reactionary measure. Collectivization still occurred, and I can't think of any policies in industry that were modified based on some sort of backwards peasant mentality within the CPSU(B).

In Albania the working-class accounted for 17% of the PLA's membership in 1956 (up from 11% in 1952), it wasn't until 1971 that workers comprised a majority of its membership. And yet collectivization was carried out in the late 50s and by 1969 Albania's agriculture became the most collectivized in Europe.

What?You claimed that "Stalinists" think Trotsky was a fascist. I pointed out that's false, citing Stalin himself and the 1947 Great Soviet Encyclopedia discussing the nature of Trotsky and Trotskyism. Hit the North proceeds to rant about how no one should believe Stalin. Either he decided to barge into the thread just so he demonstrate how much he opposes Stalin, or he's insinuating that "Stalinists" do think that Trotsky was a fascist (and that this was claimed in the Moscow Trials), even though no actual "Stalinist" source (including Stalin) actually claims this.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 03:32

Well I meant that how anyone could take his collaboration with fascism but whatever.
This "what" meant though and yyou clarified what you meant. Thanks.

Ismail

6th December 2013, 03:38

Well I meant that how anyone could take his collaboration with fascism but whatever.I think it has something to do with the fact that from 1936-38 three trials were held in which 54 defendants (some of them co-founders of the "Left" Opposition) confessed in front of open courts to being either accomplices or accessories to said collaboration, giving both their reasons for said collaboration and their methods in carrying it out, as well as the material evidence given during said trials.

Sea

6th December 2013, 10:39

I think it has something to do with the fact that from 1936-38 three trials were held in which 54 defendants (some of them co-founders of the "Left" Opposition) confessed in front of open courts to being either accomplices or accessories to said collaboration, giving both their reasons for said collaboration and their methods in carrying it out, as well as the material evidence given during said trials.I'm just kinda curious, since a lot of people will claim the trials were bunk (I'm just gonna conveniently say that I don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement), if any of that material evidence has surfaced? Since, obviously, assuming the confessions were true, the things the confessions pointed towards could be used as evidence as well.

Ismail

6th December 2013, 11:57

I'm just kinda curious, since a lot of people will claim the trials were bunk (I'm just gonna conveniently say that I don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement), if any of that material evidence has surfaced? Since, obviously, assuming the confessions were true, the things the confessions pointed towards could be used as evidence as well.From Soviet Policy and Its Critics by J.R. Campbell, 1939, pp. 262-263, discussing the second trial:

"There were the Experts Committee of three, which showed that some of the explosions could not have occurred accidentally. Further, letters that Knyazev, a prominent railway official concerned in wrecking, had received from Japanese agents and had omitted to destroy, were found amongst his personal effects and were identified at the trial.

The diary of the accused Stroilov, who had been blackmailed by German Secret Service agents into engaging in espionage and sabotage, was produced and was found to contain their telephone numbers, which were checked and confirmed by the appropriate telephone directory.

The movements of the German agents mentioned in the trial were confirmed by the production of official records of their arrival. Their identity photographs were produced, and the accused Stroilov picked them out from a number of other photographs."

During that trial Radek claimed that he had been receiving letters from Trotsky in the early 30s, but had burned them afterwards for obvious security reasons. When Trotsky's archives at Harvard opened up in the 80s J. Arch Getty confirmed that he did maintain contact with Radek and some others but that, "Unlike virtually all Trotsky's other letters (including even the most sensitive) no copies of these remain the Trotsky Papers. It seems likely that they have been removed from the Papers at some time. Only the certified mail receipts remain. At his 1937 trial, Karl Radek testified that he had received a letter from Trotsky containing 'terrorist instructions', but we do not know whether this was the letter in question." See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1521611&postcount=7

Hit The North

6th December 2013, 14:49

Yes, your mystical "Bolshevism" was buried in Russia - but its burial was not administered by the monstrous, deceitful, conniving dunce Joseph oh-terror Stalin, but by Lenin.

An unlikely scenario that I assume you have just pulled out of your arse.

The failure of Communist construction and eventual defeat in Russia and everywhere else, stems from practical problems of economy and Imperialism that proved to be too much resistance to communist vigilance. Not by some "evil" individual.

Oh, yeah, sure! It wasn't Stalin who supervised over the state murder of the revolutionary generation. It wasn't Stalin who pursued his political rivals into extinction. It was the economy, stupid! Stalin was just a puppet. Muppet. :rolleyes:

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 15:11

Oh, yeah, sure! It wasn't Stalin who supervised over the state murder of the revolutionary generation. It wasn't Stalin who pursued his political rivals into extinction. It was the economy, stupid! Stalin was just a puppet. Muppet. :rolleyes:
Are you... are you... are you seriously arguing that the great man of history theory is more correct than economic determinism?

Hit The North

6th December 2013, 16:30

Are you... are you... are you seriously arguing that the great man of history theory is more correct than economic determinism?

Have I stated that? Take a look at the post that WCOP was responding to. Do I state anything of the sort? Does pointing to the facts of Stalin being a liar and the murderer of the old Bolshevik leadership amount to an epistemological statement concerning the failure of the Russian revolution?

Blake's Baby

6th December 2013, 19:23

...
Oh, yeah, sure! It wasn't Stalin who supervised over the state murder of the revolutionary generation. It wasn't Stalin who pursued his political rivals into extinction. It was the economy, stupid! Stalin was just a puppet. Muppet. :rolleyes:

And you have in your sig the quote from Rosa: "Events have their own logic, even when people don't."

Do you really not see the irony here?

No-one is claiming Stalin didn't preside over the showtrials where the remains of the Bolshevik Party were murdered. Maybe Ismail is, I don't know. But the point is not whether Stalin had his political rivals murdered (which of course he did). It's whether the successes and failures of the world revolution between 1917-27 were the fault of a few individuals.

The revolution in Germany wasn't defeated in 1919 because of what Stalin did in 1936.

Hit The North

6th December 2013, 20:29

And you have in your sig the quote from Rosa: "Events have their own logic, even when people don't."

Do you really not see the irony here?

Only if (a) my assertion that Stalin was a liar and a murderer contradicts Rosa's neat summing up of the dialectic between action and structure; or (b) you've discovered a new meaning for the word 'irony'.

No-one is claiming Stalin didn't preside over the showtrials where the remains of the Bolshevik Party were murdered.
Then what is your objection to what I originally wrote?

The revolution in Germany wasn't defeated in 1919 because of what Stalin did in 1936.
No, and I'm quite happy to think the opposite is true, that the defeat of the German revolution was a link in the chain that led to Stalin's dominance. But so what? This doesn't negate the nefarious actions of Stalin does it? Or do you subscribe to the kind of moronic deterministic view of history where all individuals are robbed of initiative? Or do you want, as WCOP appears to do, to use history as a reason for excusing or absolving Stalin of his crimes?

Let me know when you've decided.

But the point is not whether Stalin had his political rivals murdered (which of course he did). It's whether the successes and failures of the world revolution between 1917-27 were the fault of a few individuals. This might be the point you want to make, comrade, but it is certainly not the topic of this thread and it has faf all to do with the point I was making which was that it is unwise to trust the verdict of a known liar and murderer when he writes an evaluation of his political enemies.

Remus Bleys

6th December 2013, 21:07

So I imagine you think that if trotskyy was in charge instead of stalin things would have been better?

Hit The North

6th December 2013, 21:46

So I imagine you think that if trotskyy was in charge instead of stalin things would have been better?

Well you would have to imagine that because I haven't stated such a thing.

But do you imagine that there would be no difference?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

6th December 2013, 21:47

So I imagine you think that if trotskyy was in charge instead of stalin things would have been better?
Does a critique of the great man theory mean that we say individuals have NO impact on historical development? Or does it just mean that we understand that individuals alone don't impact economic development, but are also responding to their context?

Something I've always been curious about - is it really using the "Great Man" theory of history to say that the USSR would have pursued substantially different policies during the 30s if Trotsky was the General Secretary? It does seem that the different qualities of an individual can have some kind of causal relationship to his or her responses to their situation

Ismail

7th December 2013, 04:10

Does a critique of the great man theory mean that we say individuals have NO impact on historical development? Or does it just mean that we understand that individuals alone don't impact economic development, but are also responding to their context?

Something I've always been curious about - is it really using the "Great Man" theory of history to say that the USSR would have pursued substantially different policies during the 30s if Trotsky was the General Secretary? It does seem that the different qualities of an individual can have some kind of causal relationship to his or her responses to their situationAs Stalin himself put it (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13.htm) in 1931:

Ludwig: Marxism denies that the individual plays an outstanding role in history. Do you not see a contradiction between the materialist conception of history and the fact that, after all, you admit the outstanding role played by historical personages?

Stalin: No, there is no contradiction here. Marxism does not at all deny the role played by outstanding individuals or that history is made by people. In Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy and in other works of his you will find it stated that it is people who make history. But, of course, people do not make history according to the promptings of their imagination or as some fancy strikes them. Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made when that generation was born. And great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and want to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will land themselves in the situation of Don Quixote. Thus it is precisely Marx's view that people must not be counterposed to conditions. It is people who make history, but they do so only to the extent that they correctly understand the conditions that they have found ready-made, and only to the extent that they understand how to change those conditions. That, at least, is how we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for a good many years.In addition, Trotsky in his diary claimed that if neither he nor Lenin were present in Russia in 1917, the October Revolution would not have occurred.

Geiseric

7th December 2013, 16:35

Because the other Bolsheviks would of prevented it, which they almost did, since zinoviev and kamenev were proposing to support the provisional government, and they were editing the party press to match their opportunist politics. Stalin was part of their bloc at that point, and again in the 1920s when Trotsky called them out on it.

Remus Bleys

7th December 2013, 18:01

Sigh.

Well you would have to imagine that because I haven't stated such a thing.Nah, you didn't, but its pretty obvious you think that.

But do you imagine that there would be no difference?
Maybe Trotsky wouldn't have eaten caviar. But the mass killings, shitty industrialization plans, would have been the same. Perhaps trotsky would have been "nicer" to ethnic minorities.
But this seems to be under the assumption that Stalin was a big bad evil dude who just wanted to kill everyone and be evil and power hungry. Such is a bourgeois view of Stalin.

Does a critique of the great man theory mean that we say individuals have NO impact on historical development? Or does it just mean that we understand that individuals alone don't impact economic development, but are also responding to their context?
You're correct. This doesn't really counter what I was saying.

Something I've always been curious about - is it really using the "Great Man" theory of history to say that the USSR would have pursued substantially different policies during the 30s if Trotsky was the General Secretary? It does seem that the different qualities of an individual can have some kind of causal relationship to his or her responses to their situation
What policies would Trotsky have done differently?

Words
Hey look Ismail I can quote too.

Those who believe in the individual and speak of personality, dignity, liberty, of the duties of a citizen, do not employ marxist thinking. That which moves man is not opinions, or beliefs or faiths, nor any phenomena whatsoever of so-called thought, which inspires their will or action. They are moved to act by their needs which are the interests arising from the same material necessities beckoning groups all over simultaneously. They collide with the limitations imposed by the surrounding social structure opposed to the satisfaction of these needs. They react individually and collectively in a sense which for the general average is determined in advance of the play of stimuli and reactions that give birth in the brain to sentiments, thoughts and judgements.

In addition, Trotsky in his diary claimed that if neither he nor Lenin were present in Russia in 1917, the October Revolution would not have occurred.
It's nice to know you uphold Trotsky's substitutionism.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2013, 18:23

Maybe Trotsky wouldn't have eaten caviar. But the mass killings, shitty industrialization plans, would have been the same. Perhaps trotsky would have been "nicer" to ethnic minorities.

This is simply nonsense, typical of overly deterministic and simplistic understandings of materialism. So things would of been the same? The same mass murders, 'shitty industrialization plans,' etc, would have all been the same regardless of whether or not the power struggle within Bolshevik party would have transpired in a different fashion? You'll have to put forth a pretty persuasive argument to back up that statement, in conjunction with your definition of materialism (since you seem to have a differing conception of it than any other Marxist I've read), for this to even worthy of a response from HTN.

Regardless, your analysis is obviously overly mechanical and monolithic. Off the top of my head, one of the main ways it would have been different if the Bolshevik party had been under the leadership of the LO, would of been the USSR's role in the Spanish Civil War. The CP played a counter-revolutionary role in the affair and the actions of the anarchists were treasonous. If you don't see how the war could have potentially played out differently without the backstabbing stalinist cp, the POUM splitting from (what became) the 4th, anarchists entering into a bourgeois government, etc...then you simply don't have any idea of what Trotsky wrote on the matter. I'm not arguing against the material conditions forging the path for the USSR, but its almost as if you think the relationship between individual agency and material conditions, is uni casual, as opposed to dialectical. A differing outcome in Spain may have turned the tide of world revolution; at the very least Spain was the left's last shot at a genuine revolutionary situation.

Remus Bleys

7th December 2013, 18:27

words
I was unaware the politic determined the economic and not the other way around.
Why did Stalin go counter-revolutionary according to you? Why would Trotsky have been immune to this?

Art Vandelay

7th December 2013, 18:46

I was unaware the politic determined the economic and not the other way around.

Again you showcase your overly deterministic analysis. While the economic base obviously has predominance over the social superstructure of society (being the only one which can reinvent the other), this relationship is much too fluid and reciprocal to simply state that the economic determines the political, without any explanation. The relationship between the two is dialectical: a constant exchange of give and take, never static, constantly bleeding into one another, etc. If you want to put forth the argument that the policies of the USSR from 17'-30's, had no relation to the development of the counter-revolution then do so, but don't dismiss my posts by referring to comments that I never made, while ignoring the rather pertinent example (Spanish Civil War) that I raised.

Why did Stalin go counter-revolutionary according to you?

Stalin simply degenerated with the revolution, as did all the Bolsheviks for the most part. There was nothing inherent within Stalin which lead him to be the man he was and any one of use would have also been susceptible to it. He simply embodied the counter-revolution. So why did Stalin 'go counter-revolutionary' in my opinion, well there are a whole host of reasons, but I guess if you want one in particular, it was the failure of the revolution to spread.

Why would Trotsky have been immune to this?

He wouldn't of been. The fact that you even ask this highlights that you don't understand what I'm getting at. Socialism is a global mode of production, that can only be established on a global scale. The thought of sioc never crossed the minds of any Bolshevik pre-20's, since it had never been on the agenda. The spread of the revolution was absolutely fundamental to its success, until it did spread all they could do was hold on and attempt to insure that whatever gains of the revolution, which could be saved, were. This, by extension, makes the policies taken by the 3rd of even more importance, since we've just established the spread of revolution was necessary to its survival.

So I've got to say I'm confused as to what your argument is. Are you arguing that the USSR would of taken the exact same approach under Trotsky, as with Stalin? That seems to be predicated on the misconception that human agency is anything but a vital aspect of the Marxist understanding of materialism. Or are you arguing that the USSR would of taken a differing approach under Trotsky, it just wouldn't of made a difference? Which if you are, leads to even more startling implications of your analysis of this historical revolutionary epoch.

Five Year Plan

7th December 2013, 18:48

I was unaware the politic determined the economic and not the other way around.
Why did Stalin go counter-revolutionary according to you? Why would Trotsky have been immune to this?

Your understanding of economic determination is so reductionist that it resembles the caricature concocted by opponents of Marxism as an excuse to dismiss it. Economic power is expressed and channeled through politics. They are not mutually exclusive things. This is why the revolutionary task of the proletariat, as spelled out very clearly by Marx and Engels, is the seizure of state power, and the use of that state power to transform society along communist lines.

According to your model of one-way determination by the economy of what you call "politics," this is anti-Marxist because it involves political decisions affecting and changing the economy. Your model ignores how a politically organized working class pursuing a revolutionary political program is itself an economic force for change, and entails the transformation of the economic basis of society so that a new type of egalitarian politics can arise.

I honestly don't know how anybody can lay claim to the title of "Marxist" if she or he cannot grasp these types of elementary principles of Marxist theory.

Ismail

7th December 2013, 23:40

Hey look Ismail I can quote too.Yes, and it's interesting to contrast the clear style of Stalin with the pompous and pseudo-Marxist style of Bordiga. You remind me of how Rafiq last year was calling things like Kim Il Sung adopting Juche and the Nazis carrying out the Holocaust "objectively" necessary because they were supposedly in conformity with the "material conditions" of those countries, and gloating how much of a "Marxist" he (Rafiq) was while shitting on everyone else for daring to criticize him, including knowledgeable users like ComradeOm. Considering he had just left Islam at the time and you're an avowed Christian, I think some religious influence can be seen in your posts, they definitely don't sound like anything Marxists would say.

It's nice to know you uphold Trotsky's substitutionism.Actually it was to point out that Stalin and Trotsky had more or less the same views on the subject, which indicates they had a basic understanding of Marxism that didn't confuse the materialist conception of history with the pagan conception of the environment.

Paul Cockshott

7th December 2013, 23:56

Something I've always been curious about - is it really using the "Great Man" theory of history to say that the USSR would have pursued substantially different policies during the 30s if Trotsky was the General Secretary? It does seem that the different qualities of an individual can have some kind of causal relationship to his or her responses to their situation

Well if we make the counterfactual suggestion that Trotsky might have been General Secretary in the 30s and we look at what he wrote in The Soviet Economy In Danger, then the economic policy might have been different - more like that followed by Gorbachov or Deng. But the social circumstances were surely not present for such a policy to have been adopted. For that you needed the prior effects of some decades of pro-market economic ideology being spread within the economic theoretical establishment, a change in the class character of the upper ranks of the party - dilution of the proportions drawn from a worker or peasant background etc.

Remus Bleys

8th December 2013, 02:57

Again you showcase your overly deterministic analysis. While the economic base obviously has predominance over the social superstructure of society (being the only one which can reinvent the other), this relationship is much too fluid and reciprocal to simply state that the economic determines the political, without any explanation. The relationship between the two is dialectical: a constant exchange of give and take, never static, constantly bleeding into one another, etc.
And I never said that superstructure never affects base. I said that the base wins, especially given the fact that there wasn't a way to restore proletarian dictatorship in Russia without another revolution. It had become a bourgeois state, and was therefore going to pursue those policies.
I simply said this would happen whether or not trotsky or stalin or lenin were still in charge of it.
The economic base of the ussr was capitalism, and to uphold capitalism, not destroy it. Therefore the political course it took was determined largely by this.

If you want to put forth the argument that the policies of the USSR from 17'-30's, had no relation to the development of the counter-revolution then do so, but don't dismiss my posts by referring to comments that I never made, while ignoring the rather pertinent example (Spanish Civil War) that I raised.
Erm, what? I simply said that under Trotsky this policy would have been roughly the same, because the revolution had failed to spread.

Stalin simply degenerated with the revolution, as did all the Bolsheviks for the most part. There was nothing inherent within Stalin which lead him to be the man he was and any one of use would have also been susceptible to it. He simply embodied the counter-revolution. So why did Stalin 'go counter-revolutionary' in my opinion, well there are a whole host of reasons, but I guess if you want one in particular, it was the failure of the revolution to spread.
I see we are in agreement here. And I believe this would have happened with trotsky as well. That was my point.

He wouldn't of been. The fact that you even ask this highlights that you don't understand what I'm getting at.
Okay. Seems like we are on the same side. I said, do you think trotsky would have done better? And HTN responded " But do you imagine that there would be no difference?" and I said no. The reason I said no is because trotsky too would have been degenerated with the revolution.

So I am unsure what you're arguing with me about.

Remus Bleys

8th December 2013, 03:00

Yes, and it's interesting to contrast the clear style of Stalin with the pompous and pseudo-Marxist style of Bordiga.
Stalin takes three sentences to get his point across. Its also funny, because Bordiga wasn't a bourgeois politician.

You remind me of how Rafiq last year was calling things like Kim Il Sung adopting Juche and the Nazis carrying out the Holocaust "objectively" necessary because they were supposedly in conformity with the "material conditions" of those countries, and gloating how much of a "Marxist" he (Rafiq) was while shitting on everyone else for daring to criticize him, including knowledgeable users like ComradeOm.
Argumentum ad Rafiq?

And I'd like to point out the holocaust would have happened with or without the nazis. I;m pretty sure his actual argument was that these things are a result of capitalism, and is therefore another reason to oppose capitalism (though I am not Rafiq).

Actually it was to point out that Stalin and Trotsky had more or less the same views on the subject, which indicates they had a basic understanding of Marxism that didn't confuse the materialist conception of history with the pagan conception of the environment.
So, trotsky and stalin had more or less the same views on substitutionism. Gotcha.

You know ismail, stalin and trotsky had a lot of other things in common too. Is that why you try so hard to discredit trotsky, to make stalin look more original?

Art Vandelay

8th December 2013, 03:21

And I never said that superstructure never affects base. I said that the base wins, especially given the fact that there wasn't a way to restore proletarian dictatorship in Russia without another revolution.

I never stated what exactly it was that you said. I couldn't have, since your post was ambiguous. What I inferred from your post, however, was that you had an overly mechanical and deterministic understanding of the relationship between the economic base of society and its social superstructure. I got that impression, from this:

I was unaware the politic determined the economic and not the other way around.

When a response is as brief as this, one can only assume what the person is getting at. I don't think its ridiculous for me to have gotten that impression, from your comment.

It had become a bourgeois state, and was therefore going to pursue those policies.

The economic base of the ussr was capitalism, and to uphold capitalism, not destroy it. Therefore the political course it took was determined largely by this.

In your estimation when was it that the USSR went from being a workers state to a bourgeois state?

I simply said this would happen whether or not trotsky or stalin or lenin were still in charge of it.

Well of course it wouldn't matter who the specific head of state was. If Lenin had the same politics, was placed in the same historical role, it could just as easily of been him. But the politics of these men were not representative of the same class interests (which is what is important here), so their respective choices in policy of would have definitely effected the path the USSR took. I'm not even necessarily saying socialism would of been on the agenda, but world revolution certainly would of had a better chance.

Erm, what? I simply said that under Trotsky this policy would have been roughly the same, because the revolution had failed to spread.

And I pointed out a specific example (Spain 36') as to why I disagree. So based off your analysis, what policies would of been the same? All of them? Only a portion? Only a few important and deciding ones? Please elaborate.

I see we are in agreement here.

Its a nice change of pace.

Okay. Seems like we are on the same side. I said, do you think trotsky would have done better? And HTN responded " But do you imagine that there would be no difference?" and I said no. The reason I said no is because trotsky too would have been degenerated with the revolution.

I have a better understanding of your argument now, yes, but you'll need more substance if you're going to put forth an argument that will be persuasive enough to force me to reconsider my position on the matter.

Ismail

8th December 2013, 04:42

Stalin takes three sentences to get his point across.And does it with clarity and not pretentiousness, not to mention he's talking to a bourgeois writer obviously ignorant of much of Marxism.

And I'd like to point out the holocaust would have happened with or without the nazis.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bordiga does not count.

You know ismail, stalin and trotsky had a lot of other things in common too. Is that why you try so hard to discredit trotsky, to make stalin look more original?I guess you forgot the part where Trotsky was trying to position himself as the loyal heir of Leninism and so obviously would hold some positions in common with Stalin.

Remus Bleys

8th December 2013, 04:54

And does it with clarity and not pretentiousness, not to mention he's talking to a bourgeois writer obviously ignorant of much of Marxism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bordiga does not count.

I guess you forgot the part where Trotsky was trying to position himself as the loyal heir of Leninism and so obviously would hold some positions in common with Stalin.9mm ill reply to you when I get on a pc (which will hopefully be tomorrow)

1. Nah I meant with everything stalin writes. And what pretentiousness does bordiga ue? Why is this a serious critique?
2. Evidence for what? German economic failure? The petty bourgeoisie being reactionaries? The petty bourgeois nature of fascism?
What do you think caused the holocaust, juche, etc?
3. I guess you forgot how stalin basically did most of the things the left opposition advocated for.

Hold the fuck up. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, bordiga doesn't coount" in the same fucking thread you use furr and stalin as sources for trotskys collaboration with fascists?:laugh:

Ismail

8th December 2013, 06:39

Evidence for what? German economic failure? The petty bourgeoisie being reactionaries? The petty bourgeois nature of fascism?No, evidence that anyone would have carried out the Holocaust besides the Nazis.

3. I guess you forgot how stalin basically did most of the things the left opposition advocated for.One would imagine that the most important thing the "Left" Opposition argued for was the restoration of factionalism within the party. The rest was just "left" phraseology given that when Stalin carried out collectivization Trotsky declared that the Soviet economy was "in danger" and for the policy to be scaled back, not to mention that Stalin never opposed collectivization and industrialization to begin with.

Hold the fuck up. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, bordiga doesn't coount" in the same fucking thread you use furr and stalin as sources for trotskys collaboration with fascistsExcept I never once cited Furr or Stalin in this thread in regards to evidence for such a claim.

Remus Bleys

8th December 2013, 06:54

You are asking for evidence for a hypothetical? Evidence for an alternate universe?
You know my reasonings for why I say the holocaust happened, and you are able to make me look foolish by asking me for such impossible proof by avoiding something else I asked you. Why did the holocaust happen?

Ismail

8th December 2013, 09:35

You are asking for evidence for a hypothetical? Evidence for an alternate universe?You're the one making the absurd claim that the Nazis had no unique role in shaping the Holocaust.

You know my reasonings for why I say the holocaust happened,No I don't, because you haven't given any unless "the God of History wills it per anti-communist caricatures of Marxism" is the reason.

Why did the holocaust happen?Because of the Nazi ideology that Jews were essentially sub-human and originators of all the "degenerate" ideologies and trends in the world, such as liberalism and communism. The Holocaust obviously didn't contradict the primary goals of Nazi domestic and foreign policy, which were to suppress the German workers' movement, destroy the world's first socialist state, and ensure the domination of German capital across Europe. The material basis of the Nazi ideology is one thing, claiming that "the holocaust would have happened with or without the nazis" is something quite different. You've given no proof of such a claim. That the Nazis were seen as the most capable force for protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie did not translate into sharing the NSDAP's ideology. Fritz Thyssen, for instance, helped to financially back the Nazis against the working-class movement, but his own anti-semitism was "traditional" (in contrast to the qualitatively different anti-semitism of the Nazis) and he was opposed to some other policies of the Nazis once they came to power.

Paul Cockshott

8th December 2013, 10:24

I said that the base wins, especially given the fact that there wasn't a way to restore proletarian dictatorship in Russia without another revolution. It had become a bourgeois state, and was therefore going to pursue those policies.

Can you quote a single prior instance of a bourgeois state that made the private employment of wage labour a criminal offence, took over all industry and all but a small fraction of private commerce, expropriated the petty capitalists in agriculture, banned all political parties advocating private property rights and in which people were likely to end up in labour camps on the basis of accusations of bourgeois class origins.

Pull the other one!

Geiseric

8th December 2013, 18:08

Paul Cockshott

8th December 2013, 20:05

So the question is WHEN did it become a bourgeois state? When did the entire country of Russia turn a blind eye to the government they themsselves put together in order to get rid of autocratic capitalism?

Well the answer is blatantly clear, the decisive point of counter revolution was 1993 when Yeltsin used the army to forcibly disperse the Supreme Soviet and institute what amounted to a presidential dictatorship on behalf of international capital.
It was not a peaceful process, there was resistance to the counter revolution.

The ten-day conflict became the deadliest single event of street fighting in Moscow's history since the revolutions of 1917.[1] According to government estimates, 187 people were killed and 437 wounded, while estimates from non-governmental sources put the death toll at as high as 2,000. (Wikepedia)

Sinister Cultural Marxist

8th December 2013, 20:38

The problem with the strict social determinism is that it is practically impossible to falsify either way. It doesn't seem so much a scientific claim that two different rulers would produce substantially similar rules. It does seem though that people can bring in very different qualities to the positions they hold, even if we are skeptical of the "great man" theory of history.

Sigh.
Maybe Trotsky wouldn't have eaten caviar. But the mass killings, shitty industrialization plans, would have been the same. Perhaps trotsky would have been "nicer" to ethnic minorities.
But this seems to be under the assumption that Stalin was a big bad evil dude who just wanted to kill everyone and be evil and power hungry. Such is a bourgeois view of Stalin.

Would they though? The would have faced the same problems, but there were multiple possible responses to these problem.

What policies would Trotsky have done differently? For one thing, less collective punishment against ethnic groups (especially after WWII), and possibly no banning of abortion or homosexuality, which were largely arbitrary decisions made by Stalin. Of course, in the case of ethnic groups like the Chechens, hamfisted ethnic policies may have contributed too to their later support for Naziism. These policies just heightened the alienation between workers from those sectors of society and the Soviet state.

I also wonder if the purges would have taken place, or would have been as extensive as they were, as Trotsky had a different basis of power in the party and a different vision of how the party should work. The collectivization of agriculture might have gone differently too - perhaps different policies would not have brought famine with it (famine which again contributed to many Ukrainians supporting the Nazi invasion)

I think Stalin took these decisions as a response to the particular conditions of the USSR at his time, but at the same time those particular conditions could have warranted different responses from someone else such as Trotsky, and someone with a different psychology/personality/personal background as well as different alliances within the party might have responded in qualitatively different ways.

Perhaps Trotsky would have still tried to preserve class rule, who knows. I think it's not unfair for Trotskyists to argue that the USSR would have looked very different though without committing themselves to the "Great Man" theory of historical analysis.

And I never said that superstructure never affects base. I said that the base wins, especially given the fact that there wasn't a way to restore proletarian dictatorship in Russia without another revolution. It had become a bourgeois state, and was therefore going to pursue those policies.
I simply said this would happen whether or not trotsky or stalin or lenin were still in charge of it.
The economic base of the ussr was capitalism, and to uphold capitalism, not destroy it. Therefore the political course it took was determined largely by this.

"Capitalism" isn't a monolithic system though. I think Trotsky and Stalin also had different theoretical perspectives on the continued existence of Capitalism in Russia, the role of debate and dissent in the party and the agency of the working class outside of party rule.

And I'd like to point out the holocaust would have happened with or without the nazis. I;m pretty sure his actual argument was that these things are a result of capitalism, and is therefore another reason to oppose capitalism (though I am not Rafiq).

Out of curiosity - if everything is economically determined, what's the purpose of opposing capitalism? Won't it rise or fall regardless of what I think of it? What role does individual agency play?

Saying "Capitalism" caused the holocaust still needs to be fleshed out, as it is a true statement, but what's really going on seems more complicated - "capitalism" isn't a sufficient cause for a holocaust, as most Capitalist societies don't commit industrialized genocide, so it's a particular condition of capitalism at a particular moment in history that causes it, not "capitalism" in general. It also seems that the German leadership could have taken multiple possible responses to the situation they were in in 1939, and that the holocaust in many respects went against the material interests of the Nazi hierarchy and the German bourgeoisie. Its interesting to see how trains and precious resources necessary for the war were taken and used for the holocaust instead of for military maneuvers and industrial production. It's also interesting to see how the German bourgeoisie drove out many of the best minds of Germany at the time which would have been necessary for them to win the war.

Remus Bleys

9th December 2013, 00:48

*sigh* I hate this thread.

No I don't, because you haven't given any unless "the God of History wills it per anti-communist caricatures of Marxism" is the reason.
That's fucking hysterical from the guy whos user message is literally STALINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Also, you are attacking my position without even knowing what it is? I mean, try reading the Great Alibi.

Because of the Nazi ideology that Jews were essentially sub-human and originators of all the "degenerate" ideologies and trends in the world, such as liberalism and communism. The Holocaust obviously didn't contradict the primary goals of Nazi domestic and foreign policy, which were to suppress the German workers' movement, destroy the world's first socialist state, and ensure the domination of German capital across Europe. The material basis of the Nazi ideology is one thing, claiming that "the holocaust would have happened with or without the nazis" is something quite different. You've given no proof of such a claim.So why did Nazi ideology incorporate anti semitism?

That the Nazis were seen as the most capable force for protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie did not translate into sharing the NSDAP's ideology No, but that means that what the nazis did was largely in the interests of protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie.
Fritz Thyssen, for instance, helped to financially back the Nazis against the working-class movement, but his own anti-semitism was "traditional" (in contrast to the qualitatively different anti-semitism of the Nazis) and he was opposed to some other policies of the Nazis once they came to power.This is surely not the first time someone came to regret supporting a group, nor is it someone supporting a group they didn't wholly agree with.

Can you quote a single prior instance of a bourgeois state that made the private employment of wage labour a criminal offence, took over all industry and all but a small fraction of private commerce, expropriated the petty capitalists in agriculture, banned all political parties advocating private property rights and in which people were likely to end up in labour camps on the basis of accusations of bourgeois class origins.
No but I can give you cases of bourgeois states killing communists, attacking people on false charges, and persecuting ethnic minorities. This really isn't the thread to address the other stuff in your post.

So the question is WHEN did it become a bourgeois state? When did the entire country of Russia turn a blind eye to the government they themsselves put together in order to get rid of autocratic capitalism?
When did they let themselves lose political power (edit: this is more in the trot narrative, as in when did the proletariat loose control in the ussr. when did it turn from a workers state to a degenerated workers state)? My position is that the Russian Revolution was of a dual character, the peasantry always had a gain in this. I think the peasants had gotten the upperhand around 1921 and they continued to dominate the bolsheviks, suceeding in 1926. Meanwhile there where battles between industrial capitalism and agrarian capitalism. So, it didn't really completely transform, the state simply lost its proletarian character when the proletariat finally lost all political power.

Well the answer is blatantly clear, the decisive point of counter revolution was 1993 when Yeltsin used the army to forcibly disperse the Supreme Soviet and institute what amounted to a presidential dictatorship on behalf of international capital.
It was not a peaceful process, there was resistance to the counter revolution.
Lol tankie Brezhnevite

Sinister cultural marxist:

The problem with the strict social determinism is that it is practically impossible to falsify either way. It doesn't seem so much a scientific claim that two different rulers would produce substantially similar rules. It does seem though that people can bring in very different qualities to the positions they hold, even if we are skeptical of the "great man" theory of history.I am unsure as to why this is what you people think I am claiming.

Would they though? The would have faced the same problems, but there were multiple possible responses to these problem.Sure, but why did the USSR react to this problem the way they did.

For one thing, less collective punishment against ethnic groups (especially after WWII), and possibly no banning of abortion or homosexuality, which were largely arbitrary decisions made by Stalin. Of course, in the case of ethnic groups like the Chechens, hamfisted ethnic policies may have contributed too to their later support for Naziism. These policies just heightened the alienation between workers from those sectors of society and the Soviet state.I am unsure about the ethnic minorities. The banning of abortion and homosexuality were pro-natalist. Why wouldn't the soviet bureaucrats be pro-natalist under trotsky? (note: i am not excusing this)

I also wonder if the purges would have taken place, or would have been as extensive as they were, as Trotsky had a different basis of power in the party and a different vision of how the party should work. The collectivization of agriculture might have gone differently too - perhaps different policies would not have brought famine with it (famine which again contributed to many Ukrainians supporting the Nazi invasion)
Well obviously if Trotsky and crew had been in charge things would have been different, because the only way trotsky could have been in charge was the success of the proletariat in europe, so the party would still have possibly had a proletarian nature to it, strengthened by germany, so trotsky's base of power would be different. But I am saying not much would be different if the only difference was if trotsky was in charge.

I think Stalin took these decisions as a response to the particular conditions of the USSR at his time, but at the same time those particular conditions could have warranted different responses from someone else such as Trotsky, and someone with a different psychology/personality/personal background as well as different alliances within the party might have responded in qualitatively different ways.This is a fundamental disagreement in how we view the world. I don't think stalin was some autocratic absolutist ruler, i think he was a representation of the party bureaucracy and industrial capitalism's developement. So, any differences in personality wouldn't matter (for the most part) because these decisions went through the party bureaucracy before they would be able to be implemented.

Perhaps Trotsky would have still tried to preserve class rule, who knows. I think it's not unfair for Trotskyists to argue that the USSR would have looked very different though without committing themselves to the "Great Man" theory of historical analysis.Its a way for them to uphold the USSR as some paradise "HAD ONLY TROTSKY BEEN IN CHARGE!"

"Capitalism" isn't a monolithic system though. I think Trotsky and Stalin also had different theoretical perspectives on the continued existence of Capitalism in Russia, the role of debate and dissent in the party and the agency of the working class outside of party rule. I started a thread on this a while back here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-alibi-t184963/index.html?t=184963).

Out of curiosity - if everything is economically determined, what's the purpose of opposing capitalism? Won't it rise or fall regardless of what I think of it? What role does individual agency play?I said individuals dont have an effect, not groups. That is why I would scoff at those who would think that Lenin had made or broke October, but equally call for a party and the organization of the proletariat as a class.

9mm I'm sorry I have been brief, but didn't understand that my position was not as clear as I thought it was. I sincerely apologize (and no, this isn't me being a passive aggressive dick, I realize now had I fleshed out what I was saying I wouldn't have to do this now - I was under the assumption that my argument was clear).

Well of course it wouldn't matter who the specific head of state was. If Lenin had the same politics, was placed in the same historical role, it could just as easily of been him. But the politics of these men were not representative of the same class interests (which is what is important here), so their respective choices in policy of would have definitely effected the path the USSR took. I'm not even necessarily saying socialism would of been on the agenda, but world revolution certainly would of had a better chance.
Yes, and that is why I said that had Trotsky been in charge it would have meant the Revolution in Germany had succeeded, and thus policy would have been different. But my argument was had trotsky been in charge, and that was the sole difference, he would have done the same thing Stalin would have, simply because he would have been forced to represent the same classes. Does this clear up my argument?

aufheben

Your understanding of economic determination is so reductionist that it resembles the caricature concocted by opponents of Marxism as an excuse to dismiss it. Economic power is expressed and channeled through politics. They are not mutually exclusive things. This is why the revolutionary task of the proletariat, as spelled out very clearly by Marx and Engels, is the seizure of state power, and the use of that state power to transform society along communist lines. Like everyone else in this thread, you are fundamentally misinterpretting my argument. I think I have answered that in my reply to 9mm. Individuals don't make or break history, the class does.

According to your model of one-way determination by the economy of what you call "politics," this is anti-Marxist because it involves political decisions affecting and changing the economy. Your model ignores how a politically organized working class pursuing a revolutionary political program is itself an economic force for change, and entails the transformation of the economic basis of society so that a new type of egalitarian politics can arise.I have answered this in this post when I said:
"I said individuals dont have an effect, not groups. That is why I would scoff at those who would think that Lenin had made or broke October, but equally call for a party and the organization of the proletariat as a class." to SNC.

I honestly don't know how anybody can lay claim to the title of "Marxist" if she or he cannot grasp these types of elementary principles of Marxist theory. right back at you.

Invader Zim

9th December 2013, 01:32

And I'd like to point out the holocaust would have happened with or without the nazis.

Amazingly, I'm in agreement with Ismail on this one and my response to this statement can only be one word:

'What?'

Ismail

9th December 2013, 04:35

That's fucking hysterical from the guy whos user message is literally STALINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIrrelevant, we're talking about the Holocaust, not my view of Stalin.

Also for the record the "STALINNNNNNNNNN" thing started as a joke among a few MLs similar to the "Thanks, Obama!" meme where everything is blamed on a single person no matter how illogical.

Also, you are attacking my position without even knowing what it is? I mean, try reading the Great Alibi.I never said I didn't know your position, I said I didn't know your reasons (i.e. evidence) for holding it, because you haven't provided any.

So why did Nazi ideology incorporate anti semitism?Once again, the material basis for the Nazis' anti-semitism has little to do with the claim that anyone would have carried out the Holocaust. Stick to the topic.

No, but that means that what the nazis did was largely in the interests of protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie.This is surely not the first time someone came to regret supporting a group, nor is it someone supporting a group they didn't wholly agree with.Which is... what I already said. If you mean the Holocaust was objectively in the interests of the bourgeoisie, I don't really see how. The Nazis weren't just killing communist Jews, they were killing every single Jew they could get their hands on, from the peasant to the bourgeoisie As SCM pointed out, the Holocaust also diverted a lot of effort and material from the war. You'd basically need to show that the Jews were inherently dangerous to either capitalism itself or at least German capital, and that this held true not just for Jews in Germany, but for Jews across Europe, to the extent the Nazis were trying to look for Jews in Albania.

Remus Bleys

9th December 2013, 04:43

Irrelevant, we're talking about the Holocaust, not my view of Stalin.
Not really it was a reply to this: "No I don't, because you haven't given any unless "the God of History wills it per anti-communist caricatures of Marxism" is the reason."

I never said I didn't know your position, I said I didn't know your reasons (i.e. evidence) for holding it, because you haven't provided any.And my evidence is there was no mass executions in death camps until it became necessary, i.e. until the foreign nations stopped accepting minorities, and that it was such an important part to nazi ideology, the same ideology picked by the ruling class.

Once again, the material basis for the Nazis' anti-semitism has little to do with the claim that anyone would have carried out the Holocaust. Stick to the topic.No fucko it does. It's pretty funny Mr. Fucking post useless bullshit trivia is telling me to stay on topic.

Which is... what I already said. If you mean the Holocaust was objectively in the interests of the bourgeoisie, I don't really see how. The Nazis weren't just killing communist Jews, they were killing every single Jew they could get their hands on, from the peasant to the bourgeoisie (and the latter weren't nearly so numerous to be a threat to German capital.) As SCM pointed out, the Holocaust also diverted a lot of effort and material from the war.I mean, it becomes clearer and clearer you never bothered to learn the argument. Just admit that.
Capitalism couldn't handle the sheer number of overpopulation, and it choice, an albeit extreme choice, to kill off several people in order to solve that issue. This pain made from killing them was ultimately better than letting them starve homeless, deporting them, keeping them/selling them as wage labor.

wait a second.

Irrelevant, we're talking about the Holocaust actually dipshit were talking about the moronic belief you have that trotsky collaborated with fascists.

edit: saw you added this or something. weird.

You'd basically need to show that the Jews were inherently dangerous to either capitalism itself or at least German capital, and that this held true not just for Jews in Germany, but for Jews across Europe, to the extent the Nazis were trying to look for Jews in Albania. That's simply because of the superstructure having to force its ideology everywhere. Jews in Germany were already targetted for being a threat, that is why the holocaust had happened - but it created an anti-semitic ideology - that had the germans look for jews in albania and other places simply because the nature of german capitalism created such a high hatred of jews that it spread. The nazis didn't consciously know they were just pawns of the german bourgeois ismail.

Ismail

9th December 2013, 04:54

And my evidence is there was no mass executions in death camps until it became necessary, i.e. until the foreign nations stopped accepting minorities, and that it was such an important part to nazi ideology, the same ideology picked by the ruling class.So in other words the Holocaust was necessary because other capitalist powers refused to give shelter to fleeing Jews? Again, do you have evidence for this? Any actual work on the subject?

No fucko it does.No it doesn't, unless you're going to equate anti-semitism and its two-thousand year history with the Holocaust. Again, there was no shortage of anti-semitism in Germany, including among the bourgeoisie, and yet many such figures had no interest whatsoever in the Holocaust if not actually opposed to it on "moral" grounds.

Capitalism couldn't handle the sheer number of overpopulation, and it choice, an albeit extreme choice, to kill off several people in order to solve that issue. This pain made from killing them was ultimately better than letting them starve homeless, deporting them, keeping them/selling them as wage labor.Again, where is your evidence for this?

actually dipshit were talking about the moronic belief you have that trotsky collaborated with fascists.No, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the Holocaust at this point, and you're the one who started the argument. You're free to return to the original topic if you'd like.

That's simply because of the superstructure having to force its ideology everywhere. Jews in Germany were already targetted for being a threat, that is why the holocaust had happened - but it created an anti-semitic ideology - that had the germans look for jews in albania and other places simply because the nature of german capitalism created such a high hatred of jews that it spread. The nazis didn't consciously know they were just pawns of the german bourgeois ismail.lol

Remus Bleys

9th December 2013, 04:57

Im going to put Ismail on my ignore list and Im done with this thread. ITs not really worth my time and neither is he.
If anyone wants to further this discussion, id be more than happy to have it justpm me. (and yes i will be polite and whatnot)

Comrade #138672

9th December 2013, 07:23

Irrelevant, we're talking about the Holocaust, not my view of Stalin.

Also for the record the "STALINNNNNNNNNN" thing started as a joke among a few MLs similar to the "Thanks, Obama!" meme where everything is blamed on a single person no matter how illogical.

I never said I didn't know your position, I said I didn't know your reasons (i.e. evidence) for holding it, because you haven't provided any.

Once again, the material basis for the Nazis' anti-semitism has little to do with the claim that anyone would have carried out the Holocaust. Stick to the topic.

Which is... what I already said. If you mean the Holocaust was objectively in the interests of the bourgeoisie, I don't really see how. The Nazis weren't just killing communist Jews, they were killing every single Jew they could get their hands on, from the peasant to the bourgeoisie As SCM pointed out, the Holocaust also diverted a lot of effort and material from the war. You'd basically need to show that the Jews were inherently dangerous to either capitalism itself or at least German capital, and that this held true not just for Jews in Germany, but for Jews across Europe, to the extent the Nazis were trying to look for Jews in Albania.Bordiga explains here why the Holocaust happened objectively: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1960/auschwitz.htm

I think it more or less backs up the position of Remus.

Hit The North

9th December 2013, 10:40

Bordiga explains here why the Holocaust happened objectively: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1960/auschwitz.htm

I think it more or less backs up the position of Remus.

Which isn't saying much given how much the view of this article flies in the face of historical materialism. Remus, or anyone else, is welcome to embrace this mechanical view of history, but it has nowt to do with Marxism.

Comrade #138672

9th December 2013, 11:11

Which isn't saying much given how much the view of this article flies in the face of historical materialism.Can you explain this?

Remus, or anyone else, is welcome to embrace this mechanical view of history, but it has nowt to do with Marxism.Well, it makes more sense to me than most idealist / ideological arguments.

Ismail

9th December 2013, 12:43

Bordiga explains here why the Holocaust happened objectively: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1960/auschwitz.htm

I think it more or less backs up the position of Remus.It doesn't back up his position, it is his position. He even admitted as such when saying "try reading the Great Alibi." I wanted to see if he could actually cite anything in support of his arguments except that article (hence why I wrote "Bordiga does not count"), and evidently he could not. Rafiq's view of the Holocaust came from the same source. It's an example of using "Marxism" as a cover for ignorance on a subject, only in this case not realizing the implications of that ignorance.

What's funny is that there's a big translator's note pointing out how noxious the article is, and even arguing that it's possible Bordiga never wrote it (although he never denied its authorship), yet the desire of a bunch of know-nothings to take up the banner of Bordiga in order to appear as the most resolute, revolutionary and "orthodox" Marxists ever triumphs everything.

Can you explain this?

Well, it makes more sense to me than most idealist / ideological arguments.To begin with: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/05/holo-m12.html

Tolstoy

9th December 2013, 19:23

"When encountering a Fascist, one should aquaint their head with the pavement"
-Trotsky

Art Vandelay

9th December 2013, 19:51

"When encountering a Fascist, one should aquaint their head with the pavement"
-Trotsky

Trotsky never said this.

Paul Cockshott

9th December 2013, 21:59

I mean, it becomes clearer and clearer you never bothered to learn the argument. Just admit that.
Capitalism couldn't handle the sheer number of overpopulation, and it choice, an albeit extreme choice, to kill off several people in order to solve that issue. This pain made from killing them was ultimately better than letting them starve homeless, deporting them, keeping them/selling them as wage labor.
This is ludicrous. In what sense was Europe overpopulated? Capitalism does best when it has a growing population leading to competition among workers and an oversupply of labour relative to capital. The deliberate killing of a large part of the working population was unprcedented and completely a variance with the general trend of capitalist society. Prior exterminations of populations had been of pre-feudal elements who could not be readily incorporated as a labour force.

Hit The North

9th December 2013, 22:30

This is ludicrous.

And dangerously close to Holocaust apology.

Revenant

9th December 2013, 22:41

American Fascist apologetics in the conspiracy genre such as Anthony Sutton's Wall St and the Bolshevik Rev, paint Trotsky as an agent of Jewish Financial capitalism, highlighting his links to internationalist Americans and Elihu Root's trip to Petrograd around 1920's.

Invader Zim

10th December 2013, 02:00

Well, it makes more sense to me than most idealist / ideological arguments.

Looks to me like a load of nonsense. And if this is based on a materialist view of the evidence, where, might I ask, is the evidence?

Anyway, as Ismail notes, the translator demolishes the entire premise of the article with a few simple sentences:

'Their choice as victims was due both to their place in capitalist society and their ease of “identification.” Anti-Semitism is thus nothing but a side issue, one incidental to the discussion. After all, they weren’t killed “because they were Jews, but because they were ejected from the production process.” Two decades of Hitlerite anti-Semitic rants meant nothing. “Der Sturmer” meant nothing. Kristallnacht meant nothing. All we had was capitalism looking for a way out of a crisis.'

Game set match.

Jog on, and take your Nazi sympathising article with you.

Thirsty Crow

10th December 2013, 02:37

Jog on, and take your Nazi sympathising article with you.
If you bothered to read the thing, or even to acquaint yourself with the political work of the milieu in question, such shoddy logic might have been avoided.

In short, the basic premise of the article is political - stressing the need to counter liberal mythology and especially of two of its aspects: the cynical exploitation of the Holocaust within this framework and the view which posits that war is incidental to the way social production is organized.

That being said, I think there's good merit to the various criticism leveled against it. The argument about the directly economic causation with regard to the Holocaust simply doesn't stand and is definitely not elaborated upon in a sufficient way.

Invader Zim

10th December 2013, 11:16

I did read the thing, and it does offer apologism - perhaps not intentionally - for the Nazis regime by relativizing the crimes of the regime by placing blame, not with the regime itself, but with the abstract forces of 'capitalism' as a whole. Indeed, the very language of the article sanitises the Holocaust and the Third Reich's policies; "Capitalism condemned millions of men to death by ejecting them from production." Not, the Nazi regime, and not by an industrialised process of mass extermination of Untermensch.

It excuses individual guilt by divesting the Nazis of all and any individual agency and responsibility for what they did. It also purports a load of utterly ahistorical, foundationless horse shit about depopulating Europe's petite bourgeoisie 'in order to concentrate European capital in its hands'. Of course, this buys into anti-Semitic myth making about Jews (and is darkly reminicent of various anti-Semitic stereotypes (http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.se/2012/03/more-important-history-revealed-how.html) regarding Jews and nazi policy), and ignores the fact that other targets of Nazi genocidal policy included ethnic Poles, Slavs, Serbs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Romani, homosexuals, and so on. Unless the author wishes to presume to suggest that these groups were targeted because they were also (at least presumed to be) predominantly petite bourgeoisie, and therefore rivals of the Nazis base, which they were not, then the argument is inconsistent. Either way, the argument is ignorant rubbish.

And of course, as the translator notes, apparently western capitalists are just as much, if not more, to blame for the Holocaust as the Nazis and their supporters themselves (after all they didn't throw the Jews to the wolves "consciously"), because they didn't seriously entertain Himmler and Eichmann's 'Trucks for Blood' scheme? After all, 'German capitalism resigned itself with difficulty to murder pure and simple.' Thus, by failing to give them an alternative option, by providing essential military and economic equipment, with which to continue slaughtering soldiers, POWs and Civilians on the Eastern Front, in exchange for Jews, Western capitalism is just as much to blame. And the fact is that if the author of this piece had known even the first thing about the subject matter in question, they would be aware that the Nazis were far from serious about 'negotiating' for Jewish lives. In the April and May of 1944, when Himmler and Eichmann were making these offers, and Brand was attempting to secure financial backing for it, the Nazis continued to relentlessly slaughter Jews. The ransoming of Jews had nothing to do with the actual saving of Jewish lives - it was about creating plausibility for the lie a that number of senior Nazis, Heinrich Himmler chief among them, were not the architects of genocide; that actually Himmler attempted to save lives, as opposed to take them in unimaginable numbers via unprecedented industrialised, mechanised murder.

So, not only does the author, in their rush to apportion blame, not to the Nazis, but to the Western capitalists, buy into Heinrich Himmler's attempt to construct himself an alibi, it begins to go down the path of victim blaming. The author is basically taking the line that the family of a kidnapper's victim are the ones to blame if the kidnapper murders and/or mutilates the victim, not the kidnapper, either because they cannot or will not accede to the kidnappers demands.

But, of course, these points have already been made quite clear by the translator - who actually goes further and observes that this tract is not that far removed from Holocaust denial. Maybe you should read their preface?

Thirsty Crow

10th December 2013, 13:31

I did read the thing, and it does offer apologism - perhaps not intentionally - for the Nazis regime by relativizing the crimes of the regime by placing blame, not with the regime itself, but with the abstract forces of 'capitalism' as a whole.

I don't know. Apologism, in my view, is something entirely different from the focal point of the article in question - which posits that the functioning of capital directly leads to such horrid massacres - whereas I'd insist on the fact that it is simply impossible to separate the ideological from the social-economic, and thus that the issue of responsibility is very real.

But I honestly can't see how this amounts to relativizing the crimes of the regime or conducting an apologia - nowhere in the article is there any hint that these historical processes were overblown, exaggerated, or perhaps even misinterpreted and/or falsified.
What is at stake for the writer of the article is to demolish the myth of the good and the evil bourgeoisie, the good and evil imperialism. In this sense, yes, the sheer enormity of the Nazi regime's actions is downplayed, but not for the sake of excusing it - it's for the sake of condemning all of capital and its states.

I don't think it's correct to conclude this constitutes apologia of any sort.

Rurkel

10th December 2013, 15:30

The problem with said article is making sweeping claims without bothering to substantiate them. "Jews are predominantly petty-bourgeoisie (and were predominantly unemployed/useless to capital when the Holocaust started) because I said so" isn't very convincing.

Albeit I don't think it has much to do with Trotsky's supposed "collaboration with fascists".

Ismail

10th December 2013, 18:35

Albeit I don't think it has much to do with Trotsky's supposed "collaboration with fascists".On RevLeft political threads are almost certain to get derailed.

Hit The North

10th December 2013, 18:43

On RevLeft political threads are almost certain to get derailed.

Not a bad thing when you consider how tedious it is to have to suffer yet another thread about the non-existent evidence of Trotsky's collaboration with the Nazis.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

10th December 2013, 18:57

Not a bad thing when you consider how tedious it is to have to suffer yet another thread about the non-existent evidence of Trotsky's collaboration with the Nazis.

Haven't seen any evidence from your behalf proving the contrary.

Art Vandelay

10th December 2013, 19:16

Haven't seen any evidence from your behalf proving the contrary.

The burden of proof falls not on the person defending an individual from outrageous lies and slander, but on the accuser to substantiate their claims. This is elementary and shouldn't have to be pointed out. Time and time again, this outright fabrication gets regurgitated on this forum, like the piece of rhetorical vomit it is, simply because certain individuals are too lost in a ideology which is essentially an amalgamation of the policy of the USSR in the 1930's and can't be honest about the past mistakes of their tendency.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

10th December 2013, 19:46

The burden of proof falls not on the person defending an individual from outrageous lies and slander, but on the accuser to substantiate their claims. This is elementary and shouldn't have to be pointed out. Time and time again, this outright fabrication gets regurgitated on this forum, like the piece of rhetorical vomit it is, simply because certain individuals are too lost in a ideology which is essentially an amalgamation of the policy of the USSR in the 1930's and can't be honest about the past mistakes of their tendency.

I'm not particularly interested in this debate because I don't think it is relevant to the theoretical strength or weakness of trotskyism, though I was reading this thread because some of it that actually broaches the subject matter is somewhat interesting. What is more interesting is that it seems that Ismail has consistently presented evidence while all other parties have simply proclaimed "ITS ABSURD" and let it be. If you want me to take your argument seriously then you need to provide evidence other than appeals to authority in the supposed sacred status of the "historian" as Zim does. If Ismail is wrong, prove it, the emotional reaction on the behalf of those who disagree with him, only strengthens Ismail's case.

Paul Cockshott

10th December 2013, 22:24

Originally Posted by Paul Cockshott View Post
Well the answer is blatantly clear, the decisive point of counter revolution was 1993 when Yeltsin used the army to forcibly disperse the Supreme Soviet and institute what amounted to a presidential dictatorship on behalf of international capital.
It was not a peaceful process, there was resistance to the counter revolution.

Lol tankie Brezhnevite
Well in the last years of Brezhnev I was in the CPGB, but earlier in the 70s I had made a considerable study of Bordiga in French and Italian printings, and indeed was involved in translating one or two of his publications into English.

But the Pseudo Bordiga article you posted makes on wonder not so much about the relationship of Trotsky to fascism but that of Bordiga, since that article comes close to being an appology for Nazi mass murder. One thinks also of Bordiga's refusal to become involved with the anti-fascist resistance in Italy in the 40s in which other communist militants were risking their lives. Given that history, perhaps this semi-apology for fascism speaks of a justification for past inaction.

Alexios

11th December 2013, 20:19

I'm not particularly interested in this debate because I don't think it is relevant to the theoretical strength or weakness of trotskyism, though I was reading this thread because some of it that actually broaches the subject matter is somewhat interesting. What is more interesting is that it seems that Ismail has consistently presented evidence while all other parties have simply proclaimed "ITS ABSURD" and let it be. If you want me to take your argument seriously then you need to provide evidence other than appeals to authority in the supposed sacred status of the "historian" as Zim does. If Ismail is wrong, prove it, the emotional reaction on the behalf of those who disagree with him, only strengthens Ismail's case.

That's because it is absurd. Just because Ismail is the one posting "evidence" (lol) doesn't mean he is any more likely to be right. Just about all of the crap he posts is from Soviet bureaucrats and other highly dubious sources. He doesn't seem to be able to consider the possibility of false accounts (unless it works in his favor). I think Trotsky was a murder, an asshole, and proponent of a counter-revolutionary ideology, but I still see that accusations of him collaborating with fascists to be insane.

Also, it's not that historians have "sacred" status, it's that they actually have experience in examining large amounts of evidence and coming up with educated conclusions based upon what they've read. So if I'm going to have to choose between someone who has gone through years of professional training and a delusional tankie who dreams about being Stalin's right-hand-man, I'm going to go with the former for obvious reasons.

Hit The North

11th December 2013, 23:04

Haven't seen any evidence from your behalf proving the contrary.

As 9mm states above, proving a negative is absurd. But we have Trotsky's own analysis of fascism in the 30s and his insistence on communists combining, as an urgent task, with other worker organisations to provide a united front which could smash the Nazis. We also have his declaration of defence of the Soviet Union in the event of a second imperialist war. Of course, you are free to disregard this 'evidence' as mere subterfuge designed to conceal his secret, opportunist dealings with his professed enemy but it seems to me that if there truly was actual evidence to discredit Trotsky then it would have been made public in an undeniable manner by Stalin (who did not stop short at smearing his enemies) and Trotsky's reputation would be ruined beyond restoration. But this did not happen. Instead we are left with 'burned letters', the testimony of terrified persons about to be victim to judicial murder and the ramblings of a discredited and isolated "historian".

Further, the whole narrative that Trotsky collaborated with nazis is based on the conceit that he was so hungry for power that he would sell his soul to Satan to achieve his ends. But during the 1920s we know that Trotsky conducted himself politically with honour, refusing to use his prestige with the Red Army to seize power, instead conducting campaigns based on policy. So this does not sound like a man who would go to any lengths to claim power for himself.

Frankly, the whole of the accusation stretches incredulity and it is no wonder that it is only believed and regurgitated by a clique of the sad, Warsaw Pact Re-enactment Society, of which you are, apparently, a member.

Meanwhile, as history testifies, it was Stalin who did deals with Hitler, Stalin who gave Hitler the confidence to attack, subdue and murder the working class of Europe, not Trotsky. Ultimately, it was Stalin, in partnership with Hitler, who murdered communist revolutionaries (and that includes Trotsky, along with the rest of the Bolshevik leadership of the October revolution).

Invader Zim

12th December 2013, 00:47

I'm not particularly interested in this debate because I don't think it is relevant to the theoretical strength or weakness of trotskyism, though I was reading this thread because some of it that actually broaches the subject matter is somewhat interesting. What is more interesting is that it seems that Ismail has consistently presented evidence while all other parties have simply proclaimed "ITS ABSURD" and let it be. If you want me to take your argument seriously then you need to provide evidence other than appeals to authority in the supposed sacred status of the "historian" as Zim does. If Ismail is wrong, prove it, the emotional reaction on the behalf of those who disagree with him, only strengthens Ismail's case.

Except, I didn't argue anything of the sort. I contended, as many others on this board have, that Grover Furr is not, as I understand the term, an historian. While Furr provides notation for his sources, I see little evidence that (when talking about Soviet History) he applies proper methods of selection or analysis which fit scholarly standards - at least in my limited opinion, of course I could be wrong (which is why i defer to the scholarly medium of the peer-review process for matters in which I am not an expert). My point was not to the highlight the 'supposed sacred status of the "historian"' but rather the importance of scholarly methodology as a whole (which, as a Leftist you should understand is the fundamental basis of all historical materialism and with it Marxist theory - which is necessarily reliant upon a 'scientific' and 'methodologised' process of data selection and query). If you don't get that then you shouldn't be posting on this board.

Ismail

12th December 2013, 19:25

I've not cited Furr once in this thread, I have, however, cited two contemporary bourgeois legal experts (one a noted authority on Soviet law, the other an American lawyer who personally witnessed one of the trials), both of whom concluded that the behavior of the defendants was believable. I also noted that the fundamental part of the trials, upon which everything else rested (i.e. that Trotsky was maintaining contacts with his supporters and seeking to form a bloc between rightists and Trotskyists), is confirmed by Trotsky's own handwriting in his personal archives at Harvard.

But we have Trotsky's own analysis of fascism in the 30s and his insistence on communists combining, as an urgent task, with other worker organisations to provide a united front which could smash the Nazis. We also have his declaration of defence of the Soviet Union in the event of a second imperialist war.And we also have Trotsky's own declaration that the "Stalinist bureaucracy" could not survive a war with Nazism, that it would necessarily have to be overthrown in the course of such a war in order to achieve victory. Radek and others at the trials made clear their logic in doing what they did, believing that the "Stalinists" were in no position to militarily oppose Hitler and that it was either the destruction of the USSR or its "salvation" under the control of the Trots, who would necessarily be forced to give out concessions to those that helped them into power.

Talking about Trotsky's analyses of fascism and how to prevent its rise to power is irrelevant, no one at the trials claimed that he was lying when he wrote those works or that he was actually a fascist. That's not why the Trots decided to collaborate.

Of course, you are free to disregard this 'evidence' as mere subterfuge designed to conceal his secret, opportunist dealings with his professed enemyYou mean like how he publicly denounced Radek and Co. as "capitulators" but was privately sending them letters calling on them to continue to struggle against the government? And how at the Dewey Commission he denied having any contacts with the oppositionists after his exile from the USSR, even though his own secretary privately reminded him that wasn't true?

but it seems to me that if there truly was actual evidence to discredit Trotsky then it would have been made public in an undeniable manner by Stalin (who did not stop short at smearing his enemies) and Trotsky's reputation would be ruined beyond restoration. But this did not happen.You had 50+ people testifying to a conspiracy in front of an open court, none of whom were going to keep written records of directives and discussions around for long.

Instead we are left with 'burned letters'...the existence of at least one of those letters being confirmed, again, by Trotsky's own archives (though the letter itself was suspiciously removed beforehand)...

the testimony of terrified persons about to be victim to judicial murderNot only is there basically no evidence that any of the defendants were tortured, no actual witnesses at the trials (including those who think they were staged) referred to the defendants as "terrified."

Further, the whole narrative that Trotsky collaborated with nazis is based on the conceit that he was so hungry for power that he would sell his soul to Satan to achieve his ends. But during the 1920s we know that Trotsky conducted himself politically with honour, refusing to use his prestige with the Red Army to seize power, instead conducting campaigns based on policy. So this does not sound like a man who would go to any lengths to claim power for himself.His "prestige with the Red Army" was in rapid decline after the early 20s. He was easily sidelined within it and his supporters isolated, not to mention that in the case of the 20s he would have gambled on his leadership role during the civil war, whereas in the case of the 30s he was in exile and was gambling on Tukhachevsky being a nice enough guy to let him back into the country.

Frankly, the whole of the accusation stretches incredulity and it is no wonder that it is only believed and regurgitated by a clique of the sad, Warsaw Pact Re-enactment Society, of which you are, apparently, a member.The irony being that it was the Khrushchevite revisionists who created the Warsaw Treaty in order to sanction social-imperialist aggression and ensure their neo-colonial domination of Eastern Europe, all the while slandering Stalin for "violating Leninist norms" in dealing with said countries. Not to mention it was the revisionists who declared the trials bunk.

Hit The North

12th December 2013, 22:15

I've not cited Furr once in this thread, I have, however, cited two contemporary bourgeois legal experts (one a noted authority on Soviet law, the other an American lawyer who personally witnessed one of the trials), both of whom concluded that the behavior of the defendants was believable. I also noted that the fundamental part of the trials, upon which everything else rested (i.e. that Trotsky was maintaining contacts with his supporters and seeking to form a bloc between rightists and Trotskyists), is confirmed by Trotsky's own handwriting in his personal archives at Harvard.

All of which proves what? That Trotsky was still attempting to organise opposition to the Stalinist deformation and that when those he collaborated with were arrested (because no political opposition, no freedom of political thought, was allowed under the bureaucratic dictatorship) and the lives of their families and friends threatened, and understanding that their guilt was assumed before trial and so that these trials were a judicial scaffold by which to hang Stalin's opponents, they capitulated to the basest of lies. And the idea that execrable creatures like "American lawyers" would go along with the lie and would align themselves with the murderers of the revolution is no fucking surprise, frankly.

And we also have Trotsky's own declaration that the "Stalinist bureaucracy" could not survive a war with Nazism, that it would necessarily have to be overthrown in the course of such a war in order to achieve victory.Well this proves that Trotsky didn't always get things right. No more than that. And this forecast is no doubt motivated by his hopes that the proletariat would rise up against the bureaucracy and, no doubt, being a rather vain man, he fancied that they would carry him on their shoulders back into Russia. If you think this is proof that he collaborated with the Nazis who, he had already argued, posed the greatest threat to the world revolution, then you need to go back to evidence 101. It's another fantastic twist in your unbelievable narrative.

Talking about Trotsky's analyses of fascism and how to prevent its rise to power is irrelevant, no one at the trials claimed that he was lying when he wrote those works or that he was actually a fascist. That's not why the Trots decided to collaborate. So what was the reason again? To further the end of the world revolution so that Trotsky could become Hitler's puppet in Russia?

You had 50+ people testifying to a conspiracy in front of an open court, none of whom were going to keep written records of directives and discussions around for long.And yet despite all of this compelling and irrefutable evidence, amassed against Trotsky, only Stalinist diehards give it any credence. This is puzzling, given the immense propaganda value it would offer the bourgeoisie. How do you explain it?

Not only is there basically no evidence that any of the defendants were tortured, no actual witnesses at the trials (including those who think they were staged) referred to the defendants as "terrified."
No evidence? Maybe that was because all the principle witnesses were shot. But if you are right this provides us with yet another miraculous occurrence which defies precedence: a vicious gang of counter revolutionaries, prepared to usher in a Nazi invasion and callous enough to murder workers with planned terrorist attacks, come clean about their murderous conspiracies in front of the world, entirely of their own freewill without any coercion placed on them except to tell the truth in court. Ahh, bless. It makes me feel all cuddly inside to know that at least they came clean in the end - and without anyone being nasty to them :wub::rolleyes:.

Basically, the whole Stalinist narrative around the trials is asking us to believe that practically the entire leadership of the October revolution, except for Lenin and Stalin, became reactionary counter-revolutionaries. This fits nicely with the Stalinist conceit that there is some invisible line of genius that connects the two men, that makes Stalin the natural and obvious successor to Lenin but, honestly, this has no more material basis in fact than that other fiction you guy's like to peddle, that the revisionists after Stalin magically transformed the USSR from a socialist society into a capitalist one. These are plot-lines that would be rejected by the writers of even the most ludicrous TV soap operas.

I swear, you tankies tell more fairy-tales than Hans Christian Anderson.

Ismail

12th December 2013, 22:51

All of which proves what?That Trotsky tried to overthrow the state and that he did, in fact, maintain contact with figures such as Radek as claimed in the Moscow Trials. And that his attempts at the Dewey Commission to deny such claims are now known to be definitely false.

Furr (first time citing him in this thread) himself has pointed out that it is perfectly logical for Trotsky to have continued maintaining contacts with oppositionists inside the USSR, just as it is perfectly logical for him to have lied about their activities inside it. What it does mean, however, is that Trotsky's word cannot be taken at face-value.

and the lives of their families and friends threatened,There's no evidence for this.

and understanding that their guilt was assumed before trial and so that these trials were a judicial scaffold by which to hang Stalin's opponents,Their guilt was assumed before the trials only because they had spent months under interrogation and their cases cross-checked. A public trial wasn't actually necessary. Lion Feuchtwanger pointed out the attitude of the Soviet authorities to the trial in his book Moscow 1937 (p. 142): "The plain confessions were more intelligible to [the Soviet people] than any amount of ingeniously assembled circumstantial evidence. We did not carry on this action for the benefit of foreign criminologists; we did it for the benefit of our own people."

And the idea that execrable creatures like "American lawyers" would go along with the lie and would align themselves with the murderers of the revolution is no fucking surprise, frankly.Of course the American lawyer in question, ambassador Joseph E. Davies, is portrayed in bourgeois historiography as a "useful idiot" of the Soviets, and the dominant narrative in said historiography as paraded by anti-communists like Robert Conquest and whatnot is that the trials were fraudulent, but don't let that get in the way of your absurd "X praised the trials because they're capitalists" narrative when the Dewey Commission was itself staffed largely by liberals and reactionaries.

If you think this is proof that he collaborated with the NazisNo, I'm saying it's not inconsistent with his own public views on the matter, including his "Clemenceau declaration" of 1927.

So what was the reason again? To further the end of the world revolution so that Trotsky could become Hitler's puppet in Russia?To "save" the USSR by overthrowing the "Stalinist bureaucracy" the only way they could conceivably do so, through foreign backing. I could quote a bit from the trial transcripts if you'd like, I'd just need to manually type them up.

And yet despite all of this compelling and irrefutable evidence, amassed against Trotsky, only Stalinist diehards give it any credence. This is puzzling, given the immense propaganda value it would offer the bourgeoisie. How do you explain it?I don't see how it gives propaganda value to the bourgeoisie, considering that Stalin had denounced Trotskyism as a social-democratic deviation in the party back in the 20s, and that Trotskyism served as such then and serves as such now. Trotsky's writings were published in the West with applause in the 30s, Life magazine published excerpts of his biography of Stalin and a picture of Trotsky himself reading said magazine, etc. He was hardly an unpopular figure.

As Stalin put it (http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html) in 1939, "Certain foreign pressmen have been talking drivel to the effect that the purging of Soviet organizations of spies, assassins and wreckers like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yakir, Tukhachevsky, Rosengoltz, Bukharin and other fiends has 'shaken' the Soviet system and caused its 'demoralization.' One can only laugh at such cheap drivel... To listen to these foreign drivellers, one would think that if the spies, assassins and wreckers had been left at liberty to wreck, murder and spy without let or hindrance, the Soviet organizations would have been far sounder and stronger. Are not these gentlemen giving themselves away too soon by so insolently defending the cause of spies, assassins and wreckers?"

No evidence? Maybe that was because all the principle witnesses were shot.They were shot because they confessed and repeatedly referenced each other as being involved in crimes which very clearly could carry the death sentence. Again, no one actually present at the trials described their behavior as "terrified."

But if you are right this provides us with yet another miraculous occurrence which defies precedence: a vicious gang of counter revolutionaries, prepared to usher in a Nazi invasion and callous enough to murder workers with planned terrorist attacks, come clean about their murderous conspiracies in front of the world, entirely of their own freewill without any coercion placed on them except to tell the truth in court.Actually during pre-trial investigations a number of them refused to confess until they found out that others had already confessed and named them. They had little to hide by the time they were on trial. In fact the only thing that could conceivably save them from the death penalty is if they were as forthright as possible in admitting to their crimes, and in fact this is what many of the defendants cited in their last pleas to the court.