Which, if any, of Stalin's policies were in the interests of the working class...

[Cheese Guevara]

Hi, some questions:

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies were in the interests of the working class?

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies might we term "progressive"?

Why weren't the Eastern bloc countries granted independence by the Bolsheviks? Why, for example, was Latvia recognised as "autonomous" and with its "own regional government" in 1917 by the Russian provisional government, yet in 1919 was being attacked by the Soviet Union (Bolshevik Russian troops killed thousands of Latvians between January and May 1919).

Thanks.

[Red Economist]

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies were in the interests of the working class?
Which, if any, of Stalin's policies might we term "progressive"?

This will depend where you stand in relation to the factions. Marxist leninists will (probably) support more authoritarian attitude as a legitimate expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat (though not necessarily all), whereas more liberal Marxists will be opposed to most of what Stalin did. what is progress depends on your definition of socialism as the rule of the working class.

Personally, I'd say the Five Year Plans did an enormous amount to change the USSR in terms of it's social organization and level of economic development. However, I have heard that planning was largely ad-hoc and the idea of a national plan was an illusion. It brought about serious social and economic disruption as the system was introduced and they often screwed up; e.g. over-fulfilling the "labor plan", so that that too many people moved into the cities and therefore got overcrowded. Also, in 1931 Stalin purged the statisticians, so the economic data for this period is fundamentally flawed if not outright false. Historians and economists continue to have problems on spelling out how far the USSR developed in this period but there was development.

this is probably the 'best' thing they did- and it has a lot of qualifications to it. so it should give you an idea, just how 'controversial' this area is.

I'm not sure, but you might want to look into Soviet Campigns to beat illiteracy which were successful and could clearly be seen as 'progressive'.


Why weren't the Eastern bloc countries granted independence by the Bolsheviks? Why, for example, was Latvia recognised as "autonomous" and with its "own regional government" in 1917 by the Russian provisional government, yet in 1919 was being attacked by the Soviet Union (Bolshevik Russian troops killed thousands of Latvians between January and May 1919).

The Bolsheviks supported "national self-determination", but once a country went 'socialist', based on the assumption all socialist nations would be under an umbrella world government (which in 1917 the capital city would have been Moscow, but I think they would have preferred Germany if it had gone socialist), they kept them in the USSR.
As I remember there was a debate between Lenin and Stalin on this in 1921/1922 at the time the USSR was founded; lenin was infavour of full integration, whilst Stalin supported a federal approach because national distinctions could not be eliminated overnight.

[Diirez]

Hi, some questions:

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies were in the interests of the working class?

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies might we term "progressive"?


I mean, Stalin did turn Russia from a backwards, third-world country to a superpower (with the help of Lenin) but for the most part he didn't really do anything good. He turned the Soviet Union into state capitalism and authoritarian which is not communism.


Why weren't the Eastern bloc countries granted independence by the Bolsheviks? Why, for example, was Latvia recognised as "autonomous" and with its "own regional government" in 1917 by the Russian provisional government, yet in 1919 was being attacked by the Soviet Union (Bolshevik Russian troops killed thousands of Latvians between January and May 1919).

Lenin felt that he was liberating those countries. Taking them out of Capitalism and into the workers utopia. Unfortunately, the workers didn't want that and the governments fought. It's really ironic considering Communists hate imperialism.

This is different than Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution because Permanent Revolution calls for the workers to overthrow their governments and go Communist. So in contrast, instead of just sending in the military and taking over a country and forcing communism, the workers would be assisted and take over their own country for themselves.

[boiler]

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc1312/stalin.htm

Here are five of Stalin's achievements

[motion denied]

I mean, Stalin did turn Russia from a backwards, third-world country to a superpower (with the help of Lenin)


Except neither Stalin nor Lenin did it, but the proletariat being vigorously exploited to provide such accumulation of - wait for it - capital.

Best thing Stalin ever did, apart from his respectable moustache, was probably the killing of the revolutionaries of 1917, including those who led the storm of the Winter Palace... Oh wait, that's not good at all. On the other hand, he was a badass realpolitiker, which means he was a massive opportunist, and actually knew how to play geopolitical 'games'.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Why weren't the Eastern bloc countries granted independence by the Bolsheviks? Why, for example, was Latvia recognised as "autonomous" and with its "own regional government" in 1917 by the Russian provisional government, yet in 1919 was being attacked by the Soviet Union (Bolshevik Russian troops killed thousands of Latvians between January and May 1919).

From what I understand some of the Eastern bloc countries were taken over during the civil war because they had important White Army bases, I'm not sure if Latvia was one of these countries though. They may have been kept under control after the war to consolidate the Soveit Union's border after having been invaded by the western powers.

[Brutus]

I'm gonna say the red army expropriation of the Prussian junker class

[Diirez]

Except neither Stalin nor Lenin did it, but the proletariat being vigorously exploited to provide such accumulation of - wait for it - capital.

Best thing Stalin ever did, apart from his respectable moustache, was probably the killing of the revolutionaries of 1917, including those who led the storm of the Winter Palace... Oh wait, that's not good at all. On the other hand, he was a badass realpolitiker, which means he was a massive opportunist, and actually knew how to play geopolitical 'games'.

You can't just deny that Lenin and Stalin did turn Russia's economy around. Whether or not it was done by the exploitation of the workers is another thing. Yes, Stalin was an awful, awful leader and not at all a comrade of mine, but it was his policy of state capitalism that changed the Russian economy.

[bropasaran]

Everything that Bolshevism can claim to have accomplished, social-democracy acomplished better and with nowhere near the cost in human lives and freedoms. So if we would have to choose some kind of capitalism as being the least bad, it certainly isn't the brutal centrally planned state-capitalism, it would be a non-totalitarian mix of state and market capitalism.

[motion denied]

Everything that Bolshevism can claim to have accomplished, social-democracy acomplished better and with nowhere near the cost in human lives and freedoms. So if we would have to choose some kind of capitalism as being the least bad, it certainly isn't the brutal centrally planned state-capitalism, it would be a non-totalitarian mix of state and market capitalism.

Yeah, after 100 years is soo easy to dismiss it all, isn't it? Also, what freedom did the Russian proletariat enjoy under Tzarism? Not like Okhrana or anyone would imprison and kill them, right?

Totalitarianism means abso-fucking-lutely nothing. Oh, the tenuous line between some "anarchists" and liberalism :rolleyes:

[bropasaran]

Yeah, after 100 years is soo easy to dismiss it all, isn't it?
It was easy to dismiss it when it came into existance, it was easy to dismiss it decades before it came into existence, like Bakunin did.


Also, what freedom did the Russian proletariat enjoy under Tzarism? Not like Okhrana or anyone would imprison and kill them, right?
Strawman much? Where did I defend Tsarism?


. Oh, the tenuous line between some "anarchists" and liberalism
Yeah, anarchism is bad because in has to say some things that are vaguely similar to something that liberalism has to say. But on the other hand bolshevism is a-ok, even though it's basically the same system as tsarism, just using a different nomenclature, exuse the pun.

[motion denied]

It was easy to dismiss it when it came into existance, it was easy to dismiss it decades before it came into existence, like Bakunin did.

How so?


Strawman much? Where did I defend Tsarism?If bolshevism took freedom away, it must have existed before. Can you take something that is non-existent?



Yeah, anarchism is bad because in has to say some things that are vaguely similar to something that liberalism has to say. But on the other hand bolshevism is a-ok, even though it's basically the same system as tsarism, just using a different nomenclature, exuse the pun.Not "anarchism", some anarchists. Bolshevism is a system, then? Tzarism is the same as this system, bolshevism, that you speak of. Interesting.

I don't recall the proletariat in power under Tsarism (even you can't deny that the proletariat held power in Soviet Russia, be it until 1918, 1921 or, heck, 1956 etc). I don't get the pun.

EDIT: oh, was the pun "nomenclature" in reference to nomenklatura? Did I get it? /edit

I don't think this discussion will bring anything valuable tbh, but anyway...

[bropasaran]

How so?
E.g. when he said that establishment of "state socialism" as it was called would just mean "nothing but a despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy of real and pseudoscientists", and that it would be "the worst of all despotic governments".

And when Bolsheviks formed their system, even non-anarchists saw the reality of it, e.g. Kautsky in 1919 saying how "Today the state bureaucracy and capitalist bureaucracy are merged into one—that is the upshot of the great socialist revolution brought about by the Bolsheviks. It constitutes the most oppressive of all despotisms that Russia has ever had to suffer."


If bolshevism took freedom away, it must have existed before. Can you take something that is non-existent?
Yes, that's a real illogical position to take for a man made out of straw.


even you can't deny that the proletariat held power in Soviet Russia, be it until 1918, 1921 or, heck, 1956 etc)
Sure I can, every anarchist can and does, being that it simply wasn't true, even if one defines 'proletariat' in the marxist way, and not in the anarchist way. Bolshevik party held power, yes, they magically saw their own rule as rule of the proletariat, but that's their problem.


oh, was the pun "nomenclature" in reference to nomenklatura? Did I get it?
Yep.

[motion denied]

E.g. when he said that establishment of "state socialism" as it was called would just mean "nothing but a despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy of real and pseudoscientists", and that it would be "the worst of all despotic governments".

Which was a major strawman from the bakuninists. State and socialism are antithetical. After almost two centuries, we should be over this.

Anyway, as demonstrated by Marx and Engels, the existence of a state is not a mere case of will, or else you'll end up with a that is objectively a DotP. That's what happened when workers took control of a city nearby back in 1917; they had the city for thirty days, they formed the 'Comittee of Proletarian Defense'. No wonder why anarchism declined among the Brazilian labour movement after that. To cite a more famous event, the makhnovists had to set up a state; they had, out of necessity. It happens.


And when Bolsheviks formed their system, even non-anarchists saw the reality of it, e.g. Kautsky in 1919 saying how "Today the state bureaucracy and capitalist bureaucracy are merged into one—that is the upshot of the great socialist revolution brought about by the Bolsheviks. It constitutes the most oppressive of all despotisms that Russia has ever had to suffer."

That's because Kautsky and his mates Axelrod, Plekhanov et al thought it would be better [I]not to take power. That's what happens when you mix Marx with Darwin.

I'm not a Leninist, but this is a good work: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/

I read Kautsky's text Lenin refers to, and remember siding with Lenin. Give it a read, it's from the revolutionary side of Russian marxism.



Yes, that's a real illogical position to take for a man made out of straw.

You clearly said:

social-democracy acomplished better and with nowhere near the cost in human lives and freedoms

meaning that "bolshevik accomplishments" cost lives and freedoms.



Sure I can, every anarchist can and does, being that it simply wasn't true, even if one defines 'proletariat' in the marxist way, and not in the anarchist way. Bolshevik party held power, yes, they magically saw their own rule as rule of the proletariat, but that's their problem.

What's the anarchist way of defining classes?

I agree with many criticisms made by Rosa, and I also am skeptical of a party dictatorship; I do differentiate proletarian dictatorship from party dictatorship. However, all parties except the bolshevik (left-SRs later than others) assumed a reactionary instance.

It wasn't the Bolsheviks who took power, but the proletariat, who coincidentally were the spearhead of the bolsheviks.

[motion denied]

This thread is a nice description of why the left is dead.

I'm wasting your and my time discussing a century-old revolution (or coup, w/e) and the aspects that have fuck-all to do with contemporary struggles. I'm pissed at myself now.

[tachosomoza]

This thread is a nice description of why the left is dead.

I'm wasting your and my time discussing a century-old revolution (or coup, w/e) and the aspects that have fuck-all to do with contemporary struggles. I'm pissed at myself now.

Well, to be fair, this is the History section, where you can learn from mistakes that people before us made to ensure that they aren't repeated and take the sparks of genius and apply them to a modern context. That's why we study history.

[FSL]

This thread is a nice description of why the left is dead.

I'm wasting your and my time discussing a century-old revolution (or coup, w/e) and the aspects that have fuck-all to do with contemporary struggles. I'm pissed at myself now.

Because generally all knowledge -theoretical, historical and so on- is useless and you could have used the time you spent writing that very insightful post burning down a bank or two.




Hi, some questions:

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies were in the interests of the working class?

Which, if any, of Stalin's policies might we term "progressive"?

Why weren't the Eastern bloc countries granted independence by the Bolsheviks? Why, for example, was Latvia recognised as "autonomous" and with its "own regional government" in 1917 by the Russian provisional government, yet in 1919 was being attacked by the Soviet Union (Bolshevik Russian troops killed thousands of Latvians between January and May 1919).

Thanks.
Stalin didn't decided policies himself. The communist party of the soviet union and the communist international did.
The policies of social ownership of the means of production and industrialization are two example of policies that significantly favoured the working class.
One could even go on and add the construction of free tourist resorts or childcare facilities and all those other things that came along developing socialism.


There were revolutions in many more countries than just Russia (I'd like to say I'm surprised no one said so, but then again with attitudes like that of "the falling rate of profit" it's no wonder people didn't know).

There were soviets in Hungary, Finland and Germany. There were Soviets in the Baltic States as well. In 1919 it was the Soviet Union that was being attacked by a dozen countries, the most important of them being the British Empire who had stationed a good part of its navy in the Baltic Sea. That's why the Baltic states remained outside of the Soviet Union and why these countries later had especially strong pro-nazi movements. They were promoted as a counter-weight to soviet influence and communism.
In WW2 they were considered freed after what had taken place 25 years ago.

Following the USSR's dissolution the radically reactionary side rules again there. In Latvia, Russian speaking people have no rights and many can't even vote kinda like what the current government of Ukraine would want for the country.


It's interesting that in both cases, in the Baltic States and in Ukraine capitalism showed no hesitation in pushing forward the most conservative, racist ideas to fight off communism's or even just an opposing capitalist country's influence.
Goes very much against its supposed love of freedom.

[Diirez]

This thread is a nice description of why the left is dead.

I'm wasting your and my time discussing a century-old revolution (or coup, w/e) and the aspects that have fuck-all to do with contemporary struggles. I'm pissed at myself now.

You don't just deny history. You can't just forget about it. The Soviet Union failed. Capitalists view the Soviet Union as Communist's love child. If we ever so as much dream of a new revolution and dream of a fully Communist society we have to first understand what went wrong with the Soviet Union.

You can't just say "This is century-old, it doesn't matter." This is an extremely important topic that needs to be talked, discussed and debated about. You learn from your mistakes in history so you don't end up fucking up like someone else did before you.

If you just deny it because it's a century-old revolution, you'll end up doing what Hitler did. Copying Napoleon and then invading Russia in the winter.

[motion denied]

Because generally all knowledge -theoretical, historical and so on- is useless and you could have used the time you spent writing that very insightful post burning down a bank or two.
.

I didn't say that at all, lol.


You don't just deny history. You can't just forget about it. The Soviet Union failed. Capitalists view the Soviet Union as Communist's love child. If we ever so as much dream of a new revolution and dream of a fully Communist society we have to first understand what went wrong with the Soviet Union.


I agree, but we spend too much time discussing things like "but hey what about kronstadt did they have ties to Wrangel??"

Anyway, this is my last post in this thread. Peace.

[bropasaran]

Which was a major strawman from the bakuninists. State and socialism are antithetical.
Tell that to Marx and Engels that called for nationalization of, well, eventually everything. Tell that to Lenin and Trotsky who nationalized everything, and Trotsky talking about how dictatorship of the party is the same as the dictatorship of the working class, and how the state before it dissapears must intensify as much as possible and become the most ruthless form of state that will authoritatively encompass all of life of it's citizents, and how laborers should be militarized and strictly controled just like soldiers are in conventional military forces. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, it's the exact opposite of it.


o cite a more famous event, the makhnovists had to set up a state; they had, out of necessity.
I don't think either of those are true.


You clearly said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by impossible
social-democracy acomplished better and with nowhere near the cost in human lives and freedoms
meaning that "bolshevik accomplishments" cost lives and freedoms.

If I say that what you did had some cost that doesn't mean that I claim you are the first to do it. What is it with you and random views you're atributing to me.


What's the anarchist way of defining classes?
Ruling class (capitalists, politicians, intelligentsia, bureacrats) and the working class (the rest of the people).


This thread is a nice description of why the left is dead.
IMO the reason is people thinking that bolshevism is part of the left. I don't even consider marxism leftist, maybe some parts of it, if they're morfed into a libertarian marxism, then ok, they're socialist, but otherwise, they're just to be discarded as wrong. But looked from the perspective of anarchism/ libertarian socialism- bolshevism is pure reactionary anti-socialism.

[motion denied]

Tell that to Marx and Engels that called for nationalization of, well, eventually everything. Tell that to Lenin and Trotsky who nationalized everything, and Trotsky talking about how dictatorship of the party is the same as the dictatorship of the working class, and how the state before it dissapears must intensify as much as possible and become the most ruthless form of state that will authoritatively encompass all of life of it's citizents, and how laborers should be militarized and strictly controled just like soldiers are in conventional military forces. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, it's the exact opposite of it.

Oh, come on. Are we now using that planks of the Manifesto? The ten planks the authors never equated to socialism, the ten planks the authors considered useless as soon as 1870s?

Marx: "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. " - Civil War in France.

Fuck Trotsky and his militarization of labour. Fuck the "bourgeois specialists" in the factories.



I don't think either of those are true.Whatever.


If I say that what you did had some cost that doesn't mean that I claim you are the first to do it. What is it with you and random views you're atributing to me.I did not do shit. You did say it. But, again, what ever.



Ruling class (capitalists, politicians, intelligentsia, bureacrats) and the working class (the rest of the people).

Jesus Christ, how horrifying. It did not show the way to define classes, you just pulled some concepts out of your arse.



IMO the reason is people thinking that bolshevism is part of the left. I don't even consider marxism leftist, maybe some parts of it, if they're morfed into a libertarian marxism, then ok, they're socialist, but otherwise, they're just to be discarded as wrong. But looked from the perspective of anarchism/ libertarian socialism- bolshevism is pure reactionary anti-socialism.Vincent West was right. Hello, Sotionov. You are not worth addressing.

[bropasaran]

Oh, come on. Are we now using that planks of the Manifesto? The ten planks the authors never equated to socialism, the ten planks the authors considered useless as soon as 1870s?
You do realize that he continued writing programs like that, in 1880 he wrote a program where he clearly talks about nationalization of the means of production.



Fuck Trotsky and his militarization of labour. Fuck the "bourgeois specialists" in the factories.
I second that.


It did not show the way to define classes
Power stratification, inequality of power in interaction, if we're talking about organized interaction, that is- instititutions, then all those in hierarchical instititution who command others are part of the ruling class. The top-decision makers are politicians, capitalists and the inteligentsia, in their spheres of society, and they have their bureacuracies, e.g. capitalists have their CEOs and managers, which is where the biggest break between Libertarian Socialism and Marxism is- marxism takes the fact that those people work for a wage and thus calls them proletariat and sees them as a part of the working class, libertarian socialism doesn't, but sees them as a part of the ruling class, whose positions should be abolished.

[Cheese Guevara]

Thanks for the interesting replies.

Question:

I know Stalin collectivized upward of 90 percent of agricultural land, but what happened to residential properties in the Soviet Union? In Latvia and Estonia, the bolsheviks were kicked out, but other parties got into power and implemented land reforms which turned over land to the peasantry (granting them private property). This, of course, is less radical than what the bolsheviks wanted (a total banning of private property).

But what happened to residential land/property in the Soviet Union? Were already existing homes appropriated by the state, and then handed over to the populace? Did everyone eventually have a home? How were these issues managed? I know massive contruction projects began, which some on this forum view as being the result of quasi or outright capitalist exploitation.

[Red Economist]

But what happened to residential land/property in the Soviet Union? Were already existing homes appropriated by the state, and then handed over to the populace? Did everyone eventually have a home? How were these issues managed? I know massive contruction projects began, which some on this forum view as being the result of quasi or outright capitalist exploitation.

This depends on the time period. I think during the revolution there was a phase of taking big houses and mansion into public ownership so that people shared them. similar things went on in the twenties with experiments in communal living.

In the 50's after the enormous destruction of World War II, the Soviet did pursue a massive housing construction programme, but I think most of them were small flats.