Question for Stalinists/MLs: Do you support the immediate fusion of revolutionary

[Tim Cornelis]

Question for Stalinists/MLs: Do you support the immediate fusion of revolutionary territories? (Note: immediate and instantaneous are two different things). A revolution breaks out around Europe, do you support the immediate fusion of revolutionary territories or do you first establish a Portuguese republic/a republic encompassing Portugal and a Spanish republic/a republic encompassing Spain?

[Raquin]

Looks like if you insult Marxist-Leninists even in your thread title, none are gonna flock to the thread to answer the question you have asked them. Who would have thought.

[Tim Cornelis]

what insult? Stalinist I'm guessing? Is calling someone a Trotskyist an insult for upholding Trotsky and his theories, is calling someone who advocates mutualism a Proudhonist an insult? Is calling someone a Kropotkinist an insult? Is calling someone a Maoist an insult? Is calling someone a Bordigist an insult? You're an idiot. That's an insult.

[consuming negativity]

Looks like if you insult Marxist-Leninists even in your thread title, none are gonna flock to the thread to answer the question you have asked them. Who would have thought.

Maybe I'm just dense or something but I don't see anything offensive about this thread.

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe I'm just dense or something but I don't see anything offensive about this thread.

My guess is he's cwying ( :crying: ) because I called Stalinists Stalinists which happens all the time by anyone who isn't a Stalinist (in fact, some call themselves Stalinists: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1170 ) and I've never seen anyone take offense to that, or it impair discussion or debate in any way, so I'm kinda surprised he is.

It's also stupid because if someone calls me a Bordigist I'm not insulted because there's nothing really wrong with Bordiga, if someone calls me a Luxemburgist, ditto, if someone calls me a Kautskyist, ditto, so taking offense to being called Stalinist kinda suggests, it seems, that there's something wrong with Stalin and therefore you not wanting to be associated with him (which is okay, except that you are a Stalinist by virtue of upholding Stalin's beliefs).

[jookyle]

I would be more than happy to answer I would just like you to explain what you consider immediate fusion of revolutionary territories to entail exactly for the sake of being able to provide as clear answer as I can.

[Left Voice]

Here's a hypothetical scenario - if by some miracle there were multiple workers revolutions in multiple, adjacent countries and communist parties played an active role in this to the extent that these communist parties would gain power, how rapidly would such parties relinquish this power in the name of international communism? After all, most parties are organised on a national basis. Would these parties 'rediscover' some hidden sense of 'nationalism' and use this as a basis for the party to retain power on a national basis rather than joining with other nations on an international basis?

I think this is a question not just for MLs, but all those who propose the workers organising around a party.

[FSL]

Question for Stalinists/MLs: Do you support the immediate fusion of revolutionary territories? (Note: immediate and instantaneous are two different things). A revolution breaks out around Europe, do you support the immediate fusion of revolutionary territories or do you first establish a Portuguese republic/a republic encompassing Portugal and a Spanish republic/a republic encompassing Spain?

An immediate declaration of a federation of republics that establish a common foreign policy, a common army, cooperation where applicable.

If their economies are at a similar level, draw up a common plan. If they aren't start a transfer of resources and expertise from the strongest economy to the weakest to get them at a similar level.



The Soviet Union was exactly that, a federation of republics, even though it couldn't encompass the more advanced countries of Europe.
The eastern Europe states like DDR and Czechoslovakia which were comparable to the Soviet Union, should have become part of the country. This wasn't possible because already bourgeois ideas were gaining ground in communist parties (especially the bourgeois idea of "independence from both the US and the USSR"). These ideas should be combated by the communist parties but instead they were pretty much adopted by them.

[FSL]

Here's a hypothetical scenario - if by some miracle there were multiple workers revolutions in multiple, adjacent countries and communist parties played an active role in this to the extent that these communist parties would gain power, how rapidly would such parties relinquish this power in the name of international communism? After all, most parties are organised on a national basis. Would these parties 'rediscover' some hidden sense of 'nationalism' and use this as a basis for the party to retain power on a national basis rather than joining with other nations on an international basis?

I think this is a question not just for MLs, but all those who propose the workers organising around a party.

Communist parties would interpret a revolution and getting power differently at this point in time. There is not a communist international and even in the meetings of the communist parties, coming up with a common declaration becomes harder as two opposing lines have been developed.

If there were a communist international built on revolutionary principles, the parties would act accordingly since -and this might come as a shock to you- they don't claim power for themselves.
Also, communist parties are organized on a national basis but they all started out as sections of the communist international. Even parties that were founded before the comintern, had to be "refounded". If anyone discovered nationalism, it certainly wouldn't be the people that decided to work on such an internationalist manner.
The parties that did find nationalism, didn't do so to gain power for themselves but to leave it to the hands of the bourgeoisie. The French Communist Party was originally called the French Section of the Communist International and changed its name to become more patriotic, in the end denouncing revolution and worker's power and leninism and the Soviet Union. The Italian Communist Party was originally the Communist Party of Italy and followed a similar course all the way to its dissollution. And the CPUSA was the first communist party to dissolve itself in 1944 I think (it was reestablished after international pressure).


All in all, the parties that would resist internationalism are the parties that would resist communism as well.

[Broviet Union]

Even in a socialist society, why would workers support the transfer of surplus value to less developed areas? I don't see why such a course would be automatic or even popular.

[FSL]

Even in a socialist society, why would workers support the transfer of surplus value to less developed areas? I don't see why such a course would be automatic or even popular.

It wouldn't be popular by default. Are taxes to support poorer areas in the same country popular? Not even taxes to support the poorest people are popular among those workers better off.

But people should understand why this country is less developed and they should understand why by helping this country they are helping themselves (strengthening the socialist block in this case is the best thing they could be doing).

These national disputes existed in every socialist country. Smaller socialist countries had people speak of independence and in the Soviet Union people accused countries like Cuba (that were funded by the USSR) of being a burden.
But these disputes can't be ignored and they certainly can't be accepted, they need to be overcome. There is no way around it.
Also note that by saying transfer of resources I don't mean that the countries would end up immediately at the same level. Just that the more developed economy would help the less developed one. Gradually, the less developed country would catch up and then a common plan could be drawn up.


And lastly, it's not "surplus value" if it's in the hands of the workers to do with it as they please.

[Broviet Union]

And lastly, it's not "surplus value" if it's in the hands of the workers to do with it as they please.

Parenti always refereed to surplus value being taken for the military in the USSR.

[FSL]

Parenti always refereed to surplus value being taken for the military in the USSR.

And...?

The extracted surplus value becomes the profit of the idle capitalist class.
People that like the idle capitalist class tend to find surplus value everywhere, to make them seem less bad.