The Soviet Union Thread [Archive]

View Full Version : The Soviet Union Thread

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 02:57

Hrafn

27th July 2014, 03:07

I'd prefer to just stop discussing the same matters over and over, with continually the same people.

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 03:13

I'd prefer to just stop discussing the same matters over and over, with continually the same people.

But you see, the question will always come up. I was just going through my Saturday ritual of watching Bill Maher while yelling and throwing my shoes at the television, and who was the opening guest but Richard Wolff. Wolff is a "Marxist" professor of economics who has written a number of books, and has managed to penetrate into mainstream media outlets by taking the revolution out of Marx's revolutionary socialism. Guess what Maher's second question to him was.

It was, "So if you're a Marxist, do you want to recreate what existed in the Soviet Union?"

It's the inevitable question, comrade, that new users will have when they appear on this forum. Best that they have a place to discuss this issue away from other threads.

Hrafn

27th July 2014, 03:15

New people, yes. But the old people should shut their mouths and stop caring. Really.

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 03:17

New people, yes. But the old people should shut their mouths and stop caring. Really.

Is their opinion invalid just because they are old? Do they have nothing to offer new users? My advice is that if you want to avoid discussing the issue altogether then this thread is a godsend for you. Just don't enter it, and hopefully all such discussion will be channeled out of unrelated threads and into this one.

As a bonus, new users can see what previous users have said without having to comb through dozens of previous threads.

Hrafn

27th July 2014, 03:21

I'm not saying they shouldn't help new people to an understanding. I'm saying they should stop doing the same goddamn discussion about whatever Trotsky did in 1921 among each other. We've all read the same debates over and over again, with the same people. It never ends, and it is a waste of time and energy for all involved.

At what point did I say "I don't like this thread"?

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 03:23

boiler

27th July 2014, 10:35

So many of the discussions on this forum are about the class nature of the Soviet Union at various stages of its existence, and about states with similar economies, that I figured it would be useful to have a single thread where these debates can be contained.

Without further adieu, was the Soviet Union ever a workers' state? Was the October Revolution a workers' revolution? Why or why not? If you believe that there was a dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, when do you think a counter-revolution occurred? 1923? 1928? 1937? 1953? 1991? 1992?

Please keep it civil and on point.

Yes the Soviet Union was a workers state. Yes the October Revolution was a worker's revolution because the worker's revolted and created a workers state. Although the Bolsivicks planned it, the worker's totally supported them and took part in it. I be leave the dictatorship of the proletariat ended in the 1950's, because the revisionist leadership took over and revised the economy that was set up under Stalins leadership, Khrustiv and co basically made capitalist reforms to the economy.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 12:45

This thread is way too broad to produce a fruitful discussion. And mostly, we already know each other's positions.

What year did the Russian revolution degenerate?
A) 1918
B) 1921
C) 1922
D) 1925
E) 1953
F) 1989/1990
E) Bourgeois revolution ('1917')

A = Marxist-Humanism, Anarcho-Communism (maybe a Left Communist minority)
B = Orthodox Marxism, Left Communism
C = Orthodox Marxism
D = Trotskyism
E = Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism
F = Marxism-Leninism
E = Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism

Of course some individuals may divert from their current on this question.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 13:22

I'm just going to copy and paste some arguments about Cuba and the Soviet Union why they were capitalist. There are some, particularly Bordigists, who say it was not 'state-capitalism' but only 'capitalism'. They are right to an extend. There is no dichotomy between state-capitalism and capitalism as represented by the 'East' and 'West' respectively. However, these systems are substantially different. So I think it's proper to refer to them as liberal capitalism and state capitalism.

Usually, Stalinists tend to define socialism negatively: "there was no X [e.g. private property supposedly] in the USSR", which is an amateurish approach to socialism. The Roman Empire had none of the characteristics of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it's socialism. The USSR had none of the characteristics of socialism neither: no associated labour, no social ownership, and there was monetary-commodity exchange.

They also come up with these voluntaristic-idealist hypotheses ("socialism can be willed in and out of existence due to the sheer idealistic convictions of the leaders of a country" -- utterly ridiculous and completely alien to Marxism) to try and explain the degeneration of the USSR, which completely contradicts their premise that the USSR was a workers' state. Boiler says " I be leave the dictatorship of the proletariat ended in the 1950's, because the revisionist leadership took over and revised the economy that was set up under Stalins leadership, Khrustiv and co basically made capitalist reforms to the economy." Which is wrong for so many reasons. First, apparently these decisions by the leadership to change the economy and relations back to capitalism is wholly the result of their ideology (whereas an actual materialist analysis would reveal that these reforms sought to reverse gradual stagnation*). Second, he essentially freely admits that power was concentrated in the 'leadership' and therefore that the workers and producers did not wield political power and therefore that there was no workers' state to begin with. It reveals that these Stalinists have a completely and utterly wrong concept of what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like. Or alternatively, that they uphold the implausible belief that the workers voluntarily gave up all their political power and economic power to this revisionist leadership that wanted to ruin socialism in a vacuum.

So here a materialist analysis:

Trade unions in the USSR were functionaries of management, seeking to promote and enhance labour productivity at the expense of the workers' well-being.

"Workers' living standards declined sharply from 1928 to 1933 by at least half, to a bare subsistence level. Part of this was the disastrous outcome of agricultural Collectivization, but part of it was deliberate policy: to finance the forced industrialization of the First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) by squeezing the workers with simultaneous pay-cuts and production speed-ups. After 1933, living standards began to recover, but only precariously. For example, by 1937, wages had climbed back to 60% of the 1928 level. Nearly all investment was directed to heavy industry and weapons, rather than consumer goods for working families. Despite a shortage of workers for new industrial projects, fierce repression of independent union activity ensured that wages would remain low."
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/labor-discip.html

This doesn't sound like any policy designed by working people, it sounds exactly like policy designed by a ruling class seeking capital accumulation (or economic growth) at the expense of the working class. It is delusional to think that any sort of workers' democracy existed, or that a workers' democracy would choose to increase the rate of exploitation immensely. And trade unions, as functionaries of the Soviet ruling class, facilitated this increased rate of exploitation through various means.

As Marxists, we should argue that the reforms in the Soviet Union were in response to the material conditions, the economic base, and economic stagnation. There was a constant downward trend in the growth rates of the USSR from 1937 onwards. The growth rate and reproduction of the Soviet economy was sustained by the “massive quantitative mobilization of productive resources” (p. 68, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience) as well as the large volume of available labour-power. The rate of growth for constant capital was many fold that of the growth of living labour, “there was no corresponding growth in the productivity of social labour.” (p. 77, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). In other words, the source for economic growth (or capital accumulation) in the USSR was its massive resources of labour and raw materials, yet there was stunted growth of labour productivity and stunted growth of technical improvements of the methods of production. That the methods of production, fixed capital, were notoriously and comparatively outdated and old can be seen as an affirmation or indication of the crisis of absolute over-accumulation of capital in the Soviet Union. Invention, innovation, diffusion, and incremental improvements were falling or consistently low (p. 73, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). Gorbachev noted that “the structure of our production remained unchanged and no longer corresponded to the exigencies of scientific and technological progress.” (p.74, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). The reason for this was that the implementation of new innovative technology in production disrupted the production process temporarily and managers obstructed this, as it threatened reaching their production quotas, with no additional future rewards as prospect.

The economic stagnation and eventual economic decline can thus be seen as the crisis of absolute over-accumulation. In an effort to correct this, the management of capital had to re-invent itself. The various reforms implemented under the rule of subsequent Soviet leaders, particularly the Liberman reforms and the reforms of the Gorbachev era, (market-oriented reforms) were intended to make capital's management more efficient.

In other words, the collapse of the USSR was due to reforms geared toward ensuring the stagnating economy would no longer stagnate by introducing market-oriented reforms which eventually lead to opening up society to liberal-democratic demands. There was no plot by a revisionist leadership who either knowingly or unknowingly destroyed socialism because of revisionist ideas. The notion that socialism can be destroyed that simply without open and violent conflict is utterly absurd.

Where is the bourgeoisie? Where? Where is the class of proprietors who extract the surplus generated by their subordinate workers' labor and then sell the product on the market while re-investing in their capital? Aside from a few restricted zones where foreign investors hire Cuban labor, there is no exploitative private property class in Cuba.

You're mistaken in that you conflate individual and private ownership. There doesn't need to be a legalistic private property to define capitalism, which is an inversion of materialist analysis anyway. The Cuban workers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, and sell their labour-power to the state whom employs them. As such the party-state is the functional bourgeoisie who own and control private property but not individual property.

Otherwise we might as well claim the US military is socialist, or the post office. State ownership is not social ownership.

There's far too much evidence on the institutions through which Cuban workers contribute to the formation of an economic plan, both nationally and municipally, to classify the political bureaucrats of Cuba as a ruling class.

I do not necessarily deny this, but this is hardly proof of socialism. Contributing to an economic plan for capital management is not socialism. In any case, consultative management (where workers give input for economic conduct) and co-determination is a feature that is perfectly compatible with capitalism, liberal capitalism even. The works' councils that exist throughout Western Europe is sufficient evidence of this. Or in fact, workers' cooperatives which are self-managed capitalism.

If the Cuban workers control (or are at least represented in) the state with regards to political decision-making and economic planning, then the process mirrors the transition state described by Marx as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

If workers possess political and economic power, then indeed the process mirrors the transition state described by the Marxist method as a dictatorship of the proletariat. I reject, however, that workers in Cuba are in any meaningful way empowered, or at least not more so than proletarians in Spain.

Quote: "All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected". Source: Report on United Nations Commission on Human Rights - Inter American Comission on Human Rights. http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm

The existence of a bureaucracy is in tension with the notion that the workers control the economy, but there is plenty of literature on how workers help manage the economy through the institutions of the state (which I'd be happy to dig up again in the next few days after getting some work out of the way, and which I'm sure other posters have access to).

The key here is "help manage". I've mentioned works councils in Western Europe. Quote: "A works council is a "shop-floor" organization representing workers, which functions as local/firm-level complement to national labour negotiations." (...) The model is basically as follows: general labour agreements are made at the national level by national unions (...) and national employer associations (...), and local plants and firms then meet with works councils to adjust these national agreements to local circumstances. Works council members are elected by the company workforce for a four year term. They don't have to be union members; works councils can also be formed in companies where neither the employer nor the employees are organized.
Works council representatives may also be appointed to the Board of Directors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

Co-determination does not negate wage-labour.

How people can sit there and call it capitalism is beyond me.

Marxist analysis, really. You have the dispossess working class of Cuba, whom sell their labour-power to state enterprises, they produce commodities to be sold on the market (although competitive markets are absent due to a state monopoly), the surplus value derived from this act is reinvested, through the buying of commodities, to generate future profits, which in total is in essence the economic growth realised by the Cuban national economy. It possesses all the qualifications of the capitalist mode of production.

Holding a country to the standard of the end-stages of communism is oxymoronic.

I'm not holding Cuba to the standard of the "end stages of communism", I'm holding Cuba to the standard of the capitalist mode of production as analysed through the Marxist method. (nor is it oxymoronic as there's no contradiction).

There is still a state, there is still currency, there is still a wage system, but that is because Cuba is not developed to its capacity, is not economically supported by a global network of countries or regions that have seized the means of production and redistributed wealth, and must defend itself from a world in which capitalist states still dominate the rest of the world.

There is a state, there's a wage system, there's currency, there's generalised commodity production, there's wage-labour, there's profits and losses, there's managers, there's capital accumulation, and of course capital. Hence, there's capitalism. They keyword of socialism is association: no enterprises, no wage-labour, no commodity production. Each subsection of the association is equally part of the whole association of productive establishments and its free producers, there are no individual enterprises, no selling and buying. This does not exist in Cuba, nor is there any evolution in that direction, nor had there been, nor could there have been. Cuba is more something alike a corporatist* social-democracy with a dysfunctional democracy.

*One of the provisions of the [electoral] Law is that lists of candidates are drawn up by the Candidature Commissions, made up of representatives of the Cuban Workers' Federation, the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, the Federation of Cuban Women, the National Small Farmers' Association, the University Students' Federation and the Federation of Secondary School Students.

I think the comparisons to Spain are hardly appropriate. Cuba isn't a country in which private owners employ wage workers and sell the produce of the goods on the market.

Yes it is. I already explained to you why this is the case:

You're mistaken in that you conflate individual and private ownership. There doesn't need to be a legalistic private property to define capitalism, which is an inversion of materialist analysis anyway. The Cuban workers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, and sell their labour-power to the state whom employs them. As such the party-state is the functional bourgeoisie who own and control private property but not individual property.

The state is the employer, the state produces an economic plan developed by the working class and its representatives (with a political class heavily invested in the outcomes of these decisions, of course).

The state is the employer, with workers confronting the objective conditions of their labour as alien-property, as such the state owns private property in Marxist terms. Communism is summarised as the end to private property, which includes state property.

Quote: "Of course, Marx called for the abolition of private property. But what makes property private, in his view, is not individual ownership, but the separation of the direct producers, workers, from the property they produce. Thus, in the German Ideology, he and Frederick Engels noted that “ancient communal and State ownership … is still accompanied by slavery,” and they referred to the communal ownership of slaves as “communal private property” (emphasis added).
In volume 2 of Capital, Marx wrote, “The social capital is equal to the sum of the individual capitals (including … state capital, in so far as governments employ productive wage-labour in mines, railways, etc. and function as industrial capitalists.” Similarly, in his notes on Adolph Wagner’s critique of Capital, Marx wrote that “[w]here the state itself is a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a ‘commodity’ and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity.”
Most importantly, in volume 1 of Capital, he implicitly addressed the issue of what would happen if the state’s role as capitalist producer expanded to such a point that it completely crowded out other capitalists. He argued that the tendency toward monopoly, the process of centralization of capitals, “would reach its extreme limit … n a given society … only when the entire social capital was united in the hands of either a single capitalist or a single capitalist company.” As Raya Dunayevskaya noted, Marx’s text implies that such a society “would remain capitalist[;] … this extreme development would in no way change the law of motion of that society.” Engels thus seems to have been stating Marx’s view as well as his own when he wrote, in Anti-Dühring,
“state ownership … does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. … The more [of them the state takes over], the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with.”" /Quote

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.html

Cuba is capitalist. Moreover, the empowerment of Cuban workers is greatly exaggerated in official papers. Again, I think Spanish workers are more empowered than Cuban workers. Spanish workers have their functional works councils for co-determination, functional elections, collective bargaining and collective action rights, independent trade unions and labour representation, more workers' rights.

To reiterate, the Cuban government employs wage-workers to produce commodities to be sold on the monopolised market, with surplus value used to reinvest in buying commodities with the intent of generate future surplus value. This is the capitalist mode of production undoubtedly.

This article, which is critical of the management of the Cuban economy, points out just such a distinction:

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=73935

[I]"Worker self-management has important implications that need to be fully explored. The worker self-management model adopted in Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America has been a courageous and self-confident response to prolonged strikes, employer lockouts and bankruptcies, which has led to the formation of democratically administered cooperatives.

But they are a local and defensive tactic. These coops exist and are part of a capitalist economy that they do not control. Consequently, the workers’ self-directed activity remains fundamentally constrained by capitalist competition and the market.

This model is not relevant to a Cuba where worker self-management is being proposed for the whole economy, or, at least, for its dominant sectors. However, it is important to realize that what happens in each self-managed factory or work center is directly and closely interdependent with what happens in other economic units."

Can we assume from this that workers' self-management does not yet exist in Cuba, at least not predominantly (outside a few cooperatives)? I think this article says so, which undermines your earlier point about worker's empowerment in Cuba.

Workers' self-management as proposed either in Argentina or Cuba does not overcome capitalism at all. It does not negate, in and of itself, commodity exchange, production for markets, enterprises.

The terminology is starting to become confused, I think. Cuba has not rid itself of every feature of capitalism, it has not perfected and completely democratized its mode of production, but after exproprating landowners and the industrial bourgeoisie, the state, with the backing of both peasants and workers, seized the land and means of production and redistributed the wealth while incorporation institutions which represent different sectors of the ruling class. Whether this is "socialism" or "still capitalism but in a state of transition (which is arguably reversing)", it is not industrial capitalism as we know it in the rest of the world.

The terminology, to me, is perfectly clear. Your ideological baggage is obfuscating the class nature and character of Cuban society. Cuba has not rid itself of ANY feature of capitalist society. It bares all the hallmarks of it, and I've listed them in earlier posts as well as this one: private class property (direct producers separated from the objective conditions of their labour as wage-workers), markets (the whole of the buying and selling of commodities, even if it's a state monopoly -- which isn't even universal), etc., etc., etc.

Cuban "democracy" is highly dysfunctional, see the previous quote. It's a class dictatorship of a minority.

It has expropriated landowners and the industrial bourgeoisie and has replaced them with itself.

Redistribution of wealth is not inconsistent with social-democracy. Cuba is a dysfunctional corporatist social-democracy.

It is not "industrial capitalism" as we know it in the rest of the world, which is liberal capitalism. Your unwarranted preoccupation with the phenomenal characteristics of Cuban society is typical of idealists and Stalinists (whom are generally idealists). “there is no reason to think … that Western capitalism, as it appears on the surface at a particular epoch, is the unique form of the capitalist mode of production, and that any economy (or society) that does not manifest similar phenomenal characteristics cannot be considered capitalist ... one has to go behind the phenomenal forms which, though necessarily manifesting the essence, do as well as conceal the latter ... [capitalism, which] through innumerable different circumstances can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations.” (The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). The unique character of Cuban society, and other self-proclaimed socialist states, whether it be Portugal, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Soviet Union, or Venezuela, are mere variations of the same mode of production: capitalism.

Cuba is capitalist, and the only transition it's making is toward liberal capitalism and away from state capitalism.

And CubaVerdad? Really? Have you seen what else that site has to offer?

I expected this really, the ad hominem. They're merely citing the human rights group, an external source.

Are we really going to start quoting the U.N. now?
A new low, even by revleft standards.

Another ad hominem. I suppose we should only cite sources that confirm our ideological biases, or "propaganda", correct?

But why wouldn't isolated workers' state make such law? I think there is a serious discussion to be had whether it's better to have some sort of workers state, which is isolated or have some sort of managed capitalism. Maybe I am putting it wrong, but I currently have an idea in my head that if you have workers state, but are economically isolated from world's market, hence, your life sucks materially and there are no revolutions in sight, why wouldn't you try to integrate in the world's market even if it takes capitalism to be restored?

In other words, I think it might makes sense for workers to adopt capitalism if their country is isolated. Or in other words, for socialism to work it must be global.

Because it's not a workers' state. The upper layers of the Communist Party possess political power and as capital is not abolished they seek to manage capital, they're the functional bourgeoisie owning and controlling private class property, judicially expressed as state property. Workers are not empowered in any meaningful way.

The idea that you can have capitalism without capitalists is a bit non-Marxist to say the least.

I'm wondering if you've actually read what I wrote. Clearly I've used the word "functional bourgeoisie" to describe the capitalist class in Cuba. It is a functional bourgeoisie because it performs the functions of the bourgeoisie without individual ownership over private property, but it commands capital nonetheless. Nor is this notion "non-Marxist to say the least". The Marxist method discovered that capitalism is not based on individual private property, but rather the disappearance of individual private property: as capital becomes concentrated it destroys individual ownership, as Engels noted:

"Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees." (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific).

A CEO (one such salaried employee whom has made the bourgeoisie superfluous according to Engels) doesn't need to hold individual ownership of a business to be considered bourgeois in my book. Judicially he is not bourgeois, functionally he is as he performs its functions and commands capital.

The way in which Cuban workers are tied to the production process is fundamentally different than the capitalist mode of production not only because of the ownership structure in Cuba but because of how working class organizations interact with that very state that you claim is the step in for the bourgeoisie. I.e. the Cuban working class expresses political leadership through various mechanisms in Cuba which is how the plan of the economy is formulated.

You assume the initial point, namely that Cuban is non-capitalist, and proceed from there: circular reasoning. Cuban society is phenomenally quite unique, yes, but we cannot deduce from this that therefore it is "fundamentally different [from] the capitalist mode of production". As I've quoted Chattopadhyay: “there is no reason to think … that Western capitalism , as it appears on the surface at a particular epoch, is the unique form of the capitalist mode of production, and that any economy (or society) that does not manifest similar phenomenal characteristics cannot be considered capitalist ... one has to go behind the phenomenal forms which, though necessarily manifesting the essence, do as well as conceal the latter ... [capitalism, which] through innumerable different circumstances can phenomenally show unending variations and gradations.” (The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). You cannot hold Cuba up to liberal capitalism and conclude that since its phenomenal manifestations are qualitatively different from it that therefore it's not capitalism.

the Cuban working class expresses political leadership through various mechanisms in Cuba which is how the plan of the economy is formulated.

As I've pointed out earlier, Cuban workers are merely nominally empowered. They possess no meaningful political power. Political and economic power is concentrated in the upper layers of the Communist Party, whom dictate the direction of the economy and its policies.

Folks like yourself always point to "well look, Cuban workers do work and receive a wage!" as if that explains the capitalist mode of production.

This is an utter misrepresentation of my argument, and doesn't even scratch the surface. Again, I'm questioning whether you actually read what I write or not, it appears you do not. I will quote myself: "There is a state, there's a wage system, there's currency, there's generalised commodity production, there's wage-labour, there's profits and losses, there's managers, there's capital accumulation, and of course capital. Hence, there's capitalism."

This is the only time I've mentioned that Cuban workers work for a wage and this was only in response to someone saying "There is still a state, there is still currency, there is still a wage system" and I was reiterating them. I mentioned it in concert with all the other hallmarks of the capitalist mode of production which are present in Cuban society.

Or maybe you're misunderstanding what wage-labour and wage-workers mean. It does not mean that producers receive a wage for the labour performed, it means they are employed by the capitalist as per them selling their labour-power. Here, the wage-system means being remunerated in some form, and wage-labour refers specifically to capital hiring labour. Even if you did make this mistake, then I've explained why Cuba is capitalist beyond this: "to reiterate, the Cuban government employs wage-workers to produce commodities to be sold on the monopolised market, with surplus value used to reinvest in buying commodities with the intent of generate future surplus value. This is the capitalist mode of production undoubtedly" and "You have the dispossess working class of Cuba, whom sell their labour-power to state enterprises, they produce commodities to be sold on the market (although competitive markets are absent due to a state monopoly), the surplus value derived from this act is reinvested, through the buying of commodities, to generate future profits, which in total is in essence the economic growth realised by the Cuban national economy. It possesses all the qualifications of the capitalist mode of production."

If that were the case, then [I]Capital could have been much shorter and we should wonder why Marx took his time to lay out how complex the system is. We should also wonder why many of those aspects that he described as inherent to the system are quite clearly absent in Cuba.

As I've already mentioned none of those features are absent in Cuba. I will again have to quote myself: " Your ideological baggage is obfuscating the class nature and character of Cuban society. Cuba has not rid itself of ANY feature of capitalist society. It bares all the hallmarks of it, and I've listed them in earlier posts as well as this one: private class property (direct producers separated from the objective conditions of their labour as wage-workers), markets (the whole of the buying and selling of commodities, even if it's a state monopoly -- which isn't even universal), etc., etc., etc." the etc. referring to the characteristics described above (the two quotes).
Now you may disagree that these features or characteristics exist in Cuba, but then you need to come up with arguments to refute mine, rather than ignore them.

Even Marx never claimed that a nation/country/system is not "wholly" private or public. But the Cuban system is not one based on the capitalist mode of production/logic/or ownership in any meaningful way.

This is a blank statement without explanation as to why you believe the capitalist mode of production does not exist in Cuba "in any meaningful way" even though I've explained a couple of times to the other bloke why it does apply.

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. You say "oh well the post office existing in the US doesn't mean that it's not capitalist" and I would say to that: the existence of some free market mechanisms in a limited way in Cuba don't make it capitalist.

Again you are misrepresenting my position. My position is not that because the "free market" exists to a limited degree that Cuba is capitalist, so I have no idea why you think that makes for an argument against me. I'm saying, again, Cuba is the capitalist because (see the various quotes above).

But you have yet to show where Cuba's overall system is based on the capitalist logic or the mode of production. So far all you've provided are vague analogies and have focused on facile concepts of what capitalism is (for example when you say "well they have a wage so therefore they must be capitalist!")

Actually I have (see the various quotes above and my previous posts) but you ignored them and focused on merely one aspect of it (me mentioning wage-labour) and even manage to misrepresent my position on that. Again, my argument is not that Cuban workers receive a wage. My argument is that Cuban workers neither own nor control the means of production, and as such are dispossessed. As a consequence of these circumstances they confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property by the act of them selling their labour-power to the owners and controllers of the means of production, the state. The Cuban state employs productive wage-labour and direct this toward the production of various commodities: for individual and collective consumption, consumer and capital goods. These commodities are sold by the state and bought by consumers, which is a market. The state uses the profits derived from the sale of commodities, to buy additional commodities to generate future profits and thereby it sustains economic growth (or attempts to at least). Cuba does not share a mere one feature of the capitalist mode of production (wages, or wage-labour), but all fundamental and defining features of the capitalist mode of production (generalised commodity production for the market, profits and losses, capital accumulation, wage-labour, extraction of surplus value reinvested in commodities to generate future profits -- capital accumulation, private property -- again, private property need not be expressed judicially, state property is private property if the workers are separated from the objective conditions of their labour as is the case with Cuba, or a US post office).

Workers being (nominally) involved in the management of workplace affairs through co-management with the enterprise management does not negate any of these fundamental characteristics (again, workers in Western Europe are entitled to co-management via works councils). Workers being (nominally) involved in the planning of capital accumulation does not negate, well, capital accumulation (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Planning_in_Kerala or direct participation by the population in deciding how funds are used in development and projects as in Cambodian communes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjCnRajR6E ).

--------------------------------------------------

Tim Cornelis, no way I can answer that quote-chaos you made there, it's very hard to even read though it

Some of the things I saw you saying is why did the market reforms take place and about the sinister (according to me aparrently) Gorbachev.

The working class isn't homogeneous now or in socialism. In these countries there wasn't even just the working class, there were the collectives who were owners of their product and sold it and of course people that had a standing in the previous society etc.

Stop right there. There was a working class, fine, it's settled then: there was no socialism. This should be sufficient.

Talk about market reforms was always a thing, long before they happened. Vozesensky was one of the proponents, Kosygin was another, they rose to high posts in the party, they did represent sections of the population.
There are contradictions within the working class, managerial work, skilled labor, education, all these things aren't immediately equal for everyone and not everyone is immediately equally good for any task.
What you need to do is resolve these contradictions and on that depends the development of socialism.

There are 'contradictions' in the working class, which doesn't exist in socialism!

IT doesn't matter when ideas are proposed, it matters that they only become enabled, viable, necessary, or inevitable when the material conditions or economic structures command.

But for the people who were on the wrong part of these contradictions it's quite natural that they identified themselves as a separate stratum in the society. At the beginning market reforms weren't about privatizing anything. They were about giving managers more autonomy in production, about giving collectives ownership of their tractors, about fogiving them their debts, about allowing them to expand their field of work etc.

These changes did mess with the economy's planning and severely weakened it as a result. It is in this situation, a seemingly stagnating soviet union that proponents of capitalism could take a hold.

No actually, this is an inversion of what happened, nor does it correspond to any empirical or documented evidence. The economy, growth rates, stagnated prior to market reforms. This was a process that began as soon as the late 1930s, with growth rates declining, then stagnating, then negative growth by the late 1980s.

The demise of the Soviet Union can be understood in terms of capital accumulation. There are two forms of capital accumulation, based on the present methods of production and the revolutionising of the methods of production. If there is no revolutionising of the methods of production, the volume of surplus value, for the purpose of accumulation of capital, requires an increase in the rate of exploitation through an extension of the working day or an increase in the volume of available labour-power deployed (e.g., through means of accumulation by dispossession, primitive accumulation, lower unemployment, or, for example in the instance of Saudi Arabia recently, by utilising women). Absolute over-accumulation of capital occurs when exploitable labour power is insufficient relative to growth of capital. Absolute over-accumulation of capital would, supposedly, be associated with underproduction of commodities.

The rapid industrialisation involved drawing a labour supply from the peasantry as well as natural resources while the methods of production were not revolutionised. From 1928 onwards, mass unemployment had curtailed and reversed in a labour shortage. To increase the volume of surplus value for the accumulation of capital, the working week was extended as was labour productivity, intensity, and discipline. Likewise, women were increasingly employed in wage-labour (which was in part due to the fact that real wages were low, and thence the requirement for multiple sources of income in households).

Workers' living standards declined sharply from 1928 to 1933 by at least half, to a bare subsistence level. Part of this was the disastrous outcome of agricultural Collectivization, but part of it was deliberate policy: to finance the forced industrialization of the First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) by squeezing the workers with simultaneous pay-cuts and production speed-ups. After 1933, living standards began to recover, but only precariously. For example, by 1937, wages had climbed back to 60% of the 1928 level. Nearly all investment was directed to heavy industry and weapons, rather than consumer goods for working families. Despite a shortage of workers for new industrial projects, fierce repression of independent union activity ensured that wages would remain low.

http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/labor-discip.html

There was a constant downward trend in the growth rates of the USSR from 1937 onwards. The growth rate and reproduction of the Soviet economy was sustained by the “massive quantitative mobilization of productive resources” (p. 68, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience) and the large volume of available labour-power. The rate of growth for constant capital was many fold that of the growth of living labour, “there was no corresponding growth in the productivity of social labour.” (p. 77, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). There was spurt of growth of the labour productivity through revolutionising the methods of production. That the methods of production, fixed capital, were notoriously and comparatively outdated and old could be seen as an affirmation or indication of the crisis of absolute over-accumulation. Invention, innovation, diffusion, and incremental improvements were falling or consistently low (p. 73, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). Gorbachev noted that “the structure of our production remained unchanged and no longer corresponded to the exigencies of scientific and technological progress.” (p.74, The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience). As explained, this was due to the deincentivised central planning system whereby implementing innovative technology disrupted the productive process and threatened the fulfillment of quotas, and hence was subject to sabotage by the Soviet management. This, of course, likewise disrupted and sabotaged the continual revolutionaising of the methods of production.

The economic stagnation and eventual economic decline could thus be seen as the crisis of absolute over-accumulation. In an effort to correct this, the management of capital had to re-invent itself. The various reforms implemented under the rule of subsequent Soviet dictators, particularly the Liberman reforms and the reforms of the Gorbachev era, (market-oriented reforms) were intended to make capital's management more efficient and effective. The result of political and economic liberalisation in the USSR and its satellite states was that, in the face of relaxed repression of the working class, these workers undertook strike actions and demonstrations to demand civil liberties and democratic elections -- to which the Soviet and Satellite ruling elites often conceded. For instance, in Albania Alia was willing to allow market and liberal reforms in the face of continued stagnation and negative economic growth. Hence, there was not only an economic process of liberalisation, there was likewise a political turnover. The far-reaching liberalisation as spurred by Gorbachev were consolidated and further advanced by electoral democratisation which launched right-wingers to power. This constituted the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in contrast to China where the Communist Party implemented economic liberalisation but managed to hold unto power as the relaxing of repression was less considerable than in the USSR.

Gorbachev much like Voznesensky or Kosygin before him wasn't sinister. He was a representative of certain sections of the society however.

You haven't explain how they arrive at different consciousness from these apparent 'contradictions', nor how they could sway an entire economy when power is distributed equally amongst all members of society. Unless of course power was not distributed in such a way, and was concentrated in the upper layers of the Communist Party whom were not subject to external control. In fact, this is the only observation that produces an internally consistent narrative.
Indeed, Gorbachev was not a sinister socialdemocrat for the sake of being a socialdemocrat, he merely was a pawn of the economic structure, of capital, and sought to revitalise it, reverse the negative economic growth of the USSR which had befallen it due to its inherent structure of central planning. The only remedy was the disintegration of central planning in favour of competitive markets, which are a more effective and efficient means of managing capital

He spoke for them when he signed the dissolution of the USSR. He wasn't speaking for some made-up all-powerful bureaucracy that was making untold millions on the back of workers for years until it suddeny got suicidal and decided to blow it all away.

No one's arguing that, and incidentally, the members of the Soviet bureaucracy became the post-Soviet oligarchy.

If Gorbachev was the richest capitalist in the world's second richest country, he'd have an estate of effectively how many billions you'd think? 50? 60?
You think he gave up on that life? No, that is simply not the life he had.

Again with the idealist analysis! As if the material well-being of the head of state is a measure by which to determine the content of a mode of production, the absurdity of your logic is astounding! By that logic, Uruguay is socialist.

And it's very very important to realize who are these "freedom fighters" that wanted to overthrow socialism. It's not at all irrelevant that Solidarity is a sold out yellow union. It's not an accident that it ended up like that. That is what it always was. It was "militant" in the 80s because there were no bosses around and it wanted them.

It is irrelevant insofar as it reveals that the working class was antagonistic towards their own workers' state, it reveals they had no actual power, it reveals that strike action against themselves would be absurd and so that they were not striking against themselves. They were striking against their employers. The fact that they are a non-revolutionary trade union is irrelevant in this regard.

As I said above, that things like Solidarity did happen and take hold shows the huge errors commited by these countries in their policies.

As if socialism is a matter of policy.

After a point, they weren't developing socialism, they were weakening it, dismantling it.

That makes no sense and is contradictory. It also begs the question: WHO? Who is they? I have asked this question time and time and time again, and have never gotten a straightforward answer, because Stalinists can't answer it. Who implemented the pro-market reforms? If there was a workers' state, it means the majority of workers voted socialism away. If a Soviet elite or equivalent thereof did, there was no workers' state, let alone socialism, to begin with!

The deeper socialism gets, the more educated and able the workers become in managing their economy, the more difficult it wil be for these notions
("let's leave it to the experts", "not everyone is meant to be equal" etc) to become dominant.
So I'm definitely not taking the side of these parties that had just as much ideological rust as eurocommunists did. I don't agree with their policies and I consider them hurtful. But I sure as hell won't take the side of the actual enemies of socialism (like Solidarity), start calling them a "huge popular movement" and try to keep up with their attacks on socialism.

They objectively were a huge popular movement. But continue deluding yourself my not-so-much comrade. Then after your successful Stalinist takeover of Greece you will find yourself, 40 years later, in an economy liberalised as a result of the inherent defects of central planning of the management of capital, the inability to sufficiently revolutionise the methods of production (which has plagued every "socialist" state, no exception) will haunt your future Stalinist Greece and it will tear it up from the inside, with pro-market reformists rising in the KKE until the economy suffers negative growth and the market reforms have become, not an abstract or idealist proposal, but an imperative for economic recovery.

Another well constructed post. Well done, internet points for you.

That one sentence has more intellectual weight than all Stalinists combined. You cannot even resolve the fact that the workers took strike action and demonstrations against themselves (which makes no sense whatsoever). Either it means they had no power and there was no workers' state, or they did have power and the majority of workers freely voted socialism away. Either way, Stalinism fails.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

27th July 2014, 13:59

Lets talk about star trek instead

helot

27th July 2014, 14:07

I agree with Ethics Gradient especially considering Tim Cornelis left nothing else to say.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

27th July 2014, 14:40

I agree with Ethics Gradient especially considering Tim Cornelis left nothing else to say.

Really? All I saw was a bloated wall of text.

As for myself, I tend to agree with the arguments of the LRP, which claim that the USSR lost its status of a worker's state, degenerated or otherwise, as soon as the rest of the Bolshevik party was destroyed in the late thirties.

Furthermore, Trotsky's conception of a worker's state was flawed in one important respect: Nationalization. Trotsky wrote in "Revolution Betrayed" that nationalization was unique to the Soviet Union. Since the bourgeoisie has appropriated nationalization for its own ends, we can safely say that he was mistaken.

But for a fuller explanation, I'd check out the LRP's website. There's a book in PDF form called "The Life and Death of Stalinism". I found it to be very persuasive, if only because it is much different from most 3rd grade state capitalist conceptions of the USSR that I've heard in the past.

helot

27th July 2014, 15:02

As for myself, I tend to agree with the arguments of the LRP, which claim that the USSR lost its status of a worker's state, degenerated or otherwise, as soon as the rest of the Bolshevik party was destroyed in the late thirties. Why there? Why the focus on the bolshies being destroyed in the 30s as opposed to whether or not the proletariat actually engaged in political decision-making as a mass?

Furthermore, Trotsky's conception of a worker's state was flawed in one important respect: Nationalization. Trotsky wrote in "Revolution Betrayed" that nationalization was unique to the Soviet Union. Since the bourgeoisie has appropriated nationalization for its own ends, we can safely say that he was mistaken. Trotsky was mistaken as are later trots trying to square the circle like Hillel Ticktin with his none mode of production:rolleyes:

But for a fuller explanation, I'd check out the LRP's website. There's a book in PDF form called "The Life and Death of Stalinism". I found it to be very persuasive, if only because it is much different from most 3rd grade state capitalist conceptions of the USSR that I've heard in the past.

Yeah, might aswell check it out. Gotta find something to do today.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 17:03

Really? All I saw was a bloated wall of text.

As for myself, I tend to agree with the arguments of the LRP, which claim that the USSR lost its status of a worker's state, degenerated or otherwise, as soon as the rest of the Bolshevik party was destroyed in the late thirties.

Furthermore, Trotsky's conception of a worker's state was flawed in one important respect: Nationalization. Trotsky wrote in "Revolution Betrayed" that nationalization was unique to the Soviet Union. Since the bourgeoisie has appropriated nationalization for its own ends, we can safely say that he was mistaken.

But for a fuller explanation, I'd check out the LRP's website. There's a book in PDF form called "The Life and Death of Stalinism". I found it to be very persuasive, if only because it is much different from most 3rd grade state capitalist conceptions of the USSR that I've heard in the past.

I don't see how executing a large number of people that did not in any way change the social structure or power structure in society somehow negated the workers' state. There was no fundamental shift in power with the Great Purge.

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 17:09

I am interested in finding out where Tim Cornelis gets the idea that "Trotskyists" think the Soviet Union degenerated in 1925. Have a source for that, Tim?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

27th July 2014, 17:49

I don't see how executing a large number of people that did not in any way change the social structure or power structure in society somehow negated the workers' state. There was no fundamental shift in power with the Great Purge.

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? The Great Purge did not only destroy the Bolshevik party, but wiped the Soviet state of all social and historical connections to the October revolution. Most or all worker's leaders were murdered. Even those who had tried to work with Stalin, like Bukharin or capitulated like Kamenev, had to go. It happened likewise in the proletarian ranks, with any who allied himself to Leninism deported to labor camps for the crime of "Trotskyism".

Furthermore, the purge itself created a vast amount of administrative positions that Stalinism quickly filled with layers of technocrats and managerial elites, as the NEP bourgeoisie was also eliminated. Finally, party membership and government office was no longer offered to workers. This process culminated in Stalin calling for the reverence of this new intellectual class at the 18th Party Congress. I could go on, but I won't. I don't understand how any of this can't be described as a "fundamental shift in power". It's not as if Stalin remained in full control of the Soviet Union without any contradictions after the Left Opposition was defeated.

Rafiq

27th July 2014, 18:04

Furthermore, the purge itself created a vast amount of administrative positions that Stalinism quickly filled with layers of technocrats and managerial elites, as the NEP bourgeoisie was also eliminated. Finally, party membership and government office was no longer offered to workers. This process culminated in Stalin calling for the reverence of this new intellectual class at the 18th Party Congress. I could go on, but I won't. I don't understand how any of this can't be described as a "fundamental shift in power". It's not as if Stalin remained in full control of the Soviet Union without any contradictions after the Left Opposition was defeated.

If the NEP was bound to end, then logically this would have followed with or without Stalin in power. The cosmetic or symbolic obstruction of the legacy of the October revolution is nothing to the real social and ideological degeneration of the October revolution which had occurred many years before the great purges. Saying that the purging of old Bolsheviks somehow signified a change in the Soviet condition is ridiculous - these were the same Bolsheviks that had allied themselves with Stalin and the endeavors of the state. And truly, if they did not, then their execution was warranted after all. What we must recognize is that Stalin himself did not constitute any real independent social interest, Stalin merely represented the failure of the October revolution, Stalin was the solution in that sense - in the attempts of the Soviet state to preserve and defend the revolution (To defend itself) it had destroyed the revolution.

Trap Queen Voxxy

27th July 2014, 18:06

MEGAMANTROTSKY

27th July 2014, 18:21

If the NEP was bound to end, then logically this would have followed with or without Stalin in power. The cosmetic or symbolic obstruction of the legacy of the October revolution is nothing to the real social and ideological degeneration of the October revolution which had occurred many years before the great purges. Saying that the purging of old Bolsheviks somehow signified a change in the Soviet condition is ridiculous - these were the same Bolsheviks that had allied themselves with Stalin and the endeavors of the state. And truly, if they did not, then their execution was warranted after all. What we must recognize is that Stalin himself did not constitute any real independent social interest, Stalin merely represented the failure of the October revolution, Stalin was the solution in that sense - in the attempts of the Soviet state to preserve and defend the revolution (To defend itself) it had destroyed the revolution.

Naturally, there were many backward changes in the Soviet Union prior to the Congress of 1939 (18th). I never said otherwise. What I was trying to convey is that the Stalinist counterrevolution was completed, and made concrete, by that date. My previous post also makes clear that the destruction of the Bolshevik party and of the NEP-men was not merely a cosmetic change in staff, but Stalinism's efforts to create a pliant bureaucratic state and to fully eliminate all vestiges of October and worker's power. Your conclusion therefore is silly--the Soviet state was not dependent on the working-class base or the program of proletarian revolution when it consolidated its power, but on its suppression. To identify the Stalinist state both as October's gravedigger and its savior makes no sense.

Also, I never tried to exalt Stalin to a hierarchal role in the process. On the other hand, it would be unwise to say that he himself had no significant impact. The individual's effect on history certainly exists, but the position you're ascribing to me simply doesn't appear in my posts.

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 19:04

Tim, I know you're hiding around here somewhere, because I see you thanking people's posts. Come out, come out, wherever you are. In your supposedly show-stopping authoritative post, you claimed that "Trotskyists" date the degeneration of the October Revolution to 1925. Which Trotskyists say this?

thriller

27th July 2014, 19:21

Furthermore, Trotsky's conception of a worker's state was flawed in one important respect: Nationalization. Trotsky wrote in "Revolution Betrayed" that nationalization was unique to the Soviet Union. Since the bourgeoisie has appropriated nationalization for its own ends, we can safely say that he was mistaken.

Are you saying that the bourgeoisie in Russia has since after the time of the Russian Revolution nationalized industry to it's own ends? Or that in Russia, before and during the Revolution, the bourgeoisie nationalized industry to it's own ends?
If it is the latter, then the real answer to the main question of this thread happened: It was a bourgeoisie revolution.
If it is the former, then it is important to keep in mind the historical time frame. Nationalization had not been done and it was an experiment both workers and bourgeoisie would try. He (Trotsky) may have been mistaken in the final outcome of nationalization, but saw it's potential for power.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

27th July 2014, 19:40

Are you saying that the bourgeoisie in Russia has since after the time of the Russian Revolution nationalized industry to it's own ends? Or that in Russia, before and during the Revolution, the bourgeoisie nationalized industry to it's own ends?
If it is the latter, then the real answer to the main question of this thread happened: It was a bourgeoisie revolution.
If it is the former, then it is important to keep in mind the historical time frame. Nationalization had not been done and it was an experiment both workers and bourgeoisie would try. He (Trotsky) may have been mistaken in the final outcome of nationalization, but saw it's potential for power.

Whether Trotsky saw "potential" is beside the point. Trotsky's championing of proletarian property forms lies in sharp contradiction to how Stalinism had already used them for counterrevolutionary purposes. There is evidence in "Revolution Betrayed" that he grasped this, if only partially:

"The transfer of the factories to the state changed the situation of the worker only juridically. In reality, he is compelled to live in want and work a definite number of hours for a definite wage.”

The methodological error consists, then, of Trotsky's juxtaposition of form (appearance of proletarian property forms) with content (the actual bourgeois class content of those forms). He failed to account for how worker's rights in selling their labor-power had been abused by the Soviet state, and draws mistaken conclusions on its essence, that is, the class implications of Soviet production relations itself.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 21:36

We're still waiting Tim.

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 21:42

We're still waiting Tim.

I will take this as a concession that you can produce no examples of Trotskyists pinpointing 1925 as the year of the revolution's degeneration. You're like my ex. I can never win with you. First you claim the topic is too broad to be useful, then when asked a specific question, you stonewall. :rolleyes:

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 22:00

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 22:06

Don't be obnoxious mate. As if admitting I didn't have a source (which I don't) is some grande victory on your part, that undermines some core pillar of my political ideology or something. You pretend like this is some major point in political theory, and you 'win' by having me admit it -- instead of some lil' detail. I would've freely admitted that, but you're were being an ass.

I was going to answer I didn't have a source, and I was going to say it was just a draft I quickly put together some time ago, apparently in december 2013.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2699296&postcount=3

"I was going to make a list of internal debates within the far-left to help those new to it navigate the various tendencies, but I never fleshed it out. It's not entirely accurate nor complete, it's a mere draft."

Well, no, I think you have things completely backward. I tried to be helpful to the forum by allowing the "Nuh uh! It was capitalist!" discussion to be cordoned into a specific portion of the forum where it belongs, instead of cropping up like a weed in practically every other thread. Then you enter the thread, declare it too general to be useful, then rather arrogantly drop down a whole wall of information while pretending that answers all the questions anybody might have. When I try to take your concerns into consideration, and take your post seriously by asking a substantive question, you act like a smart-ass and refuse to answer.

To let you know, Trotsky dated Thermidor (what I think you're referring to) to 1924, not 1925, and that is obliquely related to the topic I initially broached, which was counter-revolution, not Thermidor.

Now do you have anything constructive to add? If not, nobody is forcing you to read the thread.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 22:13

lol, good for you.
ur reading into things tho, but whaffs

Five Year Plan

27th July 2014, 22:15

lol, good for you.
ur reading into things tho, but whaffs

Argument: "You're reading into things."
Evidence: Nothing.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 22:17

Argument: "You're reading into things."
Evidence: Nothing.

k

srsly, what's ur problem mate. Just shut up, and let the thread go on already.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

27th July 2014, 22:18

lol, good for you.
ur reading into things tho, but whaffs

And here we have the zenith of intellectual discourse.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 22:20

And here we have the zenith of intellectual discourse.

k m8. don't know wut dat means. can we stay on topic then finally

MEGAMANTROTSKY

27th July 2014, 22:24

k m8. don't know wut dat means. can we stay on topic then finally

I'm not the one making content-free posts, typing in the language of a Twilight-addled tween.

Tim Cornelis

27th July 2014, 22:27

I'm not the one making content-free posts, typing in the language of a Twilight-addled tween.

k m8. r u a language elitist or sumthin?
But srsly, that's why I said "finally". If you really feel the need to have some pedantic discussion about some unimportant detail of this thread, feel free to call me. Ask me phone number in a private message. kbai!

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th July 2014, 00:56

I'm not the one making content-free posts, typing in the language of a Twilight-addled tween.

Leave Twilight out if this. What does an awesome and sensational fictional love drama have to do with this?

Five Year Plan

28th July 2014, 02:36

Nice attempt at derailing, folks, but I am particularly curious if the left-communists here have something they wish to contribute.

exeexe

28th July 2014, 05:19

F = Marxism-Leninism - 1989/90Wait what? I thought Russia became a free market liberal capitalism society after USSR??

Prometeo liberado

28th July 2014, 06:56

So if you're a Marxist, do you want to recreate what existed in the Soviet Union?"

This is the shit that pisses me off. Most of you probably even think Marx saw society as TWO separate classes and have NO idea that he meant that there were multiple classes or what his method of Abstraction was. Oh but it's 150 years old why study it? So is physics. The point being most people on this site have no idea what the term due diligence means in terms of posting and why we hold on Marx and Engels so fiercely. Shit most here think socialism is a petition, a march and four or five Marx, Engels and Lenin quotes.

Zukunftsmusik

28th July 2014, 07:29

Nice attempt at derailing, folks, but I am particularly curious if the left-communists here have something they wish to contribute.

You were the one derailing it in the first place. Tim has posted a long but thorough post with a pretty solid case for the state capitalist stance. If you're so afraid of this thread derailing, why not engage with Tim properly? (And by properly I don't mean nitpicking on one point to discredit him).

Wait what? I thought Russia became a free market liberal capitalism society after USSR??

I think you misunderstood Tim's scheme. However simplified (or mistaken), it shows when the different currents pin point the counter revolution. The USSR collapsing into a "market liberal capitalism" in 1989/90 does therefore not contradict that some MLs think this was the years of counter revolution. Not at all, it's logical (given their political and theoretical views, of course, which I don't share at all).

So if you're a Marxist, do you want to recreate what existed in the Soviet Union?"

No.

This is the shit that pisses me off. Most of you probably even think Marx saw society as TWO separate classes and have NO idea that he meant that there were multiple classes or what his method of Abstraction was. Oh but it's 150 years old why study it? So is physics. The point being most people on this site have no idea what the term due diligence means in terms of posting and why we hold on Marx and Engels so fiercely. Shit most here think socialism is a petition, a march and four or five Marx, Engels and Lenin quotes.

What are you even saying here?

Five Year Plan

28th July 2014, 08:54

You were the one derailing it in the first place. Tim has posted a long but thorough post with a pretty solid case for the state capitalist stance. If you're so afraid of this thread derailing, why not engage with Tim properly? (And by properly I don't mean nitpicking on one point to discredit him).

So I derailed the thread, and didn't engage properly with Tim, by asking him an on-topic question about a portion of the content of his post, to which he, at first, didn't respond at all, then later responded with sarcasm? Interesting observation, that. Now do you have anything substantive to add about the topic at hand, or are you here just to run interference for your buddy? For instance, what is your position on when counter-revolution occurred? Or do you not believe that a proletarian revolution ever occurred?

Zukunftsmusik

28th July 2014, 09:04

Five Year Plan

28th July 2014, 09:15

You asked one - rather pedantic - question about one point in Tim's least important post. He admitted he was wrong. Tim also made a long post explaining the state capitalist stance, which you haven't engaged with. If you want to debate the "left communist" stance, it (more or less) is right there.

Pointing out a pretty big misrepresentation in what "Trotskyists" believe is far from what I would call pedantic, especially since the initial attitude Tim took into the thread was entirely patronizing ("This thread is way too broad to produce a fruitful discussion, so here let me just vomit up a form letter from another thread"). Tim's chart collapsed together the concepts of degeneration and counter-revolution, and actually got the year wrong when Trotsky himself pinpointed a decisive turning point in bureaucratic degeneration.

For the record, Tim never admitted he was wrong, not that I would care if he did, since it's obvious to any onlooker he was. My concern has been more with his entire approach to the discussion, which has been counter-productive from the start, and which you are defending for reasons I assume are related only to your affinity for his politics. He entered the thread with a patronizing attitude, refused to answer straight-forward questions, then when he was shown a pretty big mistake, he retreated to a mode of expression that I've seen employed only by highly inebriated people.

That is all I have to say about the matter. If you want to continue this derailing discussion, you are more than welcome to have it with yourself.

Tim Cornelis

28th July 2014, 12:52

Jesus. Are you this pathetic?

I posted like a draft chart thingy which I made some time ago where I apparently got this one thing wrong, and instead of simply saying 'Trotskyists don't believe that' to which I would've said 'okay', you ask a sort of rhetorical question and when I don't immediately answer to your whim, you start to imply that I lack intellectual integrity in a really obnoxious manner ("come out, come out wherever you are"). Why are you trying to make this detail into such a big thing? Just so you can declare "victory! I was right. Tim was wrong" or something? It has no importance or significance. I would simply said, 'okay' if you had just pointed out a mistake.

the initial attitude Tim took into the thread was entirely patronizing ("This thread is way too broad to produce a fruitful discussion, so here let me just vomit up a form letter from another thread")

You ask people for their opinion on the class character of the Soviet Union. After I said I thought it was too broad of a discussion to be fruitful (since you'll have various currents and opinions talking across purposes about various aspects of the class character at various stages, during revolution, after) I thought, well even if I think it's not going to be fruitful, might as well try... So I actually post my opinion and then you say it's arrogant that I have posted my opinion! What the fuck dude.

"then rather arrogantly drop down a whole wall of information while pretending that answers all the questions anybody might have."

Yeah dude. I'm so sorry I posted my opinion on the subject you asked for, and that it was a lot of text, I'm such an arrogant douche. I'm sorry I didn't take a lot of time to retype my opinion on the subject (which I had previously typed out already) for no reason and instead copy and pasted it, to save time yet contribute to what you asked for.

For the record, Tim never admitted he was wrong, not that I would care if he did, since it's obvious to any onlooker he was.

I bet you masturbated over this "ah yeah, I was right, people knew it, they saw it, they saw I was right about this not so important detail, ah yeah".

My concern has been more with his entire approach to the discussion, which has been counter-productive from the start, and which you are defending for reasons I assume are related only to your affinity for his politics. He entered the thread with a patronizing attitude,

Meaning, I gave my opinion but I did not take the time to write, specially for you alone, my opinion.

refused to answer straight-forward questions,

question*
Meaning, I didn't immediately respond to you YET because I didn't have the time yet, because I was busy doing something and could only lurk revleft for the time being, not participate.

then when he was shown a pretty big mistake, he retreated to a mode of expression that I've seen employed only by highly inebriated people.

Oooh, you got me there. Such a victory on your part. You must feel really proud. But... It was not a "big mistake" since it in no way affects my political positions in any way, so I have no reason to be biased against standing corrected.

The reason I "retreated" to that "mode of expression" is that you were talking really obnoxiously, like "come out, come out wherever you are". And because I gave my opinion and contributed, which you fucking asked for you fucking clueless idiot, you say I made a "supposedly show-stopping authoritative post", as if that was my intent instead of contributing, like you asked people to do.

So you accuse me of being arrogant (again, for doing what you asked for) and lacking intellectual integrity (because I did not immediately respond, as if you expect all my time to revolve around you and your question) in a smug and obnoxious tone, talking down to me, almost like a child. Of course I'm not going to respond seriously to some fucking dumb ass who fucking tries to character assassinate me for no reason whatsoever.

And now you're causing me to waste time on you.

helot

28th July 2014, 13:44

For the record, Tim never admitted he was wrong, not that I would care if he did, since it's obvious to any onlooker he was. My concern has been more with his entire approach to the discussion, which has been counter-productive from the start, and which you are defending for reasons I assume are related only to your affinity for his politics.

You know, sometimes im not much of a fan of how Tim comes across but you are being dishonest. Tim ofc thought this thread too broad to be fruitful, that's fine, he then engaged with the thread. You, however, tried to stick to one error he made and blew it all out of proportion and then cry foul.

You were trying to bait him.

Five Year Plan

28th July 2014, 17:43

I think conflating degeneration with counter-revolution is a pretty big mistake, since it indicates to me that the person falling for it makes absolutely no distinction between the class basis of the state, which can only be over-turned in a forcible revolution or counter-revolution, and the political power the ruling class directly has over that state, which can degenerate when non-ruling-class elements begin to exercise power over the state even as it continues to be a state designed to serve one particular kind of mode of production.

An example of degeneration would be the absolutist monarchies that developed in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries in response to rise of capitalism, wealthy peasants acquiring autonomy from landed aristocrats, and so on. The state those absolutist monarchs presided over were still feudal states, as Perry Anderson has pointed out, but the direct political power of the landed aristocrats, once so unchallenged on their manors, were definitely curtailed by a monarch and court that derived its power from tribute rather than rent and had immediate economic interests that placed it in continual conflict with the aristocrats.

A failure to understand the nature of absolutism makes it impossible to understand the balance of forces in the bourgeois revolutions. Why would feudal lords continue to support the monarch that had taken so much power away from them, if he/she did not continue to prop up the logic of the social system upon which they depended for their lavish lifestyle? Wouldn't they have opposed the monarch from their own independent bloc? None of this becomes comprehensible without understanding that the ruling class of a particular state is not necessarily the class that holds immediate political authority.

Admittedly, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the relationship between the direct holding of political power is much more closely linked with the class basis of the state than it is under feudalism or capitalism, since the state, after all, is to be the democratic instrument of political emancipation by the workers themselves, but the point stands: we should not conflate the political level of a state with the social level.

Tim Cornelis

28th July 2014, 19:46

GiantMonkeyMan

28th July 2014, 19:53

I might be rambling a little in this post but I try and back it up with sources. I might just be insane for even thinking of posting in thread, to be honest, but it helped myself develop a more concrete position.

I generally don't think you can define the effective date that counter-revolution or degeneration occurred to the point where one day it was a revolutionary state and the next a reactionary one or whatever. I think it's a pretty arbitrary understanding of history. Marxism sees history not as different scenes in a film one after the other but the film as a whole; a process of development and progression.

I feel that the October Revolution was definitely a proletarian lead revolution. The soviets at that stage were clearly the organs of workers' control and the Bolsheviks with their programme had captured the imaginations of the workers within those soviets. Just hearing first hand accounts of the composition of the soviets makes that starkly clear such as in Ten Days that Shook the World where John Reed describes the Committee for Salvation in contrast to the Congress of the Soviets:

It was war—war deliberately planned, Russian fashion; war by strike and sabotage. As we sat there the chairman read a list of names and assignments; so-and-so was to make the round of the Ministries; another was to visit the banks; some ten or twelve were to work the barracks and persuade the soldiers to remain neutral—“Russian soldiers, do not shed the blood of your brothers!”; a committee was to go and confer with Kerensky; still others were despatched to provincial cities, to form branches of the Committee for Salvation, and link together the anti-Bolshevik elements.

The crowd was in high spirits. “These Bolsheviki will try to dictate to the intelligentzia? We’ll show them!”— Nothing could be more striking than the contrast between this assemblage and the Congress of Soviets. There, great masses of shabby soldiers, grimy workmen, peasants—poor men, bent and scarred in the brute struggle for existence; here the Menshevik and Social Revolutionary leaders—Avksentievs, Dans, Liebers,—the former Socialist Ministers—Skobelievs, Tchernovs,—rubbed shoulders with Cadets like oily Shatsky, sleek Vinaver; with journalists, students, intellectuals of almost all camps. This Duma crowd was well-fed, well-dressed; I did not see more than three proletarians among them all…

Victor Serge in Year One of the Revolution writes about the breaking of the Bolsheviks with the Left-SRs in July of 1918 which pretty much signified the ending of the internal democracy in the soviets:

The end of the Soviet alliance produces in its’ wake a formidable concentration of power. Up till this time, the dictatorship was in a way democratic; constitutional forms were spelt out within its structure. The multiplicity of local activity, the existence of parties and groups, the demands of public opinion, the democratic traditions of revolutionaries trained in the school of Western democracy, and the weakness of the central authority all worked in this direction. The debates within the Bolshevik party, too, have shown us the vitality of its internal democracy. But everything changes at this point. The Allied intervention, striking simultaneously with the rebellion of the kulaks and the collapse of the Soviet alliance, poses an unmistakable threat to the survival of the Republic. The proletarian dictatorship is forced to throw off its democratic paraphernalia forthwith. Famine and local anarchy compel a rigorous concentration of powers in the hands of the appropriate Commissariats. The catastrophe of the transport system compels a recourse to draconic methods of authority on the railways. The war, the total encirclement of the revolution and the inadequacy of spontaneous foci of resistance compel the establishment of a regular army, to supplement and supplant the guerrilla formations. Bankruptcy compels the centralization of financial policy. Conspiracy compels the introduction of a powerful apparatus of interior defence. Assassinations, peasant risings and the mortal danger compel the use of terror. The outlawing of the Socialists of counter-revolution and the split with the anarchists and Left S-Rs have as their consequence the political monopoly of the Communist party and the extinction, for practical purposes, of the constitution. With the disappearance of political debates between parties representing different social interests through the various shades of their opinion, Soviet institutions, beginning with the local Soviets and ending with the Vee-Tsik and the Council of People’s Commissars, manned solely by Communists, now function in a vacuum: since all the decisions are taken by the party, all they can do is give them the official rubber-stamp.

I don't necessarily see this as evidence that the Bolsheviks didn't represent the proletariat at this point but rather that the other classes that sided with the proletariat in combating the bourgeois government of Kerensky had finally realised that their interests were contrary to the interests of the proletariat and subsequently became counter-revolutionary. The Bolsheviks abandoning this alliance and essentially dropping some democratic factors of the internal processes has nothing to do with the class character of the revolution. I do believe that it was sowing the seeds for germination of the bureaucratic layers that began to take too much in the way of personal power. Serge goes on to write:

...the proletariat sought to organize Socialist production and distribution, in other words to take economic power into its own hands. In the factories, workers’ management committees ousted the capitalist and his technical-managerial staff. The expropriation of capital – industrial, commercial, real-estate and rural – was so complete that the bourgeoisie became transformed, in the phrase used by one Russian economist, into a kind of ex-bourgeoisie in rags or ‘lumpen ex-bourgeoisie’. By contrast, it needed sustained efforts to flush out the petty-bourgeoisie from each one of their last economic strongholds in the cooperative system. The decree of 7 December nationalized the cooperative Moscow People’s Bank: the bourgeoisie was refused the right to vote and be elected in cooperative societies. A final blow to petty commerce was dealt by the decree of 21 November which instructed the Food Commissariat ‘to ensure provision for the population in all products and to replace the functions of private trade’. Many were the voices in the party which demanded the outright liquidation of cooperatives, ‘the servitors of capitalism’, and the total statification of distribution. This path would shortly be begun with the introduction of the compulsory cooperative system.

Industry was now managed by fifty-two centres of production (glavki), manned by worker committees in which the trade unions had a predominant influence: these succeeded in getting the war industries going non-stop and with increasing efficiency, despite appalling difficulties. At the end of the Year One, a change of heart took place among many of the intellectuals and technicians: an important minority of these joined the managerial councils of the Socialist State. The difficulties involved in the distribution of raw materials and fuel necessarily led to centralization, which was achieved only at the cost of a bitter struggle against separatist tendencies and local power centres. Centralization as a general line of policy, in the army, in transport, in provisioning, and even in the functioning of the party’s machinery, was the outcome of the war. The revolution had begun with the slogan: ‘Power, in all its fullness, to the Soviets.’ Now, however, the play of local egoisms, the lack of competent personnel and the activity of trouble-makers were setting in motion a reverse tendency, that leading towards a dictatorship of the centre, for the sake of the higher interests of the revolution.

I count Serge as a pretty useful source but others might disagree. I think he understood the proletarian and revolutionary nature of the soviet government and supported its overall drive to suppress counter-revolution - even if he might have argued what the definition of 'counter-revolution' actually meant when he was critical of the Bolsheviks suppressing anarchists and the like. Serge carries with him the hint of an element of moralism, essentially, and I agree with Trotsky when he wrote in 1939:

Two classes decide the fate of modern society: the imperialist bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The last resource of the bourgeoisie is fascism, which replaces social and historical criteria with biological and zoological standards so as thus to free itself from any and all restrictions in the struggle for capitalist property. Civilization can be saved only by the socialist revolution. To accomplish the overturn, the proletariat needs all its strength, all its resolution, all its audacity, passion and ruthlessness. Above all it must be completely free from the fictions of religion, “democracy” and transcendental morality – the spiritual chains forged by the enemy to tame and enslave it. Only that which prepares the complete and final overthrow of imperialist bestiality is moral, and nothing else. The welfare of the revolution that is the supreme law!

I think a bureaucracy grew, pretty much as a direct result of the leadership's desire to win the civil war and pursue the revolution, but it in essence began to unravel from the class behind the revolution sooner rather than later. I don't think this recognition is necessarily a moral position to take and Alexandra Kollontai describes such instances in her writings on why the Workers' Opposition existed:

Every comrade can easily recall scores of instances when workers themselves attempted to organise dining- rooms, day nurseries for children, transportation of wood, etc. Each time a lively, immediate interest in the undertaking died from the red tape, interminable negotiations with the various institutions that brought no results, or resulted in refusals, new requisitions etc. Wherever there was an opportunity under the impetus of the masses themselves - of the masses using their own efforts - to equip a dining-room, to store a supply of wood, or to organise a nursery, refusal always followed refusal from the central institutions. Explanations were forthcoming that there was no equipment for the dining-room, lack of horses for transporting the wood, and absence of an adequate building for the nursery How much bitterness is generated 'Among working men and women when they see and know that if they had been given the right, and an opportunity to act, they could themselves have seen the project through. How painful it is to receive a refusal of necessary material! when such material had already been found and procured by the workers themselves. Their initiative is therefore slackening and the desire to act is dying out. 'If that is the case' , people say, 'let officials themselves take care of us.' As a result, there is generated a most harmful division: we are the toiling people, they are the Soviet officials, on whom everything depends. This is the whole trouble.

I think that this is evidence that there was a proletarian driving force behind the revolution seeking to better their lives but also a bureaucratic force trying to control the flow of resources in such a way that it ended up being contrary to the interests of the proletariat by around 1920-1923 (incidentally, this is also the period where the revolutions across the rest of Europe were effectively crushed). This wouldn't have been an instantaneous thing where Stalin clicked his fingers and thus the bureaucrats were everywhere but rather a process where more and more of the control of resources became dominated by party officials seeking to support the Red Army in the civil war and, consequently, an apparatus emerged separated from the control of the proletariat as a class.

The Bolsheviks even recognised this at this point, with the Central Committee passing resolutions in an attempt to stifle the power of the bureaucratic layer just as it was obvious various factions within the party organisation were working to maintain and strengthen said power. Trotsky in 1923 wrote:

...bureaucratism is a well-defined evil, a notorious and incontestably harmful deviation officially condemned but still showing no signs of disappearing. Moreover, it is pretty difficult to make it disappear at one blow. But if bureaucratism, as the resolution of the Central Committee says, threatens to detach the party from the masses and consequently to weaken the class character of the party, it follows that the struggle against bureaucratism can in no case be the result of non-proletarian influences. On the contrary, the aspiration of the party to preserve its proletarian character must inevitably engender resistance to bureaucratism. Obviously, under cover of this resistance, various wrong, unhealthy and injurious tendencies may manifest themselves. And they cannot be disclosed save by the Marxian analysis of their ideological content. But to identify resistance to bureaucratism with a grouping which allegedly serves as a channel for alien influences, is to be oneself the “channel” for bureaucratic influences.

It's obvious the party organisation recognised the issues with where things were going but were not capable of effectively curtailing these issues. Like many others, I believe that the failure of the revolution to spread beyond Russia and the subsequent attacks from various counter-revolutionary forces, both from within and without, forced the party down a path it couldn't so easily reverse.

I believe that during the process of the dictatorship of the proletariat vestiges of capitalism remain. Of course they remain, the point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to fight against counter-revolution and destroy those last vestiges. I also believe that the bureaucratic layer changed to subsume a role as a part of the remnants of capitalism, although I couldn't and shouldn't give a definite date to pinpoint this. As Rosa Luxemburg writes in her polemic against the reformism of Bernstein:

...at present a capitalist enterprise does not correspond, as before, to a single proprietor of capital but to a number of capitalists. Consequently, the economic notion of “capitalist” no longer signifies an isolated individual. The industrial capitalist of today is a collective person composed of hundreds and even of thousands of individuals. The category “capitalist” has itself become a social category. It has become “socialised” – within the frame-work of capitalist society.

Luxemburg here is talking about shareholders and co-operatives and critiquing Berstein's belief that they hold the key to reforming into socialism but it's something I recently read and I feel the gist of it is essentially a good justification for the state capitalist theory. There might not be individual capitalists but capitalism isn't a system of individual capitalists claiming ownership over individual bits of private property any more but a socialisation of the entire capitalist system (which is also why socialism is entirely possible).

Fundamentally, however, none of this bollocks affects in anyway my current organising mainly because we are not currently in a revolutionary situation. This post is far longer than I thought it would be...

Five Year Plan

28th July 2014, 20:14

You're shifting the goal posts. Post #42 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775498&postcount=42) is the first time you brought up the issue of conflating degeneration and counter-revolution. And now you pretend like that was the issue all along.

You were wrong about Thermidor, and you're wrong about conflating counter-revolution with Thermidor. It's not either-or, and I have no reason to move goal posts when you've said literally nothing substantive to refute either of these facts. You can keep trying to change the discussion to my "rudeness" or whatever, but it's not going to prevent me from talking about the factual and theoretical weaknesses in your post.

Tim Cornelis

28th July 2014, 20:39

You were wrong about Thermidor, and you're wrong about conflating counter-revolution with Thermidor. It's not either-or, and I have no reason to move goal posts when you've said literally nothing substantive to refute either of these facts. You can keep trying to change the discussion to my "rudeness" or whatever, but it's not going to prevent me from talking about the factual and theoretical weaknesses in your post.

This is all besides the point -- none of this has to do with what I said. You were talking about 1925 not being the point at which Trotskyists put the degeneration of the Russian revolution; and now all of a sudden you're talking about "the big mistake" I made was about conflating counter-revolution and degeneration, which you hadn't brought up until very recently. So you shifted the goal posts.

Five Year Plan

28th July 2014, 20:51

Your post contained a little matching chart connecting tendencies to years when the Soviet Union degenerated. It claimed (anti-revisionist) "Marxist-Leninists" pinpointing "degeneration" to 1953. In fact, they pinpoint 1953 as a counter-revolution for state capitalism and social imperialism. For more info on this, see Ismail. You gave the date 1925 as marking degeneration of the October Revolution for Trotskyists. Also wrong. Trotskyists pinpoint Thermidor to 1924.

I point out these inaccuracies in your rather odd chart, then the best retort you can come up with is that I am being mean, then, when it becomes clear that I am no longer interested in litigating manners with you, that I am not responding to the substance of our post. In fact, your post, as I said, mashed together two separate things, degeneration and counter-revolution, and got a date wrong. If that's not a substantive criticism, what is?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

28th July 2014, 20:58

This is all besides the point -- none of this has to do with what I said. You were talking about 1925 not being the point at which Trotskyists put the degeneration of the Russian revolution; and now all of a sudden you're talking about "the big mistake" I made was about conflating counter-revolution and degeneration, which you hadn't brought up until very recently. So you shifted the goal posts.

In post #27, FYP shows that (a) you conflate the terms counterrevolution and Thermidor, by refusing to draw the necessary distinctions between them (i.e. Thermidor was a conservative direction of policy as opposed to a full-fledged counterrevolution) and (b) that you even got the date wrong of when that conflation allegedly took place. You made two mistakes that are clearly interlinked. He was not switching topics by drawing attention to this.

Tim Cornelis

28th July 2014, 21:07

Ah, I didn't know Thermidor referred to that.

Rafiq

29th July 2014, 17:55

Naturally, there were many backward changes in the Soviet Union prior to the Congress of 1939 (18th). I never said otherwise. What I was trying to convey is that the Stalinist counterrevolution was completed, and made concrete, by that date. My previous post also makes clear that the destruction of the Bolshevik party and of the NEP-men was not merely a cosmetic change in staff, but Stalinism's efforts to create a pliant bureaucratic state and to fully eliminate all vestiges of October and worker's power. Your conclusion therefore is silly--the Soviet state was not dependent on the working-class base or the program of proletarian revolution when it consolidated its power, but on its suppression. To identify the Stalinist state both as October's gravedigger and its savior makes no sense.

While it would not be ridiculous to claim that the Great Purges signified the solidification of Stalinist power - what it does not signify is the solidification of the October revolution's failure. What "vestiges" of worker's power were eliminated in the power struggle of the 1930's? What fundamental social implications were the Stalinist purges? None. This is precisely why they can be distinguished from the red terror of the revolution, the latter entailed fundamental changes in class power. They were purely a form of bureaucratic masturbation. The Soviet bureaucracy existed many years before the purges.

It's true that individuals have an impact on how events are shaped, or the character of history itself. That does not, however mean that the October revolution's downfall was simply Stalin's rise to power. There are real factors which allowed the Stalinist rise to power possible - anyone else would have had to face the same problems the Soviet state did under Stalin. You say it makes no sense that the Soviet state was both the gravedigger and the savior of the October revolution (really an ignorant claim) but that is precisely what it was. In the process of attempting to save the revolution the state was actively destroying it. In the process of the state attempting to save itself, the embodiment of the revolution, it had to destroy the revolution itself. It is like Oedipus. Because any attempt to protect the revolution in the conditions present in the Soviet Union would have inevitably lead to it's destruction.

Rafiq

29th July 2014, 17:58

In post #27, FYP shows that (a) you conflate the terms counterrevolution and Thermidor, by refusing to draw the necessary distinctions between them (i.e. Thermidor was a conservative direction of policy as opposed to a full-fledged counterrevolution) and (b) that you even got the date wrong of when that conflation allegedly took place. You made two mistakes that are clearly interlinked. He was not switching topics by drawing attention to this.

There is a difference between degeneration and counter revolution. The latter can be an effect of the former.

You and Five Year Plan miss the point anyway, you're attacking quite a minor, insignificant mistake - I doubt Trotskyists would consider the revolution to have degenerated if Trotsky had consolidated power rather than have been exiled. It's quite common knowledge that around the date Tim claimed, Trotskyists threw in the towel. Also context is important, look at all of the other dates respective to the currents.

consuming negativity

29th July 2014, 18:05

Internet Warrior FYP off to score some more home runs in another 10/10 thread. :rolleyes:

Five Year Plan

29th July 2014, 18:06

There is a difference between degeneration and counter revolution. The latter can be an effect of the former.

You and Five Year Plan miss the point anyway, you're attacking quite a minor, insignificant mistake - I doubt Trotskyists would consider the revolution to have degenerated if Trotsky had consolidated power rather than have been exiled. It's quite common knowledge that around the date Tim claimed, Trotskyists threw in the towel. Also context is important, look at all of the other dates respective to the currents.

Well, yeah, counter-revolution is the result of massive degeneration. What's your point? My point has been that conflating the two things on a chart that is supposed to clarify what various tendencies think is highly problematic.

Trotskyists "threw in the towel" in 1925? There weren't even "Trotskyists" back then. There was Trotsky and various unofficial oppositional factions that certainly did not identify themselves as "Trotskyists." Those oppositional factions continued to operate through the late 1920s. Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you disagreeing for the purpose of disagreeing at this point?

Rafiq

29th July 2014, 18:13

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2014, 18:20

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your "thermidor"
I wonder if it really is possible to recognize one single event or date in such a manner. Maybe it is, but there are numerous problems with such an approach. For instance, one could just as possibly argue that counter-revolution was from the very start inseparable from revolution, in the form of the civil war and distortions it provoked (one which are to this day defended not only as "necessary" for the preservation of Bolshevik rule, but actually as steps forward towards socialism).

Five Year Plan

29th July 2014, 18:23

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?

Actually, as has been pointed out to people's chagrin in this very thread, Trotskyists see 1924 as the red line, if by red line, you mean the onset of profound reaction within the bureaucracy. It certainly doesn't mark the time when either Trotsky or his followers "threw in the towel," being that they insisted on self-idenfying as an oppositional grouping within the SU-led Comintern until 1933 and believed until that time that reforms from within could lead to the re-establishment of a healthy Soviet government and communist movement.

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your "thermidor"Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2014, 18:24

Anyway, can people clearly and concisely explain the proposed difference between degeneration and counter-revolution as terms?

Five Year Plan

29th July 2014, 18:27

Anyway, can people clearly and concisely explain the proposed difference between degeneration and counter-revolution as terms?

Degeneration of a workers' state is when bureaucratization results in non-proletarian interests having an upper-hand, which functionally entails the state moving society closer and closer back to the establishment of full-blown capitalism (complete with ruling class).

Counter-revolution is the series of rapid and forcible transformations within the state apparatus by which a new class takes power.

It is impossible to imagine a scenario in which a workers' state undergoes counter-revolution without first undergoing a period of degeneration.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

29th July 2014, 18:44

While it would not be ridiculous to claim that the Great Purges signified the solidification of Stalinist power - what it does not signify is the solidification of the October revolution's failure. What "vestiges" of worker's power were eliminated in the power struggle of the 1930's? What fundamental social implications were the Stalinist purges? None. This is precisely why they can be distinguished from the red terror of the revolution, the latter entailed fundamental changes in class power. They were purely a form of bureaucratic masturbation. The Soviet bureaucracy existed many years before the purges.
Given that the purges themselves were not at all confined to the state apparatus, how can you claim that they had no "fundamental social implications"? You're just asserting what you need to prove. And the bureaucracy existed before the purges? You don't say! Please point out where I said otherwise. I doubt you'll succeed. In the meantime, please consult FYP's last post detailing the differences between Thermidor and counterrevolution.

It's true that individuals have an impact on how events are shaped, or the character of history itself. That does not, however mean that the October revolution's downfall was simply Stalin's rise to power. There are real factors which allowed the Stalinist rise to power possible - anyone else would have had to face the same problems the Soviet state did under Stalin.
You have provided no proof that I awarded undue causality to Stalin the personality for the Soviet Union's degeneration. And until you do, your argument is worthless. Talking of Stalinism, as I did, includes more than just the man himself.

You say it makes no sense that the Soviet state was both the gravedigger and the savior of the October revolution (really an ignorant claim) but that is precisely what it was. In the process of attempting to save the revolution the state was actively destroying it. In the process of the state attempting to save itself, the embodiment of the revolution, it had to destroy the revolution itself. It is like Oedipus. Because any attempt to protect the revolution in the conditions present in the Soviet Union would have inevitably lead to it's destruction.
Your claim is no more convincing than the last time. The Soviet state had thrown off its claims to the heritage of October and the revolution during the 1930s. Unless you're saying that a worker's state can still be a worker's state with no working class base or input, your claim still makes no sense. It wasn't a worker's state by that point, so how could the revolution be defended if its gains were destroyed? Your attempt to sound artsy by invoking both paradoxical logic and the Oedipus myth just make you sound foolish.

EDIT: Here's a link for you, Rafiq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

exeexe

30th July 2014, 17:51

Anyway, can people clearly and concisely explain the proposed difference between degeneration and counter-revolution as terms?
Im no expert on this but my senses tells me that degeneration happens when indirect action are taken by that power that are delegated to act on behalf of the people or workers interest. But in reality that power will forget its delegation if its permanent (like a state) and take action on behalf of itself.
Anarchists have sucesfully pointed out that action must be taken directly. Thus degeneration can not happen. Thus degenaration happened when the socialisted stopped listened to the anarchists. Though the manifestation of degeneration didnt happen instantly. I guess the power first had to realise that it was permanent before it could degenerate. So the big step happened pretty early in the timescale of soviet russia. Everything else that followed was just small steps in that direction.

Counterrevolution is when the old system is restored. For Soviet Russia it must be to bring back the czarist regime into order or a monarchy.

Prof. Oblivion

1st August 2014, 03:17

The entire idea of a "workers state" is fundamentally inadequate in terms of a Marxian analysis. Anyone that doesn't recognize the logical contradiction is a fool. The Soviet Union wasn't a classless society, class struggle still went on.

The problem with the majority of people's opinions is the inability to recognize that a bureaucrat might not necessarily be working in anyone else's interest but their own, and to look at it in such an inflexible way as to say "well either the bureaucracy was a class (state capitalism) or the workers state - bureaucracy - degenerated (Trotskyism)". The Russian Revolution, as a process led to what it became. To put a label on it as a "workers state" really has no meaning, regardless of the differences in when one would apply it.

That's the fundamental problem with most leftists' interpretations of it. It's impossible to have a discussion because everyone's fundamental premises are wrong.

Trap Queen Voxxy

1st August 2014, 03:21

Soviet Union my tits.

Dagoth Ur

1st August 2014, 03:42

Worker's state is problematic only if you consider a worker's state to be something socialism will have. A classless society can't have workers so there isn't a worker's state either.

The Soviet Union was still the best nation to ever exist in the history of Man.

John Nada

1st August 2014, 13:07

(Wall of text)... cyberussr.... cubaverdadFYI those sites are very reactionary. For example the owner of cyberussr said
Caution: I am an anti-Communist and Cold Warrior.And the author of the book on his site's credibility, in his eyes, is that he's an "anti-Stalinist socialist" (not a left-com, Trotskyist, or anarchist?). Also IIRC the USSR's economy was growing most of it's history, but started slowing down under Brezhnev.
Likewise, women were increasingly employed in wage-labor (which was in part due to the fact that real wages were low, and thence the requirement for multiple sources of income in households)How is women entering the workforce bad? As opposed to unpaid wage labor at home. Which led me to something called the "Kitchen Debate". Under Khrushchev there was a push away from communal housing and house work, to an American style nuclear family with traditional "family values". Women were pushed back into the kitchen, when in much of the West feminism was gaining traction. I do wonder if this had an effect on the Soviet psyche, seeing as more than half of the proletariat are women.
Without further adieu, was the Soviet Union ever a workers' state? Was the October Revolution a workers' revolution? Why or why not? If you believe that there was a dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, when do you think a counter-revolution occurred? 1923? 1928? 1937? 1953? 1991? 1992?1941, when the Axis invaded the USSR. 27 million people died. I think there were probably brilliant committed Marxist among them. Some- one or the child they never had could have done things differently. I mean compare the leadership from Lenin to post-Stalin. All the OG Bolsheviks, a lot of them were like fucking scholars, writing books like crazy. How much theoretic work did Brezhnev or Khrushchev write? Shit the war's pretty much how all the leaders till Gorbachev(who was too young to fight) got to power

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 17:07

Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

Yes, that's what I said. That's what I meant by throwing in the towel - "anti revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, for example, might claim that Stalin's death marked the degeneration of the Soviet Union. I'm going to ask you a serious question: Why do you always find it necessary to start semantic arguments and deliberately twist meaning in order to suit your argumentative abilities? Secretly I think you don't know much - you have to shape and mold the posts of others so that they can fit your intellectual constrains.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 17:11

I wonder if it really is possible to recognize one single event or date in such a manner. Maybe it is, but there are numerous problems with such an approach. For instance, one could just as possibly argue that counter-revolution was from the very start inseparable from revolution, in the form of the civil war and distortions it provoked (one which are to this day defended not only as "necessary" for the preservation of Bolshevik rule, but actually as steps forward towards socialism).

There can be a date that has symbolic value, which is roughly around the time of the Krodstat rebellion for Left communists. Nobody argues that such degeneration comes out of the blue, everyone thinks that there are factors and reasons that were present that led to it - but rather than being theoretical it's a political gesture - take Trotskyists for example who became an oppositional entity after 1924.

To argue that the actions taken during the civil war were unnecessary is ridiculous. The Bolsheviks were not cruel for the fuck of it.

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 17:14

Yes, that's what I said. That's what I meant by throwing in the towel - "anti revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, for example, might claim that Stalin's death marked the degeneration of the Soviet Union. I'm going to ask you a serious question: Why do you always find it necessary to start semantic arguments and deliberately twist meaning in order to suit your argumentative abilities? Secretly I think you don't know much - you have to shape and mold the posts of others so that they can fit your intellectual constrains.

I'm just not sure how arrive at the conclusion that Trotskyists "threw in the towel" with the onset of degeneration when I explained very clearly that Trotskyists continued to work on trying to reform the Soviet bureaucracy from within for almost a decade after Thermidor began.

I don't consider holding you to what you say to be a matter of "semantics." It's a matter of principled conversation. If you don't intend to convey an idea, don't express it. These rhetorical embellishments sure as hell don't make your posts any more readable.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 17:20

Given that the purges themselves were not at all confined to the state apparatus, how can you claim that they had no "fundamental social implications"? You're just asserting what you need to prove. And the bureaucracy existed before the purges? You don't say!

Again, what I am asking you is prescisely this - What organs of worker's power were destroyed during the Stalinist purges? What precisely changed besides the cementing of rule of Stalin's political faction? My point is that the proletarian dictatorship had long been dead by the time your alleged "counter revolution" had succeeded. No need to get haughty MEGAMAN, yet again you have no idea of what the fuck you're talking about. There were no fundamental social implications of the Stalinist purges - instead it was inter-bureaucratic masturbation. Such violence did not signify a fundamental change in the nature of the Soviet state (a counter-revolution) because the alleged "ties to the proletarian dictatorship" had at that time long been dead.

Your claim is no more convincing than the last time. The Soviet state had thrown off its claims to the heritage of October and the revolution during the 1930s. Unless you're saying that a worker's state can still be a worker's state with no working class base or input, your claim still makes no sense. It wasn't a worker's state by that point, so how could the revolution be defended if its gains were destroyed?

While the proletarian dictatorship could not have been defended because it did not exist - in the course of the Soviet state defending the proletarian dictatorship during the civil war soon after the state and the dictatorship became synonymous (well, they were already synonymous). Defending the revolution then translated into defending the state - so in the process of Stalin defending the Soviet state (For example, against Tsarist counter revolution, against foreign imperialism) he was in effect destroying it. That was my point. Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. You're like a depraved creature shouting in your baseless confidence that somehow, what I am saying is contradictory or ridiculous. It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself. Sacrificing the gains of the October revolution were necessary for the preservation of the state within their according conditions. You make it as if I am the chief architecture of this scenario, like I was live back then and it was my doing. No, I'm just explaining to you HOW it worked, - and yes it was contradictory, the rule of the Soviet state was contradictory.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 17:22

And while you didn't claim Stalin as being solely responsible - that is the underling implications of many Trotskyists. Sure they'll sell it off with some obscure pretentious nonsense about "individuals and history" but ultimately they will blame Stalin individually.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 17:27

I'm just not sure how arrive at the conclusion that Trotskyists "threw in the towel" with the onset of degeneration when I explained very clearly that Trotskyists continued to work on trying to reform the Soviet bureaucracy from within for almost a decade after Thermidor began.

You yourself stated they were an oppositional group within the Soviet Comintern. While they might have claimed to try and reform the Soviet bureaucracy, they weren't at all doing this. Doing this actively within the Soviet Union would have meant their persecution and imprisonment. So they were effectively an opposition group who opposed the character of the Soviet state following Trotsky's exile. Whether they think it could have been reformed is irrelevant. I'm sure some anti-revisionists might believe that putting anti-revisionists in power in the Soviet Union would have surely stopped Bhreznev and Gorbachev from coming to be, but that doesn't mean anything. They threw in the towel following Stalin's death. That's what Tim was trying to say.

You don't deny that Trotskyists hold 1924 as the onset of Soviet degeneration, okay? So here is Tim's post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775268&postcount=9

He clearly posits the question of when the revolution degenerated. So the argument then becomes whether it was 1925, or 1924. He has respectfully acknowledged that he made an error, one year off. That doesn't change the point at hand, however.

You could try to say that Tim did not post the dates in which the counter-revolution occurred, which was the point of your topic, but that didn't seem to bother you as your first reply to him was this http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775318&postcount=16. Your problem was that Tim wrongfully stated that Trotskyists believe the revolution degenerated in 1925, when it was actually in 1924. So the premise of your argument wasn't about counter-revolution vs. degeneration, but an irrelevant mistake made by Tim.

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 18:10

You yourself stated they were an oppositional group within the Soviet Comintern. While they might have claimed to try and reform the Soviet bureaucracy, they weren't at all doing this. Doing this actively within the Soviet Union would have meant their persecution and imprisonment. So they were effectively an opposition group who opposed the character of the Soviet state following Trotsky's exile. Whether they think it could have been reformed is irrelevant. I'm sure some anti-revisionists might believe that putting anti-revisionists in power in the Soviet Union would have surely stopped Bhreznev and Gorbachev from coming to be, but that doesn't mean anything. They threw in the towel following Stalin's death. That's what Tim was trying to say.

Oh, so historians have just lied about the left oppositionists, many of whom followed Trotsky's political line, being sent to labor campus and being executed in the late 1920s and 1930s? You can make the argument that left oppositionists failed horribly at accomplishing their goals (and in fact, I would agree with that assessment), but to assert that they "threw in the towel" in 1924 (which is what YOU said, not Tim) is complete and utter bullshit you have to paper over by distorting history and trying to divert the conversation.

You don't deny that Trotskyists hold 1924 as the onset of Soviet degeneration, okay? So here is Tim's post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775268&postcount=9

He clearly posits the question of when the revolution degenerated. So the argument then becomes whether it was 1925, or 1924. He has respectfully acknowledged that he made an error, one year off. That doesn't change the point at hand, however.The point at hand was, as you note, the point he conceded to me.

You could try to say that Tim did not post the dates in which the counter-revolution occurred, which was the point of your topic, but that didn't seem to bother you as your first reply to him was this http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775318&postcount=16. Your problem was that Tim wrongfully stated that Trotskyists believe the revolution degenerated in 1925, when it was actually in 1924. So the premise of your argument wasn't about counter-revolution vs. degeneration, but an irrelevant mistake made by Tim.When you are posting a chart intended to help clarify the position of various tendencies regarding counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, I don't think it's helpful to confuse counter-revolution with Thermidor, then on top of that, to get the date of Thermidor wrong. You want to defend this because you are still peeved I think your posts are laughable rubbish, and that's fine. I'm more than happy to continue pointing out how your posts are rubbish while you desperately try to start pointless little skirmishes across the forum.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 18:47

Oh, so historians have just lied about the left oppositionists, many of whom followed Trotsky's political line, being sent to labor campus and being executed in the late 1920s and 1930s? You can make the argument that left oppositionists failed horribly at accomplishing their goals (and in fact, I would agree with that assessment), but to assert that they "threw in the towel" in 1924 (which is what YOU said, not Tim) is complete and utter bullshit you have to paper over by distorting history and trying to divert the conversation.

Well that's my point, the fact that they were sent to labor camps means they were effectively opposed to the character of the Soviet state. It's not as though they actively cooperated with the Soviet state and so on and merely disagreed with policies. Also the Left opposition outside of the Soviet Union is distinguishable from some elements within the Soviet Union which included a large variety of people, among them were Trotskyists. Unless you admit that the Trotskyist conspiracy outlined by the NKVD was actually real. But again, that's besides the point. Unsurprisingly. Are you aware that there were others who were persecuted, who believed the revolution was degenerated even before Trotskyists did?

So what, is the entirety of your reasoning that you're upset over the use of the word "throwing in the towel". Throwing in the towel as far as their recognition of the legitimacy of the Soviet state. Well this is undeniable. Whether they wanted to reform it or not is irrelivent, the fact is that they opposed those in power within the Soviet state and the course it was taking. That was the whole point to begin with. The high king of semantics has spoken, and the entirety of his argument is that "throwing in the towel" is an inappropriate idiom as far as the position of Trotsky and his followers following 1924. I don't know why, though. He has yet to explain. It's not like I'm trying to say that's when the Left opposition stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate. I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

When you are posting a chart intended to help clarify the position of various tendencies regarding counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, I don't think it's helpful to confuse counter-revolution with Thermidor, then on top of that, to get the date of Thermidor wrong. You want to defend this because you are still peeved I think your posts are laughable rubbish, and that's fine. I'm more than happy to continue pointing out how your posts are rubbish while you desperately try to start pointless little skirmishes across the forum.

Well that's fine, but that wasn't your problem, your problem was that Tim pointed out the wrong date. It would seem that your qualm with Tim's lack of emphasis on the dichotomy between degeneration and counter-revolution only came later in the thread, arguing with me. Tim didn't even talk of counter-revolution, he merely pointed out the date various tendencies hold it's degeneration as beginning on. If the point was the actual counter-revolution, that may have been a mistake on his part - but the dates he posted were the dates in which all groups became effectively opposed to the character of the Soviet state - with some believing it could have reformed, while others thinking the revolution was already destroyed. It doesn't matter.

Tim's point was that we all already know who thinks what. I think that the only thing you're pointing out, Five Year Plan, is your inability to engage in a coherent discussion. The only thing you're revealing is that you don't know what you're talking about.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st August 2014, 18:54

Before I begin, cut the personal venom already. It's getting old. Seriously, reading your posts is like reading the rants of my grandfather in paper form.

Again, what I am asking you is prescisely this - What organs of worker's power were destroyed during the Stalinist purges? What precisely changed besides the cementing of rule of Stalin's political faction? My point is that the proletarian dictatorship had long been dead by the time your alleged "counter revolution" had succeeded. No need to get haughty MEGAMAN, yet again you have no idea of what the fuck you're talking about. There were no fundamental social implications of the Stalinist purges - instead it was inter-bureaucratic masturbation. Such violence did not signify a fundamental change in the nature of the Soviet state (a counter-revolution) because the alleged "ties to the proletarian dictatorship" had at that time long been dead.
Your claim is that the period of Thermidor (when the bureaucracy took a conservative direction in policy) was the counterrevolution itself. But this is the same mistake that Tim made, and apparently conceded. What FYP and I have been arguing is that there must be a distinction between Thermidor and the counterrevolution (purges) itself. Even as late as 1928, a successful worker’s revolution abroad would have allowed the Left Opposition to regain control of the party. Then the purges happened, and all chances for any reform were made permanent and irretrievably lost, including the soviets and workplace democracy that had long been eroded away, consolidating the bureaucracy as a triumphant state power. I don’t find your fatalistic viewpoint very convincing. The Stalinists were in power, but they were not yet triumphant.

While the proletarian dictatorship could not have been defended because it did not exist - in the course of the Soviet state defending the proletarian dictatorship during the civil war soon after the state and the dictatorship became synonymous (well, they were already synonymous). Defending the revolution then translated into defending the state - so in the process of Stalin defending the Soviet state (For example, against Tsarist counter revolution, against foreign imperialism) he was in effect destroying it. That was my point. Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. You're like a depraved creature shouting in your baseless confidence that somehow, what I am saying is contradictory or ridiculous. It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself. Sacrificing the gains of the October revolution were necessary for the preservation of the state within their according conditions. You make it as if I am the chief architecture of this scenario, like I was live back then and it was my doing. No, I'm just explaining to you HOW it worked, - and yes it was contradictory, the rule of the Soviet state was contradictory.
It seems that you did not read the website I posted earlier. If you had, maybe you would have become coherent. Let’s look at the essence your argument:

1.) In defending the revolutionary state, Stalin destroyed the revolution. Only the state was left.
2.) Therefore, the state needed to be defended because it was revolutionary.

Need I say more?

And while you didn't claim Stalin as being solely responsible - that is the underling implications of many Trotskyists. Sure they'll sell it off with some obscure pretentious nonsense about "individuals and history" but ultimately they will blame Stalin individually.
So you admit that your accusation of me promoting the “Great Man” theory of history was unfounded, then you turn around accuse me of it again, because all Trotskyists assign a personal responsibility to Stalin. Saying Stalin had an individual effect is a far different matter from saying that he carried out the effect all by himself. You’re dealing with me, not all Trotskyists. Cut the blanket statements, already.

And seriously, stop making fun of my name. If you continue to do so I will put you on ignore. I don’t think I have done anything to deserve this treatment, other than disagree with you. Oh, and points off for poor simile--why would somebody with baseless confidence be depraved?

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 18:55

Five Year Plan's powerful argument: No! That's bullshit! That's rubbish! It's utter bullshit!

Well okay. You can keep yelling at your computer screen. You're still wrong, though.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 18:56

Your claim is that the period of Thermidor (when the bureaucracy took a conservative direction in policy) was the counterrevolution itself.

You're right. MEGAMAN wins. (my original post) http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775931&postcount=54

There is a difference between degeneration and counter revolution. The latter can be an effect of the former.

You and Five Year Plan miss the point anyway, you're attacking quite a minor, insignificant mistake - I doubt Trotskyists would consider the revolution to have degenerated if Trotsky had consolidated power rather than have been exiled. It's quite common knowledge that around the date Tim claimed, Trotskyists threw in the towel. Also context is important, look at all of the other dates respective to the currents.

I'm searching hard to find something that validates your accusation, but I can't find anything. Can you help me, MEGAMAN?

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 18:57

Well that's my point, the fact that they were sent to labor camps means they were effectively opposed to the character of the Soviet state. It's not as though they actively cooperated with the Soviet state and so on and merely disagreed with policies. Also the Left opposition outside of the Soviet Union is distinguishable from some elements within the Soviet Union which included a large variety of people, among them were Trotskyists. Unless you admit that the Trotskyist conspiracy outlined by the NKVD was actually real. But again, that's besides the point. Unsurprisingly. Are you aware that there were others who were persecuted, who believed the revolution was degenerated even before Trotskyists did?

Of course I am aware of the many varieties of left-wing opposition besides Trotsky's, but that's neither here nor there. Trotskyists didn't "throw in the towel." They saw huge problems that they thought needed to be addressed, and they tried to address them. They did not give up in general, or on the Soviet state in particular.

So what, is the entirety of your reasoning that you're upset over the use of the word "throwing in the towel". Throwing in the towel as far as their recognition of the legitimacy of the Soviet state. Well this is undeniable. Whether they wanted to reform it or not is irrelivent, the fact is that they opposed those in power within the Soviet state and the course it was taking. That was the whole point to begin with. The high king of semantics has spoken, and the entirety of his argument is that "throwing in the towel" is an inappropriate idiom as far as the position of Trotsky and his followers following 1924. I don't know why, though. He has yet to explain.I am against the formulation because it, in its substance and not just in its semantics, is misleading. In common currency, "throwing in the towel" means to give up. It's an expression used to refer to the practice in boxing where the manager of a prize fighter, thinking that his charge cannot win, will throw a white towel into the ring to stop the match. Throughout the 1920s and very early 1930s, Trotskyists saw the bureaucracy was on the ropes, but did not give up on it. They sought to treat the boxer in the corner between rounds and hope to restore him to better fighting shape so that the fight could continue to victory.

Well that's fine, but that wasn't your problem, your problem was that Tim pointed out the wrong date. It would seem that your qualm with Tim's lack of emphasis on the dichotomy between degeneration and counter-revolution only came later in the thread, arguing with me. Tim didn't even talk of counter-revolution, he merely pointed out the date various tendencies hold it's degeneration as beginning on. If the point was the actual counter-revolution, that may have been a mistake on his part - but the dates he posted were the dates in which all groups became effectively opposed to the character of the Soviet state - with some believing it could have reformed, while others thinking the revolution was already destroyed. It doesn't matter.

Tim's point was that we all already know who thinks what. I think that the only thing you're pointing out, Five Year Plan, is your inability to engage in a coherent discussion. The only thing you're revealing is that you don't know what you're talking about.Tim pointed out a wrong date, and I corrected him on it. Tim conflated degeneration with counter-revolution, and I corrected him on it. The rest of this is you trying to invent ways to disagree with me.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:02

1.) In defending the revolutionary state, Stalin destroyed the revolution. Only the state was left.
2.) Therefore, the state needed to be defended because it was revolutionary.

Need I say more?

Wait what? When did I say the state ought to be defended? Are you now a sovereign yourself, the King of Straw-men?

So you admit that your accusation of me promoting the “Great Man” theory of history was unfounded, then you turn around accuse me of it again, because all Trotskyists assign a personal responsibility to Stalin. Saying Stalin had an individual effect is a far different matter from saying that he carried out the effect all by himself. You’re dealing with me, not all Trotskyists. Cut the blanket statements, already.

Do you think it would have been a lot different as far as history goes (changes in class relations) had Trotsky been at helm?

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:06

I am against the formulation because it, in its substance and not just in its semantics, is misleading. In common currency, "throwing in the towel" means to give up. It's an expression used to refer to the practice in boxing where the manager of a prize fighter, thinking that his charge cannot win, will throw a white towel into the ring to stop the match. Throughout the 1920s and very early 1930s, Trotskyists saw the bureaucracy was on the ropes, but did not give up on it. They sought to treat the boxer in the corner between rounds and hope to restore him to better fighting shape so that the fight could continue to victory.

Well actually listen though - by the early 1920's a wide variety of Left currents had proclaimed the revolution to have degenerated or destroyed. Trotsky did not. So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate (even if they believed so for the wrong reasons). I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

And I think if anything your analogy is misleading. They were an opposition group. That's the point. It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing. Now if there were self proclaimed followers of Trotsky within the apparatus of the Soviet state who were actively trying to reform it, if they were an actual component of the state itself your argument would have credence. But they weren't, there was absolutely no part of the Soviet state that they were a part of.

If we presume your analogy is fine, then I would respond by saying they weren't even in the ring to begin with. They were in the audience about five rows away, without a ticket, with broken medical equipment they thought they could treat the boxer with. They threw in the towel trying to think that their champion was healthy and ready to put up a fight long before.

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 19:08

Well actually listen though - by the early 1920's a wide variety of Left currents had proclaimed the revolution to have degenerated or destroyed. Trotsky did not. So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate (even if they believed so for the wrong reasons). I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

The problem is that if you concede the part in bold, then any claim about "throwing in the towel," is at best a highly misleading formulation that contains substance in contradiction to what you stated above. I explained how.

And I think if anything your analogy is misleading. They were an opposition group. That's the point. It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing.Yes, what they WERE doing was trying to reform the bureaucracy, not "throw in the towel."

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st August 2014, 19:11

It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself.

It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing.

Notice how Rafiq places priority on consciousness in the first statement regarding the Stalinist purge, while explicitly condemning it in the second in relation to the Left Opposition. Yes, he's not biased towards the Stalinist state by any extent, naturally. I think we should start a new thread called, "How Rafiq likes to argue with himself." Admission is free!

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:15

Notice how Rafiq places priority on consciousness in the first statement regarding the Stalinist purge, while explicitly condemning it in the second in relation to the Left Opposition. Yes, he's not biased towards the Stalinist state by any extent, naturally. I think we should start a new thread called, "How Rafiq likes to argue with himself." Admission is free!

Well they're both in different contexts. If someone was making the argument that Stalin was building socialism because of what he thought he was doing I would respond with the same thing - it doesn't matter what he thinks he's doing, it's what he's doing. The point is that the vertex of argument resided in different places.

In the latter, it's that the Left opposition was an opposition group who thought they were reforming the Soviet state.

The Stalinist apparatus was an entity that was destroying the revolution in the process of trying to defend themselves. I don't see the inconsistency? Can you explain yourself, MEGAMAN? The Stalinist state was protecting the state. Do you disagree? They WERE doing this - the point was that they were destroying the revolution at the same time. And, at the same time, they conflated protecting the state with protecting the revolution. Now as far as the real effects go you're right, that doesn't matter. But that's not the point.

I don't think you understand how logic really works, MEGAMAN.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:20

The problem

I think the real problem is that the idiom has different connotations than you think it does. You think it means giving up as far as trying to "reform" the bureaucracy goes while I claim it means giving up as far as defending the notion that the revolution is not degenerating/is on a healthy road. It's a semantic argument created by the high king of semantics himself, Five Year Plan. You completely twisted what I was saying respective to the context of my post because you couldn't address it properly.

You skim through posts and in your inability to confront real arguments you attempt to point out things which you deem are erroneous. Small fun facts that mean nothing, like 1925 vs. 1924, or in this case, what throwing in the towel means.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st August 2014, 19:21

Well they're both in different contexts. If someone was making the argument that Stalin was building socialism because of what he thought he was doing I would respond with the same thing - it doesn't matter what he thinks he's doing, it's what he's doing. The point is that the vertex of argument resided in different places.

In the latter, it's that the Left opposition was an opposition group who thought they were reforming the Soviet state.

The Stalinist apparatus was an entity that was destroying the revolution in the process of trying to defend themselves. I don't see the inconsistency? Can you explain yourself, MEGAMAN?
The problem lies in how your method of analysis is inconsistent and as a result, you constantly catch yourself in contradictions. You accept as good coin how the Stalinists regarded themselves irrespective of their actions, and you dismiss the Left Opposition only for their actions. I don't think context can really absolve you of your tin ear towards historical precision.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:24

The problem lies in how your method of analysis is inconsistent and as a result, you constantly catch yourself in contradictions. You accept as good coin how the Stalinists regarded themselves irrespective of their actions, and you dismiss the Left Opposition only for their actions. I don't think context can really absolve you of your tin ear towards historical precision.

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

Trotsky's followers: Opposition group, opposing state actively - claims that they are trying to reform it

Stalinist apparatus: Paranoid state actively protecting itself - claims it is defending the revolution because the association with the revolution and the state was cemented during the October revolution (such a marriage was tacitly done away with following the civil war).

As far as what they claim they are doing, this has no relevance as far as their real actions go, correct. But my argument never posited otherwise. Just that in the minds of the Stalinist apparatus, they were defending the revolution. I know that in the minds of the Left Opposition there was hope for the Soviet state - but that doesn't mean anything as far as what they really were. The difference is that the Soviet state actually WAS protecting the state.

how was the Left opposition reforming the bureaucracy in any meaningful sense?

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st August 2014, 19:26

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.
You can't be this dense. By destroying the revolution, the Soviet state was no longer revolutionary, in any sense. All that was left was an exalted petty-bourgeois strata that went on to restore capitalism. So there is no logical basis for the Soviet state simultaneously defending and destroying it.

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 19:28

I think the real problem is that the idiom has different connotations than you think it does. You think it means giving up as far as trying to "reform" the bureaucracy goes while I claim it means giving up as far as defending the notion that the revolution is not degenerating/is on a healthy road.

This creates still another problem. If you had said, "Trotskyists threw in the towel in 1924 on defending the notion that the revolution is not degenerating (in a Thermidorean reaction)," you would at least have made it clear that Trotskyists were not giving up on the state in general, which is how your originally formulation made it seem by mentioning "throwing in the towel" in general. But apart from that, your revised version gets the history wrong. Trotsky and his oppositionists were struggling against bureaucratization even before 1924, and Trotsky (later, in 1935) identified 1924 as a period of Thermidorean reaction precisely because the opposition he had been leading prior to that point for greater democratization had been defeated. If you were engaged in this debate out of a desire to make substantive contributions based on your knowledge of the events under discussion, rather than just looking for ways to disagree with me, you wouldn't make these sloppy mistakes.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:31

Still waiting on this though http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2776781&postcount=78

and this http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2776786&postcount=80

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:32

You can't be this dense. By destroying the revolution, the Soviet state was no longer revolutionary

No, it wasn't. What's your point? In the process of defending the revolutionary state, the revolutionary character of the state was lost - as it would have in such conditions. How is this so hard to understand?

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:36

This creates still another problem. If you had said, "Trotskyists threw in the towel in 1924 on defending the notion that the revolution is not degenerating (in a Thermidorean reaction)," you would at least have made it clear that Trotskyists were not giving up on the state in general, which is how your originally formulation made it seem by mentioning "throwing in the towel" in general. But apart from that, your revised version gets the history wrong. Trotsky and his oppositionists were struggling against bureaucratization even before 1924, and Trotsky (later, in 1935) identified 1924 as a period of Thermidorean reaction precisely because the opposition he had been leading prior to that point for greater democratization had been defeated. If you were engaged in this debate out of a desire to make substantive contributions based on your knowledge of the events under discussion, rather than just looking for ways to disagree with me, you wouldn't make these sloppy mistakes.

Revised version? If it was any other version what I said wouldn't have even made sense. So how did I revise it? That was the whole point of my usage of the term.

Anyway, are you claiming that Trotsky claimed the revolution had degenerated before 1924? Because a lot of Soviet figures, recognized the danger of bureaucracy before then, too. Is that the same as degeneration, though? I think not.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

1st August 2014, 20:18

No, it wasn't. What's your point? In the process of defending the revolutionary state, the revolutionary character of the state was lost - as it would have in such conditions. How is this so hard to understand?
You have never explained how a state can stay a "revolutionary state" at the time it is liquidating that very revolution.

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 20:19

Revised version? If it was any other version what I said wouldn't have even made sense. So how did I revise it? That was the whole point of my usage of the term.

Your original post mentioned Trotskyists unqualifiedly "throwing in the towel." You have subsequently tried to "clarify" matters by talking about how they were throwing in the towel only in regards to the undegenerated nature of the Soviet state, which, as I have pointed out, is historically inaccurate in any event.

Anyway, are you claiming that Trotsky claimed the revolution had degenerated before 1924? Because a lot of Soviet figures, recognized the danger of bureaucracy before then, too. Is that the same as degeneration, though? I think not.Trotsky warned that the revolutionary state was degenerating, in the sense of deteriorating, as early as 1922 (referring to "departmental degeneration," excessive bureaucratism, and the like). He actively fought against this in the Left Opposition, formed in late 1923, which was defeated by early 1924 before being revived again in other forms, e.g., the United Opposition. Before 1935, Trotsky identified Thermidor with a period in which degeneration was so pronounced that it resulted in bonapartism leading imminently to a capitalist restoration. In 1935, he began to identify Thermidor more broadly with the process in which bureaucratic degeneration began to overtake the progressive elements within the Soviet state, and dated Thermidor to 1924.

So, to answer your question, Trotsky was fighting against degeneration before 1924 (and later identified that as the turning point precisely because he failed). It therefore makes no sense that 1924 marked the point in which Trotsky "threw in the towel" on whether Soviet state was degenerated, which wasn't a term he applied theoretical weight to, by binding it with Thermidor, until 1935, two years after he actually did "throw in the towel" on the Soviet bureaucracy (but not the Soviet state). 1924 was a year whose political significance was perceived by Trotsky and his sympathizers only after the fact. To talk about it as coinciding with action on the ground, much less the action of "throwing in the towel," betrays a stunning lack of knowledge about these issues.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 00:35

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 00:39

You have never explained how a state can stay a "revolutionary state" at the time it is liquidating that very revolution.

When the revolutionary state liquidate the revolution, it ceased to be revolutionary. Contradictions exist. Capitalism destroys capitalism through its contradictions (class), etc.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 00:41

Trotskyists regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolutions degeneration. Trotsky could have said this in 1934, or in 1992. It doesn't mean anything. What are you even talking about? What exactly is your argument? Again, more confused semantics.

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

It's convenient to pretend you don't know what my argument is after I present an argument that thoroughly refutes your trollish attempt to muster up disagreements, any disagreements, even about topics you have no knowledge of, all in a single-minded and immature effort just to find a reason to disagree with me.

The argument, in case you failed to comprehend it, is that 1924 did not functionally mark a change of strategy for Trotsky or his followers in the Soviet Union, either a change that can be described as "throwing in the towel" or otherwise, even with your "clarification" regarding what you meant by "throwing in the towel." 1924 only acquired significance long after the fact in Trotsky's analysis.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

3rd August 2014, 02:31

When the revolutionary state liquidate the revolution, it ceased to be revolutionary. Contradictions exist. Capitalism destroys capitalism through its contradictions (class), etc.

This has got to be the laziest explanation I've read here in a while. You basically repeat my own argument in the first sentence, cite "contradictions", the nature of which you haven't defined and probably will never define. If you accept that the state ceased to be revolutionary, how does it follow that the Soviet state defended the revolution by destroying it? You are simply copying the logic of that one Vietnam veteran (in order to save the village we had to destroy it), and by keeping your premises vague you enable yourself to refute any and all arguments by claiming that your opponents misunderstood you.

Finally, you attempt to redefine the nature of capitalism's own tendency of undermining itself. Capitalism doesn't literally destroy itself, but only tends to produce revolutionary crises that may or may not lead to the system's overthrow. "Contradictions" make Rafiq correct for great justice!

I've understood that you've always reduced social phenomena to structuralist viewpoint, but I had to say this is a new low, Rafiq. This is really pathetic. Either start explaining your concepts and drop the curmudgeon act already, or just leave.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 05:36

The argument, in case you failed to comprehend it, is that 1924 did not functionally mark a change of strategy for Trotsky or his followers in the Soviet Union, either a change that can be described as "throwing in the towel" or otherwise, even with your "clarification" regarding what you meant by "throwing in the towel." 1924 only acquired significance long after the fact in Trotsky's analysis.

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

For fuck's sake. How can Left Communists "throw the towel" in during the krodstat rebellion when the ones on this website weren't even alive? It's an idiom, it describes the date - the reference point in which they view they throw in the towel in. You're making a big deal over what is a semantic problem instead of addressing the actual argument. You, yet again don't know what you're talking about.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 06:16

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

For fuck's sake. How can Left Communists "throw the towel" in during the krodstat rebellion when the ones on this website weren't even alive? It's an idiom, it describes the date - the reference point in which they view they throw in the towel in. You're making a big deal over what is a semantic problem instead of addressing the actual argument. You, yet again don't know what you're talking about.

The point you can't seem to get through your head is that there was no change in strategy by Trotsky or his followers in 1924 or 1925. So even if I accept your characterization of "throwing the towel in," nothing was thrown in those years. And no Trotskyist has ever claimed that there was a change in strategy during those years. What changed was an analysis of what those years represented in terms of bureaucratic degeneration. You're talking out of your ass and are now trying to change the topic to twenty other things in order to cover up for it.

By all means, claim the point is irrelevant or semantic. But concede it, because you were initially wrong, and you're just digging yourself deeper into a hole at this point.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 14:31

Where the fuck are you getting the idea that change in strategy is of relevance here? Granted, I am unaware of whether there was a change in strategy or not in 1924. However 1924 is the date Trotskyists throw in the towel as far as a defense of the Soviet Unions alleged vitality goes (that it is still of vitality).

Tim asked: What year did the October revolution degenerate. Trotskyists put that date at 1924. So what are you arguing about? YOURE changing the fucking topic of discussion into the strategies of the left opposition which has nothing to do with anything here. You then accuse me of changing the subject. Are you trolling?

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 14:37

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Do you actually reply thinking you are exposing or discrediting me? Is it really in your mind that you're giving me a go with your confused and trollish semantic arguments? You don't even know what you're talking about. There is not one argument you have made that was a direct reply to my post. Even now you're going to, like a broken record player repeat the same nonsense. You lose FYP. Your semantic arguments are insufficient in covering your intellectual dishonesty.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 15:06

If you accept that the state ceased to be revolutionary, how does it follow that the Soviet state defended the revolution by destroying it?

Please refer to where I said the Soviet state successfully defended the revolution rather than TRYING to defend the revolution as they believed the state and the revolution were one and the same (which they were wrong about).

More straw men, more nonsense from MEGAMEGAMAN. The day I leave because of MEGAMANs desire to tout his drivel more comfortably is the day we find out Trotsky wasn't a spineless hypocrite. Also why have you not replied to my earlier posts, which I had to link again? Or do you concede that you didn't know what you're talking about all along?

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 17:24

For anybody still lost in this sad exhibition of back-tracking, evasion, and all-round trolling that Rafiq is putting on, the comment we're both discussing is one that Rafiq made in attempting to jump into the debate Tim and I had. His purpose was to defend Tim, because, well, I was disagreeing with Tim. Here is the comment in question:

I doubt Trotskyists would consider the revolution to have degenerated if Trotsky had consolidated power rather than have been exiled. It's quite common knowledge that around the date Tim claimed, Trotskyists threw in the towel. Also context is important, look at all of the other dates respective to the currents.

There Rafiq clearly states that so-called Trotskyists "threw in the towel" in 1925. Note that he didn't say that Trotskyists later, in 1935, threw in the towel in 1925 by subsequently revising their analysis of that year. And why would he have said that? It's an idea that doesn't even make any sense.

I have corrected Rafiq on this in three ways:

1) There were no "Trotskyists" as a clearly defined tendency in 1925 to do any towel throwing. There were people, some moreso than others, who followed Trotsky's political line in criticizing Stalin's leadership and the bureaucracy in general.

2) Even if we pretend that "Trotskyists" immediately in 1924 (not 1925, as Tim's original post wrongly claimed) started talking about Thermidorean reaction, that is different than "throwing in the towel" in the unqualified way that Rafiq used the term in his statement. Trotsky continued to believe that peaceful reform of the Stalinist bureaucracy was possible until 1933, well past the onset of Thermidor.

3) There was no change in strategy or approach in 1924 or 1925 among those upholding Trotsky's line. It therefore makes no sense to talk about either of those years as a period when Trotskyists "threw in the towel" or made any other alteration to their aspirations. The change in analysis, as I have repeatedly shown, occurred in 1933, with the revision of the idea of Thermidor coming in 1935. You can't retroactively "throw in the towel" years after an event supposedly already took place.

When called on all these errors, the best Rafiq can do is moan about how I am latching onto meaningless semantics. In reality, I have shown that his initial statements on the disagreement between me and Tim were the result of almost complete ignorance of the subject Tim and I were discussing. He jumped in not to make a substantive contribution, but just to grind his axe and pursue his personal vendetta. If you don't like it, Rafiq, don't jump next time.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 17:40

There Rafiq clearly states that so-called Trotskyists "threw in the towel" in 1925. Note that he didn't say that Trotskyists later, in 1935, threw in the towel in 1925 by subsequently revising their analysis of that year. And why would he have said that? It's an idea that doesn't even make any sense.

It's a well known fact that Trotskyists did not exist in 1925. I shouldn't have had to make it fucking clear that what I meant was:

1) There were no "Trotskyists" as a clearly defined tendency in 1925 to do any towel throwing. There were people, some moreso than others, who followed Trotsky's political line in criticizing Stalin's leadership and the bureaucracy in general.

To re-quote myself, as you conveniently attempt to bury such a vital argument into a void in order to make it seem like I didn't already address this claim

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your "thermidor"

2) Even if we pretend that "Trotskyists" immediately in 1924 (not 1925, as Tim's original post wrongly claimed) started talking about Thermidorean reaction, that is different than "throwing in the towel" in the unqualified way that Rafiq used the term in his statement. Trotsky continued to believe that peaceful reform of the Stalinist bureaucracy was possible until 1933, well past the onset of Thermidor.

More evidence of Five Year Plan successfully "correcting me" (or correcting his straw man)

Well actually listen though - by the early 1920's a wide variety of Left currents had proclaimed the revolution to have degenerated or destroyed. Trotsky did not. So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate (even if they believed so for the wrong reasons). I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

And I think if anything your analogy is misleading. They were an opposition group. That's the point. It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing. Now if there were self proclaimed followers of Trotsky within the apparatus of the Soviet state who were actively trying to reform it, if they were an actual component of the state itself your argument would have credence. But they weren't, there was absolutely no part of the Soviet state that they were a part of.

3) There was no change in strategy or approach in 1924 or 1925 among those upholding Trotsky's line. It therefore makes no sense to talk about either of those years as a period when Trotskyists "threw in the towel" or made any other alteration to their aspirations. The change in analysis, as I have repeatedly shown, occurred in 1933, with the revision of the idea of Thermidor coming in 1935. You can't retroactively "throw in the towel" years after an event supposedly already took place.

Trotskyists regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolutions degeneration. Trotsky could have said this in 1934, or in 1992. It doesn't mean anything. What are you even talking about? What exactly is your argument? Again, more confused semantics.

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

(Funny that you consistently have claimed thermidor was the beggining of the Soviet Union's degeneration, and then claim afterwards that Trotsky saw that date as earlier)

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

So there are the three titans of Five Year Plan's arguments: Three house's of cards waiting for the slightest poke of truth to knock them all down.

When called on all these errors, the best Rafiq can do is moan about how I am latching onto meaningless semantics.

While in reality what Rafiq is doing is demonstrating how you are arguing a fundamentally semantics based argument. I have demonstrated this countless times. You are only capable of taking advantage of everyone's ignorance with regard to the last two or three pages - you make it as if we have not been over this. Any idiot who cares enough to look through the thread can see the circular reasoning FYP is adhering to.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 17:57

If there is anything you could even attempt to correct it may be a 'poor choice of wording' (even then, this is highly debatable. This is not a poor choice of wording). There is nothing about my arguments which you have confronted or addressed, you have only misconstrued meaning. While most would find it reasonable that because of a poor choice of wording such a misinterpretation is expected, the problem is:

You know very well what I mean. I have explained myself countless times. You are changing the fundamental nature of this argument in order to suit your intellectual constrains. Your lack of knowledge forces you to reduce others to your level of ignorance.

Thermidor is the date Trotskyists regard the towel to be thrown in. After dismissing other events that could potentially signify the degeneration of the October revolution like krodstat, Trotskyists today throw in their towel at 1924. This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

Granted the underlying difference is that Trotskyists might regard the Soviet Union as not having experienced a counter-revolution that early, unlike Left Communists but this makes little difference. They were still an effectively oppositional group with absolutely no standing within the Soviet bureaucracy they were allegedly trying to reform. They are like the Sparts defending the North Korean deformed worker's state, they don't amount to shit.

Even if I divulge into your attempt to de-rail the discussion you claim that there was no change in outlook by Trotsky in 1924. But Stalin's camp effectively crushed the Left Opposition in 1924, at the 13th congress. So how could there be absolutely no change in the Left Opposition's behavior?

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 17:58

It's a well known fact that Trotskyists did not exist in 1925. I shouldn't have had to make it fucking clear that what I meant was:

Excellent, so I will assume you are conceding now that your talk about "Trotskyists" doing anything in 1924 or 1925 was just you mis-speaking (again).

To re-quote myself, as you conveniently attempt to bury such a vital argument into a void in order to make it seem like I didn't already address this claim

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?Not only did I not bury this argument, I accounted for it, and explained how it led you to contort yourself into claiming you made a statement that doesn't even make logical sense--another mystical contradiction I suppose! Trotskyists today could not have "thrown in the towel" in 1925, which is exactly what you said happened. They weren't alive back then to do any throwing. Even if we take your back-tracked modification, and accept that they "throw in the towel" on that date, it still has all the problems I've mentioned, specifically the fact that the onset of Thermidor can not in any way be accepted as throwing in the towel. Your attempt to try to qualify that poetic metaphor has led you down a dark path where you are correcting corrections to previous corrections. Sucks to be you, I guess.

More evidence of Five Year Plan successfully "correcting me" (or correcting his straw man)

Well actually listen though - by the early 1920's a wide variety of Left currents had proclaimed the revolution to have degenerated or destroyed. Trotsky did not. So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate (even if they believed so for the wrong reasons). I don't see the problem. Want to explain, or are you going to create a new strawman?

And I think if anything your analogy is misleading. They were an opposition group. That's the point. It doesn't matter what they think they could have done (which they could not have, anyway, like what redeemable qualities even existed?), it's what they WERE doing. Now if there were self proclaimed followers of Trotsky within the apparatus of the Soviet state who were actively trying to reform it, if they were an actual component of the state itself your argument would have credence. But they weren't, there was absolutely no part of the Soviet state that they were a part of.

(Funny that you consistently have claimed thermidor was the beggining of the Soviet Union's degeneration, and then claim afterwards that Trotsky saw that date as earlier)

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

So there are the three titans of Five Year Plan's arguments: Three house's of cards waiting for the slightest poke of truth to knock them all down.

While in reality what Rafiq is doing is demonstrating how you are arguing a fundamentally semantics based argument. I have demonstrated this countless times. You are only capable of taking advantage of everyone's ignorance with regard to the last two or three pages - you make it as if we have not been over this. Any idiot who cares enough to look through the thread can see the circular reasoning FYP is adhering to.You are getting to confused by your own evasions and deflections that you have lost sight of the fact that Tim was talking about what Trotskyists today think. Your statement about towel-throwing regarded what "Trotskyists" were doing in 1925. You've tried to amend your comments to make it present tense, but then it still makes no sense for the reasons I alluded to above. Keep going, Rafiq. It's been a while since I've been this entertained on revleft.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:01

You are getting to confused by your own evasions and deflections that you have lost sight of the fact that Tim was talking about what Trotskyists today think. Your statement about towel-throwing regarded what "Trotskyists" were doing in 1925. Keep going, Rafiq. It's been a while since I've been this entertained on revleft.

To re-quote myself:
This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 18:04

Even if I divulge into your attempt to de-rail the discussion you claim that there was no change in outlook by Trotsky in 1924. But Stalin's camp effectively crushed the Left Opposition in 1924, at the 13th congress. So how could there be absolutely no change in the Left Opposition's behavior?

I said their strategy and aspirations didn't change. Please read more carefully.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 18:06

To re-quote myself:
This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

Actually, I'm just responding to the words you write. It's not my fault you have to keep revising those words several dozen times when it is shown that you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, we can't wait indefinitely for you to settle on a position to attack me with before the debate can begin. :lol:

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:22

Actually, I'm just responding to the words you write

Well you're doing a poor job, considering you accused me of talking of "trotskyists in 1925". What a stupid thing to say of you.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:22

I said their strategy and aspirations didn't change. Please read more carefully.

Which brings us to square one: what the fuck is your point? Who the fuck was talking about strategy and aspirations? We're talking about Trotskyists today. You made it seem as though Trotsky only realized the revolution was going down a dark path in the 1930's when any idiot (from the perspective of the Left Opposition) can recognize this would have been apparent at their utter defeat during the 13th congress (which was 1924). Which brings us back to square one.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 18:26

Which brings us to square one: what the fuck is your point? Who the fuck was talking about strategy and aspirations? We're talking about Trotskyists today.

The point is that Trotskyists today don't pinpoint 1925 as the onset of degeneration. They never have. Tim conceded that point, but it provoked you to jump in to try to find something to defend about it because of your unhealthy obsession with finding ways to argue with me.

A second point coming out of all this back and forth is that the dating of Thermidor to 1924 did not alter Trotsky's or subsequent Trotskyists estimation of what the proper strategy and aspirations should have been in 1924, which is another reason your "throw in the towel" comment is way off base. It was a date arrived at in the process of a much larger re-analysis of post-October history, the payoff of which was the notion that the bureaucracy needed to be overthrown through force after 1933.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:55

The point is that Trotskyists today don't pinpoint 1925 as the onset of degeneration. They never have. Tim conceded that point, but it provoked you to jump in to try to find something to defend about it because of your unhealthy obsession with finding ways to argue with me.

A second point coming out of all this back and forth is that the dating of Thermidor to 1924 did not alter Trotsky's or subsequent Trotskyists estimation of what the proper strategy and aspirations should have been in 1924, which is another reason your "throw in the towel" comment is way off base. It was a date arrived at in the process of a much larger re-analysis of post-October history, the payoff of which was the notion that the bureaucracy needed to be overthrown through force after 1933.

Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning.

I didn't say (or did I?)

If Trotsky said in 1934 that the revolution degenerated in 1922, this would have answered my question. It doesn't matter WHEN he said it, but WHERE in history he puts the date as. Is English your first language? Have you ever argued anything that wasn't semantics based? You misconstrue meaning and then argue with nothing. Why?

For fuck's sake. How can Left Communists "throw the towel" in during the krodstat rebellion when the ones on this website weren't even alive? It's an idiom, it describes the date - the reference point in which they view they throw in the towel in. You're making a big deal over what is a semantic problem instead of addressing the actual argument. You, yet again don't know what you're talking about.

Where the fuck are you getting the idea that change in strategy is of relevance here? Granted, I am unaware of whether there was a change in strategy or not in 1924. However 1924 is the date Trotskyists throw in the towel as far as a defense of the Soviet Unions alleged vitality goes (that it is still of vitality).

Tim asked: What year did the October revolution degenerate. Trotskyists put that date at 1924. So what are you arguing about? YOURE changing the fucking topic of discussion into the strategies of the left opposition which has nothing to do with anything here. You then accuse me of changing the subject. Are you trolling?

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Do you actually reply thinking you are exposing or discrediting me? Is it really in your mind that you're giving me a go with your confused and trollish semantic arguments? You don't even know what you're talking about. There is not one argument you have made that was a direct reply to my post. Even now you're going to, like a broken record player repeat the same nonsense. You lose FYP. Your semantic arguments are insufficient in covering your intellectual dishonesty.

If there is anything you could even attempt to correct it may be a 'poor choice of wording' (even then, this is highly debatable. This is not a poor choice of wording). There is nothing about my arguments which you have confronted or addressed, you have only misconstrued meaning. While most would find it reasonable that because of a poor choice of wording such a misinterpretation is expected, the problem is:

You know very well what I mean. I have explained myself countless times. You are changing the fundamental nature of this argument in order to suit your intellectual constrains. Your lack of knowledge forces you to reduce others to your level of ignorance.

Thermidor is the date Trotskyists regard the towel to be thrown in. After dismissing other events that could potentially signify the degeneration of the October revolution like krodstat, Trotskyists today throw in their towel at 1924. This has nothing to do with Trotsky, or even his followers in the 1920's or 30's. It's about the various strands of Trotskyism today and how they PERCEIVE the events. This is perfectly understandable if you understand the context in the first place. But you DO, you are simply deliberately trying to change it. When presented with a timeline from the October revolution's inception to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Left Communists, Leninists and other Marxists all still see a bright future. As time goes on, Left Communists throw in their towel around the failure of the German revolution, or perhaps Krodstat, as time progresses Trotskyists finally cave in at 1924, with some Stalinists at 1953, and so on. This might APPEAR obscure but TIM was referring to what the various members of different tendencies ON THIS WEBSITE hold in regards to the matter.

Granted the underlying difference is that Trotskyists might regard the Soviet Union as not having experienced a counter-revolution that early, unlike Left Communists but this makes little difference. They were still an effectively oppositional group with absolutely no standing within the Soviet bureaucracy they were allegedly trying to reform. They are like the Sparts defending the North Korean deformed worker's state, they don't amount to shit.

Even if I divulge into your attempt to de-rail the discussion you claim that there was no change in outlook by Trotsky in 1924. But Stalin's camp effectively crushed the Left Opposition in 1924, at the 13th congress. So how could there be absolutely no change in the Left Opposition's behavior?

Which brings us to square one: what the fuck is your point? Who the fuck was talking about strategy and aspirations? We're talking about Trotskyists today. You made it seem as though Trotsky only realized the revolution was going down a dark path in the 1930's when any idiot (from the perspective of the Left Opposition) can recognize this would have been apparent at their utter defeat during the 13th congress (which was 1924). Which brings us back to square one.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 19:04

Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning.

I didn't say (or did I?)

I've already responded to your long blockquote, or at least the portions of it, small as they are, that have any direct relevance for our discussion here. Trotsky and Trotskyists did not and have not ever claimed that there was a change of strategy in opposition to the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1924 or 1925. Nor did they or have they ever claimed that one was appropriate. In other words, all twenty different revisions of your initial error are similarly erroneous.

Is there anything you care to add?

MEGAMANTROTSKY

3rd August 2014, 19:47

For all those watching my own argument with Rafiq, I’ll summarize. This will not be in complete order, because Rafiq’s positions are all over the place and therefore require some abstraction from the thread’s timeline. I claimed that the Stalinist counterrevolution in the 1930s was the date when the Soviet state abandoned the program of Marxism and international revolution, negating its status as a worker’s state. Rafiq’s disagreement in #18 was:

While it would not be ridiculous to claim that the Great Purges signified the solidification of Stalinist power - what it does not signify is the solidification of the October revolution's failure. What "vestiges" of worker's power were eliminated in the power struggle of the 1930's? What fundamental social implications were the Stalinist purges? None. This is precisely why they can be distinguished from the red terror of the revolution, the latter entailed fundamental changes in class power. They were purely a form of bureaucratic masturbation. The Soviet bureaucracy existed many years before the purges.
I responded that this idea didn’t hold water, because the purges did not simply affect the state, it affected the proletarian ranks, as well. The purges made all the degeneration of the previous fifteen years permanent and beyond any reform. This meant that October had been overturned and Stalinism emerged as a consolidated regime of “deformed capitalism.” This is where things get confusing. Rafiq started making the claim in #71 that:

My point is that the proletarian dictatorship had long been dead by the time your alleged "counter revolution" had succeeded.
This would mean that he conflates the issue of Soviet counterrevolution and degeneration, which is what the first debate centered on between FYP and Tim. But this is bizarre, considering that in #54, Rafiq clearly acknowledged such a distinction:

There is a difference between degeneration and counter revolution. The latter can be an effect of the former.
Furthermore, by this time Rafiq was already claiming that the Soviet state destroyed the revolution to save it. I pointed out that this doesn’t make sense because the revolutionary heritage of October was being wiped by the Soviet state, so how could the revolution be destroyed by defending it? Let us go back to #71. He elaborates:

It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself.
Thus Rafiq claims the psychological motives of the Stalinists as proof of his schema. Quite a Sophoclean tragedy; he even cites Oedipus to prove his point! We have already seen how selectively he employs this method in accordance with “context” (see #83). But even a glimpse at “The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” knows that this argument has nothing in common with a materialist outlook. Rafiq’s conception of the state errs as Hegel’s did:

The activities and agencies of the state are attached to individuals (the state is only active through individuals), but not to the individual as physical but political; they are attached to the political quality of the individual….[Hegel] forgets that the nature of the particular person is not his beard, his blood, his abstract Physis, but rather his social quality, and that the activities of the state, etc., are nothing but the modes of existence and operation of the social qualities of men. Thus it is evident that individuals, in so far as they are the bearers of the state's activities and powers, are to be considered according to their social and not their private quality.
But even this passage isn’t enough to show up his theoretical bankruptcy. It may never be enough. Why? Because Rafiq doesn’t have a real position. Oh, in theory, he does. He may reveal it once he grows up. But as we have seen so often, he stakes out one position just to contradict himself in the next. How can one argue against such a person without losing their sanity? He will take four different positions if it enables him to try and disagree with somebody he doesn’t like. But fear not. Those who are opposing Rafiq are doing the thread, and the forum, a great service. Hell, it’s even helping Rafiq: By destroying him in these debates, we are saving him.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 20:00

Trotsky and Trotskyists did not and have not ever claimed that there was a change of strategy in opposition to the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1924 or 1925. Nor did they or have they ever claimed that one was appropriate.

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Where are you getting the idea that I ever mentioned strategy? I said trotskyists TODAY.

Show me a single post of mine that is contradictory. Show me a single post where I have revised anything.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 20:02

Anyone whose read the better half of this thread knows that this was never a discussion on a "change of STRATEGY". It's as though you've just read a fun fact and decided it would be sufficient ammunition. You clearly either did not know about it before (as you never mentioned it) or you have become desperate as far as this discussion goes in actually confronting my arguments. There is nothing I said to you that would make such a reply appropriate or relevant. You can keep touting that I am "changing the topic" but you're either deliberately being dishonest - or you know fuck all about the topic at hand in the first place.

Where are you getting the idea that I ever mentioned strategy? I said trotskyists TODAY.

Show me a single post of mine that is contradictory. Show me a single post where I have revised anything.

Right, what you mentioned was Trotskyists throwing in the towel in 1925, subsequently revised to Trotskyists throwing in the towel in 1935, subsequently revised to Trotskyists "throwing in the towel" on an idea in 1935 (which, as should be apparent, stretches the figure of speech to the point where it doesn't even make sense anymore, and certainly to the point where it has no bearing on Tim's earlier error, which is what you used the figure of speech to defend), and on and on and on...

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 20:12

But even this passage isn’t enough to show up his theoretical bankruptcy. It may never be enough. Why? Because Rafiq doesn’t have a real position. Oh, in theory, he does. He may reveal it once he grows up. But as we have seen so often, he stakes out one position just to contradict himself in the next. How can one argue against such a person without losing their sanity? He will take four different positions if it enables him to try and disagree with somebody he doesn’t like. But fear not. Those who are opposing Rafiq are doing the thread, and the forum, a great service. Hell, it’s even helping Rafiq: By destroying him in these debates, we are saving him.

If you think for a second that, that confused pile of shit of a post amounts to anything other than a pile of shit, I truly feel sorry for you. If you actually think you are destroying me by presuming the most utterly baseless nonsense (that for example I CONCUR with trotsky about 1924 being the onset of the degeneration - MY OWN position has always been different - but what we are arguing about is the Trotskyist position, and NOTHING MORE) then I truly feel sorry for you.

For example

This would mean that he conflates the issue of Soviet counterrevolution and degeneration, which is what the first debate centered on between FYP and Tim. But this is bizarre, considering that in #54, Rafiq clearly acknowledged such a distinction:

But you still don't fucking understand. The time that Trotskyists state the counter-revolution had occurred, which is around the time of the Great Purges was not the counter-revolution. The revolution had been dead long before AND THAT WAS MY POINT. SO what exactly am I conflating, MEGAMAGEMGEMAN?

The fool still thinks that I am conflating the Trotskyist thermidor with the Trostkyist counter-revolution. Even after ignoring this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2776781&postcount=78

When he is utterly and completely destroyed, why does he continue to spout the same drivel which led him to shut his fucking mouth in the first place? It's like how Five Year Plan is sometimes unable to address a point, and brings up that very same point in ANOTHER thread only to make fun - while in effect not actually addressing it (See "Bourgeois Socialism").

Thus Rafiq claims the psychological motives of the Stalinists as proof of his schema. Quite a Sophoclean tragedy; he even cites Oedipus to prove his point! We have already seen how selectively he employs this method in accordance with “context” (see #83). But even a glimpse at “The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” knows that this argument has nothing in common with a materialist outlook. Rafiq’s conception of the state errs as Hegel’s did:

And then he goes wild with his garbage and bring's in Marx's criticism of Hegel, as though I actually hold that belief and action are identical. Why does he bring this up? Because he's a moron. What I did say, however:

Please refer to where I said the Soviet state successfully defended the revolution rather than TRYING to defend the revolution as they believed the state and the revolution were one and the same (which they were wrong about).

While the proletarian dictatorship could not have been defended because it did not exist - in the course of the Soviet state defending the proletarian dictatorship during the civil war soon after the state and the dictatorship became synonymous (well, they were already synonymous). Defending the revolution then translated into defending the state - so in the process of Stalin defending the Soviet state (For example, against Tsarist counter revolution, against foreign imperialism) he was in effect destroying it. That was my point. Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. You're like a depraved creature shouting in your baseless confidence that somehow, what I am saying is contradictory or ridiculous. It may have not been a worker's state, but it was a state - and in the minds of those in power defending the state meant defending the gains of the October revolution - yes it's contradictory because the whole affair was a contradiction itself. Sacrificing the gains of the October revolution were necessary for the preservation of the state within their according conditions. You make it as if I am the chief architecture of this scenario, like I was live back then and it was my doing. No, I'm just explaining to you HOW it worked, - and yes it was contradictory, the rule of the Soviet state was contradictory.

Well they're both in different contexts. If someone was making the argument that Stalin was building socialism because of what he thought he was doing I would respond with the same thing - it doesn't matter what he thinks he's doing, it's what he's doing. The point is that the vertex of argument resided in different places.

In the latter, it's that the Left opposition was an opposition group who thought they were reforming the Soviet state.

The Stalinist apparatus was an entity that was destroying the revolution in the process of trying to defend themselves. I don't see the inconsistency? Can you explain yourself, MEGAMAN? The Stalinist state was protecting the state. Do you disagree? They WERE doing this - the point was that they were destroying the revolution at the same time. And, at the same time, they conflated protecting the state with protecting the revolution. Now as far as the real effects go you're right, that doesn't matter. But that's not the point.

I don't think you understand how logic really works, MEGAMAN.

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

Trotsky's followers: Opposition group, opposing state actively - claims that they are trying to reform it

Stalinist apparatus: Paranoid state actively protecting itself - claims it is defending the revolution because the association with the revolution and the state was cemented during the October revolution (such a marriage was tacitly done away with following the civil war).

As far as what they claim they are doing, this has no relevance as far as their real actions go, correct. But my argument never posited otherwise. Just that in the minds of the Stalinist apparatus, they were defending the revolution. I know that in the minds of the Left Opposition there was hope for the Soviet state - but that doesn't mean anything as far as what they really were. The difference is that the Soviet state actually WAS protecting the state.

how was the Left opposition reforming the bureaucracy in any meaningful sense?

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.
__________________

Why does he pick and choose his "quotes"? Why does he pretend like these arguments above were never made? I ask all of you viewing, what exactly am I saying can anyone find contradictory?

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 20:13

You know you're about to blow a gasket when you increase the font size to "read it from across the street" point.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 20:15

Right, what you mentioned was Trotskyists throwing in the towel in 1925, subsequently revised to Trotskyists throwing in the towel in 1935,

Are you trolling, Five Year Plan? I said I wanted to say this is the year in which Trotskyists THROW IN THE TOWEL as in, PRESENT TENSE but you wouldn't made that into a semantic argument, which unsurprisingly you did. I said as far as TROTSKYISTS VIEW THE TIMELINE TODAY. Now what the FUCK did I revise? And where the fuck did I even mention the date 1935?

What I did say is that AROUND that date Trotskyists see that as the date they throw in the towel. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ITS 1935 OR 2014 WHERE THEY MAKE SUCH AN ASSERTION, THE FACT IS, AROUND 1924 IS WHERE TROTSKYISTS REGARD THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION TO HAVE DEGENERATED. It's where they throw in the fucking towel. There were no Trotskyists around in 1924 so what the fuck are you getting at? I REFER TO IT PRESENT TENSE. Honestly you've dragged on a purely SEMANTIC argument for how the fuck long? And you think this discredits me?

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 20:25

He's effectively BLOWING out of proportion a small grammatical error and then claiming, because of such an error that I held a position I NEVER DID, that I just "revised" my position. How do we know I did not revise my position? Because every fucking post I've made in the past two years would indicate that this was never my position, and every post afterwards would indicate the same thing. What is more likely, that it was a small grammerical error (in referring to it in past tense) or a COMPLETE REVISION of my understanding of Trotskyism which would reveal that I believe Trotskyists as they exist today existed in 1925. That would signify that something led me to believe this, but I don't know what the fuck could lead someone to believe this besides complete and total ignorance on the matter.

Furthermore the topic at hand was what Trotskyists believe TODAY, not what Trotsky and his followers believed several decades ago. So whose right, Five Year Plan or anyone who isn't deliberately ignoring the truth?

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 20:30

Are you trolling, Five Year Plan? I said I wanted to say this is the year in which Trotskyists THROW IN THE TOWEL as in, PRESENT TENSE but you wouldn't made that into a semantic argument, which unsurprisingly you did. I said as far as TROTSKYISTS VIEW THE TIMELINE TODAY. Now what the FUCK did I revise? And where the fuck did I even mention the date 1935?

What I did say is that AROUND that date Trotskyists see that as the date they throw in the towel. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ITS 1935 OR 2014 WHERE THEY MAKE SUCH AN ASSERTION, THE FACT IS, AROUND 1924 IS WHERE TROTSKYISTS REGARD THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION TO HAVE DEGENERATED. It's where they throw in the fucking towel. There were no Trotskyists around in 1924 so what the fuck are you getting at? I REFER TO IT PRESENT TENSE. Honestly you've dragged on a purely SEMANTIC argument for how the fuck long? And you think this discredits me?

You revised by claiming you "misspoke" (now in your latest post transformed into a "grammatical error") when you talked about 1925 being the time when Trotskyists "threw" in the towel, the past tense clearly indicating that in 1925 these non-existent Trotskyists gave up on ... well, something.

I pointed out to you that nobody gave up on anything in 1925. So you changed your position to Trotskyists throwing in the towel at the later date, setting a precedent for all Trotskyists ever since.

Then when I mentioned that their change of position didn't involve them subsequently revising the approach taken by Trotsky to the problem of bureaucratization in that time period, you modified your formulation to mean "throwing in the towel" on the idea that the Soviet state hadn't deteriorated.

But as I have shown, that, too, is mistaken. Trotsky did believe that the Soviet state had bureaucratized and deteriorated quite a lot before 1923 and 1924 and 1925. What changed in 1935 was the details of the analysis: the decision to call that year Thermidor because of his contention that it was the turning point when the state start sliding back decisively toward capitalism (though, of course, bureaucratization had been slowing the progress toward socialism long before then).

So as I said, lots of different ass-covering formulations. All of them wrong.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 21:55

I pointed out to you that nobody gave up on anything in 1925. So you changed your position to Trotskyists throwing in the towel at the later date, setting a precedent for all Trotskyists ever since.

I didn't "change my position" I corrected myself gramerrically, not that it made a difference as far as the argument goes. You would be right if the discussion was about the actions of Trotsky in the early 1920's, but it wasn't. It was about where Trotskyists today place the date of the revolution's degeneration. With that context, it would be ridiculous to say that I "revised my position'. The reality is that while knowing full well what I meant, you took advantage of the slightest grammatical error (one letter) and claimed I believed Trotskyists existed in 1924, or that Trotsky changed his fundamental strategy or aspirations in 1924. It is well known that many Trotskyists regarded the Soviet Union as a deformed worker's state even well into the Bhreznev years. That is common knowledge. The state-capitalism theory is usually associated with Left Communists or Anarchists. Throwing in the towel doesn't mean, and never meant the time in which they regarded the Soviet Union as state-capitalist or incapable of being revived. So what's more likely, that I made an declarations about Trotsky's strategy or aspirations, or that I made a small grammatical error in order to avoid a nonsensical semantic argument which happened anyway? I'll leave that to others to decide.

The entire premise of your argument is this, Five Year Plan:

That I claim Trotskyists threw in the towel in 1925. This is wrong because Trotskyists did not exist in 1925. But even then, if I was trying to say Trotsky or his followers threw in the towel at that time, this would still be wrong because Trotsky only formulated his analysis a decade afterwards. har de har de har I win.

But that's a straw man argument. I never claimed Trotskyists existed in 1925 nor that there was a change in strategy or aspiration of Trotsky and his followers following 1924. . None of that had anything to do with the argument in the first place, however. I never even spoke of Trotsky and his follower's actions. YOU did, which I replied by saying it doesn't matter what their aspirations are as they were an opposition party whose opposition was further solidified by the signification of their defeat and waning influence in the Soviet apparatus. What I would say in such a discussion is that 1924 definitely meant a difference in attitude on the state of things for the Left Opposition as they were overwhelmingly defeated during the 13th congress. That doesn't mean there is a fundamental change in aspirations, just that it signified they were losing. But again, that isn't this discussion.

Again what the argument WAS about was Trotskyists today and what date they throw the towel in as far as discussion, analysis on the matter goes. For most of them, it is thermidor.

Now it might seem like I am revising my arguments because I am explaining them in a very detailed and specific manner. This doesn't reflect an in-depth revision of my positions, is solely reflects the depth of your obfuscation and misconstruction of my argument to begin with. I shouldn't HAVE to delve this deep into detail, but I am forced to. This could be on your part deliberate trolling, ignorance, poverty of knowledge on the subject or a combination of all of these things - what it is not is an honest confrontation of my points.

So as I said, lots of different ass-covering formulations. All of them wrong.

Actually there has only been one consistent formulation. Any idiot can see that everything I have said is consistent. What is not consistent is your several bizarre obfuscations and ridiculous conclusions with even more ridiculous implications as far as your reading comprehension goes.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 22:00

I didn't "change my position" I corrected myself gramerrically, not that it made a difference as far as the argument goes. You would be right if the discussion was about the actions of Trotsky in the early 1920's, but it wasn't. It was about where Trotskyists today place the date of the revolution's degeneration.

And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924. They recognize that it degenerated from its high point in October almost from the first month onward. For Trotskyists, 1924 is the turning point where that degeneration led to a transformation in the political character of the state as one geared toward restoring capitalism. Of course, the discussion over this issue of turning points does not lend itself to your poetic towel-throwing metaphor, since towel-throwing implies a decisive break or quitting. Then again, as any literate person can see, your initial intervention was very much phrased to indicate a decisive change of behavior on the ground in 1924.

But I'm sure now that I've pointed out how you are wrong, yet again, you'll revise--sorry, I mean "correct yourself gramerrically"--for the twenty-first time.

Rafiq

4th August 2014, 16:38

And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924. [...] as any literate person can see, your initial intervention was very much phrased to indicate a decisive change of behavior on the ground in 1924.

Why then was your initial reply to Tim in regards to where exactly they hold the degeneration of the October revolution to have started

To let you know, Trotsky dated Thermidor (what I think you're referring to) to 1924, not 1925

is there a case in which it is completely apparent that your initial reply to tim was "very much phrased" to indicate this is the true date in which the revolution degenerated?

This is the first time in which you claim Trotskyists don't regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolution's degeneration. Whose revising what?

Your post contained a little matching chart connecting tendencies to years when the Soviet Union degenerated. It claimed (anti-revisionist) "Marxist-Leninists" pinpointing "degeneration" to 1953. In fact, they pinpoint 1953 as a counter-revolution for state capitalism and social imperialism. For more info on this, see Ismail. You gave the date 1925 as marking degeneration of the October Revolution for Trotskyists. Also wrong. Trotskyists pinpoint Thermidor to 1924.

I point out these inaccuracies in your rather odd chart, then the best retort you can come up with is that I am being mean, then, when it becomes clear that I am no longer interested in litigating manners with you, that I am not responding to the substance of our post. In fact, your post, as I said, mashed together two separate things, degeneration and counter-revolution, and got a date wrong. If that's not a substantive criticism, what is?

Your problem was the conflation between counter-revolution and degeneration. Any idiot can see you said Thermidor marked degeneration, not counter-revolution.

If anyone is still unconvinced :

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775946&postcount=59

Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

So is thermidor not marked at 1924? What do you have to say for yourself?

Five Year Plan's intellectual honesty:

Post 59: Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration.

Post 125: Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924

For someone who has constantly accused me of revising my arguments and positions, it sounds a lot like you're the only one doing this. Literally you and MEGAMAN's baseless accusations of contradictory arguments and revision - what the fuck do you have to say to THIS, you scoundrel?

So what do you have left? Moaning about the towel-throwing metaphor which clearly implies So It's not like I'm trying to say that's when Trotsky and his followers (by the early 1920's there was a visible trend of factionalism within the Soviet state) stopped trying completely. Just that they stopped trying to ignore that the revolution was beginning to degenerate

So you're right, throwing in the towel means quitting - but quitting what? It's obvious what I meant: Quit ignoring the revolution's degeneration, which was the TOPIC OF THE THREAD TO BEGIN WITH. Again, if the context was about the activities of Trotsky's followers - then yes you can accuse me of revising myself. But it wasn't, it was about where Trotskyists today place the degeneration of the October revolution. I have yet to revise anything.

Now if you're going to claim that Trotskyists don't hold 1924 as the date signifying the onset of degeneration, that's fine - but I'm going to argue and say no, most Trotskyists hold thermidor as the date signifying the beginning of degeneration. That would be an entirely new discussion and - you would have to admit that YOU ARE REVISING YOUR INITIAL POSITION.

Rafiq

4th August 2014, 16:39

Like you're done Five Year Plan. Your whole argument, that I have been (revising my positions) while you are the one who has slowly and tactically done this IN RESPONSE TO MY POSITIONS as any idiot can see, has fallen on like a house of cards. You're done. What kind of scoundrel is this dishonest? You've CONSTNATLY revised your positoins - you've revised the whole premise of argument. From switching it over to a discussion on the strategies Trotsky and his followers to a discussion, accusing me of conflating counter-revolution with degeneration baselessly, about whether Trotskyists existed in 1924.

Oh and by the way, in case he claims that HE was trying to demonstrate that the degeneration started in 1924 rather than counter revolution, as if I thought Trotskyists hold counter-revolution in 1924 (when it's common knowledge that Trotskyists, a lot of them regarded the SU as a Deformed workers state right up to its collapse) this is what he replied to (isn't it ironic that he replied with a straw man?)

What I mean is that Trotskyists today see that date as the red line, I wanted to say throw (not threw) in the towel but then you'd say that doesn't make sense. Are you capable of arguing without isolating stupid semantic mistakes that have fuck all to do with anything?

It is possible to recognize a date in which degeneration starts leading up to counter revolution. In the eyes of most of us, Trotskyists see that date as your "thermidor"

Five Year Plan

4th August 2014, 17:15

You latch onto a quote from the thread where I said:

Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

I stand by that comment, since I have repeatedly clarified that degeneration can be used in two ways: one to talk in general about bureaucratization of the state apparatus, and another to talk about the process by which the state apparatus has begun to assume a political character, in terms of its personnel specifically, that makes it no longer fit for leading the transition to socialism.

I clarified this in an earlier post in the thread before you even began to participate, in fact, but since you weren't paying attention, you didn't notice it, and think I was "revising":

Pointing out a pretty big misrepresentation in what "Trotskyists" believe is far from what I would call pedantic, especially since the initial attitude Tim took into the thread was entirely patronizing ("This thread is way too broad to produce a fruitful discussion, so here let me just vomit up a form letter from another thread"). Tim's chart collapsed together the concepts of degeneration and counter-revolution, and actually got the year wrong when Trotsky himself pinpointed a decisive turning point in bureaucratic degeneration.

I have subsequently pointed this out to you in a number of other posts, where I talked about Trotsky describing "departmental degeneration" and bureaucratism setting in before 1924.

It's amusing, though, that you try to lecture people in 50-point font about how they take things out of context, when your latest quoting of me is the only example I can see in this thread of anybody taking anything out of context that completely distorts its meaning.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

4th August 2014, 17:19

Here was my summation of your argument in #76, which you yourself blessed as your Immutable Opinion™:

"Your claim is that the period of Thermidor (when the bureaucracy took a conservative direction in policy) was the counterrevolution itself."

You're right. MEGAMAN wins. (my original post) http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2775931&postcount=54
Assuming that is still your argument, there are several problems with it. If you’re claiming that Thermidor was the counterrevolution and that the purges were nothing more than a cubicle shuffle, you’re specifically ignoring the differences between political and social counterrevolution that characterize the Trotskyist position on Thermidor and the purges. For Soviet Russia the former entailed the latter. Walter Daum put it best here: http://lrp-cofi.org/book/chapter4_stalinistcounterrevolution.pdf

In a social revolution, the class character of the state changes; the new state serves a different class, its economic relations and forms of property. Whereas in a political revolution the class character of the state
remains unchanged but a different section of the ruling class takes over the government and the state apparatus.
I hope this is statement is clear enough for you. Whatever its bureaucratic deformations during Thermidor, the bureaucracy had not freed itself from (re: murdered) the Bolshevik party completely, nor was it able to completely quash its revolutionary heritage. Trotsky recognized that not all was yet lost, and it was why he and the Left Opposition pursued reforms. The social counterrevolution was saved for the purges, which made reform impossible and mostly eliminated the NEP-men and the “old” Bolsheviks to make way for the new class that was easier for Stalinism to control. If you still insist that both had already occurred at the same time, you are engaging in conflation.

And then he goes wild with his garbage and bring's in Marx's criticism of Hegel, as though I actually hold that belief and action are identical. Why does he bring this up? Because he's a moron.
You did say that the Stalinists were wrong in lumping together the revolution and the state, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that you were using their own narrative to make an argument; your disagreement with their conclusions affected nothing. Either way your formulation is wrong, and I feel further justified for consulting Marx’s words on the matter.

Why does he pick and choose his "quotes"? Why does he pretend like these arguments above were never made? I ask all of you viewing, what exactly am I saying can anyone find contradictory?
I understood your arguments, Rafiq and I have dealt with each one of them, inasmuch as I could pick through your verbiage. Furthermore, I refuse to be sucked into your black hole strategy, where you try to overwhelm your opponent with the sheer amounts of text that are either insults, poor metaphors and similes, or derailing rants that have nothing to do with our central argument. You have vomited upon this thread ever since you got here. Your Marxism is incredibly structuralist and poor, and I will continue to oppose your dreck as long as you insist on posting it.

P.S. As an homage to you, I think I will end all of my posts to you with a poorly formulated paradox. There's nothing like remembering good times between friends. By showing up your outrageous method and politics, I am hugging you.

Rafiq

6th August 2014, 21:47

Assuming that is still your argument, there are several problems with it. If you’re claiming that Thermidor was the counterrevolution and that the purges were nothing more than a cubicle shuffle, you’re specifically ignoring the differences between political and social counterrevolution that characterize the Trotskyist position on Thermidor and the purges. For Soviet Russia the former entailed the latter.

You are turning this into an argument over when the counter-revolution, degeneration actually had occurred rather than the positions of various Trotskyist currents. Seeing that I am not a Trotskyist - I obviously make this distinction. My position never held thermidor as significant as far as the revolution goes - I simply pointed out that this is the date in which Trotskyists mark the beginning of the revolution's degeneration. Given that in previous posts I had expressed that had I been alive, I would most likely have sided with the Stalin camp (or more preferably a military faction like Mikhail Frunze's, which is more ideologically equipped than Tukhachevsky), it would be ridiculous to claim that I regard thermidor as "counter-revolution". Furthermore it would be even more ridiculous to claim that I have been formulating a straw-man that claims Trotskyists regard this date as counter-revolution (rather than degeneration) given that I have tirelessly emphasized that this has never been what I held (seeing that some trotskyists regarded the SU as a deformed workers state up until its collapse).

As far as my positions are on the subject there is very little I concur with Trotskyists about. I regard the revolution's degeneration to have started immediately after the Russian civil war and the red terror, when the state was forced to open discussion on what is to be done about the state given their conditions (failed proletarian revolutions across western Europe). Furthermore as far as counter-revolution goes I regard this as a slow and gradual process rather than a single deliberate political gesture. I do not regard the great purges as a form of counter-revolution, rather the entirety of the course of the revolution's degeneration was one grandiose counter-revolution. I think that most of the Soviet Union's politics was formed as a result of the necessity of retaining the power of the state in accordance with the different conditions faced by the state. This ultimately coincided with the destruction of the proletarian dictatorship and the gains of the revolution. We know this through the fundemental destruction of Communist ideology that was revealed during the civil war. Five Year Plan thinks it's a joke when I claim that Communist ideology during and following the October revolution was a kind of an apocalyptic mysticism but this reflects his sheer ignorance as far as the nature of Communism goes at that time. It was something entirely new that the world had never seen before, not even during Marx's time. There are several intellectuals who have discussed the issue. The Russian Civil War was incredibly brutal, horrifying and on paper a rather wretched affair. The Soldier's morale was kept alive solely by the flames of the October revolution (this is something Trotsky recognized very well). Mass feelings that a new world was imminent, that global revolution was imminent and that they were entering a new era in the history of human civilization undeniably characterized the nature of Communist ideology during the Russian civil war. And this is not something to be trivialized with weak and empty apologia or justification. It is something we must wholly embrace and identify with, not apologize for.

You did say that the Stalinists were wrong in lumping together the revolution and the state, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that you were using their own narrative to make an argument; your disagreement with their conclusions affected nothing. Either way your formulation is wrong, and I feel further justified for consulting Marx’s words on the matter.

MEGAMAN you yet again have no idea of what you're talking about. My whole point was that rather some kind of sinister conspiracy for Stalin to gain supreme power, the revolution took the turn that it did as a result of the conditions faced by those in power. Trying to save the revolution in accordance with the conditions they faced meant the destruction of the revolution because the Soviet condition made a proletarian dictatorship (in a country where most of the proletarians who had made the revolution to begin with perished during the civil war!) impossible. Of course they played an active role in the revolution's destruction, all the while actively believing that they are saving it. That was my point. Both Marx and Hegel understood very well that history is not completely made intentionally.

Of course as a Trotskyist you cannot articulate this. Instead, you have to fit it utilizing your silly paradigm of Stalinism vs. Trotskyism unable to recognize the sheer poverty of such a dichotomy. You have to accuse me of claiming that Stalin was the savior of the revolution, or whatever other nonsense you're trying to tout. If you were able to see beyond this, you would probably not be a Trotskyist in the first place.

But go on, precede to regurgitate the same garbage you have been in the past few pages completely and totally ignorant of what I am saying. No MEGAMAN you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, you don't know a damned thing about my posts. You simply can't understand this. How do I know this? Claiming that I myself pinpoint counter-revolution to thermidor reveals an undeniable ignorance on your part as far as my posts go. You don't even know what the nature of this argument is. It certainly wasn't about when the revolution's degeneration actually occurred - it's about where Trotskyists today pinpoint this date, as well as the nature of the Stalinist solidification of power.

Make no mistake - by the way, things could have turned out much differently. A real bonapartist regime led by Tukhachevsky could have been possible. The NEP could have extended for much longer than it did resulting in the adoption of something similar to Chinese capitailsm or Yugoslavia much earlier than those things occurred. What we do know, however, is that the revolution would not have survived no matter who was at helm.

The Modern Prometheus

6th August 2014, 22:00

I really "almost" wish that the Soviet Union had never fucking existed. All it does is give Liberals a excuse to rag on Communism while having no actual understanding of what Communism is. When i say i am a Communist to these pseudo American and Canadian lefties i swear to god i have to spend a good hour explaining why the Soviet Union was not Communist. Not only that but it makes me want to go postal when i hear the words Communist and state used together.

Also why in 2014 are Stalinist's, Trotskyists, Titoists, etc still at each other throats? There are far more pressing issues today then whether Stalin or Trotsky was right.

Rafiq

6th August 2014, 22:06

I stand by that comment, since I have repeatedly clarified that degeneration can be used in two ways
[...]
I clarified this in an earlier post in the thread before you even began to participate, in fact, but since you weren't paying attention, you didn't notice it, and think I was "revising":

Holy fuck no. You don't get to claim that you simply meant that degeneration can mean "two things". If I ever made such an obviously contradictory claim the whole forum would be on my ass regardless of how reasonable the explanation sounds, and rightfully so. You clearly, and openly contradicted yourself. And please, point me to this "clarification" because it sure as hell isn't the quote you provided. Did you claim that Trotsky saw signs of degeneration before thermidor? You did. That however does not signify that Trotskyist organizations today do not regard thermidor as the marking point of the revolution's degeneration.

Making the distinction between 'political' degeneration and 'bureaucratic degeneration' doesn't exist in Trotskyist parlance exclusively as most Soviet statesmen recognized bureaucratic degeneration as a problem, Stalin among them. Furthermore it is doubtful that it was your intentions was to convey this fact given that you never clearly distinguished 'bureaucratic degeneration' from degeneration. You simply said when Trotsky himself pinpointed a decisive turning point in bureaucratic degeneration. Now linguistically speaking for you to further use the word "degeneration" would signify that this is one and the same with "bureaucratic degeneration"

But let's assume everything I'm saying is bullshit, Five Year Plan. Let's assume none of that matters. You regard 1924 as the date signifying the revolution's political degeneration rather than bureaucratic degeneration, no? Then why did you claim that Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924 rather than Trotskyists don't date the revolution's bureaucratic degeneration to 1924? Because you fucking contradicted yourself, that's why. If it was your intentions to, in that post (knowing full well, apparently that you had claimed earlier that thermidor began the degeneration) convey that 1924 doesn't mark the beginning of bureaucratic degeneration rather than political degeneration, you would have said so. You would have known that making such a clear distinction is necessary otherwise you would be contradicting yourself.

You said: Thermidor, in Trotskyist parlance, marks the start of degeneration. Have you not been paying attention to anything that has been said in this thread?

After saying: Trotskyists don't date the revolution's degeneration to 1924

You didn't make any distinction between bureaucratic and political degeneration here. You simply used the word degeneration. Either you were intentionally trying to attack me for the sake of disagreeing with me (something you accuse me of) or you contradicted yourself accidentally in the course if disagreeing with me.

And even if ALL Of that is bullshit, you want to know why it is clearly a contradiction?

Because I didn't say shit about thermidor as a date Trotskyists exclusively claim the bureaucratic degeneration began. I claimed that thermidor is the date Trotskyists regard to the revolution to have degenerated. I didn't say shit about bureaucratic or political degeneration (just like you), just degeneration. So even if we assume your excuse isn't bullshit you either contradicted yourself, or you were making a straw-man to argue with, because I never denied Trotsky may have saw signs of bureaucratic degeneration before 1924. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that there were many prominent Soviet figures who saw the same thing, including Lenin, too.

There's no way out for you Five Year Plan. You CLEARLY dug yourself a hole and you won't get out of this one. Making the childish excuse that you MEANT to say (rather than actually saying) there are two types of degeneration isn't going to cut it.

I have subsequently pointed this out to you in a number of other posts, where I talked about Trotsky describing "departmental degeneration" and bureaucratism setting in before 1924.

Right, you did, I however did not. I claimed that Trotskyists regard the revolution to have degenerated in 1924 and nothing more. I did not make such a distinction, and I did not further use that distinction to claim that Trotskyists regard 1924 as the only year in which there are clear trends of bureaucratic degeneration. Bureaucratic degeneration was obvious to most Soviet politicians even before 1924. It is something even Stalin recognized in the 1920's. But do you want to know what it is, most of all? Not relevant.

For someone so knit picky, so eager to find contradictions and linguistic exploits where they simply do not exist - I can't imagine how you would defend yourself as all it could ever be is a case of ass covering. Just admit you're wrong.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

6th August 2014, 22:35

You are turning this into an argument over when the counter-revolution, degeneration actually had occurred rather than the positions of various Trotskyist currents. Seeing that I am not a Trotskyist - I obviously make this distinction.
Actually, our argument started over your claim that the purges did not have any significant effect on “the Soviet condition”. After I proved your arguments incorrect, it eventually turned to our current “dispute” regarding Thermidor and the purges. You and I never discussed the positions of other “Trotskyist currents”, and certainly not the date of when it occurred. Don’t change the subject.

My position never held thermidor as significant as far as the revolution goes…it would be ridiculous to claim that I regard thermidor as "counter-revolution".
Then why did you regard the purges as nothing but bureaucratic masturbation? You were continually making the point that the bureaucracy had been there before they had taken place, so why are you now claiming the opposite? Are both now insignificant to you, now? The changes in your position just keep piling up, Rafiq. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.

I regard the revolution's degeneration to have started immediately after the Russian civil war and the red terror…Furthermore as far as counter-revolution goes I regard this as a slow and gradual process rather than a single deliberate political gesture. I do not regard the great purges as a form of counter-revolution…the entirety of the course of the revolution's degeneration was one grandiose counter-revolution. I think that most of the Soviet Union's politics was formed as a result of the necessity of retaining the power of the state in accordance with the different conditions…. This ultimately coincided with the destruction of the proletarian dictatorship and the gains of the revolution.
Wow…just wow. You could have saved this thread, and me, from a lot of wasted time if you had merely stated this at the outset. So after I claim to our audience that you have no position, your answer to this is to…elaborate your (current) position, for the first time since this thread had started. And earlier, you admit that you favored the Stalinists, something we all knew but you refused to concede. For someone who thinks I never know what I’m talking about, this is particularly rich.

Summary of all other text that does not appear here: “Five Year Plan is a big dummy, my Marxism is bigger, better, and more uncut than yours. I’m not actually a mysticist! BELIEVE ME!
*Yawn*

MEGAMAN you yet again have no idea of what you're talking about. My whole point was that rather some kind of sinister conspiracy for Stalin to gain supreme power….
Surprise, surprise. You ascribe a position to me that I never held, and do not hold. What is your basis for this accusation? Put up or shut up.

What we do know, however, is that the revolution would not have survived no matter who was at helm.
Something that, with some qualifications, we can agree on. Call the presses! I’m done with you, Rafiq. Go haunt somebody else. I want to have an actual discussion. Not a pointless exercise in which we’re shouting at each other until we’re blue in the face.

Rafiq

6th August 2014, 22:45

Then why did you regard the purges as nothing but bureaucratic masturbation?

Because again, by that time the revolution's destruction had already been apparent as early as - for example the failure of revolution in Western Europe.

And earlier, you admit that you favored the Stalinists, something we all knew but you refused to concede.

No I have always claimed I would have sided with them had I lived during that time. Despite the inevitable mess - Trotsky was a cyrpto-menshevik who was untrue to the revolution at it's core. It's why Dzerzhinsky sided with Stalin too. Can it even be called a Stalin camp, however? Last I checked they later ruled as a triumviate with Stalin as one of the three who LATER came out victorious in a power struggle. I have also claimed that had I lived during the time, I like Beethoven would have supported Napoleon before he revealed his true character. Even then, Stalin's camp was made up of many prominent figures who fell victim to the purges, too.

Surprise, surprise. You ascribe a position to me that I never held, and do not hold. What is your basis for this accusation? Put up or shut up.

Well why else would you have a problem with me elaborating on the mentality that the Stalin camp genuinely believed they were trying to save the revolution? Do you disagree? If you do, would it be ridiculous to infer that you think they were of sinister intent trying to "gain power" (the language of liberals, yawn) or other such drivel?

Trap Queen Voxxy

6th August 2014, 22:48

Rafiq

6th August 2014, 22:52

The whole the fSU wasn't Communist argument is laughed at by most serious political people.

For good reason too. Communism denotes a state that is controlled by self-proclaimed Communists. Rather than trying to adopt some kind of meta-political correctness, or evade our legacy we should look at all of the mistakes and factors that led to the failure of 20th century Communism.

Simply disassociating with our past and pretending like we have nothing to do with it, like an embarrassed distant cousin is infantile, weak-heartened and almost dishonest.

Five Year Plan

6th August 2014, 22:55

Trap Queen Voxxy

6th August 2014, 22:57

The Modern Prometheus

6th August 2014, 22:58

For good reason too. Communism denotes a state that is controlled by self-proclaimed Communists. Rather than trying to adopt some kind of meta-political correctness, or evade our legacy we should look at all of the mistakes and factors that led to the failure of 20th century Communism.

Simply disassociating with our past and pretending like we have nothing to do with it, like an embarrassed distant cousin is infantile, weak-heartened and almost dishonest.

I am certainly not embarrassed by it in anyway and it was certainly a learning process which is what it should be looked at as. It just get's a little exasperating having to explain to so called lefties the whole argument behind it.

Maybe it's just a sign i need better company more then anything else

Rafiq

6th August 2014, 23:13

Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union was communist?

I describe the Soviet Union as Communist just as I would describe the United States as a liberal democracy. It's political. Trying to evade usage of this term is pathetic. We already discussed this in another thread, however, in which you lost. This is the embryo of another semantics argument. Actually your post was bait for a semantics argument. Was the Soviet Union a classless society? Does the word philosophy necessarily denote a love of wisdom? No, but history has given it a different meaning. Instead of squabbling over the various meanings of words, perhaps providing actual insight as to why they failed would be useful rather than (because der werent ocmmunist i has nothing to do witem). Communism (the movement, the ideology) in the 20th century failed in establishing the proletarian dictatorship. But it's our failure.

Five Year Plan

6th August 2014, 23:40

I describe the Soviet Union as Communist just as I would describe the United States as a liberal democracy. It's political. Trying to evade usage of this term is pathetic. We already discussed this in another thread, however, in which you lost. This is the embryo of another semantics argument. Actually your post was bait for a semantics argument. Was the Soviet Union a classless society? Does the word philosophy necessarily denote a love of wisdom? No, but history has given it a different meaning. Instead of squabbling over the various meanings of words, perhaps providing actual insight as to why they failed would be useful rather than (because der werent ocmmunist i has nothing to do witem). Communism (the movement, the ideology) in the 20th century failed in establishing the proletarian dictatorship. But it's our failure.

The question was, do you use the term to describe the Soviet Union as communist because you thought the society was, indeed, a communist society? It is obvious you describe it that way. My question relates to whether you describe it that way because you think it was that way. The rest of your post is, of course, not directly related to addressing the question. Please try to stay focused.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

7th August 2014, 00:26

No I have always claimed I would have sided with them had I lived during that time.
Wrong. You implied such a position numerous times, but you never openly said it in this thread until recently. You’re only coming out of the woodwork now because it’s too obvious what a fraud you are in regards to consistency and method in general.

I have also claimed that had I lived during the time, I like Beethoven would have supported Napoleon before he revealed his true character.
Weak and inappropriate analogy. Ferdinand Ries’s story of Beethoven’s rejection of Napoleon notwithstanding, there is historical evidence suggesting that Beethoven identified with Napoleon’s rise to power even after the latter set himself up as emperor—both came from low status, etc. Yet there are also explicit Jacobin sentiments in some of his letters. I don’t know if this issue is settled or not, but it is not nearly as clear-cut as you’re portraying. Beethoven’s moods and opinions of things in general can be seen to change from one extreme to another. When you have to dig up a composer only to rebury him in brambles…just quit.

Well why else would you have a problem with me elaborating on the mentality that the Stalin camp genuinely believed they were trying to save the revolution? Do you disagree? If you do, would it be ridiculous to infer that you think they were of sinister intent trying to "gain power" (the language of liberals, yawn) or other such drivel?
I already responded to this in post #86. It wasn’t that I had a problem with you elaborating on the “mentality” of the Stalinists, but that you were doing it inconsistently. You did not do so with the Left Opposition who—correct me if I’m wrong—also had a “mentality” regarding their position on the revolution.

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:20

The question was, do you use the term to describe the Soviet Union as communist because you thought the society was, indeed, a communist society? It is obvious you describe it that way.

Yes of course, the Soviet Union fit the archetype for your "communist" utopia. A moneyless, happy society blah blah blah. We've been over this nonsense before, stop trying to change the topic of discussion into whether the usage of the word Communist had picked up a different meaning in certain contexts following the cold war (Namely, a state in control by self proclaimed Communists as well as the distinct ideological nature of these states). If we call a country Fascist, that does not denote an entirely new social epoch.

The complication arises when we recognize Communist countries were not capitalist in nature however not BEYOND capitalism in the sense that it is a possible future for capitalist states in Western Europe. Rather it was a circumstance distinguished by the abolishment of the vestiges of feudalism.

Do I think this is the Communism Marx talked about? No, of course not. It has - however taken a different meaning based on different contexts.

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:31

Wrong. You implied such a position numerous times, but you never openly said it in this thread until recently. You’re only coming out of the woodwork now because it’s too obvious what a fraud you are in regards to consistency and method in general.

Weak and inappropriate analogy. Ferdinand Ries’s story of Beethoven’s rejection of Napoleon notwithstanding, there is historical evidence suggesting that Beethoven identified with Napoleon’s rise to power even after the latter set himself up as emperor—both came from low status, etc. Yet there are also explicit Jacobin sentiments in some of his letters. I don’t know if this issue is settled or not, but it is not nearly as clear-cut as you’re portraying. Beethoven’s moods and opinions of things in general can be seen to change from one extreme to another. When you have to dig up a composer only to rebury him in brambles…just quit.

In this thread, MEGAMAN. I have declared such a position numerous times before this thread was even created, it's not your fault for not knowing that but when I say "I have said this before" don't try to refute me when you don't know shit.

I was under the impression that Beethoven despised Napoleon when Napoleon crowned himself empreror. As a matter of fact Symphony N. 3 was titled Bonaparte only to have the name changed to Eroica to commemorate the fallen heroes of the French revolution. And if your "evidence" holds up then why did Beethoven name one of his famous works "Wellington" to congratulate the Duke of Wellington over his victory over Napoleon?

And it's not a weak analogy. I don't have powers or control over history. All we have is the recognizable circumstances, the present conditions. So yes I would have sided with Stalin's camp. But again: Can it even be called a Stalin camp, however? Last I checked they later ruled as a triumviate with Stalin as one of the three who LATER came out victorious in a power struggle

I already responded to this in post #86. It wasn’t that I had a problem with you elaborating on the “mentality” of the Stalinists, but that you were doing it inconsistently. You did not do so with the Left Opposition who—correct me if I’m wrong—also had a “mentality” regarding their position on the revolution.

And I responded with

Well the difference is that the Stalinists WERE effectively protecting the state (just not the revolution) while the Left Opposition was really only trying to undermine its rule, opposing it (just not really reforming it in any meaningful sense)

Trotsky's followers: Opposition group, opposing state actively - claims that they are trying to reform it

Stalinist apparatus: Paranoid state actively protecting itself - claims it is defending the revolution because the association with the revolution and the state was cemented during the October revolution (such a marriage was tacitly done away with following the civil war).

As far as what they claim they are doing, this has no relevance as far as their real actions go, correct. But my argument never posited otherwise. Just that in the minds of the Stalinist apparatus, they were defending the revolution. I know that in the minds of the Left Opposition there was hope for the Soviet state - but that doesn't mean anything as far as what they really were. The difference is that the Soviet state actually WAS protecting the state.

how was the Left opposition reforming the bureaucracy in any meaningful sense?

If you think that's inconsistent, you're alone.

You unsurprisingly failed to address this. My point, MEGAMAN is that the mentality of Trotskyists doesn't matter if you're going to try and use that as evidence of what they were really doing. If someone tried to make the argument that because of the Stalin camp's mentality, they were actually saving the revolution I would descend upon them with equal ferocity.

You're all over the fucking place. It's funny that you mention post 86 as if I didn't completely destroy you, as if I ignored the argument and pretended it never existed (as you and FYP do all the time). No, I addressed it completely and wholly and you failed to confront me. So you bring it up now, as if it's buried deep into the abyss - like it's going to work again. Accusing me of being inconsistent for not giving a shit about what Trotskyists thought they were doing is stupid - and it's taken out of context. It doesn't mean shit as far as what they were really doing, but the argument wasn't about whether they were of sinister intent. I'm sure Trotskyists were trying to reform the bureaucracy, but they weren't doing this. Stalinists were trying to save the revolution but they weren't doing this. But its not like I just declared things: THESE WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS! You're literally just taking bullshit out of context, MEGAMAN. More dishonest nonsense. Is this a Trotskyist trend?

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:31

Oh, and here's a tip: Stop saying "you're done" and that you quit if you're going to keep responding.

The Modern Prometheus

7th August 2014, 21:31

Yes of course, the Soviet Union fit the archetype for your "communist" utopia. A moneyless, happy society blah blah blah. We've been over this nonsense before, stop trying to change the topic of discussion into whether the usage of the word Communist had picked up a different meaning in certain contexts following the cold war (Namely, a state in control by self proclaimed Communists as well as the distinct ideological nature of these states). If we call a country Fascist, that does not denote an entirely new social epoch.

The complication arises when we recognize Communist countries were not capitalist in nature however not BEYOND capitalism in the sense that it is a possible future for capitalist states in Western Europe. Rather it was a circumstance distinguished by the abolishment of the vestiges of feudalism.

Do I think this is the Communism Marx talked about? No, of course not. It has - however taken a different meaning based on different contexts.

Wouldn't it just be easier to call it State Capitalism which is what it was? Just because many people are ignorant of the actual meaning of the term Communism does not mean we need call The Soviet Union something it wasn't.

Five Year Plan

7th August 2014, 21:34

Ok, thanks Rafiq. I just wanted to be clear whether you bought into the Stalinist notion that socialism is possible in a single country. You obviously do.

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:34

Wouldn't it just be easier to call it State Capitalism which is what it was? Just because many people are ignorant of the actual meaning of the term Communism does not mean we need call The Soviet Union something it wasn't.

No, it wouldn't be easier. Even if it was "state capitalist" which it was not this would be ridiculous and just as useful as political correctness is in combating racism. You can't pretend like the Soviet Union was exactly the same as the U.S. with the only difference being that the state was at helm. There were astronomical differences on an ideological, cultural and social level. Because those in power were self proclaimed Communists, this distinguishable phenomena was called Communism. The meaning of such a word will never change through activism or political correctness. If you want the masses to see Communism for what it is (a movement) then show, don't tell. History has a terrible memory and through the course of class struggle all of that neoliberal drivel you learned in high school will drown.

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:39

Ok, thanks Rafiq. I just wanted to be clear whether you bought into the Stalinist notion that socialism is possible in a single country. You obviously do.

You're a troll. That's literally all you are. I have never claimed this. In fact all I did was loll over how such states possessed no long term viability in another thread (as a result of their conditions - for example being states with overwhelmingly peasant demographic majorities), and you know that. You therefore should admit that you're just fucking trolling right now.

What did I say in this very thread? That the revolution failed as a result of its inability to spread. Where the FUCK did I claim the revolution didn't fail?

Just because I'm not going to uselessly try to change the meaning of words which have historically have been given a different meaning in different contexts... I adhere to Socialism in one country? Five Year Plan thinks "state capitalism" or "bonapartism" is possible in a single country. Call it whatever the fuck you want, they're just words.

You're a fucking troll. "You obviously do" he casually spouts. "obviously", funny word for a proclamation that only comes from your ass. Obvious to who? A piece of shit troll like yourself?

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:40

Behold: Five Year Plan's evidence that Rafiq adheres to the notion of Socialism in one country

Communist had picked up a different meaning in certain contexts following the cold war (Namely, a state in control by self proclaimed Communists as well as the distinct ideological nature of these states). If we call a country Fascist, that does not denote an entirely new social epoch.

The complication arises when we recognize Communist countries were not capitalist in nature however not BEYOND capitalism in the sense that it is a possible future for capitalist states in Western Europe. Rather it was a circumstance distinguished by the abolishment of the vestiges of feudalism.

Do I think this is the Communism Marx talked about? No, of course not. It has - however taken a different meaning based on different contexts.

Rafiq

7th August 2014, 21:41

He loses every fucking argument in the thread, and now he just blatantly resorts to trolling. What has he addressed? NOTHING.

Five Year Plan

7th August 2014, 22:00

He loses every fucking argument in the thread, and now he just blatantly resorts to trolling. What has he addressed? NOTHING.

While you're busy cheerleading for these phantom victories of yours, would you mind telling me if you think North Korea is a communist society?

The Modern Prometheus

7th August 2014, 22:10

No, it wouldn't be easier. Even if it was "state capitalist" which it was not this would be ridiculous and just as useful as political correctness is in combating racism. You can't pretend like the Soviet Union was exactly the same as the U.S. with the only difference being that the state was at helm. There were astronomical differences on an ideological, cultural and social level. Because those in power were self proclaimed Communists, this distinguishable phenomena was called Communism. The meaning of such a word will never change through activism or political correctness. If you want the masses to see Communism for what it is (a movement) then show, don't tell. History has a terrible memory and through the course of class struggle all of that neoliberal drivel you learned in high school will drown.

What neo-Liberal drivel? The Soviet Union was state Capitalist where as US style Capitalism was far more corporation driven and individual bourgeois controlled corporations instead of the whole state.

Your argument sounds much like what many Liberals and Conservatives i have heard use against Communism. Which is that the Soviet Union was Communist simply because they called themselves Communist. You can call fucking Norway as a example a Fascist state but it doesn't make it true.

Five Year Plan

7th August 2014, 22:18

What neo-Liberal drivel? The Soviet Union was state Capitalist where as US style Capitalism was far more corporation driven and individual bourgeois controlled corporations instead of the whole state.

Your argument sounds much like what many Liberals and Conservatives i have heard use against Communism. Which is that the Soviet Union was Communist simply because they called themselves Communist. You can call fucking Norway as a example a Fascist state but it doesn't make it true.

You're not understanding Rafiq's methodology. If a group of people governing in a state say that their state is communist, it's obviously communist because they say so. Communism, after all, "denotes a state that is controlled by self-proclaimed Communists."

Forget all those things you read in Marx about relations of production, exploitation, alienation, and power. It all boils down to what politicians and bureaucrats call themselves, since they are obviously such a reliable source of information.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 00:05

You're not understanding Rafiq's methodology. If a group of people governing in a state say that their state is communist, it's obviously communist because they say so. Communism, after all, "denotes a state that is controlled by self-proclaimed Communists."

Forget all those things you read in Marx about relations of production, exploitation, alienation, and power. It all boils down to what politicians and bureaucrats call themselves, since they are obviously such a reliable source of information.

But you do the same thing by referring to them as Stalinists. If you think there were no differences between liberal democracy and the states we are referring to other than the latter being "state capitalist" you're delusional. If we have a discussion on the nature of such countries than of course referring to them as the offspring of a successful proletarian dictatorship is ridiculous.

The point is that you cowardly distance yourself from the failed communist phenomena of the 20th century. instead of providing insight as to why they failed you simply assert that they weren't TRUE communist countries.

As of now this is the meaning Communism has taken, not among us irrelevant intellectuals but among the rest of the world in general. Mind you WE know otherwise but how can this translate on a political level? If we want to reclaim it, we must fight for the revival of a workers movement, not correct the alleged misuse of words culturally.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 00:19

But you do the same thing by referring to them as Stalinists. If you think there were no differences between liberal democracy and the states we are referring to other than the latter being "state capitalist" you're delusional. If we have a discussion on the nature of such countries than of course referring to them as the offspring of a successful proletarian dictatorship is ridiculous.

The point is that you cowardly distance yourself from the failed communist phenomena of the 20th century. instead of providing insight as to why they failed you simply assert that they weren't TRUE communist countries.

As of now this is the meaning Communism has taken, not among us irrelevant intellectuals but among the rest of the world in general. Mind you WE know otherwise but how can this translate on a political level? If we want to reclaim it, we must fight for the revival of a workers movement, not correct the alleged misuse of words culturally.

Your position is clear Rafiq. It's right there in my signature. What bureaucrats think about their state is what defines its class nature according to you, and not the actual relations of production. That you want to muddy the waters, as is your standard tactic, by trying to raise nine different ancillary issues, like what the general population thinks communism means, is not surprising. I would be embarrassed, too, if I said what you said, and would similarly try to change the topic quickly.

Are you going to answer my question about North Korea? Do you think it is a communist society?

And FYI, Stalinists don't refer to themselves as Stalinists, so my calling them such is not accepting their own definition of the way the world is, as you embrace doing.

Trap Queen Voxxy

8th August 2014, 00:52

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 00:53

Forget reality, let's continue to peddle the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The reality is that socialism cannot exist in a single country.

Trap Queen Voxxy

8th August 2014, 00:58

The reality is that socialism cannot exist in a single country.

And it didn't, the Soviet Union was a union of various different countries or 'states' which were Socialist thus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ;)

GiantMonkeyMan

8th August 2014, 01:11

I generally think the 'no true scotsman' assertion is a bit weak and it bugs me when people use it. It implies that individuals who point out that the USSR wasn't 'communist' haven't analysed and interpreted history and the class structures of society and simply taken up an idealist position to defend the name of their own ideology.

Nevertheless, I generally try to avoid the point coming up at all, as smug arseholes moaning about 'logical tautology' or whatever are irritating to say the least. I generally find that the best way to defend the legacy of the October Revolution is to point out the potential that could have been reached once the workers had taken control of their own destinies and the instant denouncement from the capitalists around the world and their active attempts to suppress the revolution at all costs which contributed to its failures to spread and eventual degeneration etc.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 01:14

And it didn't, the Soviet Union was a union of various different countries or 'states' which were Socialist thus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ;)

Forget reality. Let's pretend that the Soviet republics exercised their own independent sovereignty.

Trap Queen Voxxy

8th August 2014, 01:18

Trap Queen Voxxy

8th August 2014, 01:24

Forget reality. Let's pretend that the Soviet republics exercised their own independent sovereignty.

Let's pretend Moscow controlled everything even though that's not how the fSU worked. Cuz you know, all Slavic nations are really just Russia jrs.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 01:31

Let's pretend Moscow controlled everything even though that's not how the fSU worked. Cuz you know, all Slavic nations are really just Russia jrs.

Who said anything about "Moscow controlling everything" and "Slavic nations"?

Trap Queen Voxxy

8th August 2014, 02:19

Who said anything about "Moscow controlling everything" and "Slavic nations"?

You? Implicitly?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 19:11

Your position is clear Rafiq. It's right there in my signature. What bureaucrats think about their state is what defines its class nature according to you,

No one is talking about the nature of social relations within the Soviet Union. Again as I said countless times before, we Marxists know better - but that does not make the political connotations which developed historically different.

What we are talking about is politics. The programmic implications of saying "they weren't REALLY communist" implies that they had the choice to adopt "real Communism" in the first place - as if the entire disaster was just a mistake of policy. I fervently believe that at the October revolution's inceptions real efforts were made to establish a proletarian dictatorship, which then failed. Seeing that you've changed the topic of the discussion and you're a troll, this likely will not get through your thick skull. Your obfuscation as well as your deliberate attempts at formulating a straw man are your defense mechanism.

For anyone who is buying into Five Year Plan's drivel, let me make this very clear:

The Soviet Union as well as the offspring of its degeneration represented a distinct form of political rule as well as distinct social conditions before their inception: Namely overwhelmingly feudal and agrarian societies. These countries were administered and run very similarly and the effects were just as similar. As a result these countries had distinct cultures which formed as a result as well as a completely different ideological atmosphere. As a result of the cold war, as well as the result of these various states being run by Communists, these countries were referred to as Communist states. Western categorization of these countries as Communists did not form as a result of any illusions about these societies being "classless" or whatever - just that they were distinct societies whose distinction was made clear by referring to them as Communist. As a result of the cold war the word Communism - rather than referring to a movement of worker's parties became associated with these states and their distinct style of rule.

Therefore, today Communism (to the world) denotes a state run by self proclaimed Communists - rather than any illusions about it being the "TRUE" communism modern petty bourgeois socialists like to so adamently cling to. You can see how Five Year Plan, in order to guise his blatant defeat attempts to take such a phrase out of context and make it as if I claim the "class relations of society are determined by what Bureaucrats like to call them". He ignores my comparison to the category of state ideology - such as Liberal Democracy. We refer to countries like the United States as democracies, Marx and Engels had referred to them as democratic republics. Because the ideological rhetoric of those in power entailed what precisely this was. Are they "true" democracies as described by Aristotle? No. But they have taken a different meaning. Words can mean different thing in different contexts. This is something Five Year Plan doesn't understand. Yet he continues to like a desperate and hungry creature look for excuses to ridicule me.

The point is that it is pathetic and a waste of time trying to convince others that first of all: We have a Utopia in store for them, and second of all, that these societies weren't the "REAL" utopia. The point is that over the course of class struggle and the revival of a worker's movement such a word will again change it's meaning. History has a terrible memory. Class struggle isn't going to kick off by trying to convince people of what "real" communism is. Rather, it is important that we attempt to explain why Communism failed - not why it has nothing to do with us in the first place. Attempting to distance yourself from our legacy is cowardly and weak - yes we failed in our attempt to overthrow capitalism - but it is OUR failure. The question is not whether WE failed, but WHY.

Are you going to answer my question about North Korea? Do you think it is a communist society?

By the standards of 20th century Communism no, North Korea is ideologically distinct. Today there are no countries (not even Cuba) which are Communist by the standards of cold war politics. The state has made this very clear - references of Communism have been removed from the constitution and ideological obfuscation - mutation from the mutant itself has occurred in correlation with the fall of the Soviet Union and it's allies. Perhaps today North Korea is an example of what other Stalinist countries may have looked like had they marched on into the 21st century (reactionary states to the world hegemonic states) but nothing more.

The reality is that socialism cannot exist in a single country.

A proletarian dictatorship cannot survive in a single country for very long. None the less the transition into an entirely new social epoch. Any idiot recognizes this, it is irrelevant (Hey Five Year Plan, if you're so honest then why do you pick and choose what you put in your signature? Why don't you put that in your signature? Because you're intellectually dishonest. Anyone who has been paying attention to this very thread can see that). No one is arguing that socialism (in the sense of a new social epoch) can exist in a single country.

I implore you to dig through any of my posts that would suggest otherwise. Even if you can do this, you will likely take words and phrases out of context - misconstrue the meaning of WORDS when you know very well it is a misconstruction!

You're not going to cover your ass by starting a new discussion, Five Year Plan. Let's get back on track - reply to my earlier post.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 19:17

Oh, but I'm sure that's "clear" enough for Straw Man Plan, clear enough to yet again tout the same drivel that I claim "a countries social relationships to production is defined by what those in power say it is". Fucking troll.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 19:21

No one is talking about the nature of social relations within the Soviet Union.

I was, when I asked you whether you thought the Soviet Union was a communist society. Apparently you think the question of whether a society is communist has no relationship to social relations. Then again, we knew that already based on your definition of communism.

What we are talking about is politics. The programmic implications of saying "they weren't REALLY communist" implies that they had the choice to adopt "real Communism" in the first place - as if the entire disaster was just a mistake of policy. I fervently believe that at the October revolution's inceptions real efforts were made to establish a proletarian dictatorship, which then failed. Seeing that you've changed the topic of the discussion and you're a troll, this likely will not get through your thick skull. Your obfuscation as well as your deliberate attempts at formulating a straw man are your defense mechanism.

No, what we were really talking about was whether the Soviet Union was a communist society. Now you're trying to change the topic to what the October Revolution's goals were, whether or how they fell short, etc. These are related to the question of whether the Soviet Union ever became a communist society, but they do not address the substance of the question.

For anyone who is buying into Five Year Plan's drivel, let me make this very clear:

The Soviet Union as well as the offspring of its degeneration represented a distinct form of political rule as well as distinct social conditions before their inception: Namely overwhelmingly feudal and agrarian societies. These countries were administered and run very similarly and the effects were just as similar. As a result these countries had distinct cultures which formed as a result as well as a completely different ideological atmosphere. As a result of the cold war, as well as the result of these various states being run by Communists, these countries were referred to as Communist states. Western categorization of these countries as Communists did not form as a result of any illusions about these societies being "classless" or whatever - just that they were distinct societies whose distinction was made clear by referring to them as Communist. As a result of the cold war the word Communism - rather than referring to a movement of worker's parties became associated with these states and their distinct style of rule.

Oh, so now you're changing your answer and saying that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist society?

Therefore, today Communism (to the world) denotes a state run by self proclaimed Communists - rather than any illusions about it being the "TRUE" communism modern petty bourgeois socialists like to so adamently cling to. You can see how Five Year Plan, in order to guise his blatant defeat attempts to take such a phrase out of context and make it as if I claim the "class relations of society are determined by what Bureaucrats like to call them". He ignores my comparison to the category of state ideology - such as Liberal Democracy. We refer to countries like the United States as democracies, Marx and Engels had referred to them as democratic republics. Because the ideological rhetoric of those in power entailed what precisely this was. Are they "true" democracies as described by Aristotle? No. But they have taken a different meaning. Words can mean different thing in different contexts. This is something Five Year Plan doesn't understand. Yet he continues to like a desperate and hungry creature look for excuses to ridicule me.

I didn't ask you what other people thought in regards to whether the Soviet Union was communist. I asked what you thought. Please try to stay on topic.

By the standards of 20th century Communism no, North Korea is ideologically distinct. Today there are no countries (not even Cuba) which are Communist by the standards of cold war politics. The state has made this very clear - references of Communism have been removed from the constitution and ideological obfuscation - mutation from the mutant itself has occurred in correlation with the fall of the Soviet Union and it's allies. Perhaps today North Korea is an example of what other Stalinist countries may have looked like had they marched on into the 21st century (reactionary states to the world hegemonic states) but nothing more.

I am not asking what people in the North Korean state think about whether their country is communist. Neither am I asking about whether North Korea was communist according to the standards of people in some previous time period. I am asking whether you think North Korea is a communist society.

Why are you afraid to answer questions in a straight forward way?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 19:52

Oh, so now you're changing your answer and saying that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist society?

I NEVER defined Communism as a social epoch to be achieved. I have always, like Marx defined it as as a movement. Now you want to change the fucking discussion and have a re-run of an argument you lost in a previous thread: about what exactly Communism is. I NEVER adhered to the notion that a "communist society", a post-capitalist society is describable and understandable as it has never existed. You accuse me of attempting to change the discussion by talking about the goals of the October revolution - NOTHING CAN BE MORE RELEVANT. Communists seized control of the state and attempted to establish a proletarian dictatorship - AND THEY FAILED. All Communist states were the offspring of this failure.

The POINT is that I hold such a categorization of Communism as a "moneyless, happy society" or whatever the fuck you spoke of it as in an earlier thread. I said such a definition is not only not useful, it is distinctively Utopian. All visions of a future society DERIVE from the worker's movement, not from intellectuals like you. AND THE WORKER'S MOVEMENT does not exist, and the PREVIOUS worker's movements did not exist in the current form capitalism has taken. You're an Idealist: Words, on a political level can be changed as a result of social developments and changes in history.

Was the Soviet Union a "communist society"? In the sense of the notion of Communism as the 'next step' no it was not. In the sense of a new social epoch it was not. In context, if someone was to refer to the Soviet Union as a communist society I would NEVER use the argument and say "well it wasn't REALLY communist". If you remember the argument was about "THE ARGUMENT THAT THE fSU WASN'T REALLY COMMUNIST". So who the fuck is changing the discussion again?Your attempts to make it as if talk of what others think is fucking ridiculous as an ARGUMENT denotes a OTHER perspectives.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:04

I NEVER defined Communism as a social epoch to be achieved. I have always, like Marx defined it as as a movement.

I didn't ask if you thought this. I asked if you thought the Soviet Union was ever a communist society.

Now you want to change the fucking discussion and have a re-run of an argument you lost in a previous thread: about what exactly Communism is. I NEVER adhered to the notion that a "communist society", a post-capitalist society is describable and understandable as it has never existed.I am not debating your definition of communism. I am asking you whether you think the Soviet Union was ever communist. Do you?

You accuse me of attempting to change the discussion by talking about the goals of the October revolution - NOTHING CAN BE MORE RELEVANT. Communists seized control of the state and attempted to establish a proletarian dictatorship - AND THEY FAILED. All Communist states were the offspring of this failure.Setting aside that you call states communist without ever successfully establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, this doesn't answer the question of whether the Soviet Union was ever a communist society.

Why are you afraid to answer the question?

The POINT is that I hold such a categorization of Communism as a "moneyless, happy society" or whatever the fuck you spoke of it as in an earlier thread. I said such a definition is not only not useful, it is distinctively Utopian. All visions of a future society DERIVE from the worker's movement, not from intellectuals like you. AND THE WORKER'S MOVEMENT does not exist, and the PREVIOUS worker's movements did not exist in the current form capitalism has taken. You're an Idealist: Words, on a political level can be changed as a result of social developments and changes in history.And here we see you rambling on about visions of a future society and movements and my idealism and on and on. But we don't see an answer the simple single question I asked four previous dodges of yours ago: was the Soviet Union ever a communist society?

Was the Soviet Union a "communist society"? In the sense of the notion of Communism as the 'next step' no it was not. In the sense of a new social epoch it was not. In context, if someone was to refer to the Soviet Union as a communist society I would NEVER use the argument and say "well it wasn't REALLY communist". If you remember the argument was about "THE ARGUMENT THAT THE fSU WASN'T REALLY COMMUNIST". So who the fuck is changing the discussion again?Your attempts to make it as if talk of what others think is fucking ridiculous as an ARGUMENT denotes a OTHER perspectives.So your position is that the Soviet Union was not communist in only one or a couple of senses. That really clarifies matters. :rolleyes: Does this mean that it was communist in other senses? And if so, do these affirmative senses mean you would say that the Soviet Union ever achieved enough "senses" of communism to entail calling it a communist society?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:25

Communist in the sense of the political connotations associated with the word as it developed in the cold war - which is still in use today.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:26

Straw Man Plan accuses me of evading arguments: I want everyone to look at this page alone and see whose evading what.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:27

Communist in the sense of the political connotations associated with the word as it developed in the cold war - which is still in use today.

This answers the question about what people in general connote communism to be, or associate it with. It doesn't seem to be occurring to you that I am asking you about whether you thought the Soviet Union was ever a communist society, independent of what "people" in general might think.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:29

Straw Man Plan accuses me of evading arguments: I want everyone to look at this page alone and see whose evading what.

Yes, this page is filled with me asking you about three dozen times whether you thought the Soviet Union was ever a communist society, and you responding by noting how other people define communism. That's certainly not evasion :rolleyes:

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:33

This answers the question about what people in general connote communism to be, or associate it with. It doesn't seem to be occurring to you that I am asking you about whether you thought the Soviet Union was ever a communist society, independent of what "people" in general might think.

Except If you remember the argument was about "THE ARGUMENT THAT THE fSU WASN'T REALLY COMMUNIST". So who the fuck is changing the discussion again? Your attempts to make it as if talk of what others think is fucking ridiculous as an ARGUMENT denotes a OTHER perspectives.

Everyone knows what I think. They were states destroying the vestiges of feudalism and paving the way for capitalist development. They had no potential for long term viability and the state was unable to reproduce the conditions of its existence - it is therefore NOT a distinct social epoch but a transition phrase (to capitalism from feudalism).

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:34

yet again ANOTHER fucking SEMANTICS based argument. I called it VERY early in this thread - he's started another SEMANTICS argument with the word "Communism" as the new subject.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:35

yet again ANOTHER fucking SEMANTICS based argument. I called it VERY early in this thread - he's started another SEMANTICS argument with the word "Communism" as the new subject.

Asking whether you think a state or society was communist is not a semantic issue. It's an issue that cuts to the very essence of what people on this forum claim to be fighting for.

Are you going to answer the question now?

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:37

Except If you remember the argument was about "THE ARGUMENT THAT THE fSU WASN'T REALLY COMMUNIST". So who the fuck is changing the discussion again? Your attempts to make it as if talk of what others think is fucking ridiculous as an ARGUMENT denotes a OTHER perspectives.

Everyone knows what I think. They were states destroying the vestiges of feudalism and paving the way for capitalist development. They had no potential for long term viability and the state was unable to reproduce the conditions of its existence - it is therefore NOT a distinct social epoch but a transition phrase (to capitalism from feudalism).

Yes, the argument was about whether the Soviet Union was ever really communist. I asked you whether you thought it was ever "really" a Communist society, and so far, you've not answered the question. All you've done is say that it was "not" communist in one or two senses, and repeated incessantly that it was according to other people's understanding of what communism is, which just raises the question of whether YOU think it was ever communist.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:44

Everyone knows what I think. They were states destroying the vestiges of feudalism and paving the way for capitalist development. They had no potential for long term viability and the state was unable to reproduce the conditions of its existence - it is therefore NOT a distinct social epoch but a transition phrase (to capitalism from feudalism).

You can call THAT whatever the fuck you want, but THAT is what I describe such countries as. What does it come down to? Semantics. You're the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever come across on this forum. I've been here for three years or so and I've never come across someone so adamant, so willing to sacrifice their own dignity and honesty in order to cover their ass.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:46

Everyone knows what I think. They were states destroying the vestiges of feudalism and paving the way for capitalist development. They had no potential for long term viability and the state was unable to reproduce the conditions of its existence - it is therefore NOT a distinct social epoch but a transition phrase (to capitalism from feudalism).

You can call THAT whatever the fuck you want, but THAT is what I describe such countries as.

That doesn't tell me whether you thought those societies were communist. Would you like to try answering the question again?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:49

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 20:51

It's not a simple fucking question. Because I OPPOSE all of the presumptions he has about the fucking word. If we presume Five Year Plan's intellectual foundations, his intellectual presumptions are true OF COURSE IT'S SIMPLE. He's so adamant in thinking his presumptions are uncontested, as if it's as real as his fedora.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 20:52

Five Year Plan thinks Communism only has one meaning in every context.

He's wrong, and he's obfuscating everything.

If I say they are Communist as a result of the new meaning Communism has taken - he will then accuse me of thinking they are actually communist societies as described by Marxists, as believed to exist by people on this forum. It's all semantics, all nonsense, all confusion and garbage.

If I say they aren't communist societies IN THE SENSE OF HOW HE'S TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM he will accuse me of contradicting myself - even though I made it clear that there is more than one fucking meaning of the word. Interestingly enough for someone to dishonestly clam that there's more than one word for the word "degeneration" this is completely fucking ridiculous.

Look through this thread everyone. Does anyone really believe this is all about him asking a "simple" question which I am evading?

I don't think communism has only one meaning across contexts. I am just asking you whether the Soviet Union was ever a communist society in light of the meaning(s) you attribute to the word. If anybody can show me in this thread where you've clearly answered this question, I would like for them to quote the relevant portion of the relevant post. Because all I can see are you talking about the Soviet Union being communist only in terms of how other people define or characterize communism. It's a total dodge.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:09

That doesn't tell me whether you thought those societies were communist. Would you like to try answering the question again?

What does communism MEAN TO YOU as far as your question goes? How does Five Year Plan define 'communism'? What do you MEAN by 'communist', and I'll answer your fucking question. If you're asking if I think they were "classless, moneyless' societies than no.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A QUESTION? That the usage of the word in the past sixty years to describe states run by self proclaimed Communists should be politically corrected today? That saying "they weren't TRULY" Communist is useful?

Is saying America isn't a real democracy/republic useful? No. There are plenty of words that used to mean something else than they did today.

Five Year Plan's mind: "blah blah blah these are all words I'm a philstine piece of shit all that is is a bunch of words evading the qeustion blah blah blah".

we've been over this before!

If an Anarcho Capitalist asked you the question: Are you opposed to a free society where individuals engage in free exchange blah blah blah... IS THAT A STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER? WOULD DIVULGING INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHY THE PRESUMPTIONS HE HAS ABOUT SUCH A SOCIETY ARE WRONG BE "DODGING THE QUESTION"?

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:11

What does communism MEAN TO YOU as far as your question goes? How does Five Year Plan define 'communism'? What do you MEAN by 'communist', and I'll answer your fucking question. If you're asking if I think they were "classless, moneyless' societies than no.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A QUESTION? That the usage of the word in the past sixty years to describe states run by self proclaimed Communists should be politically corrected today? That saying "they weren't TRULY" Communist is useful?

Is saying America isn't a real democracy/republic useful? No. There are plenty of words that used to mean something else than they did today.

Five Year Plan's mind: "blah blah blah these are all words I'm a philstine piece of shit all that is is a bunch of words evading the qeustion blah blah blah".

we've been over this before!

If an Anarcho Capitalist asked you the question: Are you opposed to a free society where individuals engage in free exchange blah blah blah... IS THAT A STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER? WOULD DIVULGING INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHY THE PRESUMPTIONS HE HAS ABOUT SUCH A SOCIETY ARE WRONG BE "DODGING THE QUESTION"?

If I had to answer my own question, I would say that the Soviet Union was never a communist society. See how easy that was? Now why don't you give answering the question a try?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:12

I am just asking you whether the Soviet Union was ever a communist society in light of the meaning(s) you attribute to the word.

I attribute the meaning of communism as: the real movement derived from present circumstances to abolish the present state of things.

In another context of discussion, the word would have a different meaning, EVEN FOR ME. It's all about CONTEXT. If someone wanted to refer to the Soviet Union as a Communist state, that wouldn't matter to me. I wouldn't correct the person. I would go along with it. The meaning would then be a state ruled by Communists. Like, I KNOW WHAT HE/SHE MEANS, even if to you he/she is "technically wrong" I KNOW what he's/she's trying to say.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:13

I attribute the meaning of communism as: the real movement derived from present circumstances to abolish the present state of things.

In another context of discussion, the word would have a different meaning, EVEN FOR ME. It's all about CONTEXT. If someone wanted to refer to the Soviet Union as a Communist state, that wouldn't matter to me. I wouldn't correct the person. I would go along with it. The meaning would then be a state ruled by Communists. Like, I KNOW WHAT HE/SHE MEANS, even if to you he/she is "technically wrong" I KNOW what he's/she's trying to say.

So does your definition of communism lead you to believe that the Soviet Union was ever a communist society? Why or why not?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:13

If I had to answer my own question, I would say that the Soviet Union was never a communist society.

You want a fucking trophy? IF WE'RE ABIDING BY YOUR PRESUMPTIONS, IF WE ASSUME THAT YOUR PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT IT ARE CORRECT then who the FUCK expects it to be difficult to answer, for you? We both have a FUNDAMENTALLY different understanding of the word.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:15

You want a fucking trophy? IF WE'RE ABIDING BY YOUR PRESUMPTIONS, IF WE ASSUME THAT YOUR PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT IT ARE CORRECT then who the FUCK expects it to be difficult to answer, for you? We both have a FUNDAMENTALLY different understanding of the word.

My presumptions and definitions have no bearing on this at all. You gave your definition of communism, and I am asking whether, in light of your own definition, you would characterize the Soviet Union as a communist society. Would you?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:19

So does your definition of communism lead you to believe that the Soviet Union was ever a communist society? Why or why not?

I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to use this as ammunition in later threads, maybe something to put in your signature. You're going to use my answer , take it OUT OF CONTEXT and claim "LOLOLOLOL RAFIQ TINKS IT WAZ A COMMUNIZT SOCIETY LOLOLOLOLOL". I'm saying fuck you.

If I assumed you weren't a troll, you weren't intellectually dishonest, if you were just a machine, and I HAD to put down an answer I would say, based on my definition that because the society was a result of communism as as movement, a failed result, it was. If you EVER reference that in the future, make sure to QUOTE EVERYTHING, if you put it in your signature than quote EVERYTHING. Be honest and, in case in the future you want to claim "But you think the Soviet Union was a communist society" make sure you make it clear that my understanding of the word is fundamentally different than yours, and most people on this forum.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:22

I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to use this as ammunition in later threads, maybe something to put in your signature. You're going to use my answer , take it OUT OF CONTEXT and claim "LOLOLOLOL RAFIQ TINKS IT WAZ A COMMUNIZT SOCIETY LOLOLOLOLOL". I'm saying fuck you.

If I assumed you weren't a troll, you weren't intellectually dishonest, if you were just a machine, and I HAD to put down an answer I would say, based on my definition that because the society was a result of communism as as movement, a failed result, it was. If you EVER reference that in the future, make sure to QUOTE EVERYTHING, if you put it in your signature than quote EVERYTHING. Be honest and, in case in the future you want to claim "But you think the Soviet Union was a communist society" make sure you make it clear that my understanding of the word is fundamentally different than yours, and most people on this forum.

What I have been trying to do is to get you to answer a relatively simple question. As some advice for you, the fact that I have had to repeat the question about thirty different times before getting a straight-forward answer shows why most people just ignore what you say on this forum.

Thank you for finally clarifying, though, that you believe that the Soviet Union was a communist society. When do you think it started being a communist society, and when it stopped being one?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:26

Thank you for finally clarifying, though, that you believe that the Soviet Union was a communist society

A result of the failure of communism as a movement. The revolution failed shortly after its inception. That is WHY it can be called a communist society. As far as the social character goes, however this is not the case. What you fail to understand is that the issue is WAY more complicated than you'd like it to be.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:27

A result of the failure of communism as a movement. The revolution failed shortly after its inception.

Yes, and when, approximately, do you date its inception and failure? 1917? 1918? 1923?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:31

When do you think it started being a communist society, and when it stopped being one?

What do YOU think the implications of any answer I would give to be? That I identify with Marxism Leninism? That I am "stupid" because even those in power of the state recognized they hadn't "achieved" communism yet? I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO YOU FUCKING RODENT. You can't form any meaningful implications of ANY answer I give because again, your PRESUMPTIONS about it in the first place are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG! Now go ahead and accuse me of "dodging" the question, you're a fucking troll trying to get phrases out of me which you can take out of context and use in the future.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:33

Yes, and when, approximately, do you date its inception and failure? 1917? 1918? 1923?

It's inception was the October revolution of course. The revolution failed as soon as it became apparent that the revolution would not spread. It is childish to pinpoint a single date as this was a gradual process with so many complicated factors, like the fact that most of the industrial proletariat that took power in the first place had been wiped out by the civil war.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:35

But of course Straw Man Plan, the idealist is unable to recognize history dynamically. Instead it has to be reduced to abstract bourgeois-rationalist words, dates that either fit on a children's fun-fact card or are periless attempts at dodging the "real" and "important" questions.

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:36

To him, the whole thing is rather simple. This is why he is not a Communist at heart. It is like he ascribes all of this to ANOTHER abstract universe divorced from our own - leaving the complexity, the givens and the zigzags to the hounds of bourgeois ideology.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:41

We'll try this again: when do you think communism began in the Soviet Union collapsed? You gave October 1917 as the rough/approximate beginning. When did it end?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 21:54

Let me make this clear: The revolution failed shortly after the civil war. The rest was a result of that failure.

Five Year Plan

8th August 2014, 21:55

Let me make this clear: The revolution failed shortly after the civil war. The rest was a result of that failure.

So it failed around late 1922 or early 1923 then?

Rafiq

8th August 2014, 22:00

So it failed around late 1922 or early 1923 then?

There isn't a single date from which we can claim it failed, so that a few weeks earlier it would be possible to say it hadn't failed yet. That's not how history works. There was never a single day in which capitalism formed. Never a single date, or even a year. The nature of the revolution's failure became apparent gradually, but following shortly after the civil war, its failure was obvious, from where we stand now looking back.

Five Year Plan

9th August 2014, 00:15

There isn't a single date from which we can claim it failed, so that a few weeks earlier it would be possible to say it hadn't failed yet. That's not how history works. There was never a single day in which capitalism formed. Never a single date, or even a year. The nature of the revolution's failure became apparent gradually, but following shortly after the civil war, its failure was obvious, from where we stand now looking back.

Well, no, I'm not asking for a single date. I am asking for clarification on the general time frame you take to be "shortly after the civil war." I am guessing it is late 1922 and early 1923. Is my guess correct?

The Modern Prometheus

9th August 2014, 09:00

But you do the same thing by referring to them as Stalinists. If you think there were no differences between liberal democracy and the states we are referring to other than the latter being "state capitalist" you're delusional. If we have a discussion on the nature of such countries than of course referring to them as the offspring of a successful proletarian dictatorship is ridiculous.

The point is that you cowardly distance yourself from the failed communist phenomena of the 20th century. instead of providing insight as to why they failed you simply assert that they weren't TRUE communist countries.

As of now this is the meaning Communism has taken, not among us irrelevant intellectuals but among the rest of the world in general. Mind you WE know otherwise but how can this translate on a political level? If we want to reclaim it, we must fight for the revival of a workers movement, not correct the alleged misuse of words culturally.

I don't distance myself from the failures of 20th century Communism in general nor do i distance myself from the failure of the Soviet Union to be anything other then state Capitalist. It was a learning process and it's not as if the material conditions within the Soviet Union favored Communism anyway. There where many reasons why it failed and became a bureaucratic, State Capitalist authoritarian regime and more then i care to get into now. I was simply saying that the Soviet Union was indeed not Communist at all in the sense of the word used by Marxists or Anarchists.

I agree that we must correct this notion that the Soviet Union, Albania, China, etc where Communist countries by actions as well as words. But i hardly think calling these State Capitalist countries Communist does anything other then cause more confusion. As far as helping revive Communism within the workers movement i totally agree that it needs to be done as Communism must have the workers on board and fight for the interests of Proletarians otherwise we aren't Communists. However i can guarantee that nothing will make your average worker recoil from the word Communism quicker then associating it with Stalinism. We shouldn't distance ourselves from the past but we need not live in it either.

Personally i think it makes about as much sense for Communists to call the Soviet Union Communist as it does for the Capitalists to call places with a Welfare state Socialist or Communist.

Trap Queen Voxxy

9th August 2014, 16:33

I don't distance myself from the failures of 20th century Communism in general nor do i distance myself from the failure of the Soviet Union to be anything other then state Capitalist. It was a learning process and it's not as if the material conditions within the Soviet Union favored Communism anyway. There where many reasons why it failed and became a bureaucratic, State Capitalist authoritarian regime and more then i care to get into now. I was simply saying that the Soviet Union was indeed not Communist at all in the sense of the word used by Marxists or Anarchists.

Da but it was a very literal manifestation of what Russian Marxists (and to a degree depending upon the year) Anarchists did as well, thought was Communism or Communism/Marxism. The October revolution was a proletarian revolution carried out by Marxists, Anarchists, and so on with this expressed purpose. Also, authoritarian is a somewhat meaningless phrase in terms of analysis of human social organization.

I agree that we must correct this notion that the Soviet Union, Albania, China, etc where Communist countries by actions as well as words. But i hardly think calling these State Capitalist countries Communist does anything other then cause more confusion. As far as helping revive Communism within the workers movement i totally agree that it needs to be done as Communism must have the workers on board and fight for the interests of Proletarians otherwise we aren't Communists. However i can guarantee that nothing will make your average worker recoil from the word Communism quicker then associating it with Stalinism. We shouldn't distance ourselves from the past but we need not live in it either.

The way such hypothetical talks go anyway is screwy in the way things are framed and treated irrespective of what's being discussed.

Personally i think it makes about as much sense for Communists to call the Soviet Union Communist as it does for the Capitalists to call places with a Welfare state Socialist or Communist.

Not really.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

9th August 2014, 20:25

In this thread, MEGAMAN. I have declared such a position numerous times before this thread was even created
As usual, your reading comprehension is weak. I’m talking about this thread, not others. Believe it or not, I don’t stalk your posts on other threads waiting to disagree with you. The fact that you were compelled to spell it out this late in the game indicated that you recognized your screw-up.

I was under the impression that Beethoven despised Napoleon when Napoleon crowned himself empreror. As a matter of fact Symphony N. 3 was titled Bonaparte only to have the name changed to Eroica to commemorate the fallen heroes of the French revolution. And if your "evidence" holds up then why did Beethoven name one of his famous works "Wellington" to congratulate the Duke of Wellington over his victory over Napoleon?
I would recommend this link to have all your questions answered: http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_eroica.html

And it's not a weak analogy. I don't have powers or control over history. All we have is the recognizable circumstances, the present conditions. So yes I would have sided with Stalin's camp. But again: Can it even be called a Stalin camp, however? Last I checked they later ruled as a triumviate with Stalin as one of the three who LATER came out victorious in a power struggle…You unsurprisingly failed to address this.
I ignored that post because the Left Opposition’s victories, or failures, are completely irrelevant to the central issues of this thread, which is the nature of the Soviet state and the existence of capitalism, and are thus nothing but one of your peripheral distractions from your constant errors and bombast. We were initially discussing why the purges did, or did not matter, an argument that you were sucking at, to put it politely. Besides, FYP pretty much confirmed your bullshit position on why the Soviet state remained communist (they believed they were, therefore they were!), fully justifying my use of that Marx quote that places you in the same camp as Hegel. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so move on or continue to flail around.

More dishonest nonsense. Is this a Trotskyist trend?
Nope. By imagining that everyone is wrong except for you, you are become error.

Five Year Plan

9th August 2014, 20:49

As usual, your reading comprehension is weak. I’m talking about this thread, not others. Believe it or not, I don’t stalk your posts on other threads waiting to disagree with you. The fact that you were compelled to spell it out this late in the game indicated that you recognized your screw-up.

I would recommend this link to have all your questions answered: http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_eroica.html

I ignored that post because the Left Opposition’s victories, or failures, are completely irrelevant to the central issues of this thread, which is the nature of the Soviet state and the existence of capitalism, and are thus nothing but one of your peripheral distractions from your constant errors and bombast. We were initially discussing why the purges did, or did not matter, an argument that you were sucking at, to put it politely. Besides, FYP pretty much confirmed your bullshit position on why the Soviet state remained communist (they believed they were, therefore they were!), fully justifying my use of that Marx quote that places you in the same camp as Hegel. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so move on or continue to flail around.

Nope. By imagining that everyone is wrong except for you, you are become error.

For the record, Rafiq has subsequently "clarified" that he thinks the Soviet Union was no longer a communist society "shortly after the Civil War."

Krasnyymir

9th August 2014, 20:58

Too much time is spent on discussing the failures of the Soviet Union IMHO.

And too little time on what a success it in many cases was.

In 1914 it was a backwards country, terribly poor, frightfully illiterate and despotic, and most of the population had until recently lived more or less as slaves.

And not even 50 years later it was a super power, had put a man in space, and half of the worlds population lived in countries led by a Marxist party.

It industrialized in little over a decade, something that took capitalist countries a century in some cases.

Was it ideal? Of course not, but has a damn impressive record, no matter what. And I doubt it could have been done much better in a country like Russia that has a long solid tradition of despotism, and with the Soviet state threatened on all sides in the first years of it existence.

Stalin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks had to rob banks, kill informants and were constantly on the run from the secret police for half of their lives. It's not strange that they carried some of that mindset into government.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

9th August 2014, 21:07

For the record, Rafiq has subsequently "clarified" that he thinks the Soviet Union was no longer a communist society "shortly after the Civil War."

Right. The civil war that he hasn't dated and the clarifications that raise more questions than answers. Splendid.

Five Year Plan

9th August 2014, 21:12

Right. The civil war that he hasn't dated and the clarifications that raise more questions than answers. Splendid.

Well, I am curious about how his statement about the end of communism links up with his previous statements about the Purges. If the revolutionary communist movement, and communist society, were in his view finsihed by 1923, then the purges cannot be spoken of in the context of defending communism or defending a revolution.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

9th August 2014, 21:16

Well, I am curious about how his statement about the end of communism links up with his previous statements about the Purges. If the revolutionary communist movement, and communist society, were in his view finsihed by 1923, then the purges cannot be spoken of in the context of defending communism or defending a revolution.
It was a silly position, if I recall. On the one hand, he says the purges affected nothing and only defended the Soviet state. On the other, he claims that the Stalinists believed they were defending the revolution, hence that paradox he was going on about earlier. He awards the Stalinists tremendous consciousness and defends them in that context. Maybe you can make more sense of it than I could.

EDIT: That was not meant to insinuate I'm dumping my argument with him on you. I just want to make sense of this, and every time I refute him, it gets stranger.

Alexios

9th August 2014, 21:30

Stalin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks had to rob banks, kill informants and were constantly on the run from the secret police for half of their lives. It's not strange that they carried some of that mindset into government.

But there were people in the Bolshevik party who were sane. They just ended up getting the shaft.

Five Year Plan

9th August 2014, 21:34

It was a silly position, if I recall. On the one hand, he says the purges affected nothing and only defended the Soviet state. On the other, he claims that the Stalinists believed they were defending the revolution, hence that paradox he was going on about earlier. He awards the Stalinists tremendous consciousness and defends them in that context. Maybe you can make more sense of it than I could.

EDIT: That was not meant to insinuate I'm dumping my argument with him on you. I just want to make sense of this, and every time I refute him, it gets stranger.

Oh, sure. If the purges were not defending communism or a revolutionary movement, regardless of what they people carrying them out thought about what they were doing, why would any revolutionary today come out in defense of it on the basis of political principle? That, ultimately, is the question.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

9th August 2014, 21:47

Oh, sure. If the purges were not defending communism or a revolutionary movement, regardless of what they people carrying them out thought about what they were doing, why would any revolutionary today come out in defense of it on the basis of political principle? That, ultimately, is the question.
Well, that doesn't seem too hard to dissect. Since there's no revolutionary proletarian basis for supporting the statified capitalism that Stalinism introduced after the purges, then Rafiq's politics are heavily rooted in the politics of the late Second International. This would mean that Rafiq is not a Marxist at all, but a Social Democrat that heavily favors reaching a "separate peace" with imperialism as the Soviet state did. Maybe that's pitched at too high a level of abstraction, but it's all I can come up with right now.

Rafiq

11th August 2014, 00:49

Well, no, I'm not asking for a single date. I am asking for clarification on the general time frame you take to be "shortly after the civil war." I am guessing it is late 1922 and early 1923. Is my guess correct?

I think by that time it would be obvious that it wasn't heading in a good direction. I think by the time Marxism Leninism became state ideology this is also an important indicator. But yes around the civil war the revolution failed. Communist ideology still persisted for quite a while, but was slowly degenerating, just like the Soviet Union's politics.

I would recommend this link to have all your questions answered: http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_eroica.html

That's actually very interesting. I didn't know that. I've always held Beethoven as a personal hero of mine.

pretty much confirmed your bullshit position on why the Soviet state remained communist (they believed they were, therefore they were!), fully justifying my use of that Marx quote that places you in the same camp as Hegel. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so move on or continue to flail around.

I think what you're missing is a matter of defining Communism. If we define it as a completely new mode of production then no, it wasn't as I've said before. In the context of a proletarian ideology, Communism didn't last very long. But within the context of cold war politics I don't think it's particularly useful to be refrain from calling it communist as this is what it is historically adopted. Technically no, it wasn't even ideologically - but we call it Communism because we associate it with the phenomena of Communism. Even if it was state capitalist I would still refer to it as a Communist state. Because it's not like it has nothing to do with Communism as a movement, and Communism as a movement is how Marx defined Communism.

But you're right, it would be ridiculous to say they are something just because those in power claim this is what they are (on a material level). That isn't what I'm saying though.

Rafiq

11th August 2014, 00:50

Five Year Plan

11th August 2014, 00:53

I said in their minds they were defending hte revolution. Good people were in power doing bad things. I was trying to say that it wouldn't have been much different had someone like Trotsky had been at helm.

I don't think anybody here would dispute that Stalin and his minions thought they were doing what they had to do, and thought that they were defending the revolution in the process. If Trotsky had been at the helm, who knows what would have happened? The only way he would have found himself there was with a renewed proletarian movement in Russia to sweep away bureaucratic decay, which in turn might have inspired a proletarian resurgence in Western Europe. In the end we will never know.