Stalinism

[rice349]

I'm just curious what are your opinions on Stalinism and Stalin's contributions (or perversions, depending on who you are) to Marxism-Leninism? Just want to get a feel for some of the different perspectives out there.

[RedFlagOverTrenton]

Well, for one thing I do think the quote in your sig is the absolute wrong way to go about handling dissent in socialist society (the "just kill the dumb bastards" approach that Stalin often seemed to adopt).

That being said, he's my dig:

Stalin has alot of tremendous accomplishments to his name, accomplishments that we should continue to learn from and uphold. He moved the USSR from the N.E.P. into a functional socialist economy with full state-planning, industrialized the country in a very small amount of time, and built a Red Army capable of defending the new socialist state.

On the other hand, Stalin was often very metaphysical in the way he dealt with contradictions among the people and in his views of what the role of the masses in the process of socialist construction was to be. He tended to assume that people who didn't agree with him were necessarily working against socialism itself; at best dupes and at worst foreign-backed sabateours, and the way he dealt with this was very heavy handed. In this way, debate and dissent was stifled in a truly undeniable way, a contributing factor in the reemergence of capitalism under Khruschev (in addition to Stalin's mistaken, shortsighted view that all reactionary classes had been eliminated from the Soviet Union).

He also didn't seem to understand the need for the involvement and active participation of the masses in all aspects of how society is run, from production to politics art. It seems to me, based on what I've read about that period, that simply being a "good worker" and producing as much as possible was held up as the highest virtue or the best form of political participation, and even though you had worker-technicians of a sort, any type of worker's democratic participation in production was basically limited to what we'd call "shop-floor decisions".

Stalin was the first leader of the world's first socialist state. What he set out to do was an undertaking that had never, ever been attempted before and of course, mistakes and errors were very likely to happen. But that doesn't mean we can, or should reject Stalin's legacy entirely. Instead, we have to critically examine the past and learn from both the man's significant successes and equally significant mistakes. All in all, a Marxist-Leninist with serious flaws in his politics and ideology.

[RedLenin]

The USSR was NOT socialism. It was State Capitalist. Stalin had no desire for socialism or communism and was just a totalitarian leader who murdered all in opposition. There were classes and inequality in the USSR. Plus the state became the new ruling class. The workers were oppressed and exploited by a strong buerocracy. That is not socialism.

[Colombia]

Stalin boosted the USSR's economy greatly, but at a great loss of life and repression. No nation can call itself socialist by doing such actions.

[rice349]

While I do appreciate both of your posts and contributions to the thread, I meant to discuss the actual theory of stalinism, as a division of Marxist-Leninism. Instead of talking about the actions of Stalin himself, I was interested in starting a debate regarding the more political side to his practices. Whether or not totalitarianism is a good thing if it benefits the workers, as opposed to a democratic soceity. And amongst other things, some of the more philosophical/political sides to governing. Since Stalinism is more a theory of governing than an actual societal philosophy (like Marxism or Leninism) i thought the topic was worthy of debate and intersted in what people had to say of it as a political governing system.


Stalin boosted the USSR's economy greatly, but at a great loss of life and repression. No nation can call itself socialist by doing such actions

Why not? It was mainly repression of the forces which sought to destroy the movement towars communism? I'm not saying I agree with murdering all dissidents; however, i have to ask is it not permissible to repress (by other means than killing) those who seek to exploit the poor and working class after establishing a socialist society?

[T_SP]

Whether or not totalitarianism is a good thing if it benefits the workers, as opposed to a democratic soceity.

Are you kidding? Totalitarianism can never and will never benefit the workers! Democracy ( in its' true sense is) designed to benefit the workers



And amongst other things, some of the more philosophical/political sides to governing. Since Stalinism is more a theory of governing than an actual societal philosophy (like Marxism or Leninism) i thought the topic was worthy of debate and intersted in what people had to say of it as a political governing system.

Stalin was nothing but a corrupt leader, it was Lenin and Trotskys' ideas that got Stalin to where he was then Stalin just shit on everyone looked out for himself and killed alot of innocent people.

How can we seriously debate the way Stalin Governed other than to stay; he was despotic in his ways, anyone who disagreed with him met a terrible end!

[rice349]

Are you kidding? Totalitarianism can never and will never benefit the workers! Democracy ( in its' true sense is) designed to benefit the workers

Why can you not have a worker's totalitarian state? It would be impossible to throw a society into direct democracy (which is what I'm assuming you meant by democracy in its true sense), while I'm not AGREEING with Stalin's direct way of governing the Soviet Union, a strong centralized government is needed to direct a fragile movement into socialism, and then eventually into communism.

Instead of having a single man totalitarian state, you could have a single-party totalitarian state, with less of a bureaucracy while still progressing in the transformation to communism, when ultimately the government would wither away.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:15 PM

Are you kidding? Totalitarianism can never and will never benefit the workers! Democracy ( in its' true sense is) designed to benefit the workers

Why can you not have a worker's totalitarian state? It would be impossible to throw a society into direct democracy (which is what I'm assuming you meant by democracy in its true sense), while I'm not AGREEING with Stalin's direct way of governing the Soviet Union, a strong centralized government is needed to direct a fragile movement into socialism, and then eventually into communism.

Instead of having a single man totalitarian state, you could have a single-party totalitarian state, with less of a bureaucracy while still progressing in the transformation to communism, when ultimately the government would wither away.
When Stalin came to power, roughly around 1929, it had been 12 years since the Revolution. Many of the non-socialist elements had been weeded out through the Red terror and rapid industrialisation had begun. Stalin could have made moves to a more democratic society in the 1930's, but he chose not too. He was only concerned with furthering his own political power.

The idea of a single party state working towards communism is ridiculous. The very idea of socialism is for the proletariat to run the state after the revolution. I agree with the idea of a small band of revolutionaries winning control of government and then gradually handing power over to the working-class. The working class could then progress towards communism.

[Brennus]

I'm just curious what are your opinions on Stalinism and Stalin's contributions (or perversions, depending on who you are) to Marxism-Leninism? Just want to get a feel for some of the different perspectives out there.

"Stalinism" is nothing more than an extension of "Leninism" which is nothing more than an extension of "Marxism." Lenin made contributions to Marxist theory, specifically that of a vanguard party. Stalin made no significant written contributions to Marxist theory, but one can infer principles from his actions. That being said, Lenin's ideas were the Marxist approach directly before and after the revolution. Stalin's ideas and actions were Marxism in the consolidation of the proletarian state. It is all Marxism in different conditions. Lenin showed that a highly organized vanguard party of the proletariat can greatly aid the revolution. Stalin showed that a strengthening of the proletarian state is necessary until "global" revolution. So what was Stalin's political view of this new proletarian state?

Stalin believed that increasing participation within the proletarian state was important, unlike Trotsky, who called for a violent purge of the state and party apparatus by younger party members. So historically, it was Trotsky who was in favor of the massive purges. I'm sure Stalin played a role in the arrests of some, but he never called for such drastic measures as Trotsky. From Stalin's ideas one can deduce that a strong proletarian state with massive participation is an ideological component of "Stalinism."

Another component of "Stalinist" ideology is a thoroughly politicized state. Everyone from bureaucrats to soldiers must be a communist. Evidence for this is shown when Stalin called for the removal of enemies of the people from the army. So the proletarian state must not be merely a "politically impotent" peice of machinery but a moral and ideal example for the rest of the people. Whereas bourgeois democracies have "draft dodging" leaders and scandalous representatives supporting special interest groups, the "Stalinist" proletarian state must punish such individuals and remove them from office. A bourgeois democracy thrives upon elite cliques of individuals lying to the masses in order to create anti-proletarian policies, but the "Stalinist" state encourages participation from the masses while shunning spin doctors and those who lie to the people.

The growth of the state following a revolution seems a contradiction, but in reality it is exactly what Marx declared would happen, with a slight change. Marx phrased it so that the proletariat would "seize" the state. The state, specifically the offices that control it, are merely people. A state cannot be wholly "seized", for the previous officials of government must be disposed of and what is left will be incorporated into a new proletarian state. This new proletarian state must be built by the workers into a government that is directly controlled by and responsive to the working class. Thus, following a revolution the creation of a massive new state is imperative.

Trotsky, Stalinism's great opponent, incorporated officers from the Russian Imperial army into the Red Army. How can one incorporate members of the bourgeois state into a proletarian state? One can not. The Stalinist approach was to remove these men from their positions, thereby cleansing the proletarian state from damaging remnants of the previous state. Many criticize Stalin's decision to create a "purge" of the proletarian state. Had a certain unscrupulous individual not made such a mistake, the purge would not have occurred. Was it necessary to purge the military? Yes it was. The critic will declare, "Stalin crippled the military on the eve of invasion!" Stalin crippled a military already infested with spies and traitors introduced years ago? Stalin's approach was necessary for creating a true proletarian state. Had the army not been cleansed, the USSR would have gone the route of France and capitulated to Hitler. The commissars of Defense and Internal Affairs each issued orders declaring a network of spies existed within the military. This was not Stalin, and thus can not be blamed on the paranoia of one man. The necessity of ideological correctness within the state was proved true after World War II by the promotion of bureaucratic careerists within the military. This, among other factors, led to the eventual disentigration of socialist principles in the USSR.

Two lessons are learned from the Stalinist application of socialism. The first being that a proletarian state is necessary to consolidate a revolution. The second lesson is that isolated socialist republics can not last indefinitely until a world revolution occurs. The strain on the "Stalinist" USSR was too much for one nation to bear, and eventually it cracked under imperialist pressure. However, isolated socialist republics can exist for many years. World revolution is a necessity, but it can precipitate from individual socialist nations until the time occurs when the working class of all (or atleast the large majority) nations unite in armed struggle.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Brennus
"Stalinism" is nothing more than an extension of "Leninism" which is nothing more than an extension of "Marxism."

"Extension" is not the word I would favor; try mutation instead.

I quite agree that Lenin was the "father" of both Stalinism and Trotskyism and the grandfather of Maoism as well.

But there's really very little in the corpus of Lenin and his descendants that bears more than a passing and quite faint resemblance to Marx's ideas.

Lenin's State and Revolution is a "Marxist" work...because it's a "copy & paste" job from the writings of Marx and Engels themselves.

One could make a good argument that Imperialism: the Highest State of Capitalism was written "in the Marxist tradition".

And his early work The Development of Capitalism in Russia was certainly Marxist.

But everything Lenin wrote about the "vanguard party" is entirely his own...there's not so much as a scrap of "justification" in the works of Marx or Engels favoring an elite party despotism.

Naturally, this applies even more to the serious writings of Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et.al., on this subject. They borrow, in varying degrees, from Lenin, not Marx or Engels.

It is commonly asserted by the followers of Lenin's main disciples that Lenin "developed" Marxism or that Lenin's ideas were "Marxism applied to the age of imperialism", etc.

This is neat verbal footwork...but cannot overcome the irreconcilable contradiction between the revolutionary society that Marx and Engels supported -- the Paris Commune -- and the sundry party despotisms of 20th century "communism".

The late 19th and early 20th century was one of considerable intellectual ferment; while Lenin was inventing his version of "Marxism", others were inventing a "special version" of Darwinism...which we now refer to as "social Darwinism" -- one of the crucial foundations of fascism.

That did not mean that Darwin was an early fascist.

Likewise, Marx was not an "early Leninist".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[codyvo]

I do believe that some of Stalins early contributions to the USSR were imparable to its success but I think that generalized Stalinism isn't the best way to govern a socialist country.

[Brennus]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)"Extension" is not the word I would favor; try mutation instead.[/b]

:P Okay.


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)But there's really very little in the corpus of Lenin and his descendants that bears more than a passing and quite faint resemblance to Marx's ideas.


Lenin's State and Revolution is a "Marxist" work...because it's a "copy & paste" job from the writings of Marx and Engels themselves.
[/b]

First you say that Lenin's writings have nothing but a "faint resemblance" to Marx's ideas because he did not feel the need to restate Marx's ideas, and then you mock him for doing so in State and Revolution... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by redstar2000
But everything Lenin wrote about the "vanguard party" is entirely his own...there's not so much as a scrap of "justification" in the works of Marx or Engels favoring an elite party despotism.

Revolutionary theory shouldn't be constricted to following the writings of men who died a lifetime ago. "One can make whatever one wants out of dogma, even revisionism."


[email protected]
Naturally, this applies even more to the serious writings of Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et.al., on this subject. They borrow, in varying degrees, from Lenin, not Marx or Engels.

Lenin did not create the analysis of class society nor dialectics used by both Stalin and Trotsky.


redstar2000
This is neat verbal footwork...but cannot overcome the irreconcilable contradiction between the revolutionary society that Marx and Engels supported -- the Paris Commune -- and the sundry party despotisms of 20th century "communism".

Marx and Engels did not witness a lasting post-capitalist society. The Paris Commune was nothing but a blip on the radar screen compared to the Soviet Union.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Brennus
Lenin did not create the analysis of class society nor dialectics used by both Stalin and Trotsky.

???

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There's nothing in Marx or Engels that points to a proletarian revolution in a country where 80% or more of the population were peasants. Marx and Engels did refer to revolution in Russia explicitly...calling it "Russia's 1789".

As to "dialectics", I suppose Marx must carry the burden for Hegel...though an argument could be made that Lenin was a lot closer to Hegel than Marx was.

As soon as my site is restored, I will link you to my criticisms of "dialectics".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

As promised:

Dizzy with "Dialectics" (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103040986&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Disputing Dialectics (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087002057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[rice349]

though an argument could be made that Lenin was a lot closer to Hegel than Marx was.
Yes, in fact I've heard that argument before. It presents a difference between taking dialectical materialism as a strict dogma, which in practice Lenin did not, in fact, the Russian Revolution was quite contrary to the scientifc philosophy of dialectical materialism. However, this shouldn't be used as a discredit to Marx or dialectical materialism as a philosophy, but rather, as a way of critically looking at revolutionary theory and answering historical contradictions.

[Brennus]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

My point was that the most significant thing added to Marxist theory by Lenin was the concept of the vanguard party. All other concepts were drawn directly or indirectly from Marx and Engels.


There's nothing in Marx or Engels that points to a proletarian revolution in a country where 80% or more of the population were peasants. Marx and Engels did refer to revolution in Russia explicitly...calling it "Russia's 1789".


Well, the revolution was supposed to happen in the more developed countries first, but Russia was not a pre-capitalist society, it was firmly engaged in trade with the rest of Europe and subject to the whims of the capitalist system.