Can socialism be built in one country?

[el_comandante_andre]

One of my biggest question about socialism is whether it can be built in one country as Stalin claimed??

[JC1]

Fuck Stalin V. Trotsky debates. Let's just absorn the positive contribution's of them, and reject there errouneous stuff.

Trotsky's tendency was mixed between workers and middle class, and stalin's tendency was like 2/3 worker.

The diffrence between "Stalinists" and Trots is when they say bureacracy dominated the USSR.

I am of the opinion that a bureacracy existed, but not seperate from the working class, and the general working class was constanly jugginly with this section for power. Eventualy, Capitalism forced this labour-bureacracy into a petty bourgoise position, leading to the downfall of the USSR's bureacractic socialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I agree with JC1 there.. we should look for possitive contributions from the worker's movement over the years, and leave the failures behind.

Can socialism be built in one country? Yeah, of course, it has to be.. until revolutions occur in other countries.. I mean, the world revolution won't happen all at once, but it does need to happen. Workers need to take power in their countries and hold out, while doing everything they can to further the world revolution..

[More Fire for the People]

I too hate the Stalin v. Trotsky debate. Can socialism be built in one country? Yes. Should socialism be built in only one country? No. I agree with Trotsky's proposition of 'permenant revolution' but I don't think permanent revolution requires Euro-American revolutions to be succesful.

[Axel1917]

Absolutely not. The isolation of the revolution in a backward nation like Russia is what created the conditions for Stalin's political counterrevolution to take place. Lenin had repeatedly stressed the need for the revolution to spread to other nations for the USSR to survive. Engels also had noted the need for international revolution as early as 1847.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx was the first one to use the term "permanent revolution" of course.. let's not forget that.

And yeah, the revolution must become a world-wide revolution, like I said; but that doesn't always happen.. sometimes there are periods in between revolutions.. and we need to be able to hold on to power and limit bureaucracy in those periods.. as Cuba has done.

[Morpheus]

It depends on the country and its relationship with the rest of the world.

[Poum_1936]

The diffrence between "Stalinists" and Trots is when they say bureacracy dominated the USSR.

I wish it were that simple. There's also alot of different theories behind the two camps.


I agree with JC1 there.. we should look for possitive contributions from the worker's movement over the years, and leave the failures behind.

We should look to the postive contribution, but NOT forget the failures. The failures help correct us in the future. The American philosopher George Santayana once wrote: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[loveme4whoiam]

The American philosopher George Santayana once wrote: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Hell, everyone has said that :P Anyone with half a gram of sense and someone to remember that they said it, anyways.

Of course socialism can be built in a single country - it should act as a beacon for others who want to move progressively forward.

[el_comandante_andre]

I don't think Lenin would have supported Trotskyism.It is just a different brand of communism which cannot be included in mainstream marxism-leninism,it is better than nothing but in my opinion it is less effective than stalinism or maoism through the fact that Trotsky didn't want to implement socialism in the USSR but rather wanted to wait for revolutions in the better industrialised countries in the world.All in all,due to Stalin's ideea of Socialism in one country,the USSR became heavily industrialised.However buliding socialism in one country can prove quite hard for cuba,north korea but easy for china which is sadly controled by americans nowadays.

[redhmong]

If 'socialism' means its present meaning-so-called the first step of communism, my answer is 'yes'.

But if 'socialism' means its original meaning-namely communism, I must say NO! It is a big quip to socialism that we link up country belonged to historical category with socialsm.

[Janus]

It depends on the country and its relationship with the rest of the world.

Generally, the "socialist" countries that we have now are not self-sufficient and require large amounts of aid from others which doesn't exactly leave a good impression for socialism.

[Martin Blank]

Maybe before we get any farther into this debate, we should stop and define what we mean by "socialism". Different trends usually have different definitions.

Miles

[vyborg]

considering the international division of labour, the socialist revolution starts in a country and develops as a world revolution (as the 1917 was). if the revolution is isolated in one or two country, it is doomed.

the debate between stalin and trotsky (or lenin or marx, given thatr before 1924 not one communist ever spoke of socialism in one country, included stalin) is not an historical one but a fundamental difference between communist and petty bourgeois nationalists (the stalinist bureacracy) and it is very important even now for country like venezuela or cuba

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:17 AM
Maybe before we get any farther into this debate, we should stop and define what we mean by "socialism". Different trends usually have different definitions.

Miles
"The dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat." (Lenin)

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism." (Lenin)
Socialism is the period within the dictatorship of the proletariat where private property has become the common property of workers.

[Intelligitimate]

Actually reading what Stalin himself has to say about the issue completely and utterly destroys Trotsky's lies. I have always challenged Trots to read this and tell me if they disagree with anything in it, and they never do. They always insist that he can't possibly have believed what he says.

THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING SOCIALISM IN OUR COUNTRY (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PBS26.html).

Allow me to quote Stalin:

"What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital -- for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another."

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:18 PM
considering the international division of labour, the socialist revolution starts in a country and develops as a world revolution (as the 1917 was). if the revolution is isolated in one or two country, it is doomed.

As the international division of labor intensifies (which I think it has significantly since 1917), and as countries or states become more economically specialized within that global order, the possiblity of building "socialism in one country" recedes further and further. An isolated country attempting to build socialism after a revolution would have to redevelop those forces of production -- technology, industries, economic sectors -- that had essentially been exported to other states under capitalism. This is a problem that is only getting worse as times goes on and international capitalism becomes more integrated.

[fstick]

Socialism must be global or it mustn't be. If a true socialist-anarchist utopia was formed in one country, what would there be to stop the neighboring capitalist countries from simply taking it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And of course world integration is one of the progressive elements of capitalism.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 08:16 PM
Actually reading what Stalin himself has to say about the issue completely and utterly destroys Trotsky's lies. I have always challenged Trots to read this and tell me if they disagree with anything in it, and they never do. They always insist that he can't possibly have believed what he says.

THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING SOCIALISM IN OUR COUNTRY (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PBS26.html).

Allow me to quote Stalin:

"What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital -- for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another."
You completely brush aside the fact that the Stalinist-Menshevik "theory" of two stages had led to the defeat of many revolutions.

From Stalin:


The congress held that the working class, in alliance with the labouring peasantry, can deal the finishing blow to the capitalists of our country and build a socialist society, even if there is no victorious revolution in the West to come to its aid.

And yet no Stalinist society has ever done as such. In fact, unless the Stalinists are taken down by an actual socialist revolution, they later sell out to capitalism in order to further consolidate their priveleges.

And if the Stalinists were so for socialism, why were they encouraging the growth of the priveleged members of the CPSU? And why did they kill off the Bolshevik Committee, wage war on Marxism with the Moscow frame-up trials? Why did they make genuine Leninism (Trotskyism) the chief enemy? Why did Lenin call for Stalin's removal in his "Last Testament?"

Stalin further says:


If there is no such victory in the West, can we build a socialist society and complete the building of it? The congress answered that we can. Otherwise, there would have been no point in our taking power in October 1917.

Really? Lenin had repeatedly noted that the USSR would be doomed if there were not a revolution in advanced nations to aid things:

Note: LCW stands for Lenin Collected Works


24th January 1918:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score� The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity� We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious." (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72.)

8th March 1918:

"The Congress considers the only reliable guarantee of the consolidation of the socialist revolution that has been victorious in Russia to be its conversion into a world working-class revolution." (LCW, from Resolution on War and Peace, Vol. 27. p. 119.)

23rd April 1918:

"We shall achieve final victory only when we succeed at last in conclusively smashing international imperialism, which relies on the tremendous strength of its equipment and discipline. But we shall achieve victory only together with all the workers of other countries, of the whole world�" (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 231.)

14th May 1918:

"To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air� It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries." (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 372-3.)

29th July 1918:

"We never harboured the illusion that the forces of the proletariat and the revolutionary people of any one country, however heroic and however organised and disciplined they might be, could overthrow international imperialism. That can be done only by the joint efforts of the workers of the world� We never deceived ourselves into thinking this could be done by the efforts of one country alone. We knew that our efforts were inevitably leading to a worldwide revolution, and that the war begun by the imperialist governments could not be stopped by the efforts of those governments themselves. It can be stopped only by the efforts of all workers; and when we came to power, our task � was to retain that power, that torch of socialism, so that it might scatter as many sparks as possible to add to the growing flames of socialist revolution." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 24-5.)

8th November 1918:

"From the very beginning of the October Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main question facing us. Not merely because from now on all the states of the world are being firmly linked by imperialism into one, dirty, bloody mass, but because the complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia� We have never been so near to world proletarian revolution as we are now. We have proved we were not mistaken in banking on world proletarian revolution� Even if they crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add fuel to the flames that will consume them all." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 151-64.)

20th November 1918:

"The transformation of our Russian Revolution into a socialist revolution was not a dubious venture but a necessity, for there was no other alternative: Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably destroy the independence and freedom of Russia if the world socialist revolution, world Bolshevism, does not triumph." (LCW, Vol. 28, p. 188.)

15th March 1919:

"Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective - the overthrow of capitalism - has been achieved. We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task in to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states." (LCW, Vol. 29, pp. 151-64.)

5th December 1919:

"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army� We always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." (LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8.)

20th November 1920:

"The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means." (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 431.)

End of February 1922:

"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions� And there is absolutely nothing terrible � in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)

-Cited in Ted Grant's Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution


There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable -- without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.

What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital -- for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.

This seems to contradict itself, in that he first said that socialism could be achieved without the West, and yet later on, he says that the West is needed for socalism. We then also have a major fact that is a problem for Stalinists: Stalinism in practice . It was totally against socialism, it contributed to the rise of Fascism in Spain and Germany, it killed many Bolsheviks, etc.

[Intelligitimate]

Here comes the British Trot...


And yet no Stalinist society has ever done as such. In fact, unless the Stalinists are taken down by an actual socialist revolution, they later sell out to capitalism in order to further consolidate their priveleges.

More Trot stupidity. To Trots like this, people who explicitly denounce Stalin and socialism are Stalinists, like Yeltsin. Even other Trots are Stalinists, if they don't support the idea of “State Capitalism” or “Bureaucratic Collectivism” or “Deformed Worker's State” or whatever other idea they made up to express their hatred of the USSR and every other socialist state.


And if the Stalinists were so for socialism, why were they encouraging the growth of the priveleged members of the CPSU?

Provide any proof Stalin had anything to do with the rise of the Nomenklatura.


And why did they kill off the Bolshevik Committee, wage war on Marxism with the Moscow frame-up trials?

The Rightists had explicitly declared their desire to overthrow the government in the Riutin Platform, and the other elements were also doing this, with Trotsky's knowledge. It was proven with the opening of the Trotsky Papers in 1982. We known Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission about not being involved with the opposition.

To quote something I wrote awhile back:


Originally posted by Intelligitmate
After Trotsky’s exile in 1929, Trotsky maintained contact with his son in the USSR until 1938 (when he was shot). These communications are known as the “Exile Correspondence” sections in the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, opened in January 1980. Trotsky lied about having contact with former followers in the USSR in his Biulleten’ oppozitsii and to the Dewey Commission, which was setup to defend Trotsky of charges against him made in the show trials.

In 1932, he sent letters to former oppositionists Radek, Sokolnikov, Preobrazhenskii, and others. These letters were removed from Trotsky’s papers by someone, but they forgot to remove the certified-mail receipts signed by Trotsky’s secretaries. In October that same year, E. S. Gol’tsman met Sedov in Berlin and gave him some internal memorandum regarding the Soviet economy. He also brought Sedov a proposal from Left Oppositionists to form a united bloc consisting of Trotskyists, Zinovievists, members of the Lominadze group, and others. The proposal came from Ivan Smirnov.

Sedov wrote back to Trotsky, who wrote “The proposition of the bloc seems to me completely acceptable,” but “it is a question of a bloc, not a merger.” “How will the bloc manifest itself? For the moment, mainly through exchanging information. Our allies will keep us up to date on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Comintern.” Trotsky also stipulated that the opposition should sent materials to be published in Biulleten', and that capitulationists should be excluded from the bloc. Smirnov proposed that Rightists should be allowed into the bloc, which Trotsky rejected: “The allies’ opinion that one must wait until the rights can easily join does not have my approval.”

The bloc was disrupted by the arrest of Zinoviev, Smirnov, and Kamenev, but Sedov didn’t think they had found anything on them regarding the bloc (they were arrested for other matters).

This block didn’t come out till 1936, during Ezhov’s participation with the NKVD. Stalin was suspicious of the late discovery of this bloc. Yagoda’s sympathy for the defeated oppositionists was documented by Serdiuk to the Twenty-Second Congress in 1961 (Pravda, Oct. 31, 1961). But perhaps Yagoda just discovered it in 1936.

Interestingly enough, during the trial when Bukharin and Mikhail Tomskii’s names were mentioned, Tomskii committed suicide the next day...

Getty: Origin of the Great Purges, pages 119-128.


Why did they make genuine Leninism (Trotskyism) the chief enemy?

Trotskyism is not Leninism.


Why did Lenin call for Stalin's removal in his "Last Testament?"

Lenin's accusations against the rest of the party were much, much more serious than what he initially said about Stalin. Even after Stalin was rude to his wife for going against the doctors' orders and the post-script added, it still doesn't add up to his devastating criticism of Trotsky (non-Bolshevic past), Buhkarin (not fully Marxist theoretician), Kamenev and Zinoviev (informed the bourgeois press about the insurrection). Stalin comes off smelling like roses compared to them in that document.

And in any case, Stalin offered his resignation at the very next Party Congress, the 13th Congress. Everyone, including Trotsky, refused his resignation.


Really? Lenin had repeatedly noted that the USSR would be doomed if there were not a revolution in advanced nations to aid things:

Again, as the quoted conclusion shows, Stalin also acknowledged there would be no guarantee that capitalism would not be restored if there was not a revolution in the West. What the fuck would you have done in Stalin's place? Sit on your ass and do nothing? Make life easy for the capitalists?


This seems to contradict itself, in that he first said that socialism could be achieved without the West, and yet later on, he says that the West is needed for socalism.

There is no contradiction, you just have poor reading comprehension skills.


We then also have a major fact that is a problem for Stalinists: Stalinism in practice . It was totally against socialism, it contributed to the rise of Fascism in Spain and Germany, it killed many Bolsheviks, etc.

More bullshit Trot lies. The fucking worthless Trots in the POUM were outright collaborating with the Nazis in the Barcelona Uprising in 1937. We know this from the memoirs of Sudoplatov, who account corroborates the Nazi trial transcripts of members of the Red Orchestra.

[vyborg]

comrade intelligitimate, maybe u were sleeping for the last 50 years. but i must update u. Kruscev made a congress in 1956, the XX congress, of the PCUS. after it, the santification of Stalin is a bit old fashioned.

and by the way, Ussr no more exists. how can be, if it was a socialist economy?

stalinism stands to socialism as a lager compares to a flowered garden

[Intelligitimate]

Truth doesn't go out of fashion, vyborg.


and by the way, Ussr no more exists. how can be, if it was a socialist economy?

What a retarded thing to ask.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:58 PM
One of my biggest question about socialism is whether it can be built in one country as Stalin claimed??
When a socialist revolution takes place, the first thing that we will observe is an economic isolation and if possible, an armed intervention.

It depends on the country.

-The infrastructure of the country (in order to survive the isolation)
-The Country's GDP per capita (the wealth of the country)
-The Armed forces (Defence against Imperialism, if they have nuclear power it wont be a problem)

I believe socialism can exist for a short period of time in the advanced industrialized countries (France, UK, Germany), for a period of time let's say... 50 years the most.

But in the long run they wont last. They wont last because of the limited market, which would lead to an economic stagnation and eventually it will drop like lead off to the rest of the world's competitive markets.

This is one of the main reasons why USSR collapsed, although I did not considered it a Socialist state in a Marxist sense.

You thus see that there are practical reasons why we communists advocate Internationalism, except egalitarianism and disinclination towards nationalism.

It is neither an issue of choosing between Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin proclaimed 'Socialism in one Country' because he had no other option really, Soviet Union was too weak for War Communism as Trotsky suggested and as a matter of fact Trotsky himself would never pursue this goal, due to the lack of the material conditions for such a war. It is quite an irony but the annexation of the Baltic States and Poland resembled 'War Communism'.

I am a firm believer that revolutions should occur everywhere if we are to have Socialism but I am fundamentally against enforcing communism to people who are against it because like this, Socialism will never work. Without the will of the majority we cannot build a Socialist society.

Bottom line, my belief is that if a Socialist revolution occurs in the 10 most powerful countries, then it would be a matter of time for the rest of the capitalist world to fall, not because we will invade them or such but because of the economic isolation.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's obvious that socialism, in one form or another, is most definitely attainable within one nation alone.

The question really should be is that society maintainable or to go even further, do we really want to maintain such a society considering historical events within such societies.

Let's face the facts, the track record for "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is a pretty grim one. There may be periods of time, sometimes lasting decades, where socialism seems to provide a "better life" to the people capitalistic encroachment and all however what is left is nothing more than a shattered image of socialism propped up on the decaying corpses of lost gods.

It's painfully clear that in the case of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Marx was wrong.

[Janus]

It's painfully clear that in the case of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Marx was wrong.
But the fact is that we've never had a true DoP except for the Paris Commune.

History hasn't shown that it was wrong but that due to hierarchical organization and the concentration of power due to material conditions, power is quickly transferred to an elite, bureaucracy rather than the people. It is this form of transition that has proven to be a failure and not the kind that Marx envisioned.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
But the fact is that we've never had a true DoP except for the Paris Commune.

That is a matter of opinion; one I personally disagree with in accordance with historcal fact.


History hasn't shown that it was wrong but that due to hierarchical organization and the concentration of power due to material conditions, power is quickly transferred to an elite, bureaucracy rather than the people. It is this form of transition that has proven to be a failure and not the kind that Marx envisioned.

I won't be so bold as to speculate on what Marx "envisioned" (that debate has been going on for generations with no end in sight). I'll stick with what history has shown us; and that is that the dictatorship of the proletariat theory will not lead us into Communism.

[Janus]

That is a matter of opinion; one I personally disagree with in accordance with historcal fact.
Not really, though some states may have stated that they were a DoP such as the USSR, it was more or less a dictatorship of the new ruling class.


I won't be so bold as to speculate on what Marx "envisioned" (that debate has been going on for generations with no end in sight).
True but his concrete thoughts on the DoP were stated in his commentaries on the Paris Commune.


I'll stick with what history has shown us; and that is that the dictatorship of the proletariat theory will not lead us into Communism.
Like I said, a centralized bureaucracy will not lead us to communism. The Leninist "spin" of the DoP will not lead us there.

Marx explicitly praised how the aspect of the Paris Commune "state" was visibly shrinking. This was one thing that was definitely not occuring in the socialist states of the past or present.

I think this is one of the biggest criticisms of transition stage that anarchists have: the incessant failure of it as applied by different nations. I believe it is something that we need to work out if we want to "get it right". But when the revoluton comes, it must be the masses themselves who will decide on what path they want to take and not a small minority.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why do we really care about Stalin in this debate when the Soviet Union was far from socialist under his rule?

[Axel1917]

Here comes the British Trot...

Actually, I live in the USA.


More Trot stupidity. To Trots like this, people who explicitly denounce Stalin and socialism are Stalinists, like Yeltsin. Even other Trots are Stalinists, if they don't support the idea of “State Capitalism” or “Bureaucratic Collectivism” or “Deformed Worker's State” or whatever other idea they made up to express their hatred of the USSR and every other socialist state.

I don't think it is any coincidence that many wealthy Russians happen to be former CPSU members. The fact is that Trotsky's 1936 prediction about the collapse of the USSR in the absence of a socialist revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy came 100% true, confirmed in 1991.


Provide any proof Stalin had anything to do with the rise of the Nomenklatura.

And if what you say was true, Stalin would have gone purge-crazy against those partaking in such priveleges to stop them. This is all common knowledge.


The Rightists had explicitly declared their desire to overthrow the government in the Riutin Platform, and the other elements were also doing this, with Trotsky's knowledge. It was proven with the opening of the Trotsky Papers in 1982. We known Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission about not being involved with the opposition.

Really? The Stalin lie machine cannot be stated to be a credible source. If Trotsky were really some kind of capitalist agent, then why was he doing his best to organize the Red Army and play a leading role in the Russian Civil War?


Originally posted by Intelligitmate
After Trotsky’s exile in 1929, Trotsky maintained contact with his son in the USSR until 1938 (when he was shot). These communications are known as the “Exile Correspondence” sections in the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, opened in January 1980. Trotsky lied about having contact with former followers in the USSR in his Biulleten’ oppozitsii and to the Dewey Commission, which was setup to defend Trotsky of charges against him made in the show trials.

In 1932, he sent letters to former oppositionists Radek, Sokolnikov, Preobrazhenskii, and others. These letters were removed from Trotsky’s papers by someone, but they forgot to remove the certified-mail receipts signed by Trotsky’s secretaries. In October that same year, E. S. Gol’tsman met Sedov in Berlin and gave him some internal memorandum regarding the Soviet economy. He also brought Sedov a proposal from Left Oppositionists to form a united bloc consisting of Trotskyists, Zinovievists, members of the Lominadze group, and others. The proposal came from Ivan Smirnov.

Sedov wrote back to Trotsky, who wrote “The proposition of the bloc seems to me completely acceptable,” but “it is a question of a bloc, not a merger.” “How will the bloc manifest itself? For the moment, mainly through exchanging information. Our allies will keep us up to date on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Comintern.” Trotsky also stipulated that the opposition should sent materials to be published in Biulleten', and that capitulationists should be excluded from the bloc. Smirnov proposed that Rightists should be allowed into the bloc, which Trotsky rejected: “The allies’ opinion that one must wait until the rights can easily join does not have my approval.”

The bloc was disrupted by the arrest of Zinoviev, Smirnov, and Kamenev, but Sedov didn’t think they had found anything on them regarding the bloc (they were arrested for other matters).

This block didn’t come out till 1936, during Ezhov’s participation with the NKVD. Stalin was suspicious of the late discovery of this bloc. Yagoda’s sympathy for the defeated oppositionists was documented by Serdiuk to the Twenty-Second Congress in 1961 (Pravda, Oct. 31, 1961). But perhaps Yagoda just discovered it in 1936.

Interestingly enough, during the trial when Bukharin and Mikhail Tomskii’s names were mentioned, Tomskii committed suicide the next day...

, pages 119-128.

I am sure that the Dewey Commission would have been able to prove these lies if they really happened as you assert. And why is this little "fact" not pointed out by marxists.org or anyone else?


Trotskyism is not Leninism.

Pure nonsense. Anyone who bothers actually reading up deeply into what Marx, Engels, and Lenin thought in addition to Trotsky's works, they would know what I am talking about.


Lenin's accusations against the rest of the party were much, much more serious than what he initially said about Stalin. Even after Stalin was rude to his wife for going against the doctors' orders and the post-script added, it still doesn't add up to his devastating criticism of Trotsky (non-Bolshevic past), Buhkarin (not fully Marxist theoretician), Kamenev and Zinoviev (informed the bourgeois press about the insurrection). Stalin comes off smelling like roses compared to them in that document.

Really? I don't recall him asking to remove Trotsky. Trotsky had corrected his mistakes in the past, and if he were really so bad, then why was he not removed by Lenin?


And in any case, Stalin offered his resignation at the very next Party Congress, the 13th Congress. Everyone, including Trotsky, refused his resignation.

Proof?


Again, as the quoted conclusion shows, Stalin also acknowledged there would be no guarantee that capitalism would not be restored if there was not a revolution in the West. What the fuck would you have done in Stalin's place? Sit on your ass and do nothing? Make life easy for the capitalists?

And what did that two-stage crap he adopted from the Mensheviks do? Destroy revolutions. And why did he do nothing to stop Hitler from coming to power? The truth is that Stalin feared revolution like the plague, knowing one that would devlop healthily would spread to the USSR and end his rule. Socialism in one country and internataionlism are opposed to each other.

I would have never been in Stalin's place because I am not a bureaucracy-loving anti-Marxist.


This seems to contradict itself, in that he first said that socialism could be achieved without the West, and yet later on, he says that the West is needed for socalism.


There is no contradiction, you just have poor reading comprehension skills.

Right... He even altered his Foundations of Leninism after Lenin's death to oppose internationalism and go on consolidating priveleges.


More bullshit Trot lies. The fucking worthless Trots in the POUM were outright collaborating with the Nazis in the Barcelona Uprising in 1937.

Baseless lies. And who was the one who signed a pact with Hitler? STALIN Who labelled those that actually opposed Hitler as "social Fascists" while doing nothing to stop Hitler. STALIN[b/]


[b]We know this from the memoirs of Sudoplatov, who account corroborates the Nazi trial transcripts of members of the Red Orchestra.

Really? It was the Stalinists in the popular front that did nothing while the military was undisturbed and put into Franco's hands. It was the Popular Front that did nothing to appeal to the Moors, while Franco had managed to gain their support.

[Intelligitimate]

don't think it is any coincidence that many wealthy Russians happen to be former CPSU members. The fact is that Trotsky's 1936 prediction about the collapse of the USSR in the absence of a socialist revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy came 100% true, confirmed in 1991.

Again this Trot shows his use of the term “Stalinist” is meaningless, because he refers to the CPSU leadership after Stalin as “Stalinist.” You can hate Stalin with a passion and still be a “Stalinist.” It is a meaningless term, devoid of any content.


And if what you say was true, Stalin would have gone purge-crazy against those partaking in such priveleges to stop them. This is all common knowledge.'

Here the Trot gives no evidence, because he has none.


Really? The Stalin lie machine cannot be stated to be a credible source.

Here the Trot demonstrates his poor reading comprehension skills again, because I cited the Trotsky Papers as proof. Or maybe this Trot thinks Trotsky is part of the “Stalinist lie machine.”


If Trotsky were really some kind of capitalist agent, then why was he doing his best to organize the Red Army and play a leading role in the Russian Civil War?

Here the Trot brings up meaningless crap no one ever said.


I am sure that the Dewey Commission would have been able to prove these lies if they really happened as you assert. And why is this little "fact" not pointed out by marxists.org or anyone else?

Here the Trot demonstrates yet again his lack of reading comprehension skills. Again, it is Trotsky's own papers that demonstrate he lied to the Dewey Commission. Nor does marxists.org contain everything Trotsky ever wrote. For instance, you won't find Trotsky saying he never believed Tukhachevsky was a real communist on marxists.org. Nor will you find all his personal correspondences on that site. For that, you will have to make a trip to Harvard, to look at the contents of the Trotsky Papers.


Pure nonsense. Anyone who bothers actually reading up deeply into what Marx, Engels, and Lenin thought in addition to Trotsky's works, they would know what I am talking about.

I suggest people read what Lenin said about Trotsky before 1917, to see what Lenin thought of him.


Really? I don't recall him asking to remove Trotsky. Trotsky had corrected his mistakes in the past, and if he were really so bad, then why was he not removed by Lenin?

Lenin said nothing negative about Stalin initially. Only after Stalin was rude to his wife, did Lenin add the postscript. Lenin was ill, and he was under doctor's orders not to get involved with politics, and Stalin yelled at his wife for helping Lenin to violate those doctor's orders. Even in the postscript, he only says Stalin is “too rude.” This, compared to Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past.


Proof?

Look it up your damn self. It is common knowledge to anyone that actually studies the history of the period.


And what did that two-stage crap he adopted from the Mensheviks do? Destroy revolutions. And why did he do nothing to stop Hitler from coming to power? The truth is that Stalin feared revolution like the plague, knowing one that would devlop healthily would spread to the USSR and end his rule. Socialism in one country and internataionlism are opposed to each other.

More worthless Trot lies. Notice how the Trot also refused to answer the question about what he would have done instead.


Baseless lies.

The proof is where I said it is. It isn't anything strange either, Trots have a history of allying themselves with the imperialists. Just look at the Shachtmanites.


And who was the one who signed a pact with Hitler?

A non-aggression pact, to bid time for the Soviet war machine, when the rest of the Western powers refused to ally with the USSR against Hitler.


STALIN Who labelled those that actually opposed Hitler as "social Fascists" while doing nothing to stop Hitler.

Stalin was completely correct about the Social Democrats. Only a fucking moron could look at their behavior and conclude anything else.


Really? It was the Stalinists in the popular front that did nothing while the military was undisturbed and put into Franco's hands. It was the Popular Front that did nothing to appeal to the Moors, while Franco had managed to gain their support.

It was the Trots cooperating with the Nazis. It was the USSR selling weapons to the Spanish Republic and organizing the International Brigade against the fascists.

[vyborg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:05 PM
Truth doesn't go out of fashion, vyborg.


and by the way, Ussr no more exists. how can be, if it was a socialist economy?

What a retarded thing to ask.
for example that trotsky was an allied of the nazi...
it is not sufficient to repeat a stupid nonsense for this to come true. by the way 70 years are passed and not a single evidence came to the fore.

as for the ussr, if it was a socialist country, why it collapsed? alien from mars? misfortune? stalinist bureacracy strangling the country? try to reply to this question that is decisive, then u can go back to say any silliness u like about trotsky

[Intelligitimate]

A good book on the subject is Kotz and Weir's Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System. I believe Comrade Marcel described a similar book that I need to look into.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
Not really, though some states may have stated that they were a DoP such as the USSR, it was more or less a dictatorship of the new ruling class.


Which by it's own right is in accordance with Marxist theory:

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." - K. Marx, F. Engels


True but his concrete thoughts on the DoP were stated in his commentaries on the Paris Commune.

It appears that his "concrete thoughts" were stated well before, yet the debate "rages forth".


Marx explicitly praised how the aspect of the Paris Commune "state" was visibly shrinking.


Shrinking right back into capitalism....

[Janus]

Which by it's own right is in accordance with Marxist theory
My mistake, I meant a ruling elite rather than class. That is what the Leninist "spin" of it has made the DoP synonymous with.


Shrinking right back into capitalism....
How can a "state" shrink back into capitalism? :blink:

Marx heralded the ultra-democratic methods of very short-term elected people, mass participation in decision-making, and the seeds for the developments of councils.

I don't see how you could consider that going back to capitalism.

[Axel1917]

Again this Trot shows his use of the term “Stalinist” is meaningless, because he refers to the CPSU leadership after Stalin as “Stalinist.” You can hate Stalin with a passion and still be a “Stalinist.” It is a meaningless term, devoid of any content.

It was the same bureaucratic, totalitarian system. Still Stalinist. Lots of proven theory to back this up.


Here the Trot gives no evidence, because he has none.

This is common knowledge. My basic logic also tears your argument; if what you say is true, then why did Stalin do nothing to stop it?


Here the Trot demonstrates his poor reading comprehension skills again, because I cited the Trotsky Papers as proof. Or maybe this Trot thinks Trotsky is part of the “Stalinist lie machine.”

I will have to see those Harvard archives for myself, instead of trusting somone like you with no credibility at all.


Here the Trot brings up meaningless crap no one ever said.

I have seen numerous Stalinists that claimed that he was some kind of capitalist agent. The Stalinists claimed that Trotsky was conducting terroristic attacks in the USSR to restore capitalism.


Here the Trot demonstrates yet again his lack of reading comprehension skills. Again, it is Trotsky's own papers that demonstrate he lied to the Dewey Commission.

Let's see them then instead of reding from someone basically saying "they show he lied."\ You Stalinists have a long reputation of lying through your teeth and making things up, so I don't see a reason to take your word for it, and I am sure that a good deal of the forum feels the same way.


Nor does marxists.org contain everything Trotsky ever wrote. For instance, you won't find Trotsky saying he never believed Tukhachevsky was a real communist on marxists.org. Nor will you find all his personal correspondences on that site. For that, you will have to make a trip to Harvard, to look at the contents of the Trotsky Papers.

Have you seen these papers that "prove" him to be a liar, or are you just taking someone's word for it. I don't have the money to just fly down to Harvard when I want to read that stuff.


I suggest people read what Lenin said about Trotsky before 1917, to see what Lenin thought of him.

And I suggest people read what he thought about him after 1917 to get the truth, in addition to how Lenin at that point was not opposed to Permanent Revolution (he even adapted it into his April Theses) or any such things. Stalinist have a history on ripping on pre-1917 things and ingoring later things that showed the differences were largely disappearing.


Lenin said nothing negative about Stalin initially. Only after Stalin was rude to his wife, did Lenin add the postscript. Lenin was ill, and he was under doctor's orders not to get involved with politics, and Stalin yelled at his wife for helping Lenin to violate those doctor's orders. Even in the postscript, he only says Stalin is “too rude.” This, compared to Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past.

And again, he never implied a negative thing as removal for Trotsky, now did he? This rudeness evolved into extreme disoloyalty and becoming the head of an anti-Marxist bureaucracy that destroyed workers' democracy and eventually sold out to capitalism, bringing back all of the "old crap" into Russia.


Look it up your damn self. It is common knowledge to anyone that actually studies the history of the period.

Its common knowledge that Stalinists are falsifiers, have a history of totalitarianism, destroying revolutions, etc.


More worthless Trot lies. Notice how the Trot also refused to answer the question about what he would have done instead.

Anyone who reads up on the Spanish Revolution and other such objects will find me to be telling the truth. I could not have been in Stalin's place, for I would be supporting Trotsky. I would have been assassinated and/or exiled.


The proof is where I said it is. It isn't anything strange either, Trots have a history of allying themselves with the imperialists. Just look at the Shachtmanites.

Never mind that Trotsky played a key role in defeating the imperalists, unlike Stalin, whose purges caused a lot of losses at the hands of the Nazis. You spew out more lies.


A non-aggression pact, to bid time for the Soviet war machine, when the rest of the Western powers refused to ally with the USSR against Hitler.

Hitler had no intention of obeying it. He had announced plans for attacking Russia in Mein Kampf. Signing pacts that won't work are "fighting Fascism," when actually fighting Fascism is being a "social Fascist." Nonsense.


Stalin was completely correct about the Social Democrats. Only a fucking moron could look at their behavior and conclude anything else.

Everyone knows what those traitors did. It was seen back in Lenin's days. Stalin labelled many that were actually fighting the Fascists as some kind of Fascist agent, particularly Trotsky.


It was the Trots cooperating with the Nazis.

Baseless assertion.


It was the USSR selling weapons to the Spanish Republic and organizing the International Brigade against the fascists.

They did nothing to stop Franco while he was gaining support amongst the military and Moors. When the P.O.U.M. attempted to do other things than the Stalinists wanted, they poured all kinds of slander on it, baselessly accusing it of being in Franco's pay.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
How can a "state" shrink back into capitalism? blink.gif

Marx heralded the ultra-democratic methods of very short-term elected people, mass participation in decision-making, and the seeds for the developments of councils.

I don't see how you could consider that going back to capitalism.


It's what's referred to as a "sarcastic quip" based on the fact that the Paris Commune didn't last long.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The class with the most economic power controls the outcome of the world economy. Unless one socialist country can overpower the rest of the world, socialism cannot be built in one country. I also think socialism is idealist hogwash, but I still believe in a permanent revolution - just an anarchist one.

[Janus]

It's what's referred to as a "sarcastic quip" based on the fact that the Paris Commune didn't last long.
Yes, but that is what happens when the revolution is only an isolated event rather than a true class revolt.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:47 PM

Yes, but that is what happens when the revolution is only an isolated event rather than a true class revolt.
I must have lost you somwhere along the way because that was my original point.

Socialism can, and has, been built in one country but it is not sustainable.

[Janus]

I must have lost you somwhere along the way because that was my original point.

Socialism can, and has, been built in one country but it is not sustainable.
No, your original point was that the DoP, in Marx's def., has failed. I was trying to point out that it was the Leninist "spin" of it that has caused the failures which we see today.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Iceberg Slim+Aug 12 2006, 07:52 PM--> (Iceberg Slim @ Aug 12 2006, 07:52 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 12:47 PM

Yes, but that is what happens when the revolution is only an isolated event rather than a true class revolt.
I must have lost you somwhere along the way because that was my original point.

Socialism can, and has, been built in one country but it is not sustainable. [/b]
I see you're still carrying residue from your Stalinist past.

How was the USSR ever Socialist when not even Stalin himself said Socialism had been built there? I believe Mao referred to China as having built Socialism, but that's just ridiculous, China wasn't even industrialized.

The Stalinist version of Socialism has never been built anywhere, and many Orthodox Stalinists (Hoxhaists) use that as an argument for the rise of "Kruschevite revisionism" and the failure of the Stalinist states to prevent it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think we should have learned this by now. socialism cannot stand on it's on and be successful. third world socialist nations need first world support. Believe it or not, many, many countries are utterly dependent on trade of resources for survival. In the 20th century, the USSR acted like the first world country for vietnam, cuba, hungary, poland, and all the other little states. When it crumbled so did all the little countries. Only cuba can claim to be sort of socialist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by M-L
I see you're still carrying residue from your Stalinist past.

How was the USSR ever Socialist when not even Stalin himself said Socialism had been built there? I believe Mao referred to China as having built Socialism, but that's just ridiculous, China wasn't even industrialized.

The Stalinist version of Socialism has never been built anywhere, and many Orthodox Stalinists (Hoxhaists) use that as an argument for the rise of "Kruschevite revisionism" and the failure of the Stalinist states to prevent it.

Who says I was even referring to pre-1953 Soviet Union? Not that it ain't a good example; it just wasn't the line I was laying down for you.

There have been many examples of Socialism over the years, none of which operates under the Socialist model any longer.

I can care less about "who" should be held responsible for its decline after it's already dead as long as we learn from their mistakes.

P.S.

Nice try with the "Stalinist" crapola but sorry homes, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Iceberg [email protected] 15 2006, 10:29 PM
There have been many examples of Socialism over the years, none of which operates under the Socialist model any longer.
Name one example of a Socialist nation, i.e., a nation which had reached the first phase of Communism.

[Rawthentic]

I agree Marxism-Leninism, there have been conscious attempts of socialism (Spain, Hungary, Italy, Russia) but were all defeated by the authoritarian elements. Socialism in its simplest form is a worker controlled economy, and that just hasnt happened.

[ZX3]

Why should people be surprised when socialism has devolved into authoritarianism and tyranny, when its proponents speak approvingly of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proleteriat?" What should one possibly expect the result to be?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Dictatorship of the proletariat = control of society by the workers, as opposed to capitalism, which is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or control of society by the capitalist class.

You should really try to look things up, at least the meanings of words, before you criticize them or make idiotic posts like the one above.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 17 2006, 02:18 AM
Dictatorship of the proletariat = control of society by the workers, as opposed to capitalism, which is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or control of society by the capitalist class.

You should really try to look things up, at least the meanings of words, before you criticize them or make idiotic posts like the one above.
I am aware of what the terms mean. The workers dictate the terms and conditions of society. I wondered about people who spoke about the devoluton of socialism into tyranny and why one should be puzzled when the basis, the demand, is that one class dictates to the rest (and I will ignore the clashes within socialism as to which is the best manner to do so).

[combat]

The main point here is that the stalinist bureaucraty has done everything possible to prevent another victorious revolution worlwide. For example they pushed the PCC to align with Tchang Kai Tcheck which resulted in the bloody repression in Changai in 1927, they forced the CPs to form popular front with social democratic and bourgeois parties, killed the POUM leadership and committed so many other betrayals.