The Counter-Revolutionary Party-Dictatorships [Archive]

Labor Shall Rule

28th August 2006, 10:23

Originally posted by Nemo [email protected] 28 2006, 12:39 AM
Read the following analysis of the bolshevik party's road to party dictatorship and counter-revolution against the soviet democracy which culminated in March 1921 when the Kronstadt soviet was crushed as it declared struggle for revolutionary democracy in the soviets (councils).

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/s...1/bolintro.html (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html)

Nemo Etomer
* My Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/youcreatedcosmos/news.html)
I fail to understand why anarchists ignore the current conditions within Russia at that time. Rosa Luxemburg even stated, a ultra-leftist opponent of Leninism, that the cotinuation of worker's control and soviet democracy would be destructive to the revolutionary effort during the Civil War. Russian civillization was about to be wiped off the face of the earth by a economic blockade, a brutal Civil War intiated by the White Army, the post-WW1 economic troubles that had already destroyed Russia, the famine in urban centers that started in the late months of 1916, the terrorist tactics of some anarchists and the non-proletarian capitalist parties of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, and the intervention of 14 industrialized countries into Russia. They critique Lenin's War Communism, in which grain was seized by the Boshleviks that started a famine in Ukraine, but then they ignore the fact that if the famine continued on in urban centers, the economy and state would fall, chaos would insue, it would likely spread to rural areas, and 50 million Russians would most likely die instead of 2 million Russians. They critique NEP, but they ignore the fact that Russia was literally going to die off the face of the globe unless foreign capital flew into Russia and economic productivity was encouraged. They honestly come to the strange opinion of "power corrupts" and that Lenin and the Boshleviks were "power hungry intellectuals that did mean things for no reason".

The only counter-revolutionaries were the anarchists that broke away from the Soviet system when they (the workers of Russia), chose to popularly support the Boshleviks shortly before the October Revolution. The anarchists immediately started fights with other soviets and worker millitias while limiting the goods produced within their workplaces to that of themselves. Soviet Democracy elected Lenin, and yes, even Stalin into the Central Committee. It is sad that anarchists completely ignore that.

chebol

28th August 2006, 11:27

Red Dali, don't mind Nemo, he's an "ex"-raelian, quasi-council-communist, troll who has been irritating the bejesus out of people on the GreenLeftDiscussion yahoo group for some time now.

It's actually not worth even trying to convince him of anything (it's not often that I say this, btw). I'm not quite sure how he found RL (actually, I'm surprised he hasn't found it earlier), but in terms of constructive debate, this isn't it...

rouchambeau

1st September 2006, 18:49

What a silly, silly thing to debate. It's all over and done with.

The Grey Blur

1st September 2006, 23:50

rebelworker

9th September 2006, 20:38

The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process.

The Workers oposition within the Bolshevik party, lead by the steelworkers union, realised this too late.

Sure the bolsheviks won the civil war, but they abandoned the revolution.

Dont call what you support communism, cause its not.

Socialism of some sort, mabey, state run capitalism or a radical precursor to Keynsinism, sure.

But not communism.

Its not about "the anarchists" or kronstadt, its about workers controll, and revolutionary transformation of class relations.

The Bolshevik Burocracy replaced one class of managers for another.

Mesijs

9th September 2006, 22:39

It's very childish to not go into the issue, but just set aside the point and insulting the poster. It's even disgusting, it shows you can't stand other's opinions and don't really want to debate.

So please go into the issue.

Labor Shall Rule

9th September 2006, 23:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:39 PM
The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process.

The Workers oposition within the Bolshevik party, lead by the steelworkers union, realised this too late.

Sure the bolsheviks won the civil war, but they abandoned the revolution.

Dont call what you support communism, cause its not.

Socialism of some sort, mabey, state run capitalism or a radical precursor to Keynsinism, sure.

But not communism.

Its not about "the anarchists" or kronstadt, its about workers controll, and revolutionary transformation of class relations.

The Bolshevik Burocracy replaced one class of managers for another.
"The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process."

Have you ever wondered why these worker councils were "eliminated"? The only argument that anarchists and left marxists have is that "Lenin was just a bad guy". Are you conscious of the material conditions within Russia at that current time? They were facing the economic hardships of the post-global conflict, the civil war, and the general chaos associated with times of revolutionary fervour. To top that off, a economic blockade of over 15 industrialized countries was halting the flow of valuable commodities, such as medical supplies, into Russia. The urban areas of the country was already experiencing famine by the beginning of 1917. Any logical individual would come to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks were no longer fighting for socialism in Russia, but rather for the survival of Russian society all together. You couldn't have a "shorter work day", or "the direct authority of the labourer to decide how much and how little to produce", because people were dying in the millions.

VRKrovin

18th September 2006, 19:14

Plain and simple: Kronstadt was an attempt at counter-revolution. No doubt about it. The kropotkinists refuse to acknowledge that. The kropotkinist-bakuninist counter-revolutionary movement actively fought AGAINST the Great October Socialist Revolution and they paid the price. Why are the kropotkinists of today so surprised and shocked?

Krovin

The Grey Blur

18th September 2006, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:40 PM
It's very childish to not go into the issue, but just set aside the point and insulting the poster. It's even disgusting, it shows you can't stand other's opinions and don't really want to debate.

So please go into the issue.
So even though this subject has been revisited countless times, arguments on both sides have been stated endlessly and nobody realy cares anyway you expect me to give an answer?

Sorry I prefer putting my energy into useful endeavours

Lenin's Law

27th September 2006, 20:25

Originally posted by RedDali+Sep 9 2006, 08:34 PM--> (RedDali @ Sep 9 2006, 08:34 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 05:39 PM
The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process.

The Workers oposition within the Bolshevik party, lead by the steelworkers union, realised this too late.

Sure the bolsheviks won the civil war, but they abandoned the revolution.

Dont call what you support communism, cause its not.

Socialism of some sort, mabey, state run capitalism or a radical precursor to Keynsinism, sure.

But not communism.

Its not about "the anarchists" or kronstadt, its about workers controll, and revolutionary transformation of class relations.

The Bolshevik Burocracy replaced one class of managers for another.
"The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process."

Have you ever wondered why these worker councils were "eliminated"? The only argument that anarchists and left marxists have is that "Lenin was just a bad guy". Are you conscious of the material conditions within Russia at that current time? They were facing the economic hardships of the post-global conflict, the civil war, and the general chaos associated with times of revolutionary fervour. To top that off, a economic blockade of over 15 industrialized countries was halting the flow of valuable commodities, such as medical supplies, into Russia. The urban areas of the country was already experiencing famine by the beginning of 1917. Any logical individual would come to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks were no longer fighting for socialism in Russia, but rather for the survival of Russian society all together. You couldn't have a "shorter work day", or "the direct authority of the labourer to decide how much and how little to produce", because people were dying in the millions. [/b]
Comrade,

Excellent Post! :hammer: :marx: :engles:

The Anarchists and utopians want to believe their fantasies while serious Marxists must live in the real world and respond to real world situations. The Soviets were in a deep crises as you make clear and extreme situations that threaten the entire security of the workers and the workers revolution must result in extreme responses. You can't have it any other way.

That being said, I do believe the Bolsheviks handled themselves about as peacefully as one could expect, given the circumstances.

Nemo Etomer

6th October 2006, 01:25

Maybe the leninists, trotskyists and stalinists can explain how workers power can be established by police and military oppression of the workers to be in charge themselves? The bolshevik party was not elected in autumn 1917 by the workers and popular councils to establish a party dictatorship above the same councils. When the party nevertheless did so was it done as the old regime did: by using police and military force to destroy the workers right to rule their own lives.

The bolshevik phrases were different from the bourgeois parties, but the anti-communist policy behind the mask was basicly the same with state capitalism and an elite to rule the produced surplus. The new bolshevik rulers believed strongly in their 'birthright' to set aside the political democracy for the working class masses simply because the bolshevik party as such was under complete control of a political bureaucracy which only could exist if workers power did not.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/memoir/RusRev/images/rr03.jpg

When the peasants organized themselves the party sent military units to force them to deliver instead of to open the petty bourgois market so food could get to the cities. The result of the forced and militarized system was terror and starvation while the bolshevik elite itself got all it needed in Smolny and Kreml.

The bolshevik party was from the very beginning aiming to replace the soviets, councils, with the commissaries. The party replaced the soviets and in the party itself was democratic principles replaced with appointment from above.

The way to deal with the problems in Russia was to hope and support workers in other countries. Even Lenin and Trotsky said that, with their lips, but in action they did the opposite in the 'own' country. In the beginning of 1920s was the bolshevik government establishing help to the capitalist regime in Germany, called the Rappallo treaty. They trained Chinese bourgeois military officers. Both the German and the Chinese bourgeoisie used this help against workers and revolutionaries.

Was Lenin and Trotsky bad guys? The question was raised by some supporter of party dictatorship as if class struggle can be explained with what was in the brain if some leaders. The struggle the bolshevik party faced was the same as the stalinist regime faced later in Cuba: who is going to rule. The working class masses or a parasitic and decadent elite wrapped in the flag of state capitalism and party dictatorship.

Anarchist? I am no anarchist even if a link was written to an anarchist site and an article how the bolshevik party established managers and one man rule in the factories and the working places.

*

Not to wonder why the new star is Hugo Chavez who hails the police states in Cuba and Iran, allied to other bourgeois states in Russia and China. Same crap also there.

Karl Marx:
"The workers have no fatherland. It is not possible to take from them something they don't have. Workers in all countries, unite."

* All power to democratic elected workers and popular councils, not to state apparatus and party elites.

Nemo Etomer

Comrade Marcel

6th October 2006, 04:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:28 AM
Red Dali, don't mind Nemo, he's an "ex"-raelian, quasi-council-communist, troll who has been irritating the bejesus out of people on the GreenLeftDiscussion yahoo group for some time now.

It's actually not worth even trying to convince him of anything (it's not often that I say this, btw). I'm not quite sure how he found RL (actually, I'm surprised he hasn't found it earlier), but in terms of constructive debate, this isn't it...
Oh, no! :P :D :lol:

chimx

6th October 2006, 07:07

Originally posted by RedDali+Sep 9 2006, 08:34 PM--> (RedDali @ Sep 9 2006, 08:34 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 05:39 PM
The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process.

The Workers oposition within the Bolshevik party, lead by the steelworkers union, realised this too late.

Sure the bolsheviks won the civil war, but they abandoned the revolution.

Dont call what you support communism, cause its not.

Socialism of some sort, mabey, state run capitalism or a radical precursor to Keynsinism, sure.

But not communism.

Its not about "the anarchists" or kronstadt, its about workers controll, and revolutionary transformation of class relations.

The Bolshevik Burocracy replaced one class of managers for another.
"The workers councils were the backbone of the revolutionary preoletariate, when these were eliminated, and side stepped by the Bolsheviks the working class was effectively taken out of the revolutionary process."

Have you ever wondered why these worker councils were "eliminated"? The only argument that anarchists and left marxists have is that "Lenin was just a bad guy". Are you conscious of the material conditions within Russia at that current time? They were facing the economic hardships of the post-global conflict, the civil war, and the general chaos associated with times of revolutionary fervour. To top that off, a economic blockade of over 15 industrialized countries was halting the flow of valuable commodities, such as medical supplies, into Russia. The urban areas of the country was already experiencing famine by the beginning of 1917. Any logical individual would come to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks were no longer fighting for socialism in Russia, but rather for the survival of Russian society all together. You couldn't have a "shorter work day", or "the direct authority of the labourer to decide how much and how little to produce", because people were dying in the millions. [/b]
and since the workers are not logical individuals, power had to be removed from the workers themselves and given to bureaucrats and politicos who were "logical" enough to do what was best for these (one can only assume) illogical proletarians.

this is typical anti-worker bolshevik garbage.

Labor Shall Rule

8th October 2006, 20:03

Well Chimx, what would you do if you were Lenin?

OneBrickOneVoice

8th October 2006, 21:40

I thought worker councils had control until 1931?

OneBrickOneVoice

8th October 2006, 21:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:04 PM
Well Chimx, what would you do if you were Lenin?
He would bring anachy and peace and let the capitalists and Nazis walk right in

Leo

8th October 2006, 22:06

I thought worker councils had control until 1931?

No, its 1919.

chimx

8th October 2006, 22:44

“Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, rushed onward rapidly from success to success, their stage effects outbid one another, men and things seem to be set in flaming brilliants, ecstasy is the prevailing spirit; but they are short-lived, they reach their climax speedily, then society relapses into a long fit of nervous reaction before it learns how to appropriate the fruits of its period of feverish excitement. Proletarian revolutions, on the contrary, such as those of the nineteenth century, criticize themselves constantly, continually interrupt themselves in their own course, come back to what seems to have been accomplished, in order to start ever anew, scorn with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and meannesses of their first attempts, seem to throw down their adversary only in order to enable him to draw fresh strength from the earth and again to rise up against them in more gigantic stature, constantly recoil in fear before the undefined monster magnitude of their own objects, until finally the situation is created which renders all retreat impossible, and the conditions themselves cry out Hic Rhodes, hoc salta.” -Karl Marx

I would allow workers to shape their own destiny, and not presume to know what is best for them.

Mesijs

8th October 2006, 22:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:04 PM
Well Chimx, what would you do if you were Lenin?
That question alone shows your whole missing of the point. It isn't about one person making decisions. It isn't about what Lenin would do. It's about what the workers want. It's even disgusting that one person had the power to crush true worker control.

OneBrickOneVoice

9th October 2006, 00:09

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 07:07 PM

I thought worker councils had control until 1931?

No, its 1919.
Do you have a source?

Leo

9th October 2006, 00:26

It is well known and well documented common knowledge. Look for the term "Wartime Communism", a policy which started in June 1918 and ended after the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion. Power taken with wartime communism was never given back to the working class, as NEP was a program helping the petty-bourgeoise.

War communism included the following policies:

1. All large factories to be controlled by the government.
2. Production planned and organized by the government.
3. Discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot.
4. Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto "non-working classes".
5. Bourgeois experts replaced factory soviets in the management of industry.
6. Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surpluses from peasants in excess of absolute minimum for centralized distribution among the remaining population.
7. Food and most commodities were rationed and distributed in a centralized way.
8. Private enterprise became illegal.
9. Military-like control of railroads was introduced.

(Bolds mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwar.htm

Also this book: The Economic Organization of War Communism 1918–1921 by Silvana Malle from Cambridge Cambridge Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies.

OneBrickOneVoice

9th October 2006, 02:00

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 09:27 PM
It is well known and well documented common knowledge. Look for the term "Wartime Communism", a policy which started in June 1918 and ended after the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion. Power taken with wartime communism was never given back to the working class, as NEP was a program helping the petty-bourgeoise.

War communism included the following policies:

1. All large factories to be controlled by the government.
2. Production planned and organized by the government.
3. Discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot.
4. Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto "non-working classes".
5. Bourgeois experts replaced factory soviets in the management of industry.
6. Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surpluses from peasants in excess of absolute minimum for centralized distribution among the remaining population.
7. Food and most commodities were rationed and distributed in a centralized way.
8. Private enterprise became illegal.
9. Military-like control of railroads was introduced.

(Bolds mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwar.htm

Also this book: The Economic Organization of War Communism 1918–1921 by Silvana Malle from Cambridge Cambridge Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies.
What would you have done in place of Lenin?

chimx

9th October 2006, 06:39

we already answered your question.

Leo

9th October 2006, 08:55

What would you have done in place of Lenin?

I would cry because the revolution had degenerated.

But, this is a shockingly stupid question. I say this is what Lenin did, and you try to defend him by saying he did not have another choice? Yes, probably he did not have another choice at that point, but does it matter? The practice of the Russian Revolution is not desirable today, because the point the practice started then came to modern Russian Federation. Can't the same arguement be made, and is made about Stalin?

"Stalin purged the entire Bolshevik Party?"
"Oh yeah? Those purged were opportunist counter-revolutionaries. What would you have done in place of Stalin?"

It's just a pitiful arguement to defend a cult.

YKTMX

10th October 2006, 04:08

1. All large factories to be controlled by the government.
2. Production planned and organized by the government.
3. Discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot.
4. Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto "non-working classes".
5. Bourgeois experts replaced factory soviets in the management of industry.
6. Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surpluses from peasants in excess of absolute minimum for centralized distribution among the remaining population.
7. Food and most commodities were rationed and distributed in a centralized way.
8. Private enterprise became illegal.
9. Military-like control of railroads was introduced.

This is meaningless and doesn't address the thing it purports to address.

If the question is "when did workers' control end", then simply stating the policies of the Soviet government in its conduct of the civil war is meaningless, for a few obvious reasons.

If hundreds of thousands of worker-communists are, as they were, fighting the fascist and imperialist armies out on the bleak Russian landscape to defend the revolution, I would expect, in fact I'd demand, very fucking harsh "discipline" from my brothers in industry. If such discipline, as sometimes it couldn't, can't be maintained by committment to the revolution, then force should be used?

What is the credible communist opposition to such a move? I can see why a liberal pacifist middle class urchin like Leo would oppose such a move - he opposes all violence (except, of course, Israeli violence).

But, for Marxists or people who like to pretend to be Marxists, the question is not about the "morals" of being harsh with strikers - it's about which class rules and in which class interests a state is run.

That's the issue and that should be the deciding factor. And don't argue about the nature of "strikes". If you're an engineering worker in Moscow and your strike means that the comrades on the front line don't have enough bullets or food, you are as bad a traitor as if you had shot him in the back.

Here's a question for anyone who's unsure about this point. How do you think strikers and socialists would have been dealt with if, say, General Wrangel decided how they were dealt with?

Joby

10th October 2006, 05:48

How do Marxist-Leninists defend the actions of the communists in Spain in the late 1930s--which is not unlike the actions taken by the Bolsheviks at Kronstadt?

In the massive social revolution, many areas of Catalonia especially, and many other provinces, were collectivized until the soviet-backed communists stopped this trend.

"The Spanish Revolution of 1936 began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War. Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy communist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. It has been estimated by Sam Dolgoff, author of the The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, that over 10 million people participated directly or at least indirectly in the Spanish Revolution. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers" ---wikipedia

You can read on in teh article and see how the communists pretty much gave the power back.

Are not the party members who seek to stop worker control in any way the true counterevolutionaries?

Leo

10th October 2006, 07:20

If the question is "when did workers' control end", then simply stating the policies of the Soviet government in its conduct of the civil war is meaningless, for a few obvious reasons.

Bourgeois experts replaced factory soviets in the management of industry. Power was never given back to workers again. So this is when workers control ended. Are you unable to read or unable to think too? Oh right, you are.

If hundreds of thousands of worker-communists are, as they were, fighting the fascist and imperialist armies out on the bleak Russian landscape to defend the revolution, I would expect, in fact I'd demand, very fucking harsh "discipline" from my brothers in industry. If such discipline, as sometimes it couldn't, can't be maintained by committment to the revolution, then force should be used?

Then why did this very fucking harsh "discipline" abandoned after the civil war?

What is the credible communist opposition to such a move? I can see why a liberal pacifist middle class urchin like Leo would oppose such a move - he opposes all violence (except, of course, Israeli violence).

I oppose all violence? Are you truly and idiot? I am against the bourgeis concepts of freedom of speech and democracy, which you Trots hold very high to look nice to liberals. No I am for violence towards the bourgeoise, you are for violence towards the working class, thats the difference. You are a reactionary petty-bourgeois left capitalist scum who doesn't give a fuck about the middle eastern working class because their national bourgeoise is fighting your enemies and completely destroying their ability to act as a class.

But, for Marxists or people who like to pretend to be Marxists, the question is not about the "morals" of being harsh with strikers - it's about which class rules and in which class interests a state is run.

Which wasn't the working class after the power was taken from them, because the ruling classes don't run a state in the interests of the working class just because they are nice.

That's the issue and that should be the deciding factor. And don't argue about the nature of "strikes". If you're an engineering worker in Moscow and your strike means that the comrades on the front line don't have enough bullets or food, you are as bad a traitor as if you had shot him in the back.

Yeah, and all who fought in the civil war were Bolsheviks, right? Now wait a minute...

Is this not the same shit arguement put up by Stalinists to defend the anti-working class nature of the practice? "Oh, opposing Stalin would be being a treason because USSR was in war" or "Oh the workers in Hungary 56 were traitors because USSR was having a cold war with US"... Treason to whom?

But hearing this arguement from you it isn't a suprise, really. You are no better than a tankie, you try to defend the cults you are attached to in any way you can, no matter how anti-working class it is.

YKTMX

10th October 2006, 16:12

Bourgeois experts replaced factory soviets in the management of industry. Power was never given back to workers again. So this is when workers control ended. Are you unable to read or unable to think too? Oh right, you are.

The factory "managers" were a neccessary backwards step because of the backwardness of the Russian working class and the terrible situation in industry during the civil war, when output shrank to a fraction of its previous size. It was as neccessary as assimiliating old Tsarist generals into the Red Army. If the civil war had been lost, all talk of "soviet power" would have been defunct, because all the members of the Russian soviets would have been hanged by the White Army.

So, once again, there's between your middle class phrasemongering and real struggle for actual workers' power and an actual workers' state, things about which I'm sure you know absolutely nothing.

Then why did this very fucking harsh "discipline" abandoned after the civil war?

You're slightly cretinous aren't you?

I said "harsh discipline is required to win the war" and you ask "why is harsh discipline abandoned after the war"?

Thick bastard.

Are you truly and idiot?

I am truly but I'm not idiot.

I am against the bourgeis concepts of freedom of speech and democracy

A precondition for your rampant Zionism, one would imagine.

No I am for violence towards the bourgeoise, you are for violence towards the working class, thats the difference.

I am for violence, in this situation, against anyone who aids, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, overtly or covertly, the cause of the counter-revolution.

I don't put weird arbitary limits on it.

You seem to be working under the illusion that no worker or group of workers would ever be punished in a workers' state. How bizarre. Or that a state that disciplines irresponsible strikers can't be a workers' state?

It's like saying America's not capitalist because it prosecutes the crooked capitalists at Enron :lol:

Moron.

You are a reactionary petty-bourgeois left capitalist scum who doesn't give a fuck about the middle eastern working class because their national bourgeoise is fighting your enemies and completely destroying their ability to act as a class.

The "Middle Eastern" working class despises everything you stand for, and rallies to the forces of anti-imperialism more strongly than ever. So, please, don't cry to me about it, just migrate to Israel and set up home in some god-forsaken settlement with the rest of the pondlife.

Your day will come, I'm sure.

Leo

10th October 2006, 21:45

The factory "managers" were a neccessary backwards step because of the backwardness of the Russian working class and the terrible situation in industry during the civil war, when output shrank to a fraction of its previous size. It was as neccessary as assimiliating old Tsarist generals into the Red Army. If the civil war had been lost, all talk of "soviet power" would have been defunct

All talk of "soviet power" was defunct.

So, once again, there's between your middle class phrasemongering and real struggle for actual workers' power and an actual workers' state

It wasn't a workers state.

You seem to be working under the illusion that no worker or group of workers would ever be punished in a workers' state.

No, I am "under the illusion" that workers will kill capitalists with by using the workers' state. Not killing each other for capitalist bastards to rise.

Or that a state that disciplines irresponsible strikers

Those irresponsible strikers, how dare they strike when their petty-bourgeois leaders are waving red flags :rolleyes:

The "Middle Eastern" working class despises everything you stand for, and rallies to the forces of anti-imperialism more strongly than ever.

You are a disgusting racist, not only you support those "enemies of your enemy" without giving a fuck to what they do to middle eastern workers because you think that they weaken your enemy and make it easier for your pathetic cliffite leaders to take power (and we should also note that you absolutely wouldn't support Stalinists opposing imperialism, or Cuba against USA because it would strengthen your political rivals in the west), but you also think all the middle eastern 'workers' can ever be is being reactionary ultra-nationalists and islamic fundmentalists who hate every single person from the west. No 'communism' for the middle eastern working class, but it's cool right, cause you think we are socially inferior to you.

Yeah how dare I want communism for the middle east when our Cliffite superiors who don't know shit about middle east support workers dying under the national flag just because it is so conveniant for their crooked political interests?

I said "harsh discipline is required to win the war" and you ask "why is harsh discipline abandoned after the war"?

I meant to say "why is harsh discipline not abandoned after the war?" but I guess the level of english this inferior middle eastern can speak is very limited, and this inferior middle eastern is as thick as the rest of the people living in the middle east.

Just fuck off you reactionary bastard, as a matter of principle I don't engage in conversations with racists.