[STUDY GROUP] history of the communist party of the USSR

[Zeruzo]

A study group about this book.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/HCPSU39NB.html

I think this is best discussed paragraph by paragraph (With some exceptions of course). Anyone can join in as far as i care :). As long as it is about the book AND the paragraph of discussion (Not to be mean or anything, but its good to have a little order in maters :)).

I have been told that this book is very good study-group material. Maybe its not as good on-line, but i hope it will work out fine :).

The introduction:


The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) has traversed a long and glorious road, leading from the first tiny Marxist circles and groups that appeared in Russia in the eighties of the past century to the great Party of the Bolsheviks, which now directs the first Socialist State of Workers and Peasants in the world.

The C.P.S.U.(B.) grew up on the basis of the working-class movement in pre-revolutionary Russia; it sprang from the Marxist circles and groups which had established connection with the working-class movement and imparted to it a Socialist consciousness. The C.P.S.U.(B.) has always been guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. In the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions, its leaders further developed the teachings of Marx and Engels and raised them to a new level.

The C.P.S.U.(B.) grew and gained strength in a fight over fundamental principles waged against the petty-bourgeois parties within the working-class movement -- the Socialist-Revolutionaries (and earlier still, against their predecessors, the Narodniks), the Mensheviks, Anarchists and bourgeois nationalists of all shades -- and, within the Party itself, against the Menshevik, opportunist trends -- the Trotskyites, Bukharinites, nationalist deviators and other anti-Leninist groups.

The C.P.S.U.(B.) gained strength and became tempered in the revolutionary struggle against all enemies of the working class and of all working people -- against landlords, capitalists, kulaks, wreckers, spies, against all the hirelings of the surrounding capitalist states.

The history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) is the history of three revolutions: the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905, the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February 19I7, and the Socialist revolution of October 19I7.

The history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) is the history of the overthrow

of tsardom, of the overthrow of the power of the landlords and capitalists; it is the history of the rout of the armed foreign intervention during the Civil War; it is the history of the building of the Soviet state and of Socialist society in our country.

The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) enriches us with the experience of the fight for Socialism waged by the workers and peasants of our country.

The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.), the history of the struggle of our Party against all enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all enemies of the working people, helps us to master Bolshevism and sharpens our political vigilance.

The study of the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party arms us with a knowledge of the laws of social development and of the political struggle, with a knowledge of the motive forces of revolution.

The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) strengthens our certainty of the ultimate victory of the great cause of the Party of Lenin-Stalin, the victory of Communism throughout the world.

This book sets forth briefly the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).

I think i should not be the first person to reply to it, so i will wait :).

[Louis Pio]

One of the most superficial books I've seen posted here yet. Especially the talk about "bukharinism" "trotskyism" and so and so forth. But if you like fictional history writing you might like the book

[Delta]

The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) enriches us with the experience of the fight for Socialism waged by the workers and peasants of our country.

The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.), the history of the struggle of our Party against all enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all enemies of the working people, helps us to master Bolshevism and sharpens our political vigilance.

The study of the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party arms us with a knowledge of the laws of social development and of the political struggle, with a knowledge of the motive forces of revolution.

The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) strengthens our certainty of the ultimate victory of the great cause of the Party of Lenin-Stalin, the victory of Communism throughout the world.


It's sad if people still believe this garbage. There's 100 years of evidence in direct contradiction to it.

[Louis Pio]

Would be more interesting to look into how the troika (Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev) invented "trotskyism" in their efforts to outmanouvre Trotskij.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:27 am
One of the most superficial books I've seen posted here yet. Especially the talk about "bukharinism" "trotskyism" and so and so forth. But if you like fictional history writing you might like the book
Bukharinism merely refers to the followers of Bukharin. Trotsky's supporters during Trotsky's lifetime labeled themselves Trotskyist



It's sad if people still believe this garbage. There's 100 years of evidence in direct contradiction to it.

Yes, because the bourgeoisie writes such good history-books...

[Louis Pio]

The invention of Trotskyism as a label to try to put it as something apart from the politics of the party in the revolition years is the invention of the troika, both Kamenev and Zinoviev has aknolwkegded that. Therefore in the party of the 20'ies and later it is false to talk of trotskyism. It was only later the term was picked up to distinguish one self from the treachorous policies of the socalled communist parties. (for exampel the deals with the nazis). The use of the term in the faction fights was merely substituting political arguments with slander and lies. And trying to rewrite the history of the revolution and the policy of leaders as Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin in regards how they opposed the armed uprising and at least in Stalins case his attitude towards the government of Prince Lvov.

[Zeruzo]

(for example the deals with the Nazis)

Yeah, great example, i bet you did a lot of background research on that one!

[Louis Pio]

The secret adds to the non-aggresionpact is well known. And the physical liquidation of the polish communistparty in the process also.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:16 pm
The secret adds to the non-aggresionpact is well known. And the physical liquidation of the polish communistparty in the process also.
Yes, and you never tried to analyze and try to understand the reasons?
Such as the authors of the book called 'the pact'?

[Leo]

Trotsky's supporters during Trotsky's lifetime labeled themselves Trotskyist

No, they did not actually. They were calling themselves "bolshevik-leninists" or something like that.


Yes, because the bourgeoisie writes such good history-books...

Well, most history books written by the bourgeoisie, like this book you present right here are crap.

[Louis Pio]

Yes, and you never tried to analyze and try to understand the reasons?


Yeah the reasons are clear enough, powerpolitics nothing more, Stalin didn't even use the respite to build the USSr's defense, but was caught offguard by the invasion, guess he trusted his fascist "comrades" too much. What's even more disturbing is that you try to defend murder on communists by "communists". Sickening...

[Severian]

For the period up 'til 1917, I'd recommend "The History of the Bolshevik Party" by Zinoviev. The first part of the book's available online here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/zinoviev/works/history/ch01.htm)

[Zeruzo]

No, they did not actually. They were calling themselves "Bolshevik-Leninist" or something like that.

No, that was merely one title they gave themselves.



Yeah the reasons are clear enough, power politics nothing more, Stalin didn't even use the respite to build the USSR's defense

Showing how lacking your knowledge on the pact is. During the time of the pact a lot of Industry was turned into weapon-factories. Ideological education happened way before that already and both Nazi-Germany and the USSR had openly recognized that a war was inevitable. The production was moved to the east, etc... etc...


but was caught off guard by the invasion, guess he trusted his fascist "comrades" too much.

Bull-shit, there is plenty of evidence that this was not the case. The only thing supporting your 'claim' is Khrushchevs 'secret' speech. Every other source seems to cite differently.


What's even more disturbing is that you try to defend murder on communists by "communists". Sickening...

Yes, i have a fetish for dead corpses. In fact that is why i am a Stalin-supporter! :ph34r:


For the period up 'til 1917, I'd recommend "The History of the Bolshevik Party" by Zinoviev.

This area is meant as a study of the provided book not a recommendation-page which you can find in Chit-Chat.

[Louis Pio]

Showing how lacking your knowledge on the pact is. During the time of the pact a lot of Industry was turned into weapon-factories. Ideological education happened way before that already and both Nazi-Germany and the USSR had openly recognized that a war was inevitable. The production was moved to the east, etc... etc...


Which happened after the outbreak. In fact the soviet union aided Hitlers war efforts by material means, oil coal, export to nazigermany increased from 85,9 mio rubels to 736,5 mio between 1938 till 1940 etc. On an international scale the communistparties were insctucted not to critisise the nazis etc etc and so on.


Bull-shit, there is plenty of evidence that this was not the case. The only thing supporting your 'claim' is Khrushchevs 'secret' speech. Every other source seems to cite differently.


Stalin didn't even listen to his own masterspy Richard Sorge, neither to british and american intelligence. In 24 hours 2000 sovietplanes were destroyed, hundred thousands of soldiers captured and vast territory occupied. What did Stalin do? Remained silent and fleed to his datcha for up till 2 weeks, keeping silent when people actually needed leadership. You should read K. Simonov, soviet war corrspondent, in his book named Zhiviye I Myortviye (english: Victims and Heroes)


Yes, i have a fetish for dead corpses. In fact that is why i am a Stalin-supporter!

So we can conclude you support murdering the polish communists. Why your a stalin supporter? Lack of proletarian instinct I guess and a love for "strong men".

[Zeruzo]

Which happened after the outbreak. In fact the soviet union aided Hitlers war efforts by material means, oil coal, export to nazigermany increased from 85,9 mio rubels to 736,5 mio between 1938 till 1940 etc. On an international scale the communistparties were insctucted not to critisise the nazis etc etc and so on.


Thats called trading and it was a part of the non-aggression pact. The communist parties were 'formally' instructed not to oppose the Nazis too much but in reality the KPD was heavily financed and for example the dutch communist party was instructed to organize a strike against the oppression and to prepare for underground work etc...



Stalin didn't even listen to his own masterspy Richard Sorge, neither to british and american intelligence.

Not listening to the Brits or Americans was logical, they had set a false alarm many times before. They hoped that would provoke a war and the attention of the Nazis would shift towards the east. I do not know about his 'master spy' so i wont judge that either.


In 24 hours 2000 sovietplanes were destroyed, hundred thousands of soldiers captured and vast territory occupied.

Maybe because Soviet troops were instructed at first not to return fire since it could be false alarm?


What did Stalin do? Remained silent and fleed to his datcha for up till 2 weeks, keeping silent when people actually needed leadership. You should read K. Simonov, soviet war corrspondent, in his book named Zhiviye I Myortviye (english: Victims and Heroes)


You should read Molotov remembers and the memoires of the famous WW2-general (i cant figure out his name right now, and I'm too lazy to go search through my book-shells).
It clearly states your information is inaccurate.



So we can conclude you support murdering the polish communists. Why your a stalin supporter? Lack of proletarian instinct I guess and a love for "strong men".

I have a very small penis.

[Louis Pio]

Thats called trading and it was a part of the non-aggression pact. The communist parties were 'formally' instructed not to oppose the Nazis too much but in reality the KPD was heavily financed and for example the dutch communist party was instructed to organize a strike against the oppression and to prepare for underground work etc...


If you look at the communist papers at the time, they changed from one day to another. From attacking the nazis to celebrating them, that kind of zig zag is an outright betrayal. And yes trading... Trading that funded Hitlers war efforts.


Not listening to the Brits or Americans was logical, they had set a false alarm many times before. They hoped that would provoke a war and the attention of the Nazis would shift towards the east. I do not know about his 'master spy' so i wont judge that either.


Everything added up. Yet they refused to take any action. Sorge was an old german comintern member, who spied for the USSR through his position in the german embassy in Toykio under a false name. Should read Leopold Trepper head of the USSR's intelligence in Western Europe, his book "The Great Game" gives good insight as to how incompetence ruled in most parts of the NKVD after the purges.


Maybe because Soviet troops were instructed at first not to return fire since it could be false alarm?


Lol, even when facing german planes in their territory they were instructed not to return fire. Seems more like someone not willing to admit mistakes prevented them. Now the worst thing is that up to the invasion USSR intelligence reported the presense of 3.500 tanks, 4000 planes, 50.000 artillery pieces and mortars plus 4 million troops at the border. They had every chance to know what was going on. But accounts talk of how Stalin rejected the mere idea that Germany would attack as prepousterous. What went on in Stalin's head we don't know, but it seems a common trait of his to be almost unable to admit mistakes.


You should read Molotov remembers and the memoires of the famous WW2-general (i cant figure out his name right now, and I'm too lazy to go search through my book-shells).
It clearly states your information is inaccurate.

Yeah I should, would be interesting to see what the one henchman he never turned on has to say.
Btw in regards to the soviet army, it's qualities was also quite destroyed due to the massive purges that hit every level. Some of the best officiers was brought back from jail later, were they showed the charges against them to be nothing more than paranoid fantasies.


I have a very small penis.

I feel for you, surgery can't even change that. I do however think the polish communists murdered by their socalled comrades had other thoughts in their heads than size of penises when brought to the executioners.

[Zeruzo]

If you look at the communist papers at the time, they changed from one day to another. From attacking the nazis to celebrating them, that kind of zig zag is an outright betrayal. And yes trading... Trading that funded Hitlers war efforts.

What the dutch communist party did was saying that the Nazis had not provoked the war by themselves but the British and American imperialists share just as much fault. This was after the invasion of the Nazis to the Netherlands and the author of this article later said that he just did it to prevent the inevitable illegalization of the CP.



Everything added up. Yet they refused to take any action. Sorge was an old german comintern member, who spied for the USSR through his position in the german embassy in Toykio under a false name. Should read Leopold Trepper head of the USSR's intelligence in Western Europe, his book "The Great Game" gives good insight as to how incompetence ruled in most parts of the NKVD after the purges.

Would that incompetence not explain the CC's and Politburos distrust of the NKVD?



Lol, even when facing german planes in their territory they were instructed not to return fire. Seems more like someone not willing to admit mistakes prevented them. Now the worst thing is that up to the invasion USSR intelligence reported the presense of 3.500 tanks, 4000 planes, 50.000 artillery pieces and mortars plus 4 million troops at the border. They had every chance to know what was going on.

Maybe, but its not like the internet existed back then where you could quickly send an e-mail to the Politburo.


But accounts talk of how Stalin rejected the mere idea that Germany would attack as prepousterous. What went on in Stalin's head we don't know, but it seems a common trait of his to be almost unable to admit mistakes.

Some people said this and some people said other things, really no good source.



Yeah I should, would be interesting to see what the one henchman he never turned on has to say.

Actually, Molotov was once almost executed as a direct order from Stalin.


Btw in regards to the soviet army, it's qualities was also quite destroyed due to the massive purges that hit every level.

So, now you are complaining about the damned purges?
First trots complain about buraucracy, then when something is done they start complaining something is done about it!


Some of the best officiers was brought back from jail later, were they showed the charges against them to be nothing more than paranoid fantasies.

Some people were not guilty, yes... thats the problem with purges...



I feel for you, surgery can't even change that. I do however think the polish communists murdered by their socalled comrades had other thoughts in their heads than size of penises when brought to the executioners.

Ok, do you have any good evidence for this?

[Louis Pio]

Just a short reply


Would that incompetence not explain the CC's and Politburos distrust of the NKVD?


Maybe they shouldn't have purged communists and replaced them with yesmen?


Maybe, but its not like the internet existed back then where you could quickly send an e-mail to the Politburo.


Telephone and radio did however exist, it's not like all the communication in USSR was done by smokesignals...


Some people said this and some people said other things, really no good source.


No but we can however judge what happened.


Actually, Molotov was once almost executed as a direct order from Stalin.


Yeah paranoia runs deep, seen it though my work in psychiatry.


So, now you are complaining about the damned purges?
First trots complain about buraucracy, then when something is done they start complaining something is done about it!


Now this is stupid even for you. No "trotskyist" ever talked about purging people who fought with the bolshevics in the civil war. Quite funnily the prosecutor Vyshinski fought on the reactionary side in the civil war, switched sides when over and was awarded by Stalin with a good job.


Some people were not guilty, yes... thats the problem with purges...


The "problem" (to mild a word) was that in Lenin's time purges consisted of just expelling people from the communistparty. Were as during Stalin they took the caracter of random killings. "ohh comrade sorry we tortured and killed you, found out we were wrong"....


Ok, do you have any good evidence for this?

Well anybody who been inches from loosing their lifes know what I talk about, if you come in such a situation sometime remember this discussion.

[Zeruzo]

Maybe they shouldn't have purged communists and replaced them with yesmen?

No, i have an even better idea!
Why not let capitalists and bureaucratic motherfuckers in!

For the sake of democracy of course...



Telephone and radio did however exist, it's not like all the communication in USSR was done by smokesignals...

They got messages basically like everyday that Nazi-Germany would invade them, what would make this message more important then the previous ones?
I mean, really if you would receive so many messages how would you eventually reply?



No but we can however judge what happened.

Yes, and according to most sources CLOSE to Stalin, he did not freak out. He just started planing and organizing for the war.



Yeah paranoia runs deep, seen it though my work in psychiatry.

Jet, this same Molotov never denounced Stalin...



Now this is stupid even for you.

Yes, because you know so much about my intelligence.


No "trotskyist" ever talked about purging people who fought with the bolshevics in the civil war.

Yes, because no Trotskite was ever faced with the same problems as the communist party of the Soviet Union (You know, those people that actually did something).


Quite funnily the prosecutor Vyshinski fought on the reactionary side in the civil war, switched sides when over and was awarded by Stalin with a good job.

Could be, i doubt he got the job from Stalin personally though knowing the Soviet political system and how Stalins own position was even endangered during the great purges. If he used to be a reactionary then he probably was not caught with anything wrong afterwards. Or he would have been purged.



The "problem" (to mild a word) was that in Lenin's time purges consisted of just expelling people from the communistparty.

Actually, thats not true. I would read up if i were you.


Were as during Stalin they took the caracter of random killings.

Yes, they just dragged 3 persons out of their homes and they shot them. Afterwards they labeled these random killings 'The Great purges', nobody really knows why.

But in reality the great purges were only an issue if you were a party-member. In the case of the Right-Trotskyite trials, it was about a major offense (well several ones). Or you want to claim that terrorism is ok?


"ohh comrade sorry we tortured and killed you, found out we were wrong"....

Yes, you truly studied the Soviet judicial system you can notice... <_<

Torture was by law only allowed if the information was vital and it took more then 6 (or 9, i forgot) months to get the information.



Well anybody who been inches from loosing their lifes know what I talk about, if you come in such a situation sometime remember this discussion.

I was talking about the killings themselves. Not about life-threatening situations.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:10 pm
Would be more interesting to look into how the troika (Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev) invented "trotskyism" in their efforts to outmanouvre Trotskij.
yeah and Stalinism is real, right?

[Louis Pio]

As a description of beurocratic manowering yes. But it&#39;s not really an ideology, I mean he took most of his ideas from the menshevics.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:54 pm
As a description of beurocratic manowering yes. But it&#39;s not really an ideology, I mean he took most of his ideas from the menshevics.
No that was trotsky who was a hardcore menshevik and wrote for them frequently. Plus Stalin thought beurocracy was only necessary to catch up economically with other nations, once the Soviet Union had industrialized to an extent, he thought it was harmful and actually pushed for a more democratic constitution. Check out Grover Furr&#39;s work on this.

[Louis Pio]

No that was trotsky who was a hardcore menshevik and wrote for them frequently. Plus Stalin thought beurocracy was only necessary to catch up economically with other nations, once the Soviet Union had industrialized to an extent, he thought it was harmful and actually pushed for a more democratic constitution. Check out Grover Furr&#39;s work on this.

No look at Trotsky&#39;s work, not really any menshevic in that, it&#39;s true he first was on the side of the menshevics in a minor matter and later held a concillatory line between bolshevics and menshevics, which he later said was wrong, but calling him a hardcore menshevic is well just a bit stupid. Stalins relying on the beurocracy well wether or not what he taught lead to their rule, you can&#39;t create so big a monster and then wish it away.
Stalin took a menshecvic position on many a time, for example before Lenin came back in april of 1917, saying it was only a national democratic revolution and that the workers should never take power, a view rooted in the menshevic stage theory, a theory the communist parties followed after they degeneration.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Teis

1. Trotsky was a member of the mensheviks. He said that Leninism would "self-destruct" and shit like that frequently. He only joined the bolsheviks in july. That&#39;s what we call "jumping on the bandwagon"

2. Stage theory was mentioned by Lenin in What is to Be Done? He said that allying with anti-autocratic elements of the bourgiousie had its uses and could be helpful in the struggle to overthrow it. Stalin never advocated the workers not taking power. It was trotsky who advocated halting socialism until the west caught up

[Rawthentic]

Stalin never advocated the workers not taking power
And he never advocated them having it. His position was one of self-interest, not proletarian love. His ruling clique and the petty-bourgeois bureaucracy were the ones that ran the state and economy, not the workers.

[The Author]

Please try to make a serious attempt to prove that Stalin never advocated workers&#39; power and that his position was of self-interest.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:41 pm
A study group about this book.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/HCPSU39NB.html

An old skool classic of Marxism-Leninism&#33; :cool:

[Rawthentic]

Because Russia was capitalist.

There was wage labor, polarization of wealth, the capitalist law of value, capitalist production relations, trusts, cartels, individual enterprises, forced labor, etc.

And because he murdered millions of workers and sent them to Gulags to work and increase production.

[Rawthentic]

A Classic of what I call Marxism&#33;&#33; (http://marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm)

[Panda Tse Tung]

This is also a very interesting piece of work. Why isn&#39;t this one furthered. Ok, I&#39;ll start:



There was wage labor

Thats not possible in a nationalized company. Unless you have a very odd perception of wage labor.


polarization of wealth

It was quite minimal before 1956 actually, unless you can provide me with sources that cite otherwise.


the capitalist law of value

This occurred during the 1970&#39;s far later then during &#39;Stalins reign&#39;.
Of course it did exist, but to a smaller extend.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...oblems/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm)


capitalist production relations,

Thats not possible from a rational Marxist point of view...


cartels,

What kind of?


individual enterprises

It was possible to sell something without using someone else&#39;s labor. Such as a used car, or a service. Whats wrong with that?


forced labor

Thats a punishment for criminals, you harm society, thus you have to pay back society.



And because he murdered millions of workers and sent them to Gulags to work and increase production.

Uhm, no. Do you really think thats the reason the Gulags existed?

Well, maybe that wasn&#39;t a good start... but anyways, it remains an interesting book.