USSR- state capitalist or deformed workers´ state? - Please,

[Turnoviseous]

I would like to see what people here on che-lives think about this issue.


There are many books that describe the life in RSFSR (That was the name of fomer name of USSR, Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics) in the first year after revolution. We can not find any trace about some kind of secret police or special army, the only army was workers´ militia, which participated in October revolution. Workers´ had means of production in their hands and real power was in the hands of the elected soviet representatives. It was a real workers´ state. Because of backwardness, foreign army intervention, civil war, destroyed revolutionary wave that swept throught Europe (for that Stalin and Zinoviev get credit and a little mistake of great leaders of German working class Luxemburg and her husband that gave in to the police, where were butchered (That is how Stalin and Zinoviev then took over the organization of the revolution in Germany)), because of that soviet republic became isolated. It degenerated to something never before seen and it seems that a lot of discussions of the lefts brake right here.

Some say that USSR was state capitalist, some that it was degenerated workers´ state, some that it was healthy even when Stalinists took over, that is why I will explain a thing on this issue.

Trotsky explained why state was degenerated workers´ state, but it seems that people do not know much about that. USSR was on its very start workers´ state, working class was the rulling class and all functions were gradually performed by workers. Freedom of speech was always allowed in the days after revolution until Stalinist bureaucracy took over.

If we compare Stalinist rule with the fascist rule we get very much similarities and some differences.

In fascist state free-market largely prevails and rule is based on private property, it is based on bourgeois rule. Companies are owned by individuals, so means of productions are in the hands of individuals, but they do not decide what is to be built, how and when. That is decided by the state apparatus. Hitlers´ Germany is nice example. Companies were private property and profit was taken by by owners of means of production. Hitlers´ fascist caste was a parasite on the state and lived from stealing from bourgeois (rulling class). Hitlers´ rule had a Bonapartist character.

What Bonapartism is? "Bonapartism has been used to describe a government that forms when class rule is not secure and a military, police, and state bureaucracy intervenes to establish order. Nineteenth century Bonapartism is commonly associated with Twentieth century fascism and Stalinism." (Marxist glossary)

In Stalinist state free-market does not prevail, but planed economy. There is no private property over means of production in Stalinism. Factories are owned by workers´ and means of production are still in the hands of the workers, but they can not control it. Stalinist bureaucracy says what is to be done, how and when. Stalinist bureaucracy controlled police and army in order to keep itself in power and control the society. Stalinist bureaucracy is a parasite on the state, and lives from stealing from working class (rulling class). Stalin´s rule also had a Bonapartist character.

The only thing that separates fascism and Stalinism are two things. Rulling class in their society is different and economy differs (planned, or anarchic (capitalism)).


When I was thinking I came to next conclusion:

So, if workers´ state deformed into deformed state with Bonapartist character, that means that fascism is actually deformed bourgeois-democratic state (since it was bourgeois democratic before).

Lenin once said that fascism is capitalism in crissis, so that means that deformed bourgeois-democratic state is bourgeois-democratic state in crissis.

From same conclussion it follows that deformed workers´ state is workers state in crissis.

Far from solving the problems, deformed states are soon destroyed by their own policies (nazi Germany, fascist Italy, USSR,...). The only thing that kept Stalinism so long alive is their success in the world war 2 which brought new countries under their rule.


Ok, I would like to receive all comments from anybody,...


(Edited by Turnoviseous at 12:35 am on Sep. 3, 2002)

[Nateddi]

It was state capitalist, and not a workers state. It was far from an ideal socialist country

However, it was not as bad as most make it out to be. The extreme liberals on Che-Lives generally accept the anti-USSR propaganda as truth spewed out by the same faces that promote laissez-faire.

[Marxman]

No, USSR has state capitalism only in the NEP (new economic policy). I hope you all know what that is. But state capitalism can't last long as it can turn into full-scale capitalism. But it was needed to get out of the civil war crisis and the war communism, which was, of course, necessary due to the intervention of 21 foreign countries. But when Stalin had power, NEP (state capitalism) was still going further and it really angered Trotsky as he knew (and Lenin) that this would be very very bad. NEP was only resumed because Stalin was filling his pockets.

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from Nateddi on 10:11 pm on Sep. 2, 2002
It was state capitalist, and not a workers state. It was far from an ideal socialist country

However, it was not as bad as most make it out to be. The extreme liberals on Che-Lives generally accept the anti-USSR propaganda as truth spewed out by the same faces that promote laissez-faire.


I did not said that it was socialist country at all. I think that it was more like of nazi Germany.

I respect your comment nateddi, but why do you think it was state capitalist and not deformed workers´ state? What makes you think so?


(Edited by Turnoviseous at 11:09 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)

[Marxman]

But the most important is TURNPVISEOUS's post. There wasn't state capitalism is Russia, it was just for some time due to the crisis but in order for bueracracy to have the full luxury, it had to have planned economy, which is the only thing that is equal to communism. That's right, stalinism has something in common with communism - planned economy.

[RGacky3]

Russia was not really state capitalist, it was different under different leaders, it was communist under lenin and krushchef. social fashism under Stalin (and that other Stalinist guy). and socialist under gorbachaf.

[Revolution Hero]

It wasn't state capitalist state , but it was the state with the socialist economy.
I am sick of this trotskyst bullshit about degenerated workers' state.
First of all , it wasn't just workers' state, but it was the state of peasants also.
Secondly, it didn't degenerate, as there was the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. The state functioned , considering people's interests. It did everything possible to improve workers' and peasants' life.
I am sure , that Lenin would have support the Soviet system, but of course he would have also changed it in some way. For example, he would not have let Stalin to oppress peaceful population.
The main Soviet mistake was that the soviet government was not able to peacefully coexist with the capitalist world. USSR had to show the capitalist world that they are not that dangerous. In conrary, capitalist world community understood what kind of power soviet union had after the end of WW2, as the half of the Europe (it's eastern part) felt under the USSR's influence. That is how the Cold War started.
USSR needed a cardinal change in it's external politic. The Cold War made USSR waste 90% of the state budget on the millitary industry. That was the biggest mistake. At least 40% of that sum could go on the social needs.

USSR wasn't degenerated workers' state, as Trotskysts want to present it. USSR was the socialist state, it had it's minuses and pluses, it needed some changes. And it left us the experience on which we have to learn.

Our mission is GREAT! Our future is bright! Socialism will win!

[Marxman]

Socialism will never win with stupid stalinist tendencies like yours, Revolution hero. Do you even know what NEP was? Do you even know what state-capitalism is? I know that state-capitalism is a discrepancy but it can exist in practice, but only for a little time, otherwise it transforms into capitalism immediately. It's like a beast that needs to be tamed. But state-capitalism in Russia was made in practice under extreme horrible conditions. There was a terrible and the most devastating civil-war in the history of Russia and the consequences were horrible. Lenin and Trotsky knew exactly that NEP mustn't be in practice for long but Stalin after Lenin's illness had other plans. Stalin was comfortable with NEP, so he continued but Trotsky warned and warned that this will be disastrous and it was. And then Stalin killed Kulaks because of the money they earned. Kulaks could have jeopardized his postition. And then he also made forced collectivisation, which wasn't when Lenin and Trotsky were around. USSR at that time was a deformed workers' state because of the huge consequences of the civil-war. State-capitalism was only for a while to dig Russia up. But unfortunately Stalin fucked up totally when he banished the International and gave very bad influence to the German workers who were ripe for a revolution. His worst line was:"Let fascists try first." And so they did. Luckily Trotsky written every crime of Stalin and now that stalinism in Russia has ceased to exist, we can now read evrything. You must remember that Stalin only published 7 volumes of Lenin's collected works and suddenly under Khruschev there were 51 volumes.

[new democracy]

Quote: from RGacky3 on 1:06 am on Sep. 5, 2002
social fashism under Stalin (and that other Stalinist guy)

other Stalinist guy?

[Marxman]

That post from RGacky3 is one of the most illiterate and childish ones I've ever seen here. I'm not even going to analyse its discrepancies, I hope you can sort it out by yourselves.

[Conghaileach]

What does "deformed workers' state" mean, exactly? How could a workers' state become deformed?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 7:44 am on Sep. 7, 2002
Socialism will never win with stupid stalinist tendencies like yours, Revolution hero. Do you even know what NEP was? Do you even know what state-capitalism is? I know that state-capitalism is a discrepancy but it can exist in practice, but only for a little time, otherwise it transforms into capitalism immediately. It's like a beast that needs to be tamed. But state-capitalism in Russia was made in practice under extreme horrible conditions. There was a terrible and the most devastating civil-war in the history of Russia and the consequences were horrible. Lenin and Trotsky knew exactly that NEP mustn't be in practice for long but Stalin after Lenin's illness had other plans. Stalin was comfortable with NEP, so he continued but Trotsky warned and warned that this will be disastrous and it was. And then Stalin killed Kulaks because of the money they earned. Kulaks could have jeopardized his postition. And then he also made forced collectivisation, which wasn't when Lenin and Trotsky were around. USSR at that time was a deformed workers' state because of the huge consequences of the civil-war. State-capitalism was only for a while to dig Russia up. But unfortunately Stalin fucked up totally when he banished the International and gave very bad influence to the German workers who were ripe for a revolution. His worst line was:"Let fascists try first." And so they did. Luckily Trotsky written every crime of Stalin and now that stalinism in Russia has ceased to exist, we can now read evrything. You must remember that Stalin only published 7 volumes of Lenin's collected works and suddenly under Khruschev there were 51 volumes.


Don't teach me. I know what NEP is. And I know that Stalin destroyed NEP before the start of the 30s. Killing kulaks was the part of destroying NEP. Peaceful transition (without murders) is possible, but it wasn't possible at that time. Bad international and internal situation dictated what to do. So, Stalin acted considering the situation the state was in.


And , if I am not mistaken, Trotskysm has only one solution of not having so called "deformed state". And this solution is World Revolution. This idea is stupid. Nonesense.
Correct me , if I am wrong.

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 7:05 pm on Sep. 7, 2002)

[Marxman]

Oh, the great genius is answering! The great genius defies Trotsky's permanent revolution. So you think that it's bullshit that the revolution becomes world-wide? Why? Do you even know what is the reaction of the capitalist states when they hear that some country has ignited a socialist revolution? That's the point, dear Revolution Hero. The point is that the capitalist states immediately send reinforcements to quench the fire of the revolution and that is what happened in Russia at that time. But October revolution didn't spread because it mainly didn't have 2 factors - advanced capitalist state and education. So again, PERMANENT REVOLUTION is the only solution for socialism to win! I can give you an excellent practical example - October revolution! Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky all said that a socialist revolution must be on an international scale, otherwise it is doomed and it WAS. But it was doomed mainly because of Stalinism. So, Turnoviseous point of all this was this:"Workers' state in crisis is deformed workers' state with bueracracy generating. The solution of deformed workers' state was state-capitalism (NEP), although it ended disastrously due to stalinist policies. But the main factor is this also - deformed (degenarated) workers' state transmutes into stalinism. In a backward country like Russia was, NEP was only a push but was not the whole solution not to transmute into stalinism. The only solution was PERMANENT REVOLUTION!"

[Revolution Hero]

I am not against the socialist revolution in worldwide scale and I don't deny that Marx, Engels and Lenin supported it. These great men said that the time will come and the socialist revolution will conquer the whole world.
But they didn't support the export of the revolution, which is the permanent revolution in Trotsky's understanding. So , do I.

NEP created a danger of the counter-revolution. So, Stalin was right here.

Marxman I have just two suppositions about you , and the one of them have to be correct:
1 you are left opportunist;
2 you don't understand marxism -leninism in the proper way.

Please, answer which one is the correct one.

[Marxman]

Which one is correct? None! Now tell me your logic of discrepancy. You said you don't support the exporting of socialism. Trotksy definitely never said exporting. I'm not going to waste my time teaching you about the permanent revolution. Just take your time and read this

What is the theory of the Permanent Revolution?
In the years before the Russian Revolution of 1917 there was quite a heated debate between the different tendencies of the Russian labour movement on what would be the character of the Russian revolution, and the relation between the classes in the revolution. Undoubtedly, the theory that brilliantly anticipated and explained what actually took place in 1917 was worked out by Trotsky.

The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as 1904. The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution (1848), Marx writes:

"The German bourgeoisie has developed so slothfully, cravenly and slowly that at the moment when it menacingly faced feudalism and absolutism it saw itself menacingly faced by the proletariat and all factions of the burgers whose interests and ideas were akin to those of the proletariat. And it saw inimically arrayed not only a class behind it but all Europe before it. The Prussian bourgeoisie was not, as the French of 1789 had been, the class which represented the whole of modern society vis-a-vis the representatives of the old society, the monarchy and the nobility. It had sunk to the level of a kind of social estate, as distinctly opposed to the crown as to the people, eager to be in the opposition to both, irresolute against each of its opponents , taken severally, because it always saw both of them before or behind it; inclined to betray the people and compromise with the crowned representative of the old society because it itself already belonged to the old society; ". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, in MESW, vol. 1, p. 140-1.)

The bourgeoisie, Marx explains, did not come to power as a result of its own revolutionary exertions, but as a result of the movement of the masses in which it played no role: "The Prussian bourgeoisie was hurled to the height of state power, however not in the manner it had desired, by a peaceful bargain with the crown but by a revolution". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, MESW, vol. 1, p. 138.)

Even in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Europe, Marx and Engels mercilessly unmasked the cowardly, counterrevolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, and emphasised the need for the workers to maintain a policy of complete class independence, not only from the bourgeois liberals, but also from the vacillating petty bourgeois democrats:

"The proletarian, or really revolutionary party," wrote Engels, "succeeded only very gradually in withdrawing the mass of the working people from the influence of the democrats whose tail they formed in the beginning of the revolution. But in due time the indecision weakness and cowardice of the democratic leaders did the rest, and it may now be said to be one of the principal results of the last years' convulsions, that wherever the working class is concentrated in anything like considerable masses, they are entirely freed from that democratic influence which led them into an endless series of blunders and misfortunes during 1848 and 1849." (F. Engels, Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany, MESW, vol. 1, p. 332.)

The situation is clearer still today. The national bourgeoisie in the colonial countries entered into the scene of history too late, when the world had already been divided up between a few imperialist powers. It was not able to play any progressive role and was born completely subordinated to its former colonial masters. The weak and degenerate bourgeoisie in Asia, Latin America and Africa is too dependent on foreign capital and imperialism, to carry society forward. It is tied with a thousand threads, not only to foreign capital, but with the class of landowners, with which it forms a reactionary bloc that represents a bulwark against progress. Whatever differences may exist between these elements are insignificant in comparison with the fear that unites them against the masses. Only the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants and urban poor, can solve the problems of society by taking power into its own hands, expropriating the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, and beginning the task of transforming society on socialist lines.

By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society (urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie), the proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination). However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution. Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: because it starts with the bourgeois tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country and continues at an international level.

The theory of the permanent revolution was the most complete answer to the reformist and class collaborationist position of the right wing of the Russian workers' movement, the Mensheviks. The two stage theory was developed by the Mensheviks as their perspective for the Russian revolution. It basically states that, since the tasks of the revolution are those of the national democratic bourgeois revolution, the leadership of the revolution must be taken by the national democratic bourgeoisie. For his part, Lenin agreed with Trotsky that the Russian Liberals could not carry out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that this task could only be carried out by the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry. Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counter-revolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass" he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, and against the people as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it 'recoils' from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!). (Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 98.)

What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution? "There remains 'the people', that is, the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling" (Ibid.)

In all of Lenin's speeches and writings, the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeois-democratic Liberals is stressed time and time again. However, up until 1917, he did not believe that the Russian workers would come to power before the socialist revolution in the West&emdash;a perspective that only Trotsky defended before 1917, when it was fully adopted by Lenin in his April theses. The correctness of the permanent revolution was triumphantly demonstrated by the October Revolution itself. The Russian working class&emdash;as Trotsky had predicted in 1904&emdash;came to power before the workers of Western Europe. They carried out all the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and immediately set about nationalising industry and passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie played an openly counterrevolutionary role, but was defeated by the workers in alliance with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks then made a revolutionary appeal to the workers of the world to follow their example. Lenin knew very well that without the victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, especially Germany, the revolution could not survive isolated, especially in a backward country like Russia. What happened subsequently showed that this was absolutely correct. The setting up of the Third (Communist) International, the world party of socialist revolution, was the concrete manifestation of this perspective.

Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured. Unfortunately, the Comintern's formative years coincided with the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia, which had a disastrous effect on the Communist Parties of the entire world. The Stalinist bureaucracy, having acquired control in the Soviet Union developed a very conservative outlook. The theory that socialism can be built in one country&emdash;an abomination from the standpoint of Marx and Lenin&emdash;really reflected the mentality of the bureaucracy which had had enough of the storm and stress of revolution and sought to get on with the task of "building socialism in Russia". That is to say, they wanted to protect and expand their privileges and not "waste" the resources of the country in pursuing world revolution. On the other hand they feared that revolution in other countries could develop on healthy lines and pose a threat to their own domination in Russia, and therefore, at a certain stage, sought actively to prevent revolution elsewhere.

Instead of pursuing a revolutionary policy based on class independence, as Lenin had always advocated, they proposed an alliance of the Communist Parties with the "national progressive bourgeoisie" (and if there was not one easily at hand, they were quite prepared to invent it) to carry through the democratic revolution, and afterwards, later on, in the far distant future, when the country had developed a fully fledged capitalist economy, fight for socialism. This policy represented a complete break with Leninism and a return to the old discredited position of Menshevism&emdash;the theory of the "two stages".

In order to cover up for their own abandoning of the lessons that the Bolsheviks had drawn from the experience of the Russian revolution itself the Stalinists mounted a huge campaign of falsification of Trotsky's analysis and conclusions. They tried to separate Trotsky's position from that of Lenin, by going back to the polemics of the period prior to the revolution, when in fact the experience of the revolution had put all theories to the test and had proven the theory of the Permanent Revolution to be correct.


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

Now, you claim to be so smart. Then comprehend what is written in the upper section.

[Revolution Hero]

Really nothing new. Nothing about Trotsky's "permanent" revolution. Sophisticated phallacy.
I know , what is permanent revolution in Marx's understanding. ( bourgeois- democratic revolution have to beveloped into the socialist revolution). And I support it!
But, I know that Trotsky's "permanent" revolution is completely different from Marx's theory. So, please be kind and just post a short definition of Trotsky's "permanent" revolution.
We will discuss it later.....

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 7:42 pm on Sep. 11, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

USSR destroyed exploitation. There were not any antagonistic classes. And after that, some people say that USSR wasn't socialist state.

[Marxman]

Oh boy, you're going to have to go through the Principles of communism all over again. How could USSR destroyed exploitation when there was such a hideous bueracracy that killed anyone who didn't agree with their plans? Why did it use secret agents of KGB and GPU to kill non-happy workers? How come there was no antagonism when bueracracy and a worker differentiated like a king and a surf? Please, learn something before speaking because you're not saying smart things like that. Do you even know Marx's theory of the CLASS ANTAGONISM?

Permanent revolution. Do you want to know what it is, in the most simple form? Okay, I'll qoute Marx's saying in the beginning of the Communist manifesto:"Proletarians of the world, unite!"

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 3:59 am on Sep. 12, 2002
Oh boy, you're going to have to go through the Principles of communism all over again. How could USSR destroyed exploitation when there was such a hideous bueracracy that killed anyone who didn't agree with their plans? Why did it use secret agents of KGB and GPU to kill non-happy workers? How come there was no antagonism when bueracracy and a worker differentiated like a king and a surf? Please, learn something before speaking because you're not saying smart things like that. Do you even know Marx's theory of the CLASS ANTAGONISM?

Permanent revolution. Do you want to know what it is, in the most simple form? Okay, I'll qoute Marx's saying in the beginning of the Communist manifesto:"Proletarians of the world, unite!"


Marxman, you are the one who lies about USSR and the theory. You are opportunist and the servant of the bourgeoisie class.

Read this, and learn:

"The dictionary of the scientific communism":

Marx's permanent revolution:
" Permanent revolution is the ascending development of the revolutionary process from the bourgeois- democratic action of the masses against feudal institutions to the anticapitalistic struggle and the proletariat's advent to power."

Trtosky's "permanent revolution":

"Theory of the "permanent revolution" is the ideological base of Trotskysm. This "theory" is characterized by the following features: disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies, the denial of the revolutionary role of the peasantry, venturesome aspiration to " urge forward" a revolution, the will to jump over it's incompleted stages, aim at the development of the "revolutionary wars"; negation of the possibility of the socialist building in one country; " theory" was suplemented with another essential element in 1920-30s, which is rough antisovietism. Since that moment, " theory" became a platform for the union of all ANTISOCIALIST FORCES."

I am sure that you know all this. You have to know this in order to deform the theory of marxism-leninism.

You have made some mistakes and now you eat the fruits, which you have once planted.
You are complete failure in the ideological struggle.
Congratulations, LOOSER!!!

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from CiaranB on 10:39 pm on Sep. 6, 2002
What does "deformed workers' state" mean, exactly? How could a workers' state become deformed?


Actually anything can become deformed and everything can change. That is the law of dialectics.

Deformed worekers´ state means, that state economy was not planned by owners of means of production, but was planned by the bureaucratic clique which controlled army and police. Same happened in nacism. only that there were bourgeois owners, and in workers´ country worekers were owners. But in both cases bureaucracy became a parasite on the system and used it into its interests...



From revolutionary hero:

"Theory of the "permanent revolution" is the ideological base of Trotskysm. This "theory" is characterized by the following features: disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies, the denial of the revolutionary role of the peasantry, venturesome aspiration to " urge forward" a revolution, the will to jump over it's incompleted stages, aim at the development of the "revolutionary wars"; negation of the possibility of the socialist building in one country; " theory" was suplemented with another essential element in 1920-30s, which is rough antisovietism. Since that moment, " theory" became a platform for the union of all ANTISOCIALIST FORCES."

Who actually said that? Trotsky never said that. You are quoting something what is wrong. You are putting words of others into Trotsky´s mouth.

Why don´t you really read what Trotsky and Lenin really said about Permanent revolution?

It is really interesting how you say that Marx said that about permanent revolution. Marx was never talking about permanent revolution, yet your quote (which , as you say, is what Marx thought) is almost exactly what Trotsky´s permanent revolution says...

Now, I will tell you what Permanent revolution is:

Permanent revolution says, that socialist revolutionaries must fight for workers´ state and socialist revolution, even if there was no bourgeois democratic revolution before.

Trotsky also says that this is possible when bourgeois class is not as strong as it was in Germany, France,.., but as it was Russia (where bourgeois class was new, and did not posses enough forces to overthrow tsarism)...

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 4:06 am on Sep. 18, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 2:02 pm on Sep. 18, 2002




[quote] From revolutionary hero:

"Theory of the "permanent revolution" is the ideological base of Trotskysm. This "theory" is characterized by the following features: disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies, the denial of the revolutionary role of the peasantry, venturesome aspiration to " urge forward" a revolution, the will to jump over it's incompleted stages, aim at the development of the "revolutionary wars"; negation of the possibility of the socialist building in one country; " theory" was suplemented with another essential element in 1920-30s, which is rough antisovietism. Since that moment, " theory" became a platform for the union of all ANTISOCIALIST FORCES."

Who actually said that? Trotsky never said that. You are quoting something what is wrong. You are putting words of others into Trotsky´s mouth.

Why don´t you really read what Trotsky and Lenin really said about Permanent revolution?

It is really interesting how you say that Marx said that about permanent revolution. Marx was never talking about permanent revolution, yet your quote (which , as you say, is what Marx thought) is almost exactly what Trotsky´s permanent revolution says...

Now, I will tell you what Permanent revolution is:

Permanent revolution says, that socialist revolutionaries must fight for workers´ state and socialist revolution, even if there was no bourgeois democratic revolution before.

Trotsky also says that this is possible when bourgeois class is not as strong as it was in Germany, France,.., but as it was Russia (where bourgeois class was new, and did not posses enough forces to overthrow tsarism)...

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 4:06 am on Sep. 18, 2002)


This was an objective analysis of trotskysm . Trtosky never said that because he was opportunist , and he stayed oportunist all his life.

This was the conlusion of the marxist-leninist theoretics about trotstkysm. 100% true, so don't try to lie anymore.

[Marxman]

You're only slandering marxism, KPRF boy. You're only damaging it with your stalinist lies. Noone here is an opportunist, otherwise they'd join on the cappie side. Opportunist is someone who is selfish and seeks only things that suits only him i.e. Stalin. Trotsky was never that, and you can't seem to post anything smarter than the lines of stalinists:"Trotsky was an opportunist."

Trotsky would be an opportunist if he'd be on the right side of the revolution i.e. Mensheviks. Stalin is a great example of opportunism, not Trotsky. Stalin was a Menshevik and totally adopted their ignorant burgeois programme and when he joined the Bolsheviks, he was still fond to that programme because he knew that fighting for workers would not bring him wonderful riches.

Lenin and Trotsky, no matter what other stalinists think, were true friends. Trotsky said a great beatiful line that applies to all who wish to slander him and Lenin:"The truth always prevails in the end." And it did, dear KPRF boy.

If you still wish to follow the stalinist non-Leninist-marxist-Trotskyist lines, go ahead and join the KPRF and be a 20 millionth member. Then come back in a couple of months and discuss with me their programme or their ideas.

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman, I am older than you both physically and mentally, boy.

There are two kinds of opportunism: right and left. Trotsky was a left opportunist. My previous post proves it. All of Trotsky's ideas are anti- marxist-leninist. I know what I am talking about, boy.

[Marxman]

Boy? Physical constitution of me is a total mystery to you, I see.

You haven't proved anything of Trotsky being anti-marxist. Trotsky was a great marxist that contributed lots and lots of reading material to the world of marxism. Trotsky's boks of stalinism and fascism are monumental and will always remain in the archive of marxist sources. I hope Turnoviseous receives books of Trotsky soon, so he can lend some to me.

[RGacky3]

it depends what you mean by oportunist, if its selfishly attaining things for your self its cappitalist, if its unselfishly attaining things for the society its socialist.

[Turnoviseous]

"Theory of the "permanent revolution" is the ideological base of Trotskysm. This "theory" is characterized by the following features: disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies, the denial of the revolutionary role of the peasantry, venturesome aspiration to " urge forward" a revolution, the will to jump over it's incompleted stages, aim at the development of the "revolutionary wars"; negation of the possibility of the socialist building in one country; " theory" was suplemented with another essential element in 1920-30s, which is rough antisovietism. Since that moment, " theory" became a platform for the union of all ANTISOCIALIST FORCES."

Ok, let us analize this.

First, what you mean by "disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies"? Who are the allies of the working class, by your definition? Has that anything got to do with the Stalinist united front (´progressive´ bourgeois)?

[Marxman]

Quote: from RGacky3 on 12:20 am on Sep. 26, 2002
if its unselfishly attaining things for the society its socialist.


Stalin was a typical opportunist. And all later stalinists. It doesn't matter if you're a cappie.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 1:45 pm on Sep. 26, 2002

"Theory of the "permanent revolution" is the ideological base of Trotskysm. This "theory" is characterized by the following features: disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies, the denial of the revolutionary role of the peasantry, venturesome aspiration to " urge forward" a revolution, the will to jump over it's incompleted stages, aim at the development of the "revolutionary wars"; negation of the possibility of the socialist building in one country; " theory" was šsuplemented with another essential element in 1920-30s, which is rough antisovietism. Since that moment, " theory" became a platform for the union of all šANTISOCIALIST FORCES."

Ok, let us analize this.

First, what you mean by "disbelief in working class's ability to unite it's allies"? Who are the allies of the working class, by your definition? Has that anything got to do with the Stalinist united front (´progressive´ bourgeois)?


Allies of the working class are presented by the following classes:
peasantry;
intelligentsia;
lumpen proletariat.

Trotsky thought that peasantry was the reactionary class. Of course, you can doubt it by posting some quotes from Trotsky's works , but these are just the words.
What about Trotsky's deeds?
Trotsky's plan of industrialization was the plan of the peasantry exploitation. Trotsky wanted to get money for the further industrialization by raising the tax rates for the peasants. He didn't see peasantry as the ally, but the force which should be used in the interests of the proletariat and the development of the latter.

It is clear that Trotsky's words don't coincide with his deeds. Words of an opportunist have no cost.

[Marxman]

I sugget reading "Russia:from revolution to counter-revolution."

And please stop slandering something you don't know about.

[Revolution Hero]

I suggest you to read Lenin's works , some books on history and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Marxman, you can't argue about the things you don't know.

Your assumption about my slander is the trick of the typical looser who is not able to criticize criticism.

[Marxman]

Oh, you claim to be such a book-worm for Lenin's works and you didn't even see the sentences dedicated to Trotsky.

Then answer me this:
What was Trotsky's first nickname and what kind of an opinion did Lenin have for him when he wrote for the newspaper that Lenin was into too?

[Revolution Hero]

Ha! Ha!
Am I examined by the typical looser?
Allright, I will give you the answers.
I don't know Trotsky's first nickname( because I am not his fan), but I can give you his real surname, it is - Bronshtein.

I am sure that Lenin's opinion about Trotsky was positive, when Trotsky wrote in " Iskra". Trotsky was a prominent iskrovets back then. Well, it is just history. The time changes, and people change together with the time. Trotsky became menshevik later. Lenin's opinion changed also.

[Marxman]

You're dull. Be more creative if you consider yourself as an entertainer.

[peaccenicked]

The USSR was neither State Capitalist or A degenerated workers state, it was a complete mess with an elite with minimal social control who just used fear.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:41 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

[LeninCCCP]

Governing Dictator=No communism
Lenin=Only Pure hearted leader of CCCP

[Marxman]

NEP = state capitalism

Background semi-feudal Russia with the intervention of 21 foreign capitalist states in the time of Lenin = deformed workers' state.

[vox]

If the USSR was state capitalist then it wouldn't have had the social safety net it had in place.

I go with Authoritarian Collectivist, a step farther than Schactman.

vox

[Marxman]

What the hell does social safety net got to do with state-capitalism?

Look, you can check marxist glossary or read some of the Trotsky or Lenin material and you shall see that NEP made Russia into a state-capitalist but for a little while. State-capitalism is considered dangerous because it can turn into capitalism immediately. Free-market is what NEP included.

[Revolution Hero]

I am sick and tired of ignorance on the board.

Marxman, don't you think that it is my turn to ask questions:
Which of Lenin's work have you read? Have you ever held Lenin's books in your hands?

[Marxman]

Like I said, just because I haven't read Lenin directly, doesn't mean I don't know him.

By the way, the books that I read, include over 100 sources from both Lenin and Trotsky and even from stalinist books. The books I read, if you don't recall, are marxist!

By the way (again), what I have said is true and please stop wasting your anger on me because it is totally futile and should be redirected to the homing subject (you).

[Revolution Hero]

If you haven't read any of Lenin's works in your life, it means that you have no right to say that I slander him. I read many of Lenin's works, all the quotes I mentioned are true.
So, just shut up!!!

[Marxman]

You read his stalinist-version letters and you think you are on top of the world.

[Revolution Hero]

First of all , stalinist version doesn't exist.
Secondly, I have the full collection of Lenin's works, which consists of more than 50 volumes, published after Stalin's death, and written in original.

Just, read Lenin and you will understand that I was right.

[peaccenicked]

RH just because you have read Lenin does not mean you have understood him. I have read most of Lenin's major works and much of his letters,criticism and lesser polemics. None of which has pointed to any support for
personal dictatorship, Quite simply your arse is out the window.

[Marxman]

Exactly, comrade Peacenicked. What you have said, I've been ringing to him a long time and now I've had it and try to focus my energy to reading marxist material.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 9:05 pm on Oct. 4, 2002
RH just because you have read Lenin does not mean you have understood him. I have read most of Lenin's major works and much of his letters,criticism and lesser polemics. None of which has pointed to any support for
personal dictatorship, Quite simply your arse is out the window.


Who told you that I support personal dictatorship?
I do understand Lenin perfectly, but people like Marxman doesn't even wish to listen to Lenin's great words, while claiming that they read marxist materials.

[Marxman]

I have proven my loyalty to marxism. I understand your signature, whilst you fool yourself with the edited (which you've already proven) stalinist LCW.

Try reading LCW in full edition of all 55 volumes in Russian language if you really want to see the real version.

[Revolution Hero]

I do have full edition, Marxman.
You are damn stupid punk, who haven't read Lenin, trying to prove that I have " stalinist versions" of Lenin's works. Go and read Lenin's work " About the slogan of the United States of Europe" in order to understand what Lenin thought about the victory of the socialist revolution in one country.

I have proved you that Lenin's ideas were different to Trotsky's, using the original Lenin's works. So, don't even try to attack and slander Lenin anymore.

[Marxman]

Have you found this quote:


"The proletariat is already struggling to preserve the democratic conquests for the sake of the socialist revolution. This struggle would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable…if the European socialist proletariat did not come to the help of the Russian proletariat…At that stage the liberal bourgeoisie and the well-to-do (plus a part of the middle peasantry) will organise a counter revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat will organise the revolution. In these circumstances the Russian proletariat may win a second victory. The cause is then not lost. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe. The European workers will show us 'how it is done'."

[Revolution Hero]

Do I need to look for it in Trotsky's works? I am sure that it wasn't said by Lenin. If you claim that it was, tell me the title of the work, where I would be able to find it.

By the way, if you don't know keep in mind that Lenin was for the peaceful coexistence with the capitalist states.

[Marxman]

Peaceful coexistence? You are an idiot! Now I truly know that you're an idiot and a stalinist.

Yuu claim you read LCW and yet you ask me for titles avery time. I thought you know them by heart since you claim you read them night and day.

[peaccenicked]

The proletariat is already struggling to preserve the democratic conquests for the sake of the socialist revolution. This struggle would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable if the European socialist proletariat did not come to help of the Russian proletariat. At that stage the liberal bourgeoise and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry will organise the counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat will organise the revolution. In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is then not lost. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe. The European workers will show us ´how it is done´« (LCW, v.10, p. 92)

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman, you are crazy stupid ultra left punk. Do you expect a socialist state to attack capitalist ones? Do you support agressive foreign policy?

Lenin was for the peaceful coexistence with the capitalist world. There are numerous examples, which can prove my words.
Marxism -Leninism always support the peace relationship with the foreign states, no matter socialist or capitalist.

You are not able to give me the title of the work, because the majority of your quotes are made by Trotsky or trotskyst. You spread the falsified information! You slander Lenin! You are the enemy!

[peaccenicked]

Lenin is ambiguous, he state that the victory of socialism in one country is possible. I think he means it is possible to conquer state power in one country.
All through his work and works of other bolsheviks (who Stalin murdered)
is the expectancy of a German revolution. By all logic they knew isolation would crush them.

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 9:48 am on Oct. 10, 2002
Lenin is ambiguous, he state that the victory of socialism in one country is possible. I think he means it is possible to conquer state power in one country.
All through his work and works of other bolsheviks (who Stalin murdered)
is the expectancy of a German revolution. By all logic they knew isolation would crush them.

Lenin said that to overthrow bourgeois class in one country, efforts of one country are enough. But for victory of socialism, many advanced capitalist countries are necessary.

I don´t know where Lenin said that socialism can triumpf in one country. I would really like to see the work where he says that. However, he maybe said that, when refering to united country of many advanced ex-capitalist countries.

I agree with where you say that Bolsheviks were expecting German revolution, that was next part of the final equation for world revolution.

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 10:21 pm on Oct. 10, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Lenin here. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...1915/aug/23.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm)

''A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism -- until the time when the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world -- the capitalist world -- attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a demoeratie republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states. ''



(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:58 am on Oct. 11, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Exactly, peacenicked.

Lenin was confident about the victory of socialism in one country. He also was confident that other socialist revolutions would follow after the Great October revolution.

Also, the history showed us that USSR's socialism was able to survive in the very hard conditions, surrounded by the antagonistic capitalist states.

[Marxman]

How can someone be condifent at something he never claimed?

Yet another contradiction from the Stalinists. What next?

[peaccenicked]

Lenin is not speculating about the survival of socialism in one country. He sees it more as a holding operation dependent on revolutions elswhere. The stalinist interpretation is unjustified.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 5:11 am on Oct. 12, 2002
How can someone be condifent at something he never claimed?

Yet another contradiction from the Stalinists. What next?


If Lenin had not been confident in it, then he wouldn't has started revolution.
Again, if the socialist state doesn't have any allies (other socialist states),it doesn't mean that it has to give up,it doesn't mean that it has to forget the achieved results , but it means that this state has to struggle and go towards it's aim,waiting for the time when it finally will get friendly allies.

[peaccenicked]

History is not a matter of mere will power, but the balance of class forces this article expplains what led to
Stalin's period of reaction.
http://home.mira.net/~andy/bs/bs1-1a.htm#4-3

[Revolution Hero]

I see only two major mistakes Stalin did:
1. He concentrated too much power in his hands.
2. Unnecessary measures of repression

That's it.

You all say that Stalin implemented isolationist policy.


Iagree with this. But , what policy should he implement in the situation, when the country was surrounded by the rival capitalist states? There were no socialist states at that time, but socialism still survived, not in it's pure type, but it became much better after Stalin.

[Marxman]

What survived was not socialism but planned economy. That's right, planned economy was the only good thing that survived from the October. Stalin knew the richness of it and as you all know the planned economy became bueracratic paradise.

Planned economy does not mean socialism because it can be controlled by other layers, such as bueracrats in Stalinism.

Planned economy is the only thing that connects Stalinism and genuine Socialism, besides the waving of red flags.

[peaccenicked]

Stalin began the process of breaking from Marxism, that is analysing the balance of class forces and producing a line that was in the general interests of the international proletariat. The doctrine of Socialism in one country became one of mostly nationalist concern. In reality, the International became a instrument of Soviet foreign policy. Stalin want to control every revolution and it's timing. This was one of the major reasons why the Spanish revolution was defeated. Why the official communists did not lead the Cuban revolution!


(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:40 pm on Oct. 13, 2002)

[Marxman]

Stalin did everything he could to stop the socialist revolution but he also gave a lot of effort to stop the free-market in other states, so he could introduce planned economy.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 11:51 am on Oct. 13, 2002
Stalin began the process of breaking from Marxism, that is analysing the balance of class forces and producing a line that was in the general interests of the international proletariat. The doctrine of Socialism in one country became one of mostly nationalist concern. In reality, the International became a instrument of Soviet foreign policy. Stalin want to control every revolution and it's timing. This was one of the major reasons why the Spanish revolution was defeated. Why the official communists did not lead the Cuban revolution!


(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:40 pm on Oct. 13, 2002)


Don't you agree that socialism in one country is needed in order to eventually achieve socialism in several countries and the worldwide socialism later.
USSR acted according to the principle of the proletarian internationalism. If USSR had not helped all countries , who fought against capitalism, then the system of the socialist states wouldn't have appeared.
The socialism in Cuba also wouldn't have survived, if USSR hadn't helped it.

! SOCIALISMO O MUERTE!
The victory of the Cuban revolution of the 1959, resulted in the victory of socialism in Cuba, only because of the help of the brotherly soviet state.

[Marxman]

So, you're still watching cartoons, R.H.?

[Revolution Hero]

What the fuck, Marxman?

[the pen]

hey comrades
the ussr was a stalinist or deformed workers state. this means that a planned stste owned econmy exists but it is planned democraticly by the workers.
in order for state capitalism to exist there must be a capitalist class. this should be obvious. in russia however there was no cap class. the beurachy were a caste not a class.

[the pen]

sorry it should have read
a planned econmy existed but it was not controlled by the workers

[Marxman]

Exactly, Pen, thank you for understanding. The only thing that survived was planned economy without workers' self-management but the the mismanagenemt of the bueracratic caste called Stalinists who are more dangerous than cappies for workers.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from the pen on 10:27 pm on Oct. 17, 2002
sorry it should have read
a planned econmy existed but it was not controlled by the workers


Actually it was controlled by the workers. Each factory gathered collective meetings and discussed the plans of production. Moreover workers were the members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and had the access to the higher state organs. Who was Nikita Khruchev? Past worker.

[the pen]

hey comrades
oh come on. you dont seriosly believe that after the late 20s the workers controlled the state. by this time the old bolshevik gaurd had either capitualted to stalin or were isolated and placed in powerless positions. the beurachy was developing and growing stronger and consilidating their hold on the state. internal democracy within the party was turned into a farce as were the soviets.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from the pen on 6:06 am on Nov. 12, 2002
hey comrades
oh come on. you dont seriosly believe that after the late 20s the workers controlled the state. by this time the old bolshevik gaurd had either capitualted to stalin or were isolated and placed in powerless positions. the beurachy was developing and growing stronger and consilidating their hold on the state. internal democracy within the party was turned into a farce as were the soviets.

I am serious when I talk on such an important topic like this one.
USSR was trully workers' & peasants' state.

[the pen]

ok. if what you say is true lets
examine what that would mean
1. that the workes democratially decided to silence critics, exile trotsky, purge the old gaurd and the left opposition
2. that the ordinary soviet citizen decided it would be a good idea to form a pact with hitlers germany
the list goes on and on
any individual that claims to be serious must recognise that the soviet union was un democratic

[ThunderStrike]

Quote: from the pen on 10:09 pm on Nov. 13, 2002

1. that the workes democratially decided to silence critics, exile trotsky, purge the old gaurd and the left opposition
2. that the ordinary soviet citizen decided it would be a good idea to form a pact with hitlers germany
the list goes on and on
any individual that claims to be serious must recognise that the soviet union was un democratic


1: when you consider Trotsky to be a anti marxist-leninist, a left opportunist and militairist and elist then u might see enough reasons why he had been expelled from the party. There were a lot of "communists" from the old guard including Trotsky as the most known one that plotted against the USSR, they were planning a coup d'etat against the workers state, to replace it with their "true" communism (sarcasm), so there were plenty of reasons to be alert and when nessesary to purge those contra-revolutionaries from the party..
2: the Sovjet People and Stalin knew that they had to buy time to prepare themselves for a nazi invasion, if it happend 2 years earlier then the revolution in the USSR would have been crushed, since the western world countries would not have helped USSR, they were alone..
actually it was the people that voted for a treaty with nazi-germany to buy time so i can't see anything un-democratic about that? the people didn't want a war

[redstar2000]

"actually it was the people who voted for a treaty with nazi Germany"

RH, I don't doubt your sincereity, but your posts are becoming rather...strange. Are you suggesting there was a national referendum in the USSR to approve or reject the 1939 treaty???

If so, this is the second such "referendum" (that you have brought up) that I can find no trace of in the historical record.

RH, I think you might want to consider a vacation.

(By the way, "state monopoly capitalism" seems to me to be the most accurate phrase to describe the USSR from 1921-1992.)

[Kehoe]

Upon witnessing the fall of the Winter Palace and how quickly the masses had been mobilized Comrade Lenin stated that,"It all goes completely to ones head". A one-party state was well in place as of 1921 and upon Comrade Lenins death Comrade Stalin exerted himself through cunning and proved to be the suitable man for the task that lay ahead.Comrade Stalin set about at first to implement Comrade Lenins plans and to forge a socialist state;however,the Russians had built a cult around their dead Comrade Lenin alongside the up and coming cult of Comrade Stalin,and upon witnessing this rivalry the situation seems to have,as Comrade Lenin had stated,went to ones head,in which case Comrade Stalin gave way to this cult of personality and began to promote himself above party interests.Comrade Lenin had advocated a form of democratic centralism within the party and considered the validity of debate essential before a party decision,he had commended the Hungarian revolutionists in 1919 for uniting all socialist parties in the government.It was only when the party was in dire peril during the civil war that the Bolshevik government outlawed other parties but Comrade Lenin considered this a temporary measure and not a desirable system(according to certain analysts on that period).Comrade Lenin was an authoritarian who believed in strict discipline and the elite role of the party,but as stated,he also believed in the need for discussion and debate in party decisions,for Comrade Lenins ideology was"Freedom of discussion.unity in action".Comrade Lenin disliked personality cults,whereas Comrade Stalin came to view the cult of personality as an essential part of his rule and thereby(in this sense)betrayed Leninism for what can be seen as nothing more than a perverted form of Tsar-worship.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:53 am on Nov. 14, 2002
"actually it was the people who voted for a treaty with nazi Germany"

RH, I don't doubt your sincereity, but your posts are becoming rather...strange. Are you suggesting there was a national referendum in the USSR to approve or reject the 1939 treaty???

If so, this is the second such "referendum" (that you have brought up) that I can find no trace of in the historical record.

RH, I think you might want to consider a vacation.

(By the way, "state monopoly capitalism" seems to me to be the most accurate phrase to describe the USSR from 1921-1992.)


LOL.
quote:" Are you suggesting there was a national referendum in the USSR to approve or reject the 1939 treaty???"

I didn't say that there had been a referendum to approve or reject this important treaty. The treaty of 1939 was the wise diplomatic move, Stalin knew that Germany would attack USSR anyway, so he just decided to win more time and to prepare for the war.

quote:" (By the way, "state monopoly capitalism" seems to me to be the most accurate phrase to describe the USSR from 1921-1992.)"

Then the question appears:
Do you know what socialism is?

[redstar2000]

No, RH, you have me there. I DON'T know what the vague and fuzzy and indefinable word "socialism" is supposed to mean...to you or anyone else.

I know what COMMUNISM means...and, at best, Russia had the bare beginnings of that from 1917 to 1921. It means state power in the hands of the working class.

But any wanker can call themselves "socialist" and do anything they want. Look at the "Socialist" parties in France and Spain!

I know what you're hinting at, RH, and I'm not impressed. When Marx talked about a "lower" and "higher" stage of COMMUNISM, somebody had the "brilliant" idea of calling the lower stage "socialism". (I'm not sure Lenin has to take the rap for this; it smacks of the kind of thing characteristic of German Social Democracy c.1900.)

But Lenin was no slouch when it came to latching onto a useful idea...and he (and Stalin and Trotsky, et al) grabbed that one with both hands and held on tight. They just added one little twist: real workers' power ALSO gets put off into the distant future; right now, under "socialism" the vanguard party runs the show "in the name of the working class".

Looking back at the 20th century, it's absolutely amazing that this verbal slight-of-hand fooled ANYONE. In fact, it fooled tens of millions. Too bad!

It doesn't fool ME, RH, because I understand that when Marx and Engels spoke of the "lower" and "higher" stages of COMMUNISM...they meant that the working class RUNS THE SHOW under both!

When well-meaning people use the word "socialism" to describe the USSR, China, etc. what they are really describing is capitalism without capitalists...which, as we KNOW, soon becomes capitalism WITH capitalists!

State-monopoly capitalism is therefore an accurate descriptive phrase...and I'm sticking with it unless someone can prove it's wrong.

[Marxman]

Exactly, comrade Pen

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 3:15 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
Exactly, comrade Pen



"Comrade Pen" recieved a good answer from comrade ThunderStrike.
" Comrade Pen" has nothing to say.
ThunderStrike really hit him!

[ThunderStrike]

my post was just a small addition to this thread ;)
you hit them constantly RH, i really like your threads/posts btw, keep it up

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:41 am on Nov. 15, 2002
No, RH, you have me there. I DON'T know what the vague and fuzzy and indefinable word "socialism" is supposed to mean...to you or anyone else.

I know what COMMUNISM means...and, at best, Russia had the bare beginnings of that from 1917 to 1921. It means state power in the hands of the working class.

But any wanker can call themselves "socialist" and do anything they want. Look at the "Socialist" parties in France and Spain!

I know what you're hinting at, RH, and I'm not impressed. When Marx talked about a "lower" and "higher" stage of COMMUNISM, somebody had the "brilliant" idea of calling the lower stage "socialism". (I'm not sure Lenin has to take the rap for this; it smacks of the kind of thing characteristic of German Social Democracy c.1900.)

But Lenin was no slouch when it came to latching onto a useful idea...and he (and Stalin and Trotsky, et al) grabbed that one with both hands and held on tight. They just added one little twist: real workers' power ALSO gets put off into the distant future; right now, under "socialism" the vanguard party runs the show "in the name of the working class".

Looking back at the 20th century, it's absolutely amazing that this verbal slight-of-hand fooled ANYONE. In fact, it fooled tens of millions. Too bad!

It doesn't fool ME, RH, because I understand that when Marx and Engels spoke of the "lower" and "higher" stages of COMMUNISM...they meant that the working class RUNS THE SHOW under both!

When well-meaning people use the word "socialism" to describe the USSR, China, etc. what they are really describing is capitalism without capitalists...which, as we KNOW, soon becomes capitalism WITH capitalists!

State-monopoly capitalism is therefore an accurate descriptive phrase...and I'm sticking with it unless someone can prove it's wrong.


quote: " I know what COMMUNISM means...and, at best, Russia had the bare beginnings of that from 1917 to 1921. It means state power in the hands of the working class. "

Your statement about short life of the workers' state is ridiculous. State power was in the hands of the working class since 1917 till Gorbachev's reforms.

quote: "When Marx talked about a "lower" and "higher" stage of COMMUNISM, somebody had the "brilliant" idea of calling the lower stage "socialism". (I'm not sure Lenin has to take the rap for this; it smacks of the kind of thing characteristic of German Social Democracy c.1900.) "

Actually , that were Marx and Engels, who called socialism the lower stage of Communism. By the way, the word socialism was known before Marx and Engels and was used by the utopian socialists.

quote: "They just added one little twist: real workers' power ALSO gets put off into the distant future; right now, under "socialism" the vanguard party runs the show "in the name of the working class". "

Wrong statement, thought confusion, lies of the enemies.
Soviet workers had the access to the real power, many of them were the members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, means that they formed proletarian vanguard. The proletarian vanguard ruled the Soviet state in the interests of all working people.

quote:"Looking back at the 20th century, it's absolutely amazing that this verbal slight-of-hand fooled ANYONE. In fact, it fooled tens of millions. Too bad!"

The conclusion , which followed the wrong statement is also wrong.

quote:"they meant that the working class RUNS THE SHOW under both!"

True. As I have already said, the working class ruled the Soviet state.

quote:"When well-meaning people use the word "socialism" to describe the USSR, China, etc. what they are really describing is capitalism without capitalists..."

Capitalism without capitalism? What is this tautology supposed to mean? You are wrong, anyway.

quote: " I'm sticking with it unless someone can prove it's wrong. "

Allright , listen up!
According to the Marxism - Leninism, socialism is the first, the lowest phase of the communism, as social economical formation. It comes after the socialistic revolution and the transitional stage from capitalism to the socialism, directly replace capitalism as the result of the liquidation of the exploiter classes and the consolidation of the socialistic public property on the means of production in all sectors of the national economy.
This definiotion is applicable to the Soviet Union, Cuba, N.Korea and other socialistic states, which you claim to be "state- monopoly capitalistic".
Try to find any contradictions with the theoretical definition and the practical reality. No one on these forums could, and also you wouldn't able to. You should learn more, my comrade!


USSR was trully socialistic state. The one who negates it is not Marxist-Leninist, therefore is not true communist.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from ThunderStrike on 2:29 am on Nov. 16, 2002
my post was just a small addition to this thread ;)
you hit them constantly RH, i really like your threads/posts btw, keep it up


" The word is also a business."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Each small addition does count.

[redstar2000]

From other posts, RH, I understand that you actually live in Russia and maintain a fierce loyality to the old USSR. I've never possessed the ability to argue someone out of their "faith" as opposed to an ordinary mistake which can be overcome with rational argument.

All the evidence that I'm aware of makes it clear that the USSR was indeed a state-monopoly capitalist society, that the relationship of the worker to his state-appointed boss was no different than that in any capitalist society, that the ordinary worker in the USSR was as truly powerless as the ordinary worker in any capitalist society, that the ordinary worker in the USSR generated surplus value which was appropriated by the party leadership to lead a life of (relative) luxury, etc., etc., etc.

If it has been "revealed" to you that the truth was otherwise, I can't help you and I can't argue you out of such an absurd notion.

Should it happen that there is a 2nd communist revolution in Russia (I know that's foremost in your thoughts), I do hope you will remember at least this much of our discussion and act accordingly: IF THE WORKING CLASS DOESN'T RUN THINGS, IT AIN'T COMMUNISM and, therefore, it ain't worth shit.

[Cassius Clay]

Revolution Hero bare in mind that Redstar 2000 is something of a old cynic (no offense Redstar just a observation I've made and doubtless you could equally describe me as a 'Fanatic' or whatver) when it comes to the USSR from Lenin to Gorby.

However he does have a point in his last paragraph in his last post. The USSR made mistakes and I hope that the Russian left has learn't from them. Be very careful of the sought of people you let into the party (like you said the party is going to be made up of the workers). For one thing do NOT accept the sought of people who suddenly declare themselves life long 'Communists'. These are the sought who in 1991 declared that they were 'Life long Democrats'.

Just be wary, the fight against opportunists and beuracrates is very important. Afterall we don't wan't the rise of another Yelstin.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:44 am on Nov. 16, 2002
From other posts, RH, I understand that you actually live in Russia and maintain a fierce loyality to the old USSR. I've never possessed the ability to argue someone out of their "faith" as opposed to an ordinary mistake which can be overcome with rational argument.

All the evidence that I'm aware of makes it clear that the USSR was indeed a state-monopoly capitalist society, that the relationship of the worker to his state-appointed boss was no different than that in any capitalist society, that the ordinary worker in the USSR was as truly powerless as the ordinary worker in any capitalist society, that the ordinary worker in the USSR generated surplus value which was appropriated by the party leadership to lead a life of (relative) luxury, etc., etc., etc.

If it has been "revealed" to you that the truth was otherwise, I can't help you and I can't argue you out of such an absurd notion.

Should it happen that there is a 2nd communist revolution in Russia (I know that's foremost in your thoughts), I do hope you will remember at least this much of our discussion and act accordingly: IF THE WORKING CLASS DOESN'T RUN THINGS, IT AIN'T COMMUNISM and, therefore, it ain't worth shit.


quote:" All the evidence that I'm aware of makes it clear that the USSR was indeed a state-monopoly capitalist society, that the relationship of the worker to his state-appointed boss was no different than that in any capitalist society"

Have you lived in the USSR? You haven't , then you had no right to declare your opinion the true one. You have learned about the USSR from the bourgeois sources, which always contained lie and slander. Your opinion was formed by the bourgeois media and opportunistic renegades, not by the comparison of the theory with practice.
Soviet workers were not exploited, as they were in the capitalist societies. Great October revolution put an end to the class of exploiters, hence the exploitation of one man by the other was destroyed.
Soviet workers worked for themselves and for the good of the Soviet state. You can't negate this FACT ,as you are the victim of anti- soviet propaganda.
USSR was the state, which functioned according to the Marxist - Leninist principles. If you go against USSR, then you go against Marx , Lenin and their great THEORY.

quote:" that the ordinary worker in the USSR was as truly powerless as the ordinary worker in any capitalist society"

Soviet workers were free from the exploitation, therefore they enjoyed more freedom and had more power, than the workers of the bourgeois states.

quote:" the ordinary worker in the USSR generated surplus value which was appropriated by the party leadership to lead a life of (relative) luxury, etc., etc., etc. "

YOUR STATEMENT IS FUCKING LIE!

The surplus was used in the needs of the Soviet state. Considering the international situation of that time, it would be correct to say that it mainly went on the development of the military technology and other army needs. It allowed USSR to stay the NUMBER 1 (!) in the world , to spread socialism , to create the system of the socialistic states and to FUCK usa.(!!!).

quote: " If it has been "revealed" to you that the truth was otherwise, I can't help you and I can't argue you out of such an absurd notion. "

I have already proved you that you were wrong. If you still haven't got it, then I am sorry for you, you are the ignorant man, then.

quote:" I do hope you will remember at least this much of our discussion and act accordingly: IF THE WORKING CLASS DOESN'T RUN THINGS, IT AIN'T COMMUNISM and, therefore, it ain't worth shit. "

The working class did run the state , united with the classes of peasantry and intelligentsia, in the USSR.
Don't worry if I get the opportunity to participate in building of the new socialistic state, then I would consider some of the past mistakes of the USSR, as I am dialectic materialist and I know my theory.


Have you swallowed it?

[the pen]

hey comrades
to start the fact that i havent replied in 2 days doesnt mean i was beaten. it means i dont spend my entire life on the net and i am actually involed in active work.
just a reply to thunder strike. first you call trotsky a opportunist without any proof to back it up and then you use this supposed opportunism as a excuse for his expulsion and the show trials that followed. trotsky is someone that gave his whole life to the struggle for socialism. he stuck firmly to his beliefs to the end and was the most vocal opposition to stalins beurachy.
in relation to germany stalin saw fascism as a peferable alternative to capitalist democracy. he went so far to declare that all other members of the workers movement were social fascists. he joined the nazi in destroying the sds. then when he finally relasised the danger he put foward the ludicrous popular front or people front policicies. this was a reason for the failure of spain and china.
in relation to the nazi-soviet non aggression pact the decesity of a action doesnt have anything to do with democracy.
please metion instances of trotskys "opportunism" so i can refute them.
in relation to a coup trotsky had huge support in the army and could easily have inacted a coup. he didnt though because it would have been bonapartism. totsky stayed true to marxism.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from the pen on 8:05 am on Nov. 17, 2002
hey comrades
to start the fact that i havent replied in 2 days doesnt mean i was beaten. it means i dont spend my entire life on the net and i am actually involed in active work.
just a reply to thunder strike. first you call trotsky a opportunist without any proof to back it up and then you use this supposed opportunism as a excuse for his expulsion and the show trials that followed. trotsky is someone that gave his whole life to the struggle for socialism. he stuck firmly to his beliefs to the end and was the most vocal opposition to stalins beurachy.
in relation to germany stalin saw fascism as a peferable alternative to capitalist democracy. he went so far to declare that all other members of the workers movement were social fascists. he joined the nazi in destroying the sds. then when he finally relasised the danger he put foward the ludicrous popular front or people front policicies. this was a reason for the failure of spain and china.
in relation to the nazi-soviet non aggression pact the decesity of a action doesnt have anything to do with democracy.
please metion instances of trotskys "opportunism" so i can refute them.
in relation to a coup trotsky had huge support in the army and could easily have inacted a coup. he didnt though because it would have been bonapartism. totsky stayed true to marxism.

There is no need to prove that Trotsky was oportunist, as all of my debates with marxman have already proved it. Just read the thread from the beginning till the end.

[Emmanual Goldstein]

Hey Revolution Hero, even if the revolution ended the exploitation of one man by another (I doubt it, but I never lived in the USSR) isn't it possible for workers to be exploited by the state?

I mean sure there was a planned economy or whatever, but I haven't seen any evidence that the common people actively participated in the planning. I mean shit, even capitalists make plans for what they want their corporation do in the next year or 5 years, but it doesn't mean that the people or the enviornment benefit from their planning.

And the workplaces might not have been owned by greedy capitalists, but did the workers run them themselves any time after Stalin took power?

Plus your people's state seemed to fuck up the enviornment at least as much as exploitative corporations do.

What's most important though, is this: even if the USSR was moderately better than American capitalism, it doesn't mean that we should hold it as a goal for future movements.

You'll probably disagree, which is good, because I do respect your opinions.

I look forward to your response, peace out.

[ThunderStrike]

Quote: from Emmanual Goldstein on 8:55 am on Nov. 17, 2002
And the workplaces might not have been owned by greedy capitalists, but did the workers run them themselves any time after Stalin took power?



factory's in the USSR during stalin went like this: workers counsils in the factory made a planning of production following the main production lines from the state i think, these workers counsils had the power, there were managers from the party in the factory's but when they were too harsch or something the workers counsils could vote them out and expell them..

actually after stalin died, when Kruschev came to power, he destroyed the right that workers could expell these factory managers..

[ThunderStrike]

Quote: from the pen on 10:05 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
just a reply to thunder strike. first you call trotsky a opportunist without any proof to back it up and then you use this supposed opportunism as a excuse for his expulsion and the show trials that followed. trotsky is someone that gave his whole life to the struggle for socialism. he stuck firmly to his beliefs to the end and was the most vocal opposition to stalins beurachy.
in relation to germany stalin saw fascism as a peferable alternative to capitalist democracy. he went so far to declare that all other members of the workers movement were social fascists. he joined the nazi in destroying the sds. then when he finally relasised the danger he put foward the ludicrous popular front or people front policicies. this was a reason for the failure of spain and china.
in relation to the nazi-soviet non aggression pact the decesity of a action doesnt have anything to do with democracy.
please metion instances of trotskys "opportunism" so i can refute them.
in relation to a coup trotsky had huge support in the army and could easily have inacted a coup. he didnt though because it would have been bonapartism. totsky stayed true to marxism.


well Trotsky wasn't part of the Bolsheviks in the first place, he joined them when he saw that they were winning, sounds opportunistic to me? he only wanted to join the winning party to get his ass in the leading seat.. Trotsky was devoted alright, to the counter-revolutionairy cause, he approved individual terrorism against the Sovjet Union in order for a "real" socialist revolution?? and whats with this "bureaucracy" bullshit where trotskyists always come up with? Stalin made sure the party had young and devoted marxist-leninists in it, and he tried to fight bureaucracy with all the power he had.. he made sure that people that tried to sabotage the revolution would be expelled from the party or arrested if nessesary..

dunno what you mean with the failures in spain and china? but ehm, about the non-aggression pact with germany, as i said before, the people of the sovjet union didnt want a war with nazi-germany. but Stalin knew it would be inevitable.. so he tried to buy time in order to prepare the USSR for war against nazi-germany, so he did... if the germans attacked 2 years sooner the revolution would have been crushed inside the USSR and the country would be restored to capitalism.

(btw i will post a more full answer soon, too busy atm..)

(Edited by ThunderStrike at 6:05 pm on Nov. 17, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Emmanual Goldstein on 6:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
Hey Revolution Hero, even if the revolution ended the exploitation of one man by another (I doubt it, but I never lived in the USSR) isn't it possible for workers to be exploited by the state?

I mean sure there was a planned economy or whatever, but I haven't seen any evidence that the common people actively participated in the planning. I mean shit, even capitalists make plans for what they want their corporation do in the next year or 5 years, but it doesn't mean that the people or the enviornment benefit from their planning.

And the workplaces might not have been owned by greedy capitalists, but did the workers run them themselves any time after Stalin took power?

Plus your people's state seemed to fuck up the enviornment at least as much as exploitative corporations do.

What's most important though, is this: even if the USSR was moderately better than American capitalism, it doesn't mean that we should hold it as a goal for future movements.

You'll probably disagree, which is good, because I do respect your opinions.

I look forward to your response, peace out.


quote:" even if the revolution ended the exploitation of one man by another (I doubt it, but I never lived in the USSR) isn't it possible for workers to be exploited by the state?"

Frederick Engels answers: "Proletariat takes the state power in it's hands and converts the means of production into the state property. But by doing this, proletariat destroys itself as proletariat, hence it destroys all class differences and class antagonisms." ( "Anti -During")
Hope , you'll get it.

quote: "I haven't seen any evidence that the common people actively participated in the planning"

Planning is not rulling. Don't mix these terms.
If workers accomplished the plan, then it didn't mean that they were exploited, as nobody appropriated the profit from their production, but it was used to raise the welfare of the nation. Therefore workers worked not on a boss, but on themselves.

quote: "even capitalists make plans for what they want their corporation do in the next year or 5 years, but it doesn't mean that the people or the enviornment benefit from their planning"

This statement presents nothing, but your thought confusion. I have already answered on this one.

quote:"did the workers run them themselves any time after Stalin took power? "

Actually, they did run the factories themselves, accomplishing the plan.

quote:"your people's state seemed to fuck up the enviornment at least as much as exploitative corporations do."

What would have you advised to do about this one?
Technological development and state development need sacrifices. But, USSR tried to use their resources rationally and people did care about the environment.

quote:" even if the USSR was moderately better than American capitalism, it doesn't mean that we should hold it as a goal for future movements. "

If COMMUNISM is not your goal, then you can say this. All TRUE COMMUNISTS have to respect USSR. If you don't, then you are not the one of us.

quote:"You'll probably disagree, which is good, because I do respect your opinions. "

And I will respect YOU , if you come to the reason.

[bolshevik1917]

comrades, I will admit I have not read half the posts in this thread, and as it is so big I have no intention on. But going back to the question of the USSR under Stalin I will add this evidence that I have also used against Cassius Clay on another thread to prove that Stalinist Russia was nowhere near socialism at all!

"If we were to accept every single one of the exaggerated figures on industrialization in Russia, how would that prove that there was socialism in Russia? At the end of the 19th century, Russia in six years more than doubled her production of cast iron and steel, almost doubled her production of coal, naphtha. Lenin wrote at that time "The progress in the mining industry is more rapid in Russia than in Western Europe and even in North America.... In the last few years the production of cast metal has tripled." And so on and so forth. Russian industrial output under the Czar doubled between the Russo-Japanese War and the beginning of the World War. The Czar built the Trans-Siberian, for example, the longest railway in the world. But that didn't show that Russia was a "socialist community" -- it was what it was, Czarist autocracy.

Between 1932 and 1937, according to the official Stalinist statistics, the total value of the Russian heavy-industry products increased 238 per cent. That's impressive. But in the very same period, 1932-1937, heavy-industry production in Japan, a country far less endowed with population and natural resources, increased by 176 per cent. That, too, is impressive. But nobody thought of saying that this proved the existence of socialism, or, to be statistically exact, three-fourths socialism in Japan.


The Communist Manifesto over a hundred years ago went out of its way to pay tribute to the bourgeoisie which, as it said, "has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals, "but Marx and Engels didn't, therefore, call capitalist society a socialist community.


Labor productivity, in industry and agriculture, to this hour was much lower in Russia than it was in the United States, the outstanding capitalist country in the world, which, from the socialist standpoint, i.e., this capitalism of ours, is exceedingly backward. According, to Planned Economy for December, 1940, the Russian miner, in spite of the vicious speed-up system of Stakhanovism, produced less than half the tonnage of the American (370 tons as against 844). What's more, while production in an American mine was three times as large as in a comparable Russian mine, the latter uses eleven times as many technicians, twice as many miners, three times as many office workers, and twelve times as large a supervisory staff. Twelve times as large a supervisory staff! wherever you went, the dead hand of bureaucratism was all too apparent in Stalinist Russia!


According to another journal, Problems of Economy for January, 1941, agricultural labor in America exceeded the productivity of the Russian kolkhoznik: 6.7 times in the production of wheat, 7.7 times in oats, 8.1 times in sugar beets, 3.1 times in milk and 20.1 times in wool. Now, the function of technique is what? It's to economize human labor, and nothing else. Socialism must guarantee society a higher economy of time than is guaranteed by capitalism, but by capitalism at its best! Otherwise socialism represents no advance. What kind of socialism is it where the productivity of labor is so inferior to that which prevails in an advanced capitalist state?



I want to emphasize first of all that I'll not refer to Russia during or since the devastation of the country by the war. I will refer to 1939 and the years before it. It makes no difference really. As early as 1935 the Stalinists officially announced that socialism had already been established in Russia, and irrevocably at that!
At the end of the Second Five Year Plan, in 1937, the output of steel was four times as great as in 1913, the last pre-World War I year in Russia -- dairy products lower than 1913; petroleum products three times higher than 1913 -- tea was available only to one-third the extent of 1913. There was a big airplane industry non-existent in Czarist Russia, absolutely. But in 1912, Russia had 1,166,000 department stores, wholesale units and retail shops, which the consumer depends upon, while on October 1, 1937, according to Planned Economy of 1938, issue No. 2, with a population far greater, no less than 160,000,000, there were only 228,000 distribution stores and 98,000 warehouses. The plan for rolled steel was completed almost 100 per cent; they now have a big chemical industry; but the plan for the production of soap was not even 40 per cent completed.

Tea, we're talking about, not television sets! Soap! The production of machines was twenty times as high as in 1918, at the end of the Second Five-Year Plan. But wages were lower than in pre-war Russia!

Was Russia under Stalin socialist? What happened to wages, what happened to real wages -- under Stalinist rule? In other words, what was the real standard of living for the masses under Stalinism, not in terms of television sets, not in terms of radios, refrigerators, and cars. No, we're talking about ordinary standard of living. Did real wages keep pace with the growth of industrialization, which was great, with the growth of production, which had been great, with the growth of the national income, which had been great?

By Stalin's official figures or any official figures? No, they had declined! The real facts are hard to find in the official Stalinist press, which did everything to conceal and twist them out of shape. The Stalinist press for years had not published one single line officially about prices of commodities. Although hard to find though it wasn’t impossible.

According to Pravda, May 14, 1988, the average wage of workers in 1938 was 259 rubles a month. Bear that figure in mind. That's Pravda. What could the Russian worker buy with this wage? What could he do with it? Inadvertently Pravda itself told us. On April 8, 1938, it reports that food for a patient in a Moscow hospital costed 7 rubles a day, that is, 210 rubles a month. On May 17th of the same year, it says "The fee for a child in a Pioneer camp should not be more than the cost of maintenance, 250 to 350 rubles a month." Now everybody knows that hospitals and children's camps did not provide the richest variety of food, the best food. Not at all. Everybody knows that hospitals purchased in large quantities; they purchase collectively, they prepare collectively. Things were cheaper. If a hospital patient required for food 210 rubles a month, if a kid in a Pioneer camp required from 250 to 350 rubles a month for food, what could the Russian worker buy with an average wage of 259 rubles a month? That's not after the Hitler invasion; that's in 1938, after socialism had irrevocably been established in Russia.

What about inequality? At hat time there was no country in the world, bar none, were inequality was as great, as deep, as extensive as it was in Stalinist Russia. In the United States, the spread between the poorest-paid and the best-paid worker was three to one, four to one, and, in extreme cases, five to one

In Russia, according to a very objective and fair economist and statistician, Dr. Abram Bergson, in his book on The Structure of Russian Wages, in October 1934 "the earnings of the highest paid Soviet worker were more than 28.3 times the earnings of the lowest paid worker at that time." And it became much worse! In 1947, average annual wage: 7100 rubles. The Stalinist press reported all the time earnings of some workers between 10 and 15 thousand rubles a month, that is, 120 to 180 thousand a year, when the average is 7100. Typical report is in Trud, the labor paper, so-called, for January 1, 1949, which reported that three Donbas miners averaged 60 to 75 thousand rubles for the three years 1946-1948. Now if with the lowest paid the average was 7100, is it an exaggeration to assume that the lowest paid do not go over 3000?

That makes a ratio of what between the lowest paid and the highest paid? anywhere from 50 or 60 to 1! Find me a working class anywhere in the world that shows that disparity. Now if that's how it is among workers, imagine the gap between workers and the ruling class, the factory directors, the managers, the army and navy officers, the brass, the millionaire kolkhozhiks, as they called them in the Stalinist press, the bureaucrats of all varieties, Stripes, ranks, sizes and weights!"