How was the USSR communist?

[Dynatos]

Communism is supposed to be a society with no money, no classes, and everyone shares everything. In the USSR people had money and had there own personal things. how was that communist? I think it was more like socialism than communism. The omish where more communist than the USSR.

[Nateddi]

The USSR did not claim to be communist. They referred to themselves as a socialist country, as well as to all the eastern european allies as socialist.

Classless communism is not something that can ever happen when capitalism still exists, its obvious.

[EricDHobo]

It is impossible to start out a new government with now money or personal property. There would be no way of ensuring that every one got their equal share. If the stores were just free than the person who could run in there and grab every thing off the shelves and ultimatly oppressing the other citizens. The abolition of currency was ment for after the state had enough for every one and the capitalist pigs weren't running around. Communism is ment to protect the workers from oppression which would be extremly difficult without money. It is the Socialist Democracy that is ment to have no money where every one shares because of their patriotism to the ideal along with some help from the gov.

[Marxman]

Look. Maybe you don't know this but since you claim to be on the side of communism, I'm going to be rude and shout: COMMUNISM CAN'T BE ACHIEVED OVER-NIGHT. WHERE'S YOUR HEAD AT? Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Alan Woods, Ted Grant,... emphasized infinte times that communism cannot be achieved over-night. It is a long process of transformation of society. Socialism is the stage before communism and after the long process of dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism still has money but its value isn't so essential anymore because the point of all this is that money looses its value in the long process of communism. But there is also a non-marxist tendency that tries to achieve communism as fast as possible, and that is anarchy. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you understand that USSR wasn't socialist, not even in the period of Lenin. Even Lenin and Trotsky knew that. Then came Stalin's stupid slogans:"We are building socialism." Actually, Stalin was destroying socialism since day one. You must understand that Lenin was on the right track for building socialism, not Stalin. After the Ocotber revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved and that is the first step of transmuting the society into a classless one. I hate people nowadays, especially educated that say:"Russia was a communist state." I'm 17 and I know more than a guy who has a doctorate. I really hate the misinterpretation of communism as 'the evil system.' But at first, we can't blame cappies for slandering communism but stalinism with Stalin on top.

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman , I have to admit that you know a lot. But........
I haven't seen any of your's replies without the rememberance of Trotsky.
Also, you have very bad associations and stereotypes." USSR=Stalinism." That is the most ignorant thing I hear after the time when you called me Stalinist.
USSR was a socialist state , with the command economy, which is the very important sign of each socialist state. State capitalism is just the preparation for the socialism, and the USSR have passed this stage successfully.

[Marxman]

Look. I have outbursts onl ybecause I can't tolerate people who think they can just come here and slander the name of communism all avoer again. Again, I shall shout unscrupulously: RUSSIA WAS NOT A SOCIALIST STATE! DON'T YOU BELIEVE LENIN OR TROTKSY? Or do you believe that stupid treacherous Stalin with his slogans of building socialism in 5 years. Nonsense, complete nonsense, believe me. If you're claiming that Russia was socialist, then you're kicking Marx, Engels, Lenin,Trotsky,Rosa,Karl Liebknecht right into their faces. Okay, but I do now why you are confusing socialism with stalinism - planned economy. Planned economy is the only thing that stalinism has in common with communism and socialism. But I must add that planned economy in stalinism is controlled by the bueracracy and planned economy in socialism by the workers. Socialism, if you don't know, is after the long procedure of dictatorship of the proletariat and that was not enough in Russia. Socialism can only be achieved if it is world-wide, no matter what. If you're claiming that Russia was socialist, then you're a stalinist because stalinists (and nazis) abolished Lenin and Trotsky's international views and suddenly said:"Socialism in one country." A complete nonsense that can never work. Let me ask you this, can capitalism survive in one country? No, it can't. So, in the long run, Russia was never a socialist state but only in the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then after, you know well what happened, sad but true.

[Dynatos]

''RUSSIA WAS NOT A SOCIALIST STATE!'' You are wrong. The USSR was a socialist country.

Socialism:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

All of these things where established in the USSR. Therefor IT WAS SOCIALIST!! And yes Stalin was a Socialist. Socialism Just like every other form of government , when in the wrong hands, can be used to opprese others. I'm not saying Socialism is a bad thing just because Stalin used it for evil. Socialism can be a good thing when controled by the people and not a tyrrant.

COMMUNISM CAN'T BE ACHIEVED OVER-NIGHT. WHERE'S YOUR HEAD AT? First of all my head is between my shoulders. Communism in one county can't happen over night but It can happen in about 5 years. In a Capitalist society (well in Canada anyways) The state supplise the people with free health cair, free education, social insurance ect. and in retern we pay a taxes of aroud 8% (depending on where u live) . What if the state would rase the taxes to 100%. Then the state could supply the people with food, entertainment, education, health cair, and everything else. How long could it take to rase the taxes to 100% and establish a few new laws to make sure people don't abuse consumption of the suppies from the state?

[Marxman]

Hmm, I see Dynatos has a potrait of Lenin and at the same time he is saying to Lenin:"Fuck you. I am better than your stupid theories." Communism in 5 years! Well, tell me a this wondrous plan to achieve classless society in 5 years. But first, I'll criticise your posts a little. There is nothing wrong that you have your opinions (even if they are dumb) about communism but let's be honest and say that you have absolutely no idea about marxism. Lenin was a marxist and you have his picture but you're not a marxist, so can you figure out the discrepancy by yourself? I'm not going to waste my time and write manuscripted posts about ABC of communism to someone who claims that it can be achieved in 5 years! I am simply going to paste the ABC of communism from www.marxists.org that has a virtual encyclopedia of marxism.

Communism:

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Program

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

Marx & Engels
The German Ideology
Private Property and Communism

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism — from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.

"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society

Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement [alienation], and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man. It is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social — i.e., human — being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution.

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

This "alienation" [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.

Without this:

(1) communism could only exist as a local event;

(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and

(3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism.

Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers — the utterly precarious position of labour — power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life — presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Marx & Engels
The German Ideology

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

"In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto
Proletarians and Communists

See also: Communists, Socialism, Freedom, and Democracy.

And now, the question of socialism. What is socialism?Socialism

"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."

August Bebel
Die Frau und der Sozialismus

"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes.

[...]

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.

[...]

"And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

("These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be generally applicable.")

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions?

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotah Programme
Part IV: On Democracy

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

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 2.

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

"Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it..."

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement...

"Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only — for instance... one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part 1

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production — the factories, machines, land, etc. — and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The first phase of Communist Society

Please, don't slander the name of communism anymore by saying that Stalin was a socialist when you have never even read a book about him. You can't fool me anymore.

[Dynatos]

Marxman calm down. You seem to be a very angre person. Thats not good for you.

Anyways, i do agree with you. I'm still learning about marxism, stalinism, leninism ect. and i still need to read more books about the subject. After all im hear to learn. So far i know what Communism is and that its the way of the futur but how to achieve Communism is what im unsure of. In the longrun every ideaology wether it be moaism or leninism, stalinism or trotskism, or whatever they all have the common goal of Communism. I Just need to figur out witch one i think is more efficient.

[pastradamus]

The term communism wasnt really in existance untill lenin came along.
So basically & simpley they gave definition to what we know as communism today.

[Marxman]

The term communism was when Karl Marx was alive! I hope you know where to find that word (hint: Communist manifesto).

Anyway, that's good Dynatos. I'll give you a great advice that I'm doing. Go to wellred.marxist.com and if you have a credit card, you're a lucky man. I must tell you, Wellred has got monumental books about communism. No, no cappie books but real marxist ones. Please, if you wish to learn about communism (which is NOT a waste of time), order some books or read them online. For a starter, I suggest a great book "Russia:from revolution to counter-revolution" by Ted Grant. Please, if you want to know more about ideology, you have to read BOOKS, otherwise it's nonsense. When I started to read marxist books, my questions have been answered (not all, of course) and my eyes have opened widely. Remember, wellred.marxist.com

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 2:49 am on Sep. 8, 2002
. Socialism can only be achieved if it is world-wide, no matter what. If you're claiming that Russia was socialist, then you're a stalinist because stalinists (and nazis) abolished Lenin and Trotsky's international views and suddenly said:"Socialism in one country." A complete nonsense that can never work. Let me ask you this, can capitalism survive in one country? No, it can't. So, in the long run, Russia was never a socialist state but only in the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then after, you know well what happened, sad but true.



A typical answer of the typical trotskyst. Capitalism can't survive in one country, but socialism can and must survive in ONE COUNTRY.

HOW CAN YOU DARE TO GO AGAINST LENIN AND LENINISM???

Quote from Lenin:
" Unevenness of the economical development is the unconditional law of the capitalism. Hence it appears, that victory of the socialism is possible in several or even in ONE , separately taken, capitalist country..." ( vol.18, p.232-233).!!!
These Lenin's words were proved to be correct after the Great October Revolution of 1917. USSR showed the whole world ( and to all trotskysts) that socialism can be built in one "separately taken " country. And this country was USSR.
Trotsky's theory of the "permanent" revolution contradicts to Lenin's statement. According to Trotskysm, socialism can win only in the worldwide scale, as it can't be built in one country, which is surrounded by the capitalist states. Trotsky's position was definitely WRONG!!!

So, don't you ever put the names of Lenin and Trotsky together!!!

[Marxman]

I suggest you stop reading Stalinist edition of the LCW and concentrate on what Lenin and Trotsky really stood for. I can't help you if you're going to insist believing Stalinists instead of Marxists. I really suggest you read marxist books, first Lenin's.

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman, CAN'T YOU READ???
I suggest you to read my reply, before you start answering. Haven't you noticed the quote from Lenin, and my conclusion about it?

Trotsky's idea was proved to be incorrect, by the bolsheviks of the communist party of the Soviet Union, who decided to take a course on the building of socialism. They took a decision according to Lenin's advice, which was very optimistic : " We can and we MUST build socialism in the USSR!"

[Marxman]

Lenin never said that! This is from a stalinist edition, which I am very aware off. I suggest you hear this:

Lenin, who, as we have shown, did not at that time have the same position as Trotsky, wrote in 1905:

"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'."

Lenin's position which did not at all "spring from the theory of permanent revolution" is quite clear. But let us cite one other authority which can shed further light on this question. At a conference held in May 1905, the following position was approved:

"Only in one event would social-democracy on its own initiative direct its exertions towards acquiring power and holding it for as long as possible - namely in the event of revolution spreading to the advanced countries of Western Europe, where conditions for the realisation of socialism have already reached a certain ripeness. In this event the restricted historical limits of the Russian revolution can be considerably widened, and the possibility will occur of advancing on the path of socialist transformation."

The conference mentioned was that of the Russian Mensheviks, the tendency that stood furthest of all from the theory of permanent revolution!

Thus the reader can see, irrespective of differences on other questions, every single one of the tendencies of Russian Marxism agreed on one thing: the impossibility of effecting a socialist transformation in Russia without a socialist revolution in the West. On this question, Lenin was more emphatic than Trotsky. Whereas Trotsky in 1905 foresaw the prospect of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the workers' revolution in the West, Lenin based his perspective on the socialist revolution in Russia following the revolution in Western Europe.

[Michael De Panama]

Aah! Too many incorrect statements! Not enough patience!! Aah!

[Marxman]

What's your point, Michael? You too don't know that there is a Stalinist version of Lenin's collected works with only 8 volumes or even less?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 4:05 am on Sep. 12, 2002
Lenin never said that! This is from a stalinist edition, which I am very aware off. I suggest you hear this:



šIf you are out of your arguements, it doesn't mean that you have to deny the facts.

šSuggest you to read Lenin's work "About the slogan of the United States of Europe."
šThe quote is taken from this great work.

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 7:11 pm on Sep. 16, 2002)

[Marxman]

You read Stalinist versions (if you wish).
I'll read marxist dialectical versions.

[Mazdak]

Marxman, it appears that you mention the name of your god Trotsky in every statement you make. And then you are the kind that criticize Stalin for his cult of personality!

That's all i have to say for now.

[Marxman]

Personality cult was invented by Stalinists and I despise Stalinists, therefore I don't see Trotsky as God.

Your deliberate misinterpretation is obsolete, you know. I'm an atheist and I don't have any Gods to worship. Trotsky is one of my guides to the world of marxism and communism. The latter has been slandered millions and millions of times by unscrupulous ignorant savages like you Mazdak, therefore I mention the name Trotsky in most of my posts. I guard his words as they are truly enriched with marxism, just like words of Lenin.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 11:15 pm on Sep. 18, 2002
You read Stalinist versions (if you wish).
I'll read marxist dialectical versions.


Don't make me laugh, Marxman! Stalinist versions don't even exist.

Read it and you will find this quote.

[Mazdak]

Savages? Stalin was far from being a savage. You claim to have previously been one of us, so what exactly made you suddenly decide to betray him for a disliked man like Trotsky. If it hadnt been for his assassination, no one would have cared about him.

[Marxman]

I cured out of ignorance. Do you want to know why? I started reading.

[Marxman]

I cured out of ignorance. Do you want to know why? I started reading marxist material, which are scientific and dialectic in nature.

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman, I can make only one conclusion about you:
You don't understand what you read.

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman, here is my conclusion about you:
You don't understand the true meaning of what you read.

But you can get better, it is not such a bad diagnosis.
Try to analyze and compare, man.

[Marxman]

Actually not. What I read is what I comprehend. And since I became a convinced marxists, I read and see with more comprehension.

"Marx's philosophy" by a Etienne Balibar is what I am currently reading. I don't see any misdeed in that, do you? I don't misinterpret Marx nor Trotsky nor Lenin because I'm reading genuine marxist material, not some cappie or stalinist versions of titles.

I understand the true meaning, otherwise I wouldn't come to conclusions that Trotsky was actually one of the biggest marxists in history and that stalinism is what existed in the terror years of the USSR.

[Revolution Hero]

Well, you haven't noticed any contradictions and differences between Marxism -Leninism and Trotskysm,yet. And I am afraid that you will never notice them, as the literature, which you read is written by the trotskyst writers.

Try to read more Lenin, and you will learn that socialism can and should be built in one country.

[Marxman]

Try to read more Lenin, and you will learn that socialism can and should be built in one country.

This is exactly what bothers me. Claiming socialism in one country. Do you want to know which punks tried that? The Nazis! National socialists = Nazis if you don't know and you are speaking like them.

Where did Marx and Engels or even Lenin write about socialism in one country?! Come on, prove it dialectically. Give me qoutes and then explain the time that they were written and these sort of things.

You shall see what I mean with the sentence:"Stalinists walk stubbornly to the very end and that end has proved many times to be a dead-end."

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm the Nazis were not Socialists nor did they have anything to do with Socialism. As far as I know the Communists and Socialists were the first to be chucked in the concentration camps while the Capatalists continued running the factories.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 9:54 pm on Sep. 28, 2002

Try to read more Lenin, and you will learn that socialism can and should be built in one country.

This is exactly what bothers me. Claiming socialism in one country. Do you want to know which punks tried that? The Nazis! National socialists = Nazis if you don't know and you are speaking like them.

Where did Marx and Engels or even Lenin write about socialism in one country?! Come on, prove it dialectically. Give me qoutes and then explain the time that they were written and these sort of things.

You shall see what I mean with the sentence:"Stalinists walk stubbornly to the very end and that end has proved many times to be a dead-end."


Marxman , I have already posted the quote from the work " About the slogan of the United States of Europe."(1915) This quote perfectly proves my words.

Lenin was the one who wanted to build socialism in one country, but it doesn't mean that Lenin negate the possibility of building socialism in other countries, as he said that these countries have to come to the socialism themselves.

This is a principle difference between Leninism and Trotskysm. I hope that I have opened your eyes.

[Marxman]

So, now you're saying Lenin was an isolator like Stalin. Then Lenin was, in your theory, like Stalin after all.

Please, spare me the good night stories about Lenin not wanting to help other countries in the socialist revolutions.

What kind of logics do you possess if you think that helping a wounded man is devious?

[Cassius Clay]

No what he is trying to say (I think!) is that Trotskyism is just Imperialism under a different name. The whole theory of 'permanent revolution' is something more akin to the Nazi policy of 'Living space'.

Yes the Russian Revolution depended a great deal on revolutions happening in Germany and Britain but that did not happen. But that doesn't mean it's the Red Army's place to go racing across Europe. It is up to the people of those countries to chose which gov't they want, not to have it imposed by force.

For example in 1948 the people of Yugoslavia chose Tito as their leader, did the Red Army come crashing through? No because Stalin realised that would of been hyprocritical to everything the Soviet Union stood for. This is why the Communists in Albania strongly opposed the SU invasion of Afghanistan.

[Marxman]

By the way, if you happen to follow history, after the October, everything was circling around Nazism (fascism) and Stalinism. TITO's coming was typically stalinist and had nothing to do with socialism in any form. Stalin's degeneration of the 4th International totally proved that he wasn't interested in the emancipation of the proletariat like real marxists are.

Your interpretation of Trotsky is now beginning to bore me as you post, one after another, the same lines to discredit Trotsky's struggle with Lenin to achieve a socialist revolution all over the world. If you still believe Stalin tried to achieve the fictitious non-real "socialism in one country", go ahead and knock yourself with the stalinist literature for all I care. But the dead-end lurks before you, like I said.

Comparing Trotsky with Nazis is the oldest one in the book of slanders of Trotsky by stalinists. Can't you be more creative? The most laughable conclusions of stalinists was that Trotsky was a GESTAPO agent. Yeah, a jew and he would be a GESTAPO agent. Good one.

By the way, are you 3 years old to believe that the SU's invasion of Afghanistan was meant for the liberation from moslem fundamantelists? Or are you a rational grown up and accept the fact that the SU only tried to spread its stalinist regimes to resourcable states, such as Afghanistan with its abundance of oil?

(Edited by Marxman at 7:14 pm on Sep. 28, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

''By the way, if you happen to follow history, after the October, everything was circling around Nazism (fascism) and Stalinism. TITO's coming was typically stalinist and had nothing to do with socialism in any form. Stalin's degeneration of the 4th International totally proved that he wasn't interested in the emancipation of the proletariat like real marxists are.''

Quite what that whole 'Circuling around' thing is all about I don't know. Well apart from either not understanding or reading my post I can only say that calling Tito is a Stalinist is a very good joke. And as for Stalin not being a Marxist I have answered this in another thread were you went on one of your rants. Yet you did not respond.

''Your interpretation of Trotsky is now beginning to bore me as you post, one after another, the same lines to discredit Trotsky's struggle with Lenin to achieve a socialist revolution all over the world. If you still believe Stalin tried to achieve the fictitious non-real "socialism in one country", go ahead and knock yourself with the stalinist literature for all I care. But the dead-end lurks before you, like I said.''

Well I'm sorry if it 'bores' you but that's life and I have only posted twice in this thread. As for Lenin and Trotsky being the only one's to lead a true revolution on the right path. For starters Lenin and Trotsky were not the close friends that you like to portray, Trotsky couldn't even be bothered to turn up to Lenin's funeral.

In the same thread that you failed to respond to you said 'Anybody who praises Lenin and slanders Trotsky is an ignorant rookie'. To which I replied with the following quote by one Vladimir Ilich Lenin,

''Trotsky arrived, and this scroundrel at once came to an understanding with Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldadians! Just so! This is just like Trotsky! He is allways equal to himself-twists, swindels, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can''

Once again I will simply say that 'Permanent Revolution' is nothing short of Imperialism. What do you have to say to Trotsky's theory of wanting to impose 'Military discipline' in factories?

''Comparing Trotsky with Nazis is the oldest one in the book of slanders of Trotsky by stalinists. Can't you be more creative? The most laughable conclusions of stalinists was that Trotsky was a GESTAPO agent. Yeah, a jew and he would be a GESTAPO agent. Good one.''

I compared Trotsky's idea of 'Permanent Revolution' with the Nazis theory of 'Living space'. Yes Trotsky had all the characteristics of a Fascist and it does not matter if he were a Jew. Are you not aware of the so called 'Blue Police' who ran the Warsaw Ghetto.

''By the way, are you 3 years old to believe that the SU's invasion of Afghanistan was meant for the liberation from moslem fundamantelists? Or are you a rational grown up and accept the fact that the SU only tried to spread its stalinist regimes to resourcable states, such as Afghanistan with its abundance of oil?''

Are you really that stupid? I cannot believe that you have actually posted the above. I can only assume you did not read my post properly. So I will have to put my point in more simple words for you.

The Communists in Albania led by Enver Hoxha strongly opposed the 'Social Imperialism' of Brezheve's invasion of Afghanistan. Hoxha regonised what the Soviet Union had become in terms of it's international policy and he saw that it was all about the rescourses available in Afghanistan. And if you read his work 'Revolution and Imperialism' you will understand what is meant by 'Socialist Imperialism'.

[Marxman]

Yeah, yeah.

You surely understand marxism and communism. Tito was a stalinist and yet you claim that is a joke.

You're boring, man. You truly don't understand the nature of stalinism and you fool yourselves with the thought that Hoxha was some marxist opposing stalinist rules. Yeah, right.

Stalinists are like this. They want to become isolated and want to enslave other nations under them. Stalin wanted China and China refused because China's stalinists wished to dictate their own rules and not the rules of Moscow. The same happened with Tito when he turned down Stalin. Same old story. But unfortunately non-marxists never get a taste of it, so they rather go back to the times of Trotsky and slander him in any way possible. There will soon be the day when some stalinist writes a book:"Hitler the Trotsky's disciple."

[LeninCCCP]

Quote: from Marxman on 4:26 am on Sep. 7, 2002
Look. Maybe you don't know this but since you claim to be on the side of communism, I'm going to be rude and shout: COMMUNISM CAN'T BE ACHIEVED OVER-NIGHT. WHERE'S YOUR HEAD AT? Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Alan Woods, Ted Grant,... emphasized infinte times that communism cannot be achieved over-night. It is a long process of transformation of society. Socialism is the stage before communism and after the long process of dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism still has money but its value isn't so essential anymore because the point of all this is that money looses its value in the long process of communism. But there is also a non-marxist tendency that tries to achieve communism as fast as possible, and that is anarchy. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you understand that USSR wasn't socialist, not even in the period of Lenin. Even Lenin and Trotsky knew that. Then came Stalin's stupid slogans:"We are building socialism." Actually, Stalin was destroying socialism since day one. You must understand that Lenin was on the right track for building socialism, not Stalin. After the Ocotber revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved and that is the first step of transmuting the society into a classless one. I hate people nowadays, especially educated that say:"Russia was a communist state." I'm 17 and I know more than a guy who has a doctorate. I really hate the misinterpretation of communism as 'the evil system.' But at first, we can't blame cappies for slandering communism but stalinism with Stalin on top.


You have a great understanding of communism I respect you very much

[Marxman]

Thanx Lenin. I hope you can appreciate my anger towards stalinists that slandered the name of Lenin and his friend Trotsky and especially Marx and Engels.

Stalinists are truly a mockery to us. They're fascist non-marxist slogans of "building socialism" and "socialism in one country" truly vexes me. I know for a fact that Stalin immediately after Lenin's death said:"Socialism can be achieved in one country alone." An obscure sentence that is even contradictory on paper.

And what vexes me even more that persons on this forum claim they're marxists and at the same time claim that Stalin was absolutely right about building socialism in one country and that socialism can be achieved in one country alone. Nonsense, a total non-marxist nonsense.

[Cassius Clay]

''You surely understand marxism and communism. Tito was a stalinist and yet you claim that is a joke.''

Oh dear, anybody will tell you that Tito was NOT a Stalinist.

''You're boring, man.''

I have apologised for that.

''You truly don't understand the nature of stalinism and you fool yourselves with the thought that Hoxha was some marxist opposing stalinist rules. Yeah, right.''

No, Hoxha was a genuine Marxist-Leninist who happened to of admired Joseph Stalin a great deal. Infact he was recently voted the greatest Albanian in history. Hoxha oppossed (see whether you understand this yet) the 'Social Imperialism' of the Soviet Union because he saw that it employed the exact same tools as U$ Imperialism. He also saw how Mao's theory of 'Three Worlds' was based on racism and a anti-Marxist theory.

''Stalinists are like this. They want to become isolated and want to enslave other nations under them.''

Well apart from the fact that I don't think Revolution Hero is even a Stalinist your second point is completly condraticting itself. So there 'Isolationist' yet are hell bent on conquering the world? This is like saying Joe Louis was a vicious fighter and a violent man yet refused to knock out his opponents because he didn't like to hurt people.

''Stalin wanted China and China refused because China's stalinists wished to dictate their own rules and not the rules of Moscow.''

Wait a minute the same Stalin who supposedly betrayed the Chinese Communists in 1927? A little history lesson. The Soviets and Chinese split in the late 1960's years after Stalin had died.

''The same happened with Tito when he turned down Stalin. Same old story. But unfortunately non-marxists never get a taste of it, so they rather go back to the times of Trotsky and slander him in any way possible. There will soon be the day when some stalinist writes a book:"Hitler the Trotsky's disciple."

Well your knowledge is incredible. Trotsky did a fine job discrediting himself. Please tell me the last time a person who want's to even put across a balanced view of Stalin managed to get a book published?

[Marxman]

Still the same ol' stalinist.

I'm not gonna waste my time with you stalinists anymore. I can already predict the future of your tendencies. Your either gonna become genuine marxists or you're gonna become right-wingers. To become a marxist needs focusing on marxist material, which you need to obtain. To become a right-winger, is fairly simple and most common for stalinists.

By the way, Tito was a stalinist but his branch was called titoism. Just like Castro is a stalinist but his branch is castroism. You can ask any marxist that and he'll concur.

[Cassius Clay]

Your refusal to accept the basic facts and just dismiss everything as 'Stalinist crap' or whatever else is amazing. You have probably acknowledged that your last post was a load of rubbish but instead of admitting that you just declare 'Im not gonna waste my time'.

You actually believe Tito was a Stalinist. Do you actually think the SFRY's 'Market Socialism' can be compared to the struggle against the Kulaks and 5 year plans?

[LeninCCCP]

Stalinist's may as well worship Hitler! You Nazi Bastards!

[Cassius Clay]

LeninCCCP is there any reason why you say that? Since you have just insulted all those millions of Red Army men and women who died for your freedom. In Albania it was the partisans led by Enver Hoxha who fought the Italian Fascists and German Nazis. NOT a bunch of Trotskyites.

You call me a 'Nazi Bastard' when all I did was point out that Tito's 'Market Socialism' is different from the struggle against the Kulaks and the 5 year plans. Maybe it was the fact that I pointed out Marxman saying Stalinists 'Want to become Isolated and want to enslave other nations under them' is a total contradiction and yet you praise the man as if he were somesought of genius.

Or perhaps it was this that got on your nerves,

'Trotsky arrived, and this scroundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right-wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! This is just like Trotsky! He is allways equal to himself-twists, swindels, poses a Left, helps the Right as long as he can.'

I can only assume that you have actually bought into all this rubbish of Trotsky being Lenin's true disciple and chosen successor. But if you look into history you will find out that except for Petrograd in 1919 Trotsky's role in the October Revolution and Civil War was small.

[Marxman]

Josip Broz Tito was the favorite partisan hero of WWII. He tricked Nazis with his tactics that are still being studied in the USA. His leadership was astounding.

But that doesn't mean he established a socialist state or should I say, a workers' government. Market socialism was basically a stalinist politics and I am amazed that you compare a struggle with kulaks with this when kulaks only appeared in Russia and you should know that Yugoslavia had way different things.

[new democracy]

Marxman, this is ridiculous. tito is a stalinist? he was one of stalin biggest enemies outside of the ussr.

[new democracy]

i once saw a maoist website that claim that trotsky was murdered not because of stalin but because of internal split in the trotskyst movement. tito is a stalinist is ridiculous as well.

[Cassius Clay]

''Josip Broz Tito was the favorite partisan hero of WWII. He tricked Nazis with his tactics that are still being studied in the USA. His leadership was astounding.''

Well atlast we agree on something.

''But that doesn't mean he established a socialist state or should I say, a workers' government. Market socialism was basically a stalinist politics and I am amazed that you compare a struggle with kulaks with this when kulaks only appeared in Russia and you should know that Yugoslavia had way different things.''

I agree with the the first point. But the rest of it is simply wrong, 'Market Socialism a Stalinist policy'. This is complete rubbish, are you aware of the class war against the Kulaks and those others who had ruthlessly exploited the NEP? Millions of people were affected by it. The whole point of collectivisation was to set the country on the course of Socialism, hell even Trotsky approved of it.

Yes I am aware that Kulaks were not in Yugoslavia, I think everybody knows that. In another thread I compared Albania to Yugoslavia in 1945. One country went down the road of becoming a tool for Western capital with it's 'Market Socialism' and another went down the Marxist-Leninist road. And if you compare little Albania to Yugoslavia you will realise which country was more economically powerful in 1945.

Yet by 1960 every village and town in Albania had access to electricity and the country had a 88% literacy rate.

[new democracy]

Cassius Clay, just a question: do you come from albania? you seem to know a lot aobut this country.

[Marxman]

I come from Slovenia, the former Yugoslavia. So please, I know what I am saying. Tito was a pure-hearted stalinist.

Mybe you don't know this but in Yugoslavia, if you really opposed to the government you wound up in the Goli otok/Naked Island, where things weren't nice.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 2:05 am on Sep. 29, 2002
So, now you're saying Lenin was an isolator like Stalin. Then Lenin was, in your theory, like Stalin after all.

Please, spare me the good night stories about Lenin not wanting to help other countries in the socialist revolutions.

What kind of logics do you possess if you think that helping a wounded man is devious?


Cassius was right, you had misunderstood me.( maybe you did that intentionally, who knows?)

Lenin was internationalist. Lenin wasn't ultra- internationalist like Trotsky, bul he was internationalist.

Building socialism in one country doesn't mean the implementing of the isolation policy at the same time. As, socialist state can help other states in their struggle against capitalism, and help them financially after their victory over capitalism. This policy is called the policy of the proletarian internationalism.
But the point is, that revolution have to start inside the capitalist states , it shouldn't be exported. The point is that SOCIALIST state helps other in their socialist revolutionary movement, and to the other socialist states later.

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 8:09 pm on Oct. 1, 2002)

[Marxman]

EXPORTED (!?)

Look, stop twisting my words into falsifications. TROTSKY'S thought wasn't to come to other countries and liberate the proletariat with guns with the help of some gangsters! Trotsky's permanent revolution is a theory that is self-evident to the proletarians of the world. When one country achives a socialist revolution, the adjacent country starts to realise what they have achived and so they start a revolution too. And it goes on and on!

By the way, by your exporting I could also interpret that you disagree with Lenin on that issue too. Lenin wrote numerous letters and made numerous speeches dedicated to the proletariat of the Germany. He spoke many times:"Without the help of the Germany proletariat, we are doomed. They must achieve the revolution as we did."

[Revolution Hero]

It doesn't sound like Lenin. Name me the work's title. Tell me the volume and page, where I can find this quote.

What I said was that Lenin was for building socialism in one country without anybody's help. The state will implement it's internationalist function after the socialism is already built.

[Marxman]

Like I said, many things that Lenin wrote are hidden from the world if you posses stalinist version of LCW. I'm sorry, you're gonna have to read somewhere else.

LCW is not the only thing that Lenin worked.

[Revolution Hero]

No, Marxman.I have non-stalinist version of LCW.I have all levels of Lenin's works,and I am sure that I will be able to find any work you name.

Moreover, the quote you mentioned is very suspicious. It seems that YOU slander Lenin. The quote sounds like Trotsky's.
Anyway,it can't be Lenin's quote, because it contradicts to many of Lenin's great works.

Just name me everything I had asked you for.

[Marxman]

Which quote of mine contradicts Lenin?

[Revolution Hero]

It must be clear for you that the quote I have talked about is the following:
"Without the help of the Germany proletariat, we are doomed. They must achieve the revolution as we did."

Tell me the name of the work, the volume and the page where I would be able to find it. ( I will not get tired repeating the same thing over and over again). Anyway, I will check it, and we both will find out the truth. ( the truth is that it doesn't belong to Lenin).

[Marxman]

Okay, you want it, you got it.

"Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. When the Bolshevik Party tackled the job alone, it did so in the firm conviction that the revolution was maturing in all countries and that in the end - but not at the very beginning - no matter what difficulties we experienced, no matter what defeats were in store for us, the world socialist revolution would come - because it is coming; would mature - because it is maturing and will reach full maturity. I repeat, our salvation from all these difficulties is an all-European revolution." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 95.)

He then concluded: "At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 98.) Weeks later he repeated the same position: "Our backwardness has put us in the front-line, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we shall receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries." (Ibid., p. 232.)


You want more?

[Revolution Hero]

As you know German revolution didn't win and socialism was built in the USSR without anybody's help.

Allright , I will check your quote. But you should also name the title of the work , where I would be able to find it. It will be almost impossible to find the quote from the english eddition on the same page in russian one. So, give me the title of the work , too.

[Iepilei]

I tend to agree with the Permanent Revolution theory. Not because I've read Trotsky, mind you, I haven't read any of his works. The whole concept seems alot more efficient than raising a socialist nation and fighting to the death.

If you maintain a peaceful approach on policies, rather than an isolated hostile, you're more likely to gain international support. The aim of communism is to gain that international support.

Why needlessly waste lives when subversion and education can be 100x more effective than any bullet or bomb. Heck, if you look at US intervention in the Middle East... you'll be quick to see that most Islamic fundamentalists don't support our cause cause we have a large military - quite the opposite.

[Marxman]

Exactly Iepilei, exactly. You now understand Lenin's great slogan:"Patiently explain."
Internationalism is stronger than neutron bombs and isolation is weaker than a knife trying to disable a regiment of troops.

Revolution Hero, you are speaking nonsense again. Russia didn't achieve socialism, it never did, not even in the beatiful times of Lenin and even Lenin emhpasized it a million times. How can you claim to be a marxist when you don't understand a simple word like "socialism in one country" doesn't exist. Tell me, can capitalism in one country exist? No, it can't.

Here, some paragraphs from a book "Bolshevism, the road to revolution."

It would not be difficult to establish beyond doubt Lenin's position on the necessity for world revolution. Indeed, unless the Soviet state succeeded in breaking out of its isolation, he thought that the October Revolution could not survive for any length of time. This idea is repeated time after time in Lenin's writings and speeches after the Revolution. The following are just a few examples. They could be multiplied at will:

24th January 1918:

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

8th March 1918:

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

23rd April 1918:

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

14th May 1918:

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

29th July 1918:

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

8th November 1918:

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

20th November 1918:

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

15th March 1919:

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

5th December 1919:

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

20th November 1920:

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

End of February 1922:

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

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Iepilei on 6:34 pm on Oct. 5, 2002
I tend to agree with the Permanent Revolution theory. Not because I've read Trotsky, mind you, I haven't read any of his works. The whole concept seems alot more efficient than raising a socialist nation and fighting to the death.

If you maintain a peaceful approach on policies, rather than an isolated hostile, you're more likely to gain international support. The aim of communism is to gain that international support.

Why needlessly waste lives when subversion and education can be 100x more effective than any bullet or bomb. Heck, if you look at US intervention in the Middle East... you'll be quick to see that most Islamic fundamentalists don't support our cause cause we have a large military - quite the opposite.


But USSR got international support, as it had supported revolutionary movement in the whole world.

[Marxman]

Which USSR? Under Lenin or under Stalin. Lenin supported the revolutionary movement, I agree if you claim that but Stalin and all his successors did not!

Actually, it's reverse, you know. USSR gave every effort to quench the workers' movements throughout Europe. Example: Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, France,...

The bueracracy in the USSR, which controlled the planned economy was very well aware of the jeopardy of the workers' movements, so every effort was given to that factor. It started from slandering Trotsky and finally right to the uprising of Jeltsin.

[Revolution Hero]

Marxman, you have to understand the difference between FINAL VICTORY OF SOCIALISM and THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY.
Victory of socialism in one country is possible, but it is not the final victory of socialism.
Final victory of socialism is the victory of the socialism in the whole world.
The first can come without the second. But the second have to be achieved only as a result of the internal revolutionary struggle of each state with the help of the states, which have already become socialist.

Take a look at the historty, and you will see that there was a whole system of the socialist states which opposed to the capitalist world. The world revolution was half way done, but it failed with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Marxist-Leninist position is simple. Socialist state helps other states in their struggle against capitalism and helps them to achieve socialism. That is the main principle of the PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM.

You have a lot of studying to do, in order to catch up me.

[Iepilei]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 10:34 am on Oct. 6, 2002
But USSR got international support, as it had supported revolutionary movement in the whole world.

The US bourgeoisie didn't have much of a problem turning it's populations against the concept.

I'm not saying that Stalin was wrong, per se, but it just won't work. When you have a propaganda machine as large as the United State's, you're going to have extreme opposition. And sadly enough capitalists are quite able to assmeble and mobilize (through nationalism) a militaristic force in a very short time.

See, for instance, WW2.

Education, not fear would prove the be most effective... as most Americans don't even know about the workings of their own system, let alone someone elses.




(Edited by Iepilei at 10:52 am on Oct. 6, 2002)

[Marxman]

Such arrogance, dear R.H., which proves your un-marxist tendency.

Since you can't take my word on it, read a book that replied to a stalinist article Cogito and I shall quote a chapter especially on this issue. See it on a new topic.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 8:41 pm on Oct. 6, 2002
Which USSR? Under Lenin or under Stalin. Lenin supported the revolutionary movement, I agree if you claim that but Stalin and all his successors did not!

Actually, it's reverse, you know. USSR gave every effort to quench the workers' movements throughout Europe. Example: Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, France,...

The bueracracy in the USSR, which controlled the planned economy was very well aware of the jeopardy of the workers' movements, so every effort was given to that factor. It started from slandering Trotsky and finally right to the uprising of Jeltsin.


USSR helped other countries, such as Viet Nam, Cuba , Angola and to many others.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 8:51 pm on Oct. 6, 2002
Such arrogance, dear R.H., which proves your un-marxist tendency.

Since you can't take my word on it, read a book that replied to a stalinist article Cogito and I shall quote a chapter especially on this issue. See it on a new topic.


Actually, my words on which you don't have an answer, prove that you don't understand many important questions of world policy, and that you don't have a proper understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory.

I have noticed that the method of escaping from the opponent's arguements is your favourite.

[Marxman]

I don't deviate from questions.

USSR helped stalinist states, I agree. These states were Cuba, Vietnam, Angola,...

[Revolution Hero]

USSR helped these states to struggle against capitalism. And these states were not stalinist, but socialist.

[peaccenicked]

This argument is as old as the hills. The transition between capitalism and socialism has to be a international. National revolutions have led to regimes somewhere between capitalism and socialism, their isolation and ambiguous place in the word market leaves them open to the siege mentality of stalinism.
There is no getting away from it.

[Marxman]

Precisely and indubitably, comrade peacenicked. Transition must be international and without any stalinist tendencies, such as R.H. mentioned. These stalinist tendencies only defeated the aspects of the workers' freedom everywhere in this globe.

INTERNATIONALISM is the basics of a marxist development. INTERNATIONALISM is the word that will unite the workers and the rest from all over the world. INTERNATIONALISM is one of the basic elements and every marxist must attend to it.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 9:00 pm on Oct. 10, 2002
This argument is as old as the hills. The transition between capitalism and socialism has to be a international. National revolutions have led to regimes somewhere between capitalism and socialism, their isolation and ambiguous place in the word market leaves them open to the siege mentality of stalinism.
There is no getting away from it.


That's right.
But socialist countries were not isolated, since the system of the socialist countries appeared.There were many socialist states,which interacted with one another. The system of the socialist states was the best example of the implementation of the principle of the PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM.

[Marxman]

Tell me one embryonic socialist state besides RSFSR under Lenin!

[Revolution Hero]

LOL.

USSR under Lenin was state capitalist. It became socialist later, no matter what you trotskysts say about it.
There were many socialist states and there were also many states, which choosed non-capitalist development. But according to all trotskyst anti-communists the world have never known any socialist state. According to them, the socialism can function only in the worldwide scale.I don't say that it would never happen , it is possible,but I say that the system of socialist states is needed in order to reach the worldwide socialism. Socialism in one or several countries is possible,and this is the first step towards the socialism in the whole world. Without the first the second can't be achieved.

[Marxman]

Socialism consists of the emancipation of the proletariat and of a total workers' self management (besides other things).

Now tell me if these two points existed after Lenin?

[Brasil comunist]

Hey, guys, this discussion is becoming a few boring. Why don't you go to a chat room and discuss instead of put more and more replies in this forum? Isn't it a good idea? Just tell me when and where it will be, couse I wanna be present, too.

Tank you for your atention...

Hasta la victoria siempre!

[Marxman]

The argument beween me and R.H. muct concern all of you. Read between the lines and you may learn the differences between the thought of Stalinists and Marxists.

[Cassius Clay]

''Tell me one embryonic socialist state besides RSFSR under Lenin!''

USSR between 1924-53, Albania 1945-85 and possibly North Korea.

Marxman stop calling RH a Stalinist just because he is pointing out the obvious. He/she has in other threads said that they don't like Stalin being more a fan of Khruschev and Brezheve. Sorry if I got that wrong RH.

You say the USSR only aided 'Stalinists'. Well if Stalinism and Stalinists are the all evil devil worshipers you would have us believe then surely those workers and peasants who fought in Angola, Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cuba would of done one of the following,

1, Fight for the Capatalists

2, Not bothered at all

3, Call for 'Permanent Revolution' and declare themselves Trotskyites.

On that note why do you not answer this question, now that the USSR is liberated from your 'Stalinist' slavery why do we NOT see workers calling for 'Permanet Revolution' and 'World Revolution' or whatever other half baked scheme Trotsky came up with (although I can't imagine 'Military discipline in Factories' going down to well) ?

Instead what the workers do is vote in the Communists (whom I believe you are a member of RH) who call for workers rights, minimum wage, shorter hours and other such Socialist ideals.

But what do you Trotskyites want to do, well say by some miracle you managed to have a little revolution now it's onto the next village and if the workers and peasants don't wan't a revolution (especially one imposed by force like dear Bronstein suggested) well they are obviously just Stalinists in disguise.

But for now you are condemmed to thinking that May-Day is all about breaking into McDonalds windows. Nice one Kids.

You also make the rather stupid statement that USSR fought to crush workers movements. Yeah I suppose the VC were in a evil conspiracy with the U$, figuring out how to kill as many peasants and workers from both sides as possible. Actually it make's greater sense when one thinks of all those Trotskyite Revolutions going on at the time.

Was the USSR communist? No it was Socialist, it had a planned economy and strived towards the goal of abolition of private property not to mention creating a society which was as close to inequality as there has ever been.

[Marxman]

Oh, did you think that Stalinists fight for their political power or would you rather believe the old axiom:"Make the other bastard die for me."

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 3:03 am on Oct. 13, 2002
Socialism consists of the emancipation of the proletariat and of a total workers' self management (besides other things).

Now tell me if these two points existed after Lenin?


The USSR functioned only in the interests of the peasantry and proletariat. The interests of the nation= the interests of the state. That was the main principle of the Soviet Communist Party. Self- interest aspirations of the soviet gensecs and other state officials are just the fiction of the bourgeoisie propaganda and anti-communists.

By the way, Marxman, don't you think that you have to learn what socialism is?
If you do know what socialism is, then why do you spread disinformation?

[Marxman]

What I said are the basics of socialism and every lackie should know them.

The questions thus remains - did USSR have those things after Lenin?

[Revolution Hero]

It had the first.
It was close to the second.

[Marxman]

After Lenin, EVERYTHING WAS LOST! THE ONLY THING THAT REMAINED WAS PLANNED ECONOMY and even that was corrupted by the bueracracy and was later a result of the USSR's bankruptcy.

Stalin made sure every gain of the October other than planned economy must be destroyed.

[Palmares]

USSR communist? By who's definition indeed? I do not claim to fully understand every ideology, however I can accurately say that the USSR was neither communist nor socialist. For the most part it was Stalinist (if I have to call it communist, I would refer to it as 'bourgeois communist'), except during Lenin's reign inwhich it was in a transitional stage to socialism (or perhaps even communism). Does anyone realise how imperialist the USSR really was? There was no unity, they were like imperial states, feeding the 'royal' state as such. I trust everyone knows what Lenin thought of imperialism? I ask everyone now, what nations do people believe to be or have been socialist or communist? To the true sense of both terms, none perhaps. However Cuba is the best example of what we must achieve, even with the US' unfair persecution of them.

I care not for specifics/differences of ideology, I only ask for unity. I wish communists to be finally disassociated with Stalinists, but unified with all communists. Forget the stigma, for we cannot be victorious asunder.

"When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist or a biologist who is asked if he is a "Newtonian," or if he is a "Pasteurian." "
-Che Guevara

[Marxman]

Not only didn't Russia after Lenin have socialism nor communism but it didn't even have both in the times of Lenin too.

Lenin times were great because Russia had WORKERS' DEMOCRACY - WORKERS' SELF-MANAGEMENT - DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. That alone isn't socialism yet. We all know that before socialism is workers' government.

[Revolution Hero]

Listen to my advise, Marxman.
Go and learn what socialism is and then come back here and correct your previous statements.