National socialism: really Stalinism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the later years of his life, Lenin called Stalin a "national-socialist" (with the hyphen) (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-national-question250200-10.htm). Later on, Stalin proposed "socialism in one country." Further on, Stalin even said in a war speech that the Nazis really weren't "national socialists" after all. In that speech, he refered to the "national" side in regards to the Anschluss with Austria, but then the "Hitlerists" turned imperialists on Poland. Pattern here?

[P.S. - I couldn&#39;t get the other website on Stalin&#39;s speech today. Maybe it was pulled from the Internet or something. <_< ]

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Hitlers national socialism, is a term coined in order to win over the german workers.

Because at that time, socialism was seen as a very positive word.

So, it was just political cunning and opportunism.

Stalin&#39;s "socialism in one country" was just a way of playing on all Russian chauvanism.

It too used patriotism to win over the workers. And being patriotic to Russia meant obedience to Stalin and his bureaucrats.

Its was just a small part of Stalin&#39;s general ultra leftist tendency.

overall though, they were very different, Stalin was trying to develop the Soviet Union. Hitler was for German expansion.

Stalin would rather have not had a world war, whereas war was integral to german fascism.

Remember, Lenin died before the German national socialism term was invented, but he was right in his general assessment of Stalin.

[Vargha Poralli]

BCS pointed out very accurately the nature of "National Socialism". It just in name.

Socialism in one country theme was even opposed by Stalin initially. Though it could be off topic An intersting analysis from Marxists.org


In contemporary parlance, the word “Stalinism” has come to embody a range of ideologies, specific political positions, forms of societal organization, and political tendencies. That makes getting at the core definition of “Stalinism” difficult, but not impossible.

First and foremost, Stalinism must be understood as the politics of a political stratum. Specifically, Stalinism is the politics of the bureaucracy that hovers over a workers&#39; state. Its first manifestation was in the Soviet Union, where Stalinism arose when sections of the bureaucracy began to express their own interests against those of the working class, which had created the workers&#39; state through revolution to serve its class interests.

Soviet Russia was an isolated workers&#39; state, and its developmental problems were profound. The socialist movement–including the Bolshevik leaders in Russia–had never confronted such problems. Chief among these was that Russia was a backward, peasant-dominated country, the “weakest link in the capitalist chain,” and had to fight for its survival within an imperialist world. This challenge was compounded by the defeat of the revolution in Europe, particularly in Germany, and the isolation of the Soviet workers&#39; state from the material aid that could have been provided by a stronger workers&#39; state. But the pressures of imperialism were too great.

From a social point of view, then, Stalinism is the expression of these pressures of imperialism within the workers&#39; state. The politics of Stalinism flow from these pressures.

The political tenets of Stalinism revolve around the theory of socialism in one country–developed by Stalin to counter the Bolshevik theory that the survival of the Russian Revolution depended on proletarian revolutions in Europe. In contradistinction, the Stalinist theory stipulates that a socialist society can be achieved within a single country.

In April 1924, in the first edition of his book Foundations of Leninism, Stalin had explicitly rejected the idea that socialism could be constructed in one country. He wrote: “Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”

In August 1924, as Stalin was consolidating his power in the Soviet Union, a second edition of the same book was published. The text just quoted had been replaced with, in part, the following: “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.” And by November 1926, Stalin had completely revised history, stating: “The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism ... can be accomplished with the forces of a single country.”

Leon Trotsky, in The Third International After Lenin, called the Stalinist concept of “socialism one country” a “reactionary theory” and characterized its “basis” as one that“sums up to sophistic interpretations of several lines from Lenin on the one hand, and to a scholastic interpretation of the &#39;law of uneven development&#39; on the other. By giving a correct interpretation of the historic law as well as of the quotations [from Lenin] in question,” Trotsky continued, “we arrive at a directly opposite conclusion, that is, the conclusion that was reached by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all of us, including Stalin and Bukharin, up to 1925."

Stalinism had uprooted the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism.

From “socialism in one country” flow the two other main tenets of Stalinist politics. First is that the workers&#39; movement–given the focus on building socialism in one country (i.e., the Soviet Union)–must adapt itself to whatever is in the best interests of that focus at any given moment. Hence we find the Stalinists engaged in “a series of contradictory zigzags” (Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed), from confrontation with imperialism to détente and from seeming support for the working-class struggle to outright betrayal of the workers. In other words, Russia&#39;s own economic development comes first, above an international policy of revolution–which was the Bolshevik perspective. The second is the idea of revolution in “stages” –that the “national-democratic revolution” must be completed before the socialist revolution takes place. This, too, runs contrary to Marxism. But because of this theory and as the expression of imperialism within the workers&#39; state–and, by extension, within the world workers&#39; movement–we find the Stalinists assigning to the national bourgeoisie a revolutionary role.

The case of Indonesia in 1965 affords an ideal illustration of the bankruptcy and treachery of the “two-stage theory.” As class tensions mounted among the workers and the peasantry, and the masses began to rise up against the shaky regime of President Sukarno, the Stalinist leadership in Beijing told the Indonesian masses and their mass organization the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to tie their fate to the national bourgeoisie. In October, as many as 1 million workers and peasants were slaughtered in a CIA-organized coup led by General Suharto, which swept aside the Sukarno, crushed the rising mass movements, and installed a brutal military dictatorship.

The “two-stage theory” has also propelled the Stalinists into “popular fronts” with so-called“progressive”elements of the bourgeois class to “advance” the first revolutionary stage. Examples include Stalinist support (through the Communist Party, USA) to President Roosevelt 1930s. And, taking this orientation to its logical conclusion, the Communist Party in the United States consistently supports Democratic Party candidates for office, including the presidency.

The theory of “socialism in one country” and the policies that flowed from it propelled a transformation of Soviet foreign policy under Stalin. The Bolshevik revolutionary strategy, based on support for the working classes of all countries and an effort through the Communist International to construct Communist Parties as revolutionary leaderships throughout the world, gave way to deal-making and maneuvers with bourgeois governments, colonial “democrats” like Chiang Kai-shek in China, and the trade union bureaucracies.

In his 1937 essay “Stalinism and Bolshevism,” Trotsky wrote: “The experience of Stalinism does not refute the teaching of Marxism but confirms it by inversion. The revolutionary doctrine which teaches the proletariat to orient itself correctly in situations and to profit actively by them, contains of course no automatic guarantee of victory. But victory is possible only through the application of this doctrine.” At best, one can say that the Stalinist orientation has not been one of orienting “correctly."

In terms of the organization of a state, Stalinist policies are quite clear: democratic rights threaten the position of the bureaucracy, and hence democracy is incompatible with Stalinism. In basic terms on a world scale, the forces of Stalinism have done everything in their power to prevent socialist revolution.

So socialism in one country did not end with Soviet Union itself. It affected the whole working class of all lands. Very much contrary to "National Socialism".

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Ah, the Soviet Union consisted of many countries. We all should know dictatorships don&#39;t work (unfortunately some think it is still the way to do things) nor does controlling the economy through a body politic. And remember boys and girls...don&#39;t put a Georgian in a leadership position.

[Genosse Kotze]

"Socialism in one country" isn&#39;t something sombody really aims for. After the October Revolution, the revolutions in Germany and Poland got crushed, so the USSR had to be the sole socialist nation in the world, which certainly wasn&#39;t the plan. Lenin, Bukahrin, Trotsky and Stalin all were trying to figure out just what the fuck to do now that the world revolution failed....Stalin&#39;s plan, as we all know, was the one that got carried out.

Just because "Socialism in one country" was basically forced on the USSR because of how history went down, doesn&#39;t excuse Stalin&#39;s later abandonment of world revolution. The role of Russian "support" of the Spanish Civil War was Stalin&#39;s demonstration to the Imperialist powers that he wasn&#39;t going to cause any problems abroad...Well it didn&#39;t do him any good now did it, because Hitler obviously wasn&#39;t convinced, and well, we all know what happend after that.

[RedKnight]

Stalinism is a bureaucracy ruled by one party, while National Socialism is an autocracy ruled by one person. Also Stalin coined the term before the Nazis did. The original name of the Nazi party was the "German Worker Party". Hitler added the words National Socialist to the name later on.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:57 pm
Ah, the Soviet Union consisted of many countries. We all should know dictatorships don&#39;t work (unfortunately some think it is still the way to do things) nor does controlling the economy through a body politic. And remember boys and girls...don&#39;t put a Georgian in a leadership position.
What?&#33;

What socialist ever said that "dictatorship is the best way to do things"?&#33;?&#33;

And what is wrong with Georgians?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

SovietPants wrote: What?&#33;

What socialist ever said that "dictatorship is the best way to do things"?&#33;?&#33;

And what is wrong with Georgians?

I wrote that we all should know that any dictatorships don&#39;t work. No socialist would support a dictatorship.

Nothing wrong with Georgians. Georgia has a rich culture and history. But if you think about it...Stalin was Georgia&#39;s revenge on Russia but he also was very nasty towards his own people. Russia had screwed Georgia over in the early 1800&#39;s.

http://members.tripod.com/ggdavid/georgia/history.htm

[bezdomni]

No, you said, "We all should know dictatorships don&#39;t work (unfortunately some think it is still the way to do things) nor does controlling the economy through a body politic."

I do not know what you meant by this.

You are opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat and a planned economy?

Or do you mean that people who do not completely renounce Stalin are somehow propose a "totalitarian" system with a strongman leader?

How did Stalin take revenge on Russia? That doesn&#39;t make any sense. Standards of living in Russia (as well as the rest of the Soviet Union) were higher than they had ever had been when Stalin was General Secretary of the CPSU.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

There are some who want an out right dictatorship of a political party over the citizenry and the control of every private and social aspect of each and every individual. That&#39;s what I mean. I am oppose to the DoP simply because it would be a political act carried out by a political party which usually end up as a dictatorships. Workers already know how to run the means of production. It is a matter of time before they awake and run industries themselves and organize industrially to lock the capitalist out. The only political action needed is to elect those in office for the sole means to #1. allow the take over of industries by the workers who are now organized to run the industrial government and #2. ajourn the political state when the workers are in control.

Would be good if everyone renounced Stalin 100 percent but they won&#39;t. Stalin forced industrialization but the cost was in Russian human lives and he was a terror...secret police, forced confessions, tourtures, and imprisionments--Georgia&#39;s revenge in a sense when one of it&#39;s own sons ended up ruling Russia. Of course he show his authority with Georgia when there was a Menshevik attempt at independence which was stopped when Stalin threatened severe violence. Million Kulaks died as well along with Jews (progroms) and other people who held beliefs in dieties. Not only that, he set himself up as a god like figure (some like to call it a father figure) with posters, pictures and propaganda. Standard of living went up for party members mostly and I am sure the scraps were thrown to the loyal unquestioning workers who also had a hand in building the economic structure. People with the personality dis-order such as Stalin&#39;s are usually in prision serving life sentences.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:59 am
I am oppose to the DoP simply because it would be a political act carried out by a political party
No offence but go educate yourself please.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

No offence taken but everyone believes that the DoP would be one class over another i.e. workers supressing the capitalist class in which it would have an act of a political state to carry out such measures. However, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. This has been the rule rather than the exception in Africa and other places when it comes to Marxist ideology in various Leninist forms. Besides, when the means of production are communally owned and all currency is replaced by Time Labor Vouchers the capitalist then would no longer have wealth in land, stocks, bonds, or currency. He would be a worker like everyone else so why suppress someone who has to work with everyone else. He may think the world has ended. He may try to cause trouble but there are jails to cool his heels. After a while he would accept things.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:48 pm
However, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
No it doesn&#39;t, thats just the way people have come to think of the word over the past few years. "Dictatorship" is by definition no more negative that "government" or "rule". And most certainly is not the same thing as "autocracy".


Besides, when the means of production are communally owned and all currency is replaced by Time Labor Vouchers the capitalist then would no longer have wealth in land, stocks, bonds, or currency. He would be a worker like everyone else so why suppress someone who has to work with everyone else

How can the current economic system be abolished (keeping it general, not all forms of communism accept "Time Labour Vouchers") and the abolishion be maintained, if not through a dictatorship of the proletariat over the reactionary forces which seek to restore capitalism to the dominant mode of production?

You can write a peace of paper saying "the world is socialist" but it wont stop capitalists from practicing their capitalism in any means which isnt violently suppressed.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I am not going to have a pissing contest over your belief system. IMHO, if the system changes to a socialist one then the monetary system of the capitalist comes to an end peroid. Workers have the means of production in their control (we out number the capitalist) which makes DoP unnecessary. Sometimes I think there are those who just want an excuse to kill someone whether or not they are reactionary. Perhaps they don&#39;t like the next door neighbor. Those who commit crimes can be put in jail. It&#39;s really that simple

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

IMHO, if the system changes to a socialist one then the monetary system of the capitalist comes to an end peroid. Workers have the means of production in their control (we out number the capitalist) which makes DoP unnecessary

So, let me get this right, you think the DoP is not necessary, but if workers have control of the means of production, presumably in one country, then that is the DoP

only when all countries have the DoP do you get communism.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:18 pm
I am not going to have a pissing contest over your belief system. IMHO, if the system changes to a socialist one then the monetary system of the capitalist comes to an end peroid. Workers have the means of production in their control (we out number the capitalist) which makes DoP unnecessary. Sometimes I think there are those who just want an excuse to kill someone whether or not they are reactionary. Perhaps they don&#39;t like the next door neighbor. Those who commit crimes can be put in jail. It&#39;s really that simple
The struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois does not end with socialismand the workers becomming the dominant economic class, if this were true there would be no distinction between the socialist workers state and the final stage of communism.

You identify yourself as a marxist-deleonist do you not? How do you, then, justify your opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat? Also, and by this I mean to imply no offence, how much of Marx&#39;s works have you read?

Also what do you believe the purpose of the socialist workers state to be? And what changes to make it unnecessary during communism?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

First of all, I don&#39;t believe in a final stage of communism. What becomes of society in the future will be up to those people. I don&#39;t think it would be based on every aspect of what Marx wrote either. ML wrote of the DoP: Any ruling class that is in the process of being removed from power will have some friends in violent groups for some length of time. Any ruling class that sees its rule coming to an end will interpret this as the end of the world, a total apocalypse. Having nothing left to lose, they might as well call in the favors owed to them by their violent friends. They will try to subvert the historical process. I say the above as a historical generality about all ruling classes in history. In modern times, the capitalist class, seeing a new age of economic democracy around the corner, and viewing this as the utter end of the world, will do whatever it can to make violent warfare on the working class. Every reactionary fringe, spy organizations, lynch mobs, soldiers, snipers, arsons, kidnappers, will unite in a coalition the purpose of which will be to asssassinate working class organizers and bomb their headquarters, everything related to the subversion of order, in an attempt to ensure that the management of industry will not become democratic. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if they used nuclear weapons in certain cities -- if it&#39;s the end of the world anyway, in their view, and there is nothing to lose, why not try a total holocaust as a tactic, to see if that might accomplish the goal of preventing the management of industry from becoming democratic? I would agree but just how many capitalist are there in one country? Four, five maybe ten thousand or more in the U.S.? They are vastly out numbered. I view the DoP (Marx 3:16) as a communist Patriot Act which would not only be aimed at former capitalist but the entire workforce would be viewed as potential subversives. If there is a huge number of workers in control of industries don&#39;t you think they would know who to keep an eye on in each community? Who come and who goes? I am sure the people would have a highten sense of awareness that there could be trouble after the birth of the new society. Those who would do harm would be caught and jailed.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:15 pm
First of all, I don&#39;t believe in a final stage of communism. What becomes of society in the future will be up to those people. I don&#39;t think it would be based on every aspect of what Marx wrote either. ML wrote of the DoP: Any ruling class that is in the process of being removed from power will have some friends in violent groups for some length of time. Any ruling class that sees its rule coming to an end will interpret this as the end of the world, a total apocalypse. Having nothing left to lose, they might as well call in the favors owed to them by their violent friends. They will try to subvert the historical process. I say the above as a historical generality about all ruling classes in history. In modern times, the capitalist class, seeing a new age of economic democracy around the corner, and viewing this as the utter end of the world, will do whatever it can to make violent warfare on the working class. Every reactionary fringe, spy organizations, lynch mobs, soldiers, snipers, arsons, kidnappers, will unite in a coalition the purpose of which will be to asssassinate working class organizers and bomb their headquarters, everything related to the subversion of order, in an attempt to ensure that the management of industry will not become democratic. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if they used nuclear weapons in certain cities -- if it&#39;s the end of the world anyway, in their view, and there is nothing to lose, why not try a total holocaust as a tactic, to see if that might accomplish the goal of preventing the management of industry from becoming democratic? I would agree but just how many capitalist are there in one country? Four, five maybe ten thousand or more in the U.S.? They are vastly out numbered. I view the DoP (Marx 3:16) as a communist Patriot Act which would not only be aimed at former capitalist but the entire workforce would be viewed as potential subversives. If there is a huge number of workers in control of industries don&#39;t you think they would know who to keep an eye on in each community? Who come and who goes? I am sure the people would have a highten sense of awareness that there could be trouble after the birth of the new society. Those who would do harm would be caught and jailed.
OK I&#39;m going to split this up.

First of all, you state "First of all, I don&#39;t believe in a final stage of communism." while at the same time claiming to oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat. Now the way I see it, this must mean that you have misinterpreted the meaning of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or you are a social democrat of some kind. Allow me to explain. The final stage of communism is a stateless and classless socialist society. The "dictatorship of teh proletariat" refers to any society in which the working class is the dominant class which exercises its will (at least partly) through a state. So if the working class have power there even is a capitalist class to suppress (in which case they form the DoP) or there isnt, in which case the final form of communism is reached.

You also somehow manage to claim that once the workers control most industry there is no need to suppress counter revolution, while claiming that communism isnt possible. Since communism is nothing but the stateless and classless continuation of socialism, how would a socialist society with no classes other than the working class (as you seem to suggest can exist) not be communist (which you claim cant exist)?

Finally you have links to Deleonist organisations in your signiture, yet you seem to reject the marxist foundations of deleonism. How does that work? Wouldn&#39;t you just some varient of state-syndicalism?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Don&#39;t get too upset over my personal opinion because that is all it is and it don&#39;t mean shit. If the majority of the population is in agreement with say, socialist industrial unionism (SIU) then it is those people who control industries through that union which is the economic core of a nation. Local communities is where interpersonal relationships occur. The union has no say in what people do there. It is up to the people to decide what local laws they want. Generally people in communities know who is who and who the trouble makers are. I have no doubt that those who commit harmful crimes would be locked up. That&#39;s all I am saying.

Now if we have all kinds of problems with counter revolutionaries then the introduction of the new society happened too soon because now you have a lot of workers in support of capitalist while other workers are in support of the new society. I would like to believe that the majority of workers would be in support of the new society and cast their ballot to elect those whose sole purpose is to allow the peaceful transferance of the means of production to the SIU and when that is done the political state is ajourned and socialism begins. Now what if everthing did not work out (anything that can go wrong will go wrong) and the union flopped during socialism. What next? We can have faith that the new society would move on to communism or it could remain in socialism for a long long time then it just might fail after a number of years. We don&#39;t know. I often question a lot of things when I interact with my co-workers. Things have gotten worse here in the U.S. and I have not seen any sign that would suggest that workers have identified capitalism as the problem to their situation. I don&#39;t expect to see revolution...just a lot of human suffering which is sad to see. I would like to see change and I am trying to do may part but it is discouraging. Perhaps that is why I don&#39;t have as much faith as you. You are entitled to believe in the DoP and the final stage of communism because that is your right.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Crazy how this thread became more on what my views are. And they are just opinions. No harm done.

[RNK]

Strangely enough, Hitler hated socialism; lots of members of the Nazi party, however, had leftist, socialist views (and somehow reconciled that with nationalism). These leftists were largely purged, though Hitler kept the obvious references to socialism and workers, probably to appeal to the people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:08 am
Strangely enough, Hitler hated socialism; lots of members of the Nazi party, however, had leftist, socialist views (and somehow reconciled that with nationalism). These leftists were largely purged, though Hitler kept the obvious references to socialism and workers, probably to appeal to the people.
^^^ The bottom line regarding my thread boils down to one question: because Hitler was using sound-bites and was rather hypocritical in using the term, does that leave Stalinists (as I myself once was) as the only genuine national-socialists out there?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by TheGreenWeeWee+April 10, 2007 02:13 am--> (TheGreenWeeWee @ April 10, 2007 02:13 am) Don&#39;t get too upset over my personal opinion because that is all it is and it don&#39;t mean shit. If the majority of the population is in agreement with say, socialist industrial unionism (SIU) then it is those people who control industries through that union which is the economic core of a nation. Local communities is where interpersonal relationships occur. The union has no say in what people do there. It is up to the people to decide what local laws they want. Generally people in communities know who is who and who the trouble makers are. I have no doubt that those who commit harmful crimes would be locked up. That&#39;s all I am saying. [/b]
What I was saying was that if no classes exist, communism can exist. If other classes do exist then for socialism to exist the working class must be the ruling class, and that is the class dictatorship, nothing fancy. If these unions pass laws then these laws must be enforced, no? Either by local communities or at a national level. If socialism is now law, then the enforcement of that law by the state organs which are subservent to the working class (through your unions), then that is the dictatorship (as there is state force involved) of the proletariat.


Hammer
^^^ The bottom line regarding my thread boils down to one question: because Hitler was using sound-bites and was rather hypocritical in using the term, does that leave Stalinists (as I myself once was) as the only genuine national-socialists out there?

Could You please not use the word "Stalinist"? Anyway, the people you call "Stalinists" aren&#39;t nationalists, we&#39;re internationalists just like all communists. "Socialism in One Country" was an undesirable, but we believe necessary, response to the situation of the USSR in the 1920&#39;s, whereby the USSR began to attempt to build up socialism on its own, in order to improve the life of its workers (they couldn&#39;t exactly stay on the NEP for half a century could they?). It is simply the alternative to waiting for the developed European nations to magicly have a revolution and come to their rescue, as would seem to be the Trotskyist approach, which contradicts even the most basic principles of Leninist though on Imperialism, which make it clear revolution cant occur in the first world until such material conditions are created by a series of third world revolutions. "Socialism in One Country" is not nationalism, especially when one considers the USSR was a multi-national union, and the USSR during Stalin&#39;s time helped spread the revolution to numerous other countries (seriously it does seem a little eurocentric that some people on the left seem to consider one failure in Spain to be worse than all those successes put together).