I'm really afraid

[Red Menace]

of what i've become. Slowly i have come to like the idea of authoritarianism, and a stalinist nation. It's almost like my views have become nationalistic. I don't know. The idea just sounds so appealing. Please someone talk me out of it. Don't hate me for it. and I'm sorry i didn't know where to post this. I just need help

[Rawthentic]

Just look at things as they are . Stalinist Russia had a model of state capitalism, which is a historical tendency in capitalism, and occured in Nazi Germany as well as Japan and the US.

He murdered workers and put them into slave labor camps, the petty-bourgeois he was extracted surplus labor from the workers as a result of wage labor.

Take it easy, you'll get over it.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 03:42 am
of what i've become. Slowly i have come to like the idea of authoritarianism, and a stalinist nation. It's almost like my views have become nationalistic. I don't know. The idea just sounds so appealing. Please someone talk me out of it. Don't hate me for it. and I'm sorry i didn't know where to post this. I just need help
why? and just look at what happened..

[Pawn Power]

Of course a "christian communist" would need "saving." :rolleyes:

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Is it just the architecture, the imagery, the anthems and propaganda aspects you find appealing, or, dare I say it, the entire ideology?

[Xiao Banfa]

Of course a "christian communist" would need "saving."

Don't take the piss out of his religion.

Anyway, It's just a phase. Stalin was quite a thug and none of it lasted.

Socialism is about a permanent evolution of humanity not a revolting mechanical leviathan where the party hierarchy is constantly purged.

Read "Class Struggles in Eastern Europe 1945-1983" that'll cure you of Stalinism.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 24, 2007 12:42 am

Of course a "christian communist" would need "saving."

Don't take the piss out of his religion.



Why?

[redcannon]

oh, there comes a special time in every boys life when he wants to become a stalinist. but don't worry, you'll get over it, and you can very easily get over it with the one thing no one can take away from you: knowledge.

educate yourself and authoritarianism can't touch you

[Spirit of Spartacus]

of what i've become. Slowly i have come to like the idea of authoritarianism, and a stalinist nation. It's almost like my views have become nationalistic. I don't know. The idea just sounds so appealing. Please someone talk me out of it. Don't hate me for it. and I'm sorry i didn't know where to post this. I just need help

Listen, there's no such thing as "Stalinism".

Upholding Stalin means upholding a practical effort at building socialism. When most anti-Stalinists attack Stalin, they're attacking the legacy of millions of Soviet working people who struggled to build the world's first socialist state and a beacon of hope for millions of workers worldwide.

What you refer to as "Stalinism" is correctly termed as "Marxism-Leninism".

All of the greatest successful revolutionaries have upheld the legacy of Stalin, becasue they saw through the crude attempts at maligning Soviet socialism.

Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, you name it.

Yes, even Che Guevara upheld the Soviet Union under Stalin. He even went so far as to call himself Stalin II.

Comrade, I suggest you study the history of the Stalin era, and for FUCK'S sake, stop reading imperialist liars like Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes.

There's no reason to "hate" you just because you uphold the practical efforts of millions of people worldwide towards building socialism.

Criticizing Stalin is good, but attacking him without proof is plain wrong. There's really no point in building fairy-castles in the air.

Those who reject Stalin also reject Mao, also reject Ho Chi Minh, also reject Che Guevara, also reject Enver Hoxha, they reject more-or-less every practical effort towards building socialism in the last century.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

The reason Stalinism is not reffered to as Marxism-Lenninism is that he did not upohold many of Lenins principles.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:55 am
oh, there comes a special time in every boys life when he wants to become a stalinist. but don't worry, you'll get over it, and you can very easily get over it with the one thing no one can take away from you: knowledge.

educate yourself and authoritarianism can't touch you
Stalin never grew up. lol

well said homie!

[Comeback Kid]

From what I have seen, leftists idea evolve as they learn more about it, the direction that they move towards is directly influenced on one key factor; this being weither you have faith in humanity or not.

If you do belive that people are genuinely good then it is probable that you would move to a less authortarian theory (anachist or other).

If you have a contemp for humanity then it is not unlikely that you could become more authoriatarian, beliving people need to be led and ordered.

I have deliberated this many times in my life, and there are many things in this world that can tip you towards one or the other.

The extreme of this hypothosis is the case of Mussolini who was a ~socialist~ then grew tired of society and became a facist.

[/end rant]

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+May 24, 2007 05:47 am--> (Pawn Power @ May 24, 2007 05:47 am)
Xiao [email protected] 24, 2007 12:42 am

Of course a "christian communist" would need "saving."

Don't take the piss out of his religion.



Why? [/b]
Because you should never create disunion amongst people because of religious believes. Religion can be quite adaptable and so religion per sé isn't a thread to socialism. And red menace's believe aren't relevant in this topic.

[Enragé]

think of what Stalinist russia meant for the average guy in russia, instead of looking at the parades, the architecture, the military power, the propaganda.

[Rawthentic]

Workers under Stalin were subject to brutal exploitation, wage slavery obviously, and purges.

"Socialism in one country" was a way for the bourgeoisie product of the Stalinist counter-revolution to consolidate its power through paying lipservice to Marxism and brokering deals with imperialist nations.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Raccoon+May 24, 2007 06:15 am--> (Raccoon @ May 24, 2007 06:15 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 24, 2007 05:47 am

Xiao [email protected] 24, 2007 12:42 am

Of course a "christian communist" would need "saving."

Don't take the piss out of his religion.



Why?
Because you should never create disunion amongst people because of religious believes. Religion can be quite adaptable and so religion per sé isn't a thread to socialism. [/b]
I never said or implied any of that.

I didn't indicate "disunion" of even mention socialism.

Criticism and evaluation do not necessarily levy disunion. Religion is not beyond critique. Nothing is "holy."


And red menace's believe aren't relevant in this topic.

Apparently they are.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:54 am
Just look at things as they are . Stalinist Russia had a model of state capitalism, which is a historical tendency in capitalism, and occured in Nazi Germany as well as Japan and the US.
Prove how the USSR was ever state-capitalist.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:10 am
think of what Stalinist russia meant for the average guy in russia, instead of looking at the parades, the architecture, the military power, the propaganda.
Rising standards of living, welfare, employment, industrialisation which ended the cycles of famine that were common in Russia and Ukraine, security against imperialism. OH THE HORROR.

Whatever the political and cultural errors of the USSR and Stalin are, I would hate to see an alternative world without the existance of the USSR and Stalin. In a greater view of history the Stalin and the USSR were positive things.

[RedArmyFaction]

Stalin was an idiot, a total blood thirsty maniac. He was as much communist as Hitler himself.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:10 pm
Rising standards of living, welfare, employment, industrialisation which ended the cycles of famine that were common in Russia and Ukraine, security against imperialism. OH THE HORROR.

Whatever the political and cultural errors of the USSR and Stalin are, I would hate to see an alternative world without the existance of the USSR and Stalin. In a greater view of history the Stalin and the USSR were positive things.
I don't think we grade historical actors in accordance to their contribution in "raising standards of living, welfare, employment, and industrialization", because if we did, we could easily justify any class rule as long as it takes these steps. We could justify Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or even Adolf Hitler, seeing that they contributed to "raising standards of living, welfare, employment, and industrialization".

Stalin guided the petit-bourgeois strata, which was placed in control of the factories, came to control low-level positions in rural localities, and was granted special privileges within the military and police force, to completely strangle all remaining revolutionary efforts that exsted after the devastation and tremendous brutality of the Russian Civil War. It doesn't matter how much he raised the living standards; if he pacified the international proletariat movement, wiped out millions of revolutionary workers, artists, agitators, students, and peasants, along with subordinating working class organizations and shutting down thousands of worker's periodicals, then you effectively disconnect yourself from working people, and you end the socialist revolution itself.

[Rawthentic]

Prove how the USSR was ever state-capitalist.

Oh because it had the same mode of production as did the rest of the capitalist world.

[Janus]

Slowly i have come to like the idea of authoritarianism, and a stalinist nation.
Talk to someone who can give you a first hand account of living in such a nation.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:36 pm

Prove how the USSR was ever state-capitalist.

Oh because it had the same mode of production as did the rest of the capitalist world.
What do you mean by mode of production? Do you mean the means of distribution? How can there be a "socialist mode of production" as opposed to a capitalist one which is not planned?

And yes, the mode of production in the USSR was planned, and no, the ones in the Germany and other so-called "state capitalist" nations weren't.

[Goatse]

If you accept that you need to be "talked out of this" why do you even need "talking out of this"?

[cenv]

Leninism,

Originally posted by Leninism+May 24, 2007 09:20 pm--> (Leninism @ May 24, 2007 09:20 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 07:36 pm

Prove how the USSR was ever state-capitalist.

Oh because it had the same mode of production as did the rest of the capitalist world.
What do you mean by mode of production? Do you mean the means of distribution? How can there be a "socialist mode of production" as opposed to a capitalist one which is not planned?

And yes, the mode of production in the USSR was planned, and no, the ones in the Germany and other so-called "state capitalist" nations weren't. [/b]
Economic planning doesn't make a country 'socialist'. If you do a little research, you'll see that the term mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) simply refers to the conditions under which products are produced, which includes the social relations involved in production.

Socialism isn't about planning (unless you're using the bourgeois definition, which conveniently avoids discussing class). It's about changing the fundamental class relations behind production; more specifically, it's about putting the workers in control of everything.

The reason hasta refers to the USSR as state-capitalist is that even though it may have been a "planned economy", the workers weren't in control of it. Rather, a class of state bureaucrats and managers took care of the "planning". The workers, despite "rising standards of living", maintained the same relation to the means of production: rather than controlling the means of production, the means of production controlled them. They were still just as alienated from work, still at the whim of a dominant class, still subject to wage slavery. While the form of society may have changed -- i.e. state planning instead of private enterprise -- the content of class relations stayed essentially the same for the workers.

Communism is all about class relations and the working class -- not about simply building a "planned economy". As long as wage slavery remains, so do class relations that are essentially capitalist, whether the ruling class is in the form of the state (state-capitalism) or the conventional bourgeoisie (capitalism).

Red Menace,
It really comes down to this: do you want to abolish wage slavery and do you want to end the exploitation of the working class, or not? If you do, then it's irrational to support what you admit is "authoritarianism" and "nationalism." If, on the other hand, you don't, then you are simply opposed to working-class struggle and should have no qualms about supporting an anti-proletarian ideology.

[Rawthentic]

Very nice cenv.

[black magick hustla]

Stalinist Russia, in many ways, was actually better than its capitalist counterparts, atleast concerning the urban prolateriat. Housing was assured, living standards rised, there where free health centers, and the state would make surveys for the betterment of workers' lives. Apparently, Stalin tried to push "democratic" reforms too and denounced his cult of personality.

However, was that socialism?

Throughout history, the modes of production have been defined by who owns the means of production. Today, the bourgeosie owns them, and their voice, even if they have many specialists, is still absolute. If a guy with 51 percent of stocks in a certain buisness wants something to be done, it will be done. Same with feudalism, where the noble's voice was absolute over his piece of land.

However, Marxist-Leninists become somewhat wishy washy in their concept of socialism. Apparently, many of them think that the ownership of the means of production can be mediated through a small clique of party bureacrats. They argue that Stalinist Russia was socialist for the simple fact that stalinist bureacracy "collectivized everything" and apparently used the revenue for the "good" of the working class. This concept of socialism though, goes against what Marx envisioned, and the characteristics of a supposed working class as the ruling class, are not congruent with the characteristics of other ruling classes. The bourgeosie has direct, unmediated control of the means of production, even if they don't manage them themselves most of the time. THe working class in the USSR didn't have that control.

[rouchambeau]

Well, what are your reasons for liking stalinism? Do you even have any good ones?

[Hiero]

I don't think we grade historical actors in accordance to their contribution in "raising standards of living, welfare, employment, and industrialization", because if we did, we could easily justify any class rule as long as it takes these steps. We could justify Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or even Adolf Hitler, seeing that they contributed to "raising standards of living, welfare, employment, and industrialization".

The USA and Nazi Germany were explioters and oppressors. The raised the living standards of the citizens through imperialist wars. The USSR however did not. It increased living standards, industrialised, created welfare and employed millions of citizens through implementing socialst policies.

The USSR's main goal from 1921-1945 was to make a directed effort to impove the lives of the millions of proleteriat and peasants. The USA and Nazi Germany, because the bourgeoisie owned the means of production, they simply kicked down whatever they could spare to keep the proleteriat happy.


Stalin guided the petit-bourgeois strata, which was placed in control of the factories, came to control low-level positions in rural localities, and was granted special privileges within the military and police force, to completely strangle all remaining revolutionary efforts that exsted after the devastation and tremendous brutality of the Russian Civil War.

They weren't petite bourgeoisie, I don't think Stalin had a conspiratal plan to improve the middle shop owners by giving them excutive positions. I will accept party bureaucrat, as most "Stalinist" do.

To compare Socialist USSR to a bourgeois is ridiculous. Whatever was wasted on party members is very little compared to what was invested back on the proleteriat. This is why the idea of wage slavery and state-capitalist USSR is flawed. Wage slavery is being forced by conditions in society to sell your labour power for less then it is worth. In the USSR people were paid a wage and ALSO had a government which invested money in the improvement of the proleteriat. If workers were paid short, it was only done so the money could be spend back on the collective communtiy.


It doesn't matter how much he raised the living standards; if he pacified the international proletariat movement, wiped out millions of revolutionary workers, artists, agitators, students, and peasants, along with subordinating working class organizations and shutting down thousands of worker's periodicals, then you effectively disconnect yourself from working people, and you end the socialist revolution itself.

I agree, but it didn't happen in this case. Stalin didn't disconnect himself from the working people. In the former USSR Stalin has always had a good standing amongst the working people (except maybe Ukraine and Poland). Surely though in the rest of the former republics, if millions were directly murded, many of these supportors would be relatives of these vicitims. However they still uphold him, even though these accusations have been around since the Nazis first invented them, we can safely assume alot was exagerated about the USSR.


The bourgeosie has direct, unmediated control of the means of production, even if they don't manage them themselves most of the time.

Direct, unmediated control of the means of production, but they don't get to manage the means of production themselves most of the time?

Can you clear this up, is it direct, undirect or a mixture?


Well, what are your reasons for liking stalinism? Do you even have any good ones?

The question is unrealistic to ask, as I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean as in want to imitate the USSR under Stalin? A few phony internate communist "like" Stalinism (thoose at the phora) and would like countries to make a carbon copy of the USSR under Stalin.

The "Stalinist" in the real world look view Stalin in a wider history. They acknowledge the period from 1921-1953 as positive attempt at socialism. We are not without criticism of Stalin. However we do not fall to the stupidity that is widely accepted in the capitalist world, or the attacks from Trots an Anarchists about capitalist USSR.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:52 pm
Well, what are your reasons for liking stalinism? Do you even have any good ones?
I don't know. I saw a few people have explained it well. Like Juan Sin Tierra said, I think it may be that i like the architecture, the imagery, the anthems and propaganda aspects . i'm not sure if its so much the idealogy. but i think comeback kid said it best that if you have contempt for humanity then you have become more authoriatarian, beliving people need to be led and ordered. and many days, if not most I feel like this. It feels like two internal forces battling inside of me. Some part of me tells me that its wrong, but another part of me likes it simply because its wrong.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:38 pm
If you do a little research, you'll see that the term mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) simply refers to the conditions under which products are produced, which includes the social relations involved in production.

Socialism isn't about planning (unless you're using the bourgeois definition, which conveniently avoids discussing class). It's about changing the fundamental class relations behind production; more specifically, it's about putting the workers in control of everything.

The reason hasta refers to the USSR as state-capitalist is that even though it may have been a "planned economy", the workers weren't in control of it. Rather, a class of state bureaucrats and managers took care of the "planning". The workers, despite "rising standards of living", maintained the same relation to the means of production: rather than controlling the means of production, the means of production controlled them. They were still just as alienated from work, still at the whim of a dominant class, still subject to wage slavery. While the form of society may have changed -- i.e. state planning instead of private enterprise -- the content of class relations stayed essentially the same for the workers.

Communism is all about class relations and the working class -- not about simply building a "planned economy". As long as wage slavery remains, so do class relations that are essentially capitalist, whether the ruling class is in the form of the state (state-capitalism) or the conventional bourgeoisie (capitalism).

Red Menace,
It really comes down to this: do you want to abolish wage slavery and do you want to end the exploitation of the working class, or not? If you do, then it's irrational to support what you admit is "authoritarianism" and "nationalism." If, on the other hand, you don't, then you are simply opposed to working-class struggle and should have no qualms about supporting an anti-proletarian ideology.
First of all, I never claimed that the USSR was socialist. Just because a nation isn't capitalist, doesn't mean it should be socialist. There is no "either-or" situation.

Secondly, since I have a cold at the moment, and am too tired to write this myself, I'm going to link you to a writing that completely disproves your theory: State Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

You and hastalavictoria mix up state-capitalism with state-ism, just like they did about 60 years ago. I guess mistakes are always repeated by the people of the same idealogy.

And hastalavictoria, it was decided that posts that contain nothing but "I agree with the above post" are considered to be spam, so stop spamming.

[Rawthentic]

Oh, so you say that it was a "degenerated worker's state", where socialist relations were preserved?

Well that is not correct. Trotskyists say that because the bourgeoisie had been overthrown, that the working class was not being exploited. The problem is, they were. Through wage slavery and near slave labor, through the extraction of surplus labor by the state.

Socialist relations were not preserved because the mode of production 'degenerated
to capitalism, and the workers lost their political voice through the soviets and economic control in the means of production.

[The Grey Blur]

When the new constitution announces that in the Soviet Union “abolition of the exploitation of man by man” has been attained, it is not telling the truth. The new social differentiation has created conditions for the revival of the exploitation of man in its most barbarous form – that of buying him into slavery for personal service. In the lists for the new census personal servants are not mentioned at all. They are, evidently, to be dissolved in the general group of “workers.” There are, however, plenty of questions about this: Does the socialist citizen have servants, and just how many (maid, cook, nurse, governess, chauffeur)? Does he have an automobile at his personal disposal? How many rooms does he occupy? etc. Not a word in these lists about the scale of earnings! If the rule were revived that exploitation of the labor of others deprives one of political rights, it would turn out, somewhat unexpectedly, that the cream of the ruling group are outside the bounds of the Soviet constitution. Fortunately, they have established a complete equality of rights ... for servant and master! Two opposite tendencies are growing up out of the depth of the Soviet regime. To the extent that, in contrast to a decaying capitalism, it develops the productive forces, it is preparing the economic basis of socialism. To the extent that, for the benefit of an upper stratum, it carries to more and more extreme expression bourgeois norms of distribution, it is preparing a capitalist restoration. This contrast between forms of property and norms of distribution cannot grow indefinitely. Either the bourgeois norm must in one form or another spread to the means of production, or the norms of distribution must be brought into correspondence with the socialist property system.

The bureaucracy dreads the exposure of this alternative. Everywhere and all the time in the press, in speeches, in statistics, in the novels of its litterateurs, in the verses of its poets, and, finally, in the text of the new constitution – it painstakingly conceals the real relations both in town and country with abstractions from the socialist dictionary. That is why the official ideology is all so lifeless, talentless and false.
Trotsky on the USSR.


We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it “state capitalism.” This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means. The term “state capitalism” originally arose to designate all the phenomena which arise when a bourgeois state takes direct charge of the means of transport or of industrial enterprises. The very necessity of such measures is one of the signs that the productive forces have outgrown capitalism and are bringing it to a partial self-negation in practice. But the outworn system, along with its elements of self-negation, continues to exist as a capitalist system.

Theoretically, to be sure, it is possible to conceive a situation in which the bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes itself a stock company which, by means of its state, administers the whole national economy. The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral “state capitalism”, this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes – that is, competition among different capitals – but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist – the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution.
On "state-capitalism".


Classes are characterized by their position in the social system of economy, and primarily by their relation to the means of production. In civilized societies, property relations are validated by laws. The nationalization of the land, the means of industrial production, transport and exchange, together with the monopoly of foreign trade, constitute the basis of the Soviet social structure. Through these relations, established by the proletarian revolution, the nature of the Soviet Union as a proletarian state is for us basically defined.

In its intermediary and regulating function, its concern to maintain social ranks, and its exploitation of the state apparatus for personal goals, the Soviet bureaucracy is similar to every other bureaucracy, especially the fascist. But it is also in a vast way different. In no other regime has a bureaucracy ever achieved such a degree of independence from the dominating class. In bourgeois society, the bureaucracy represents the interests of a possessing and educated class, which has at its disposal innumerable means of everyday control over its administration of affairs. The Soviet bureaucracy has risen above a class which is hardly emerging from destitution and darkness, and has no tradition of dominion or command. Whereas the fascists, when they find themselves in power, are united with the big bourgeoisie by bonds of common interest, friendship, marriage, etc., the Soviet bureaucracy takes on bourgeois customs without having beside it a national bourgeoisie. In this sense we cannot deny that it is something more than a bureaucracy. It is in the full sense of the word the sole privileged and commanding stratum in the Soviet society.

Another difference is no less important. The Soviet bureaucracy has expropriated the proletariat politically in order by methods of its own to defend the social conquests. But the very fact of its appropriation of political power in a country where the principal means of production are in the hands of the state, creates a new and hitherto unknown relation between the bureaucracy and the riches of the nation. The means of production belong to the state. But the state, so to speak, “belongs” to the bureaucracy. If these as yet wholly new relations should solidify, become the norm and be legalized, whether with or without resistance from the workers, they would, in the long run, lead to a complete liquidation of the social conquests of the proletarian revolution. But to speak of that now is at least premature. The proletariat has not yet said its last word. The bureaucracy has not yet created social supports for its dominion in the form of special types of property. It is compelled to defend state property as the source of its power and its income. In this aspect of its activity it still remains a weapon of proletarian dictatorship.

The attempt to represent the Soviet bureaucracy as a class of “state capitalists” will obviously not withstand criticism. The bureaucracy has neither stocks nor bonds. It is recruited, supplemented and renewed in the manner of an administrative hierarchy, independently of any special property relations of its own. The individual bureaucrat cannot transmit to his heirs his rights in the exploitation of the state apparatus. The bureaucracy enjoys its privileges under the form of an abuse of power It conceals its income; it pretends that as a special social group it does not even exist. Its appropriation of a vast share of the national income has the character of social parasitism. All this makes the position of the commanding Soviet stratum in the highest degree contradictory, equivocal and undignified, notwithstanding the completeness of its power and the smoke screen of flattery that conceals it.

Bourgeois society has in the course of its history displaced many political regimes and bureaucratic castes, without changing its social foundations. It has preserved itself against the restoration of feudal and guild relations by the superiority of its productive methods. The state power has been able either to co-operate with capitalist development, or put brakes on it. But in general the productive forces, upon a basis of private property and competition, have been working out their own destiny. In contrast to this, the property relations which issued from the socialist revolution are indivisibly bound up with the new state as their repository. The predominance of socialist over petty bourgeois tendencies is guaranteed, not by the automatism of the economy – we are still far from that – but by political measures taken by the dictatorship. The character of the economy as a whole thus depends upon the character of the state power.

A collapse of the Soviet regime would lead inevitably to the collapse of the planned economy, and thus to the abolition of state property. The bond of compulsion between the trusts and the factories within them would fall away. The more successful enterprises would succeed in coming out on the road of independence. They might convert or they might find some themselves into stock companies, other transitional form of property – one, for example, in which the workers should participate in the profits. The collective farms would disintegrate at the same time, and far more easily. The fall of the present bureaucratic dictatorship, if it were not replaced by a new socialist power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations with a catastrophic decline of industry and culture.

But if a socialist government is still absolutely necessary for the preservation and development of the planned economy, the question is all the more important, upon whom the present Soviet government relies, and in what measure the socialist character of its policy is guaranteed. At the 11th Party Congress in March 1922, Lenin, in practically bidding farewell to the party, addressed these words to the commanding group: “History knows transformations of all sorts. To rely upon conviction, devotion and other excellent spiritual qualities – that is not to be taken seriously in politics.” Being determines consciousness. During the last fifteen years, the government has changed its social composition even more deeply than its ideas. Since of all the strata of Soviet society the bureaucracy has best solved its own social problem, and is fully content with the existing situation, it has ceased to offer any subjective guarantee whatever of the socialist direction of its policy. It continues to preserve state property only to the extent that it fears the proletariat. This saving fear is nourished and supported by the illegal party of Bolshevik-Leninists, which is the most conscious expression of the socialist tendencies opposing that bourgeois reaction with which the Thermidorian bureaucracy is completely saturated. As a conscious political force the bureaucracy has betrayed the revolution. But a victorious revolution is fortunately not only a program and a banner, not only political institutions, but also a system of social relations. To betray it is not enough. You have to overthrow it. The October revolution has been betrayed by the ruling stratum, but not yet overthrown. It has a great power of resistance, coinciding with the established property relations, with the living force of the proletariat, the consciousness of its best elements, the impasse of world capitalism, and the inevitability of world revolution.
Whether there was a new ruling class.

Trotsky stated that the USSR could return to a healthy worker's state or the bureaucracy would inevitably make a conscious move towards Capitalism. History has shown him correct.

[Rawthentic]

Interesting comrade.

But what about the exploitation of wage labor and extraction of surplus labor, plus the fact that the workers didnt own the means of production?

[Rawthentic]

You tell me.

Where does the bourgeoisie keep its profits?
It might have given more crumbs to the working class, but this does not justify exploitation or wage slavery.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 25, 2007 11:44 pm
[

The highest paid officials in the USSR, even at the end, made only about 4 times more than the lowest paid worker. Healthcare and education were completely free.

Comrade, you are wrong in there.

Certainly the salary gaps werent as grotesque as in the western world, but still a party bureacrat would earn about 20 times the lowest paid proletarian would.

I am not that knowledgeable about the lifestyle of soviet bureacrats, but I think that they probably had other advantages that the state would give them, things were "wage money" doesn't plays a role.

As I said before, I am still struggling with the issue whether the USSR could be considered state-capitalistic or not.

[Rawthentic]

CdL, whatever was done with the profit of capitalist exploitation, how can it justify it?

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] May 25, 2007, 9:22 p.m.
Certainly the salary gaps werent as grotesque as in the western world, but still a party bureacrat would win about 20 times the lowest paid proletarian would.

Where did you get this statistic?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+May 26, 2007 01:57 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ May 26, 2007 01:57 am)
[email protected] May 25, 2007, 9:22 p.m.
Certainly the salary gaps werent as grotesque as in the western world, but still a party bureacrat would win about 20 times the lowest paid proletarian would.

Where did you get this statistic? [/b]
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64235&hl=wage

A thread that you happened to post in.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:53 pm
CdL, whatever was done with the profit of capitalist exploitation, how can it justify it?
It can't be capitalist expliotation if it goes back into the hands of the proleteriat. The USSR simply used a bureaucratic state to handle the capital.

In poor underdeveloped nations it is impossible to fully pay the workers their full labour value. It is more reaslitic to collectivise and reinvest back into the wider structure. The workers in the USSR had access to the fruits of their labour. This is not capitalism, it is socialism.

It's just ignorant to jump from point to point, wages - wage differences -exploitation therefore capitalism. Without looking at the whole structure and improvement of proleteriat life in the USSR.

[Red Menace]

oh goody another pointless argument <_< *sigh*

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:07 pm

Slowly i have come to like the idea of authoritarianism, and a stalinist nation.
Talk to someone who can give you a first hand account of living in such a nation.
Actually, I know someone who knew a woman that lived in the Stalin-Era USSR, and she said that the rumors about the NKVD and Stalin, and the accusations made by Krushchev were all bullshit.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Hiero+May 25, 2007 09:53 pm--> (Hiero &#064; May 25, 2007 09:53 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 12:53 pm
CdL, whatever was done with the profit of capitalist exploitation, how can it justify it? It can&#39;t be capitalist expliotation if it goes back into the hands of the proleteriat. The USSR simply used a bureaucratic state to handle the capital.[/b]I suppose that "everyone" in the USSR was a prole, even the factory managers(&#33;)...thus the justification for exploitation as "going back to the hands of the proletariat".

But factory managers, who in normal capitalist societies are bourgeois or petit bourgeois, suddenly by means of magic become either a prole or a "bureaucrat"...and if the latter, lives on nothing apparently ("everything" "goes back into the hands of the proletariat" after all).


In poor underdeveloped nations it is impossible to fully pay the workers their full labour value. Yeah&#33; It&#39;s not exploitation when workers aren&#39;t paid the value that they create&#33; Especially when the difference is reinvested in capital&#33;

Oh wait, it is. <_<


It is more reaslitic to collectivise and reinvest back into the wider structure. Right (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch09.htm), this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch18.htm) expansion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm) of (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S2) capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch16.htm) was (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm) never (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm) mentioned (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm) by (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm) Marx&#39;s (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm) description (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm) of (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm) capitalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch07.htm) Ever&#33;

You are right though, it is more realistic to reinvest "back into the wider structure"...which is one of the critical starting points for the business cycle in Marxist economics describing capitalist economies.

It would be impossible to collectivize pre-capitalist systems...which is why capitalism is necessary to industrialize the society. Then after sufficient industrialization could it be possible to collectivize the system.


The workers in the USSR had access to the fruits of their labour. This is not capitalism, it is socialism. Just ignore the shortages of the various "fruits" and the fact that party members had access to foreign made luxury goods as well as superior goods.

Huzzah "equality"&#33;


It&#39;s just ignorant to jump from point to point, wages - wage differences -exploitation therefore capitalism. Without looking at the whole structure and improvement of proleteriat life in the USSR.By such reasoning, capitalism is therefore "socialist" since this is precisely the exact same justification that libertarians use to argue capitalism is a "good system".

It "improves the standards of living"...and yeah, that can be said for any system. The slave in the 1850s in America was living significantly better off than the slave in the 1750s.

The average German was living a significantly better life in 1935 than in 1920. So Nazism, Capitalism, Stalinism and Slavery are "good systems" by such a metric.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 03:42 am
of what i&#39;ve become. Slowly i have come to like the idea of authoritarianism, and a stalinist nation. It&#39;s almost like my views have become nationalistic. I don&#39;t know. The idea just sounds so appealing. Please someone talk me out of it. Don&#39;t hate me for it. and I&#39;m sorry i didn&#39;t know where to post this. I just need help

i suggest reading Orwell or Emma Goldman/Alexander Berkman&#39;s accounts of the Russian Revolution.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...lusion/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/disillusion/toc.html)
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...urther_toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/further/further_toc.html)
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...myth/bmtoc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmtoc.html)
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...iantragedy.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/russiantragedy.html)

[Hiero]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+May 27, 2007 02:01 pm--> (ComradeRed @ May 27, 2007 02:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:53 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 12:53 pm
CdL, whatever was done with the profit of capitalist exploitation, how can it justify it? It can&#39;t be capitalist expliotation if it goes back into the hands of the proleteriat. The USSR simply used a bureaucratic state to handle the capital.I suppose that "everyone" in the USSR was a prole, even the factory managers(&#33;)...thus the justification for exploitation as "going back to the hands of the proletariat".

But factory managers, who in normal capitalist societies are bourgeois or petit bourgeois, suddenly by means of magic become either a prole or a "bureaucrat"...and if the latter, lives on nothing apparently ("everything" "goes back into the hands of the proletariat" after all).


In poor underdeveloped nations it is impossible to fully pay the workers their full labour value. Yeah&#33; It&#39;s not exploitation when workers aren&#39;t paid the value that they create&#33; Especially when the difference is reinvested in capital&#33;

Oh wait, it is. <_<


It is more reaslitic to collectivise and reinvest back into the wider structure. Right (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch09.htm), this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch18.htm) expansion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm) of (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S2) capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch16.htm) was (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm) never (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm) mentioned (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm) by (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm) Marx&#39;s (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm) description (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm) of (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm) capitalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch07.htm) Ever&#33;

You are right though, it is more realistic to reinvest "back into the wider structure"...which is one of the critical starting points for the business cycle in Marxist economics describing capitalist economies.

It would be impossible to collectivize pre-capitalist systems...which is why capitalism is necessary to industrialize the society. Then after sufficient industrialization could it be possible to collectivize the system.


The workers in the USSR had access to the fruits of their labour. This is not capitalism, it is socialism. Just ignore the shortages of the various "fruits" and the fact that party members had access to foreign made luxury goods as well as superior goods.

Huzzah "equality"&#33;


It&#39;s just ignorant to jump from point to point, wages - wage differences -exploitation therefore capitalism. Without looking at the whole structure and improvement of proleteriat life in the USSR.By such reasoning, capitalism is therefore "socialist" since this is precisely the exact same justification that libertarians use to argue capitalism is a "good system".

It "improves the standards of living"...and yeah, that can be said for any system. The slave in the 1850s in America was living significantly better off than the slave in the 1750s.

The average German was living a significantly better life in 1935 than in 1920. So Nazism, Capitalism, Stalinism and Slavery are "good systems" by such a metric. [/b]
I have already addressed these points early in the thread. The USSR was the first union of republics that made a direct effort to improve the standards of living for the proleteriat and peasantry. What ever was wasted on bureaucrats is minimal to the benifits the proleteriat recieved. No one has looked this up to prove me wrong, but I think the decline of conditions for working people after 1991 really show how much the system supported the working people (even in the most degenerated and revisionist stage).

This is different to the regimes of Nazi Germany and the imperialist USA. Who simply kicked down benefits to the working people as they made demands. Any benefits that the working people received, was paid for by explioting other nations. This is why Nazi Germany, imperialist USA and the USSR are not comparable.

[RebelDog]

I have already addressed these points early in the thread. The USSR was the first union of republics that made a direct effort to improve the standards of living for the proleteriat and peasantry. What ever was wasted on bureaucrats is minimal to the benifits the proleteriat recieved. No one has looked this up to prove me wrong, but I think the decline of conditions for working people after 1991 really show how much the system supported the working people (even in the most degenerated and revisionist stage).

But a revisionist capitalist state could introduce socialism and such changes whilst maintaining a bourgeois elite. Venezuela maybe, or UK even? Clearly even state-socialism, (or whatever ones ideology demands one calls the USSR) is better than capitalism in progressive terms. The key is that neither has proletarian rule, which incidentally is why the USSR fell so easily. Where were the workers to defend the workers state when it was moribund? Did you think that some communists thought that western capitalists were interested in, and eastern capitalists alike, working class welfare, following the break up of the USSR?


This is different to the regimes of Nazi Germany and the imperialist USA. Who simply kicked down benefits to the working people as they made demands. Any benefits that the working people received, was paid for by explioting other nations. This is why Nazi Germany, imperialist USA and the USSR are not comparable.

I do not want handouts from a trembling bourgeoisie. I want a complete destruction of all class and privilege and the emancipation of my class, nothing less is acceptable. Forget any state or class with perceived authority. What we want will not be handed down. We will take it.