End of USSR and Cold War [Archive]

Revolution Until Victory

21st June 2007, 19:57

Although the USSR was no example, the left was hit hard. Many reformist parties abandoned reformism. Communist parties had lost some members, not all parties, but many.

that's exactly what I'm talking about.

true the USSR was in no way a good example, but the fall of the USSR and the end of the cold war seems to have had an effect on the world wide left. especially, its appeal to others.
I mean, for example, in the 1970's any national liberation group that would emerge, would defenatly be at least socialist. but why it isn't the case today??
for example, the Polisario, the national liberation front of the Western Sahara. during the seventies, they had a socialist rehtoric. after the end of the cold war, they abandond it.

Communist parties had lost some members, not all parties, but many

that's the kind of effect I'm talking about.

Tower of Bebel

21st June 2007, 20:20

I thought in Holland the NCPN had quite a good result during the first elections after the Berlin wall got removed.

Revolution Until Victory

21st June 2007, 20:52

to be honest, the reason I asked this question is the devestating effect the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War had on the left in my region (the arab world, I'm a Palestinian). after the fall of the USSR and end of the cold war, a wave of Islamism swept the region, more or less, replacing the left.
during the 60's and 70's, without exageration, every single Palestinian or arab was leftist. now, the situation compeltely changed.
during the 60's and 70's, the PFLP, a marxist-leninist palestinian liberation movment was training revolutionary leftist movments from all over the world, the likes of ETA, the Sandanistas, the Japanese Red Army, the Kurdistan Workers Party, Badr-Meinhoff, and many others from Latine America, Holland, France, Spain, and east Asia. it countiued a little to the 80's, but after that, it ended.

now the question is, the fall of the USSR and the cold war, did it negativly effect the left world wide, or in only certain areas?

Tower of Bebel

21st June 2007, 21:01

world wide, but there are exceptions. One of these exceptions are anarchist movements.

Wanted Man

21st June 2007, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:20 pm
I thought in Holland the NCPN had quite a good result during the first elections after the Berlin wall got removed.
The NCPN as we know it today was only founded in 1992... Anyway, the party has always held some municipal seats - 5 at the moment, I believe.

Edit: exact amounts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ncpn

Herman

21st June 2007, 21:17

The NCPN as we know it today was only founded in 1992... Anyway, the party has always held some municipal seats - 5 at the moment, I believe.

Which reminds me, i've heard numerable accusations that the NCPN is 'stalinist' or that it holds Stalin in a positive light.

Revolution Until Victory

21st June 2007, 21:27

but why the hell should the world wide left be negatively effected by the fall of the USSR and the end of the cold war? the USSR wasn't an ideaology in itself. it was simply an attempt at practicing that ideology.
nothing enrages me more than movments who claim to be communist, but after the end of the cold war, simply abandon their leftism.

Wanted Man

21st June 2007, 21:31

Herman:

And I've heard that people will come to the best conclusions when they go and see for themselves. It is an M-L / anti-revisionist party, but the point is not to sit in a circle and talk about dead men all day. It's a communist party, after all, not the British Stalin Society. ;)

It takes part in the International Communist Seminar (http://www.icsbrussels.org/), along with groups like the Workers Party of Belgium (PVDA/PTB), Communist Party of Cuba, the Palestinian PFLP, Greek KKE, Ecuadorian PCMLE, Workers World Party of the USA, etc.

Tower of Bebel

22nd June 2007, 07:53

The left got hard hit because capatalism seemed to be the only possible way of living.

bombeverything

22nd June 2007, 12:16

Yeah I agree. I think that is is true that the traditional left was in despair and partly, actually if not certainly, disintegrated after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was over: international capitalist commerce had 'prevailed' over international revolution. I think they abandoned communism because they lost alot of their power with the collapse of the 'bipolar' system and thus the choice of gaining Soviet support.

Yet this does not mean there are not exceptions as Raccoon mentioned. The colonization of the whole of society by business and the state has generalized both the alienating constraints of capitalism and the antagonism to them throughout the globe. For instance the uprising of the Zapatistas in 1994 comes to mind, although they are not Marxists obviously. Good question.

Herman

22nd June 2007, 17:45

Herman:

And I've heard that people will come to the best conclusions when they go and see for themselves. It is an M-L / anti-revisionist party, but the point is not to sit in a circle and talk about dead men all day. It's a communist party, after all, not the British Stalin Society. wink.gif

Just wanted to hear it from someone who belonged in the NCPN. That also reminds me that the CJB were organizing an event in Amsterdam (I think it was), showing some movies on Venezuela.

Wanted Man

22nd June 2007, 19:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:45 pm

Herman:

And I've heard that people will come to the best conclusions when they go and see for themselves. It is an M-L / anti-revisionist party, but the point is not to sit in a circle and talk about dead men all day. It's a communist party, after all, not the British Stalin Society. wink.gif

Just wanted to hear it from someone who belonged in the NCPN. That also reminds me that the CJB were organizing an event in Amsterdam (I think it was), showing some movies on Venezuela.
I'm not a party member, but in the CJB (the two are closely aligned, but are organizationally independent in the sense that CJB membership is not automatically party membership). The CJB holds observer status within the World Federation of Democratic Youth, with hundreds of other communist and socialist youth organizations.

And yes, there's the film day tomorrow. :) If you're interested, it's on Mauritskade 22b in Amsterdam. Can be reached from the Central Station by Metro 54 to Weesperplein. The place is open at 12:00, the film "The Edukators" begins at 14:30, "Mission Against Terror" at 13:00 and "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" at 19:00. The whole thing ends at 22:00, and visitors are welcome to come in for the opening time, or for the starting time of one of the films.

I'm thinking of going, but it's a rather long trip from Groningen, and the time spent there is long as well, so I'd only be back home after midnight. Besides, I'm already familiar with one of the movies ("Mission Against Terror"), and "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is very common, so I'll probably watch it at home later.

Revolution Until Victory

22nd June 2007, 19:29

then, do we agree, that the left, during the cold war and the USSR was much more stronger, got much more support and appeal, than it was after the fall of the USSR and end of the cold war? that's why, during the 60's and 70's any emerging national liberation movment would defenatly be at least some kind of leftist?

then if the answer for the above is yes, then what is the solution?

how could the left regain the popularity, strengh, and appeal it had during the cold war and the USSR?

a suggestion:

when the left got the most appeal and strenght during the cold war, anyone can easly see that the no.1 enemy of all the imperialist and imperialist agent governments was the left. from Latin America, to US, to Europe, to Asia.
now, anyone can clearly see that the no.1 enemy of the imperialist regimes is no longer the left, rather, the islamic forces from the US to Europe to Asia.
we also know that the more a cetain movment is opposed by the imperialist regime, the more popularity it would gain. the more the movment is persicuted, chased, arrested, killed, tortured, and banned, the more popular support it will get.
back in the day, the left was being attacked by the imperialists all over the world. now, that is hardly the case.
the only way the left can regain its strengh, is when the no.1 enemy of the imperialists returns to be the left.
so what should happen, is that the left should again, return to be the enemy of the imperialists.
for example, the more the communist rebels in Philipense would get opposed, chased, targeted, assasinated, and imprisoned, the more support they would get, and thus, the more appeal the international left would have.
same thing with ETA, the communist rebels in Colombia, etc.
for example, just 3 days ago, 12 members of the PFLP were arrested by the Shin Bet, that of course, is a boost for the PFLP and the left world wide.
right now, you can almost never find a governemnt in the entire world, that has its first priority to "combat communism". all of them are "combating Islamic 'radicalism'". that's why, Islamic movments are the most powerful on the scene. the message seems to be, "the left is no longer important, they are nothing, that's why no need to combat them".
and that's why the left should capture world headline again, and return to being the most major enemy of the imperialists.

Revolution Until Victory

22nd June 2007, 19:46

and here is another boost for the world wide left.

I have just read that one of the major leaders of the military wing of the marxist-leninist PFLP have been arrested.

by such actions, there seems a message saying "yes, the left is a danger, it is a force that should be dealt with" thus, gaining yet more appeal and popularity due to its strengh, affirmed by such acts as the above.

Wanted Man

22nd June 2007, 19:48

Ah yes, thanks for taking us back on-topic. :P

Sure, the communist movement suffered a severe blow from 1989-1991. It should be noted that many communist parties had already seriously degenerated, however. Eurocommunism came in, while the party in China began to reverse a lot of social and economic gains. Many European communist parties had already lost most of their mass support before the fall of the wall. For example, the membership of the Dutch CPN went into freefall, in 1986 they had zero parliamentary seats, compared to seven in 1972.

Eurocommunist party leaders had already set into work the progresses that would eventually cause their parties to disband and join into "democratic socialist" or even outright "social liberal" parties, like the CPN which merged into the Green Left party. The former CPN leader then declared that she was never really a communist (the hypocrite voiced her support for "actually existing socialism" at the 40-year anniversary of the GDR just a few years earlier), and started heading the Green Left. That party's current leader has supported the EU Constitution and is such a hard liberal that the youth movement of the right-wing VVD proclaimed her "liberal of the year".

Most real communists by that time were uninvolved in this process. They had either already left the party before it happened and formed new communist parties, or they regained/kept control, causing some of the original communist parties to continue to exist to this day. Again others, like the Belgian KP, became so irrelevant that the WPB, which was once a small Maoist group, is now a more relevant communist party.

In conclusion, I think that the fall of the wall has definitely been the event that struck the biggest blow against the communist parties, but there were already so many things put into order, that some other event would have caused it eventually. Now the "Special Period" of just trying to survive is over, and it's time to rebuild again.

Revolution Until Victory

22nd June 2007, 19:52

Now the "Special Period" of just trying to survive is over, and it's time to rebuild again.

yes

Janus

22nd June 2007, 20:53

for example, take the Kurdistan Workers Party.

after the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, it abandond communism.
Because it had been supported by the USSR. Whether or not these parties were truly communist, there were definitely some key advantages to having the USSR as one's backer.

I'm not aware of many communist movements that were not supported by either the USSR, China, or another country in their respective camps. However, if these groups existed and indeed did drop communism after the end of the Cold War then there must have been pre-existing conditions and forces which caused this shift in ideologies such as increasing parliamentary power,etc.

Revolution Until Victory

22nd June 2007, 22:10

it dependes on your defention of "support"

what I meant was groups and movments who claimed to be communists, then after the fall of the USSR and end of Cold War, they abandond their communism, even though they have no direct or financial support from the USSR. surely, they had political and ideaological support, but in now way could this be an enough reason for a movment to abandon its communism if a side that was ideologicaly backing it collapsed.

it's the first time I realize the Kurdistan Workers Party was supported directly or financialy by the USSR. I know the USSR supported it ideaologicaly and politicaly.

I'm not aware of many communist movements that were not supported by either the USSR, China, or another country in their respective camps

if you mean ideaological and political support, then yes, surely.

Kwisatz Haderach

26th June 2007, 06:30

The end of the Cold War was a crushing blow to leftist morale above all else. The Soviet Union was living proof that another world was possible, that capitalism could be successfully defied and resisted. The general attitude was "see, if the USSR and those other countries managed to defeat capitalism, we can do the same". Many leftists who did not support the USSR and did not want to copy the Soviet model still viewed the USSR as proof of the fact that capitalism is not the only way.

After the end of the Cold War, many movements abandoned their leftism because they genuinely lost hope.... And it is up to us, the post-Cold War generation, to rebuild hope, re-awaken class consciousness and accelerate the class struggle.

Revolution Until Victory

26th June 2007, 08:10

very well said Edric O.

that's exactly what I meant.

there seemed to be a kind of a game, a match, a duel, or a chalange between captialism, represented by the US mainly, and communism SUPPOSEDLY (although 100% not true) represented by the USSR.

the result??

the USSR, and so with it communism, "lost".

that was the extremem blow, which allows people today to say such disgusting things as "the left have long gone by, it wouldn't come back blah blah blah"

what we should do is recognize that there was this battel in which we "lost"
we should get over it. forget it. and rebiuld from scratch again, preparing for another "battle".

I mean, imagine if the outcome was the opposite...

imagine that it was the USSR who "won" and thus, "communism" "won".

I'm sure the capitalist movment would be in the same situation the left is in now.

I'm sure it wouldn't be long until the left captures world headlines again, a day in which the no.1 enemy of imperialists returns to be the left, in which Pinochets would be poping around all over the world again.

Intelligitimate

26th June 2007, 14:44

The collapse of the USSR was the worst thing to have ever happened in the entire history of humanity. It could quite literally mean the death of our species, as it annihilates itself with nuclear weapons in imperialist warfare.

The first major effects were obvious. Russian's economy suffered the worst economic collapse the world has ever seen that wasn't caused by losing a devastating war. The USSR's devastation during the Nazi invasion doesn't even compare. There literally has never been anything ever seen like, not even the Great Depression. The Russian economy literally shrank in half. Crime rates skyrocketed, as did suicide rates, prostitution, alcoholism, etc, while living standard and life expectancy plummeted to levels that would make someone in a third world country glad to be where they are. The entire socialist orbit suffered a similar, but not as bad fate. North Korea and Cuba were hit particularly hard, but nothing like what happened in Russia itself.

You can contrast that with how Russian performed during the Great Depression. It was the only country to actually experience any economic growth during a time when the entire capitalist world was going through the Great Depression. Not only did it grow, it grew at rates the world had never seen at that time. The greatest fear among the bourgeoisie was what kind of example this set for other countries.

There is a joke in Russia: What did capitalism do in 1 year that communism couldn't do in 70? Make communism look good.

The fall of the USSR has not only affected workers in the socialist orbit, but even here as well. Clinton proceeded to "End welfare as we know it" and kick off the drive toward neoliberalism by enacting NAFTA, something Reagan and Bush were completely unable to do. The fall of the USSR is seeing a global rollback on reforms the bourgeois granted its working class in order to keep them happy. Regulation and the social safety net are being abandoned all over the world for neoliberalism and deregulation. Capitalism with a human face has turned into capitalism in your face.

And as someone in this thread pointed out, there is a void where those that have opposed Western imperialism have been filled by reactionary trash. Without the backing of a strong socialist power, The Arab world in particular, once very strongly left, and still quite strongly Left today, has been turning to 'radical' Islam for real action. The insignificant anti-communist pseudo-Leftist parties and 'radicals' of the Western world might have remained largely unaffected, but there were never doing anything worthwhile to begin with.

hajduk

16th July 2007, 16:07

Cold war isnt stopped it is just put in hibernation,for a while.

Random Precision

16th July 2007, 17:20

Specifically in the Trotskyist movement the collapse of the USSR created a huge crisis. For decades, Trotskyism had been defined by opposition to Stalinism, or the system of the Soviet bloc. When Stalinism collapsed, it took a large part of the Trotskyist movement with it. Trotskyist leaders at the time did not know how to seize the advantage and thus the movement started hemorrhaging members, with many prominent leaders jumping on the neoliberal express.

Another reason for this was incorrect predictions as to the eventual fate of the Soviet Union. Trotsky maintained that in the Soviet bloc the introduction of capitalism, when it came, would be violently resisted by the workers. Instead, the workers supported the reinstatement of capitalism, for example the Solidarity movement in Poland. Many thus came to believe that it would be elitist to stand against the workers' desires for free-market capitalism, an example of the trend mentioned above. Some decided that the job of socialists was to make the transition to a free market as painless as possible, and do what they could to make the system more humane. The free market, however, was not the savior some saw it as.

Trotskyist leaders after Trotsky had also predicted that the collapse of the Stalinist system would lead to a new social democratic bloc, essentially upholding Gorbechev's perspective on perestroika and the reforms that came with it. They did not expect the Wild West capitalism that came to be in Russia and many other states, which right now has Russia more like Brazil economically than the Sweden Trotskyists expected.

Another part of the movement followed the Stalinist parties into reformism.

Essentially, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused the death of old Trotskyism by depriving it of a definition and the shock that entailed from the prophecies of leaders not coming to pass.

Wanted Man

16th July 2007, 19:07

Also, some Trotskyists (Mandel's tendency, for one, don't know about the others) claimed that the events of 1985-1991 constituted a "political revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy", and that it was not threatened by capitalist restoration at all, but would lead to true socialism. We all know how that turned out.

al-Ibadani

16th July 2007, 23:16

The collapse of the USSR was indeed a huge hit for the left. The left told us that the USSR was either socialist or degenerated worker's state despite the fact that workers had no power whatsoever and that the USSR was capitalist through and through.

Capitalism wasn't restored, just private property. The collapse of the USSR just happened to coincide with the collapse of the welfare state in the West. Both phenomena are the result of the return of open economic crisis to the global capitalist system after the boom years of the post war era.

The Trots still tell us the USSR was a workers' state, even though the workers were not sad to see it disappear. This explains why so many Trot groups tell us to defend North Korea and Cuba etc. (When Castro dies and Cuba returns to "capitalism" the workers there won't be sad to see that either. ) For the left state-capitalism is socialism, or a sign of superior social relations.

For workers the key is to see that the left and the right are both anti-worker. This dichotomy is false. Hopefully those workers who lived through Stalinism will be open to this truth, that private capitalism and state-capitalism are both anti-worker, and that the whole spectrum of the bourgeoisie from fascist groups on the extreme right to Trot, Maoists and "official" anarchist groups on the extreme left, are anti-worker.

PRC-UTE

17th July 2007, 00:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:16 pm
The Trots still tell us the USSR was a workers' state, even though the workers were not sad to see it disappear. This explains why so many Trot groups tell us to defend North Korea and Cuba etc. (When Castro dies and Cuba returns to "capitalism" the workers there won't be sad to see that either. )
Cuba has only survived the collapse of the Soviet Bloc because the support it enjoys from the working class, and their mass participation in its state.

Random Precision

17th July 2007, 01:16

The Trots still tell us the USSR was a workers' state, even though the workers were not sad to see it disappear. This explains why so many Trot groups tell us to defend North Korea and Cuba etc. (When Castro dies and Cuba returns to "capitalism" the workers there won't be sad to see that either. ) For the left state-capitalism is socialism, or a sign of superior social relations.
Wow. I'm afraid that this is all that comes to mind:

http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up766.jpg

And please, please, PLEASE find out a little about the groups you've so nicely generalized before you post something else like that about them.

Now I see why they say those things about Left Communists.

The Author

17th July 2007, 02:41

The left told us that the USSR was either socialist or degenerated worker's state despite the fact that workers had no power whatsoever and that the USSR was capitalist through and through.

If you look down upon the left, that would make you a rightist.

From now on, every left communist I look upon, I equate to a rightist. I had always suspected it, now I don't even doubt it. You people are doing the work and propaganda of the imperialists for the imperialists, but putting a red cloak on it and pretending you're fighting for communism.

I ask this question (yet again) from the left communists: where is the evidence that workers lacked democracy in the USSR, that there was capitalism "through and through"?

Capitalism wasn't restored, just private property.

Private property is one of the major conditions in the definition of capitalism, along with the law of surplus value. Just like the term "imperialism," left communists (rightists) throw around the term "capitalism" very liberally as well.

The collapse of the USSR just happened to coincide with the collapse of the welfare state in the West.

Actually, the collapse and ongoing decline of the welfare state in the West is due to the fact that formerly socialist USSR and Eastern Bloc no longer exists, and hence rather than having to make the necessary "social reforms" to avoid revolutions in their own countries, the West can liquidate the social welfare programs.

the workers were not sad to see it disappear.

While many workers in the beginning were disappointed by the lack of progress in socialist construction in the USSR, once exposed to the ills of capitalism, in deed the workers realized they were better off. Does this mean the USSR was doing perfectly in the past? No, mistakes were made in the bureaucratic apparatus and the road to communism was not being followed, the Marxist-Leninist road was not being followed.

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 02:44

About proletarian democracy, it started to being chipped off with the introduction of one man management of the workplace, which transferred conscious economic power from the proletarian class to the petty-bourgeoisie(middle-men, bureaucrats, etc.)

al-Ibadani

17th July 2007, 06:43

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways)If you look down upon the left, that would make you a rightist.[/b]

The American poet Ezra Pound once said:
The technique of infamy is to invent two lies and to get people arguing heatedly over which one of them is true

That is how I see the left-right dichotomy. Two lies. Or rather a spectrum of lies. For example, the lies about democracy (a government of and by the people) in the US are just as duplicitous as the lies about workers democracy in the USSR or Cuba.

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways)
I ask this question (yet again) from the left communists: where is the evidence that workers lacked democracy in the USSR, that there was capitalism "through and through"?[/b]

About workers' democracy, as Voz de la Gente Trabajadora said the factory committees which through which the workers ran the factories were abolished in favor of state appointed management. The workers councils became rubber stamps to the ruling party. The whole idea of elected and revocable delegates was done away with.

About the capitalist nature of the USSR. What you have is the concentration of capital in the hands of the state. There is no change in property relations, there is simply a juridical change. The means of production remain "private" as far as the workers are concerned. The workers have no control over the means of production, instead the means of production are "collectivized" for the bureaucracy who manages it collectively.

let me quote from the ICC

Originally posted by ICC
The state bureaucracy which takes on the specific function of extracting surplus labor from the proletariat and of accumulating national capital constitutes a class. But it is not a new class. The role it plays shows that it is nothing but the same old bourgeoisie in its statified form.

The centralization and planning of capitalist production by the state and its bureaucracy far from being a step towards the elimination of exploitation is simply a way of intensifying exploitation, of making it more effective.

Engels couldn't foresee the USSR. He however didn't equate state ownership with socialism. He said

Originally posted by Engels

The modern state, regardless of its form, is essentially a capitalistic machine, the ideal collective capitalist. The more productive forces it takes over into its possession. so much the more does it become the actual collective capitalist, and so many more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers, proletarians. The capitalist relation is not eliminated.

The USSR was this Collective capitalist.

[email protected]

Actually, the collapse and ongoing decline of the welfare state in the West is due to the fact that formerly socialist USSR and Eastern Bloc no longer exists, and hence rather than having to make the necessary "social reforms" to avoid revolutions in their own countries, the West can liquidate the social welfare programs.

Well the dismantling of the welfare state began well before 1989 or 1991. But of course the bourgeoisie can argue that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc is proof that "socialism" doesn't work. It can then say that the welfare state is a form of partial "socialism" that also can't work in the new world of globalisation etc. The truth is that both the welfare state and "socialism" cannot resist the pressures of the return of open crisis since the 1970's.

catbert836
And please, please, PLEASE find out a little about the groups you've so nicely generalized before you post something else like that about them.

Now I see why they say those things about Left Communists.

Well I don't know about every single group. However most Trot groups do talk about degenerated and deformed workers' states. And Stalinist and anti-revisionists talked about socialist states.

The Author

17th July 2007, 06:52

transferred conscious economic power

Proletarian democracy doesn't relate to "economic power," it relates to political power, to the superstructure.

One-man management doesn't demonstrate to me the political conditions of the nature of proletarian democracy. One-man management concerns how the economy is to be run in a society. Considering a lack of trained personnel or personnel from the Tsarist period, the fact that the USSR was the only socialist country in existence at the time, such a strategy was necessary based upon the material conditions for its survival.

When I ask for information on "workers' control," I want facts on the political nature of Soviet society, on electoral votes, how the proletarian government was arranged, the nature of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, criminal laws, civil laws, constitutional factors, etc. Not how the economy was managed.

The Author

17th July 2007, 07:09

The American poet Ezra Pound once said:

Ezra Pound was an Italian fascist sympathizer and an anti-Semite. Doesn't surprise me in the least you quote him.

as the lies about workers democracy in the USSR or Cuba.

While we can debate forever over the issue of democracy in the USSR, there's so much empirical evidence that can be easily dug up on these forums alone about the existence of socialist democracy in Cuba that anybody saying otherwise is either misinformed, or is deliberately lying.

And then one wonders why there was and is censorship of "opposing viewpoints" in socialist countries and asks about this issue on another thread...as if it even was an issue worth discussing...

He however didn't equate state ownership with socialism. He said

And after that, he said,

This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonising of the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange with the socialised character of the means of production And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilised by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.

Which is exactly what happened in the USSR, hence it was socialist. Until the Liberman reforms of the 1960s and glasnost and perestroika of the 1980s, which quantitatively changed the socialist nature of collective property and negated its existence, back into private property.

Wanted Man

17th July 2007, 07:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:16 am
Now I see why they say those things about Left Communists.
The funny thing is that I doubt that they are even mainstream left communists. This guy is with the International Communist Current (http://www.internationalism.org/). I've never seen any kind of activity from this highly dogmatic bunch in my country, even though they supposedly have a "territorial section" in the Netherlands.

But perhaps comrades in other countries are less lucky, and do have to endure them outside of their little home on the internet where they rant and rave about how all the others are capitalists. They are amazingly cultish. Look at the complicated membership process (http://en.internationalism.org/joinicc). Basically, you need to have a lot of discussions (until you are convinced of their line), and give them a lot of money. Then, maybe you will be allowed to join.

That is how I see the left-right dichotomy. Two lies. Or rather a spectrum of lies. For example, the lies about democracy (a government of and by the people) in the US are just as duplicitous as the lies about workers democracy in the USSR or Cuba.
Haha, really? You know, I can think of some third positionists who would gladly embrace the quoted paragraph.

al-Ibadani

17th July 2007, 07:53

Ezra Pound was an Italian fascist sympathizer and an anti-Semite. Doesn't surprise me in the least you quote him.

IF he said the sky is blue I guess you would dismiss that too. The difference between us is that you are arguing for one lie against another.

Anyways the fascist scum are no worse than the stalinist scum you seem so keen to defend.

Unfortunately what Engels described was the polar opposite of what took place in the USSR. Society didn't control anything. The bureaucracy did. And they lived far more comfortable lives than the workers did.

Anyway the idea of socialism in one country is Stalin's deformation of Marxism to carry out his counter-revolution. You still manage to equate one of the most brutal forms of state capitalism with socialism.

As for Cuba, it's nice to see you swallow the state propaganda of the ruling bourgeois clique under Castro. If I can see anything even remotely resembling elected and revocable delegates in Cuba then I'm wrong. There is no such thing in Cuba.

Back to workers' democracy. The fact that you're asking about " the nature of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, criminal laws, civil laws, constitutional factors, etc...," shows you are clueless about the nature of a worker's state. A workers state would have territorial soviets based in the neighborhoods and villages. It would have workers councils based on the workplace, all based on elected and revocable delegates. There would be no separate legislative and executive. Get a clue. Ask anyone who lived in the USSR at any time after Stalin came to power if there was any workers democracy.

As for socialism, it can't be done in one country. It requires the overthrow of a global capitalist system. The fact the workers have no country is in fact because their objectives are indeed global. The adoption of the theory of socialism in one country marked the rejection of these objectives, and marked the passing of the Comintern into the enemy camp, the camp of the bourgeoisie.

Marion

17th July 2007, 08:13

I've got my problems with a few of the ICC's positions, but:

1) I've come across a fair few groups, but the ICC are probably the least likely to "rant and rave" out of all of them. Whether you agree with them or think they are barmy, they generally try and argue their points in a comradely way rather than with unsubstantiated crap or personal insults.

2) Their recruitment policy initially seems strange (and I do think it is a bit over the top). However, they do not see the role of the party as being to get as many members as possible and get votes in elections regardless of whether this compromises their positions. Rather, they would rather have a small nucleus of those who definitely agree with their positions - I think the measures they put in place have to be seen in that context and they are definitely not a 'cult'.

Just out of interest, though, I thought that the ICC had relatively cordial relations with a number of members of "official" anarchist organisations in the UK (despite obvious political differences) and would not criticise them as "anti-worker"?

Leo

17th July 2007, 10:07

And please, please, PLEASE find out a little about the groups you've so nicely generalized before you post something else like that about them.

Can you name one Trotskyist group which doesn't support different factions of the bourgeoisie?

If you look down upon the left, that would make you a rightist.

So to you Lenin was a rightist for looking down upon the overwhelming majority of the world left, that is social democracy, when the World War 1 started. That's alright, counter-revolutionaries of his time called him similar names too.

From now on, every left communist I look upon, I equate to a rightist. I had always suspected it, now I don't even doubt it. You people are doing the work and propaganda of the imperialists for the imperialists

Actually it is you who are doing the work and propaganda of the imperialists and for the imperialists, this is why the communist left is looking down on you folks, just like the Bolsheviks were looking down on the social democrats who supported the imperialist wars. You too, just like social democrats, support imperialist wars, support various imperialist and nationalist bourgeois factions and you have for a long time made propaganda in support of imperialist blocks and powers pursuing their imperialist interests such as Maoist China, USSR, Castro's Cuba, Vietnam, Albania, North Korea... You are the capitalist left, you are the imperialist left, you are the anti-working class left.

The funny thing is that I doubt that they are even mainstream left communists.

Oh they are, don't worry about that.

Basically, you need to have a lot of discussions

:o How horrible!

:rolleyes:

al-Ibadani

17th July 2007, 10:11

The funny thing is that I doubt that they are even mainstream left communists. This guy is with the International Communist Current. I've never seen any kind of activity from this highly dogmatic bunch in my country, even though they supposedly have a "territorial section" in the Netherlands.

I'm not from the ICC. I support them, as well as the rest of the left communist groups such as the EKS and the IBRP. I've never heard of a "mainstream" left communist before (I guess Loren Goldner is close to mainstream), but the ICC is the largest left communist group. Its basic positions are no different than the others.

Of course the members of the ICC are probably less corrosive than I am in their approach. As for them being a sect, that's a charge often made by those who know them the least. Go the their Discussie bijeenkomsten or thier Openbare bijeenkomsten. They have them once in a while in Holland. (Details on their website) See for yourself if they are cultish.

Basically, you need to have a lot of discussions (until you are convinced of their line), and give them a lot of money. Then, maybe you will be allowed to join.

Only members pay money in the form of dues to the ICC. You can buy thier books and their press (if you consider that giving then a lot of money). A revolutionary party is not a mass party. It is a party of revolutionaries who can defend the party's positions. All of whom are well versed in Marxism and in proletarian history.

But perhaps comrades in other countries are less lucky, and do have to endure them outside of their little home on the internet where they rant and rave about how all the others are capitalists

The ICC has been around since the 70's. Its section in Venezuela has been around since '64 I think. Many of the other sections who later joined together to form the ICC were created after the upheavals of '68. This is hardly some internet group. I might rant and rave a bit, but I don't think the ICC does.

Also it important to note that capital has no problem using the language and history of the workers movement against us. The key is to see which parties and groups are indeed proletarian and which ones only sound it. So not "all the others are capitalists." Some groups (left communist, internationalist anarchist) are indeed proletarian.

Just out of interest, though, I thought that the ICC had relatively cordial relations with a number of members of "official" anarchist organisations in the UK (despite obvious political differences) and would not criticise them as "anti-worker"?

Some anarchist groups are anti-union and anti-democracy as well as internationalist. These are certainly in the proletarian camp and the ICC has cordial relations with some of them.

The ICC will have to get to you about their relationships with other organizations. I doubt they would hesitate to call organizations that are indeed in the bourgeois camp "anti-worker" if asked.