Are there any Bukharinites here? Tell me what you think of Bukharin and his ideas.

[careyprice31]

I think Bukharin and his ideas were more thoughtful and more democratic and would have resulted in a less traumatized society than what Lenin or Stalin could create, partly because for Stalin and Lenin, the ends justified the means.

Discuss.

[Herman]

Indeed, with Bukharin, capitalism would have been restored peacefully.

Let's all hear it! "ENRICH YOURSELVES!"

But really, if you want to discuss his ideas, let's hear which ideas first.

[Sky]

The establishment of socialist forms in the economy in Russia and the exacerbation of the class struggle resulted in an intensification of vacillations among the petit bourgeois strata of the population. Consequently, a right-wing deviation led by Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky took shape in the Communist Party, manifesting itself in a desire to reduce the rate of large-scale industrial construction and postpone further industrial construction, a scornful or negative attitude toward the kolkhozes, and an underestimation of and a desire to suppress the class struggle, especially against the kulak.

It was not by chance that the leaders of the right-wing deviation adopted an opportunistic position. They had vacillated before, both theoretically and politically. The right-wing deviationists believed that socialist construction could be successful only if an alliance was maintained between the working class and the entire peasantry, including the kulaks. They claimed that only a backward type of socialism could build in Russia and that building even this backward form would take place at an extremely slow pace over a long period of time. Distorting Lenin’s cooperative plan, the right-wingers contended that the peasants would reach socialism not through the organization of kolkohozes but through supply and marketing cooperatives. According to the right-wing deviationists, the main task of the dictatorship of the proletariat was reducible to the regulation of the relations between different classes and groups hostile to socialism. They asserted that the class struggle was coming to nil and the capitalist elements could ‘slide’ into socialism.

The deviationists believed that the Party’s main task was the development of agriculture, and to attain this goal, they demanded the lowering of ther ate of industrialization and the reduction of the sums allocated to capital construction. In their opinion, the backwardness of agriculture could be overcome not through technical modernization and socialist transformation but through the comprehensive development and strengthening of individual peasant farms. They undervalued and openly disregarded the task of building the kolkhozes, and they resisted the practical implementation of this task. They favored an end to the policy of putting pressure on the kulaks during the grain procurement campaigns, and they advocated taxing the kulaks on an individual basis. They advocated free market relations and the highest possible increase in grain prices. Their political platform, which objectively represented a surrender of socialist positions under pressure from the petit bourgeois element, would have led to the disruption of industrialization and collectivization.

[Holden Caulfield]

went from semi-anarchist to stalinist puppet, wow for him
recanted his views to survive politically, and possibly literally,

wanted to create Kulaks to make everybody richer? what be this a capitalist idea,
if war happened he would have lost it

[Devrim]

Bukharin was by far the most intellectual of the party leaders, and in his early days was on the left of the party.

See
The 'Left' Communists' Theses on the Current Situation:
http://libcom.org/library/theses-left-communists-russia-1918

Devrim

[jacobin1949]

His theories have important implications for the modern CPUSA and China

[careyprice31]

The establishment of socialist forms in the economy in Russia and the exacerbation of the class struggle resulted in an intensification of vacillations among the petit bourgeois strata of the population. Consequently, a right-wing deviation led by Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky took shape in the Communist Party, manifesting itself in a desire to reduce the rate of large-scale industrial construction and postpone further industrial construction, a scornful or negative attitude toward the kolkhozes, and an underestimation of and a desire to suppress the class struggle, especially against the kulak.

It was not by chance that the leaders of the right-wing deviation adopted an opportunistic position. They had vacillated before, both theoretically and politically. The right-wing deviationists believed that socialist construction could be successful only if an alliance was maintained between the working class and the entire peasantry, including the kulaks. They claimed that only a backward type of socialism could build in Russia and that building even this backward form would take place at an extremely slow pace over a long period of time. Distorting Lenin’s cooperative plan, the right-wingers contended that the peasants would reach socialism not through the organization of kolkohozes but through supply and marketing cooperatives. According to the right-wing deviationists, the main task of the dictatorship of the proletariat was reducible to the regulation of the relations between different classes and groups hostile to socialism. They asserted that the class struggle was coming to nil and the capitalist elements could ‘slide’ into socialism.

The deviationists believed that the Party’s main task was the development of agriculture, and to attain this goal, they demanded the lowering of ther ate of industrialization and the reduction of the sums allocated to capital construction. In their opinion, the backwardness of agriculture could be overcome not through technical modernization and socialist transformation but through the comprehensive development and strengthening of individual peasant farms. They undervalued and openly disregarded the task of building the kolkhozes, and they resisted the practical implementation of this task. They favored an end to the policy of putting pressure on the kulaks during the grain procurement campaigns, and they advocated taxing the kulaks on an individual basis. They advocated free market relations and the highest possible increase in grain prices. Their political platform, which objectively represented a surrender of socialist positions under pressure from the petit bourgeois element, would have led to the disruption of industrialization and collectivization.

Thats one of my favorite sayings. "Enrich yourselves, make yourselves prosperous, and do not worry that your holdings will be taken away from you." Bukharin, 1925.

I agree with everything said in this post. He/she certainly knows her/his Rightist stuff. I agree with them fully, Bukharin, Tomsky, Rykov, Uglanov, and even Sergei Kirov sympathized with them. Oh and Stalin's wife secretly.

I am not opposed to savhozes and kolhozes per se, but they've got to be organized voluntarily otherwise it would never be a democracy. Secondly, all the Leftists (at the time, Zinoviev, Kamenev and the like) all talked about kulaks. I have to say, what kulaks? There hadnt been any real Kulaks since before wwI and even if there were still some around they only made up some one odd percent of the total peasant population as it was. Thirdly, Lenin was thinking that the class struggle that existed in the cities also was the same for the countryside. This was a dangerous misconception, because the peasants defined as 'kulak' differently than the Bolsheviks did. Fourthly, of course there had to be an alliance with the peasantry, they made up most of the bulk of the Russian population. To ignore them and say their lives in the country were the same as the workers in the city and had the same 'kulaks' is outright turning away from democracy and a chance of developing a true Marxist society.

I think the Bolsheviks could have been really great. Russia could have lead the world in sciences (think brilliant scientists like Nikolai Vavilov) for example, and could have shown the world that Marxism is indeed a valid philosophy on how human nature works. but I think Lenin and later Stalin really messed up big time for pushing their own views forward and not yielding to the Constituent Assembly (which had voted in a Leftist Party in the November elections incidentally) bringing in War Communism, the Red Terror, civil war, the Food Brigades (to take the food of peasants by force) and then later Stalin wished to destroy NEP and bring in War Communism on a much more intense scale than even Lenin had.

One more fact. Lenin distorted Marism by making it more suitable to Russia, but if any of you are familiar with old Imperial Russia of Tsarist times (I mean like 16, 17th , 18th century Tsarist times), you could not fail to see that Lenin had based most of his ideas on old autocratic traditions and not on Marixms. Also the 'ends justify the means' philosophies of Sergei Nechayev and Pyotr Tkachev, not to mention Dmitri Pisarev and Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Lenin loved these.

Bottrom LIne: They should have listened more to Bukharin, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries. They were the true representative of what the people wanted , especially the SR's who won the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

This is my view on things. I am a Bukharinite. Feel free to agree or disagree with my views. :)

[Dros]

I think Bukharin and his ideas were more thoughtful and more democratic and would have resulted in a less traumatized society than what Lenin or Stalin could create, partly because for Stalin and Lenin, the ends justified the means.

Discuss.

Bukharin was a revisionist who represented the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the kulags within the party. I'm glad that he was purged.:ohmy:

[careyprice31]

Bukharin was a revisionist who represented the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the kulags within the party. I'm glad that he was purged.:ohmy:

:ohmy::ohmy:

I just knew someone was going to come in here and say that.

[Dimentio]

Be a bit civil please people.

It was 80 years ago. Instead of arguing, maybe we should try to look on the process of collectivisation from several angles.

[careyprice31]

all i do is like you. Shake my head and think, "those stalinists....."

[Raúl Duke]

Svetlana, tell me about Bukharin and what he was for and what he did and why no one seems to like him...please...

[Dros]

:ohmy::ohmy:

I just knew someone was going to come in here and say that.

Am I wrong?

He advocated for capitalism in the country side, he opposed collectivisation, etc, etc, etc...

And btw, Bukharin upheld Lenin so I don't clearly understand how you can be pro Bukharin without upholding Lenin.

[Dros]

Be a bit civil please people.

It was 80 years ago. Instead of arguing, maybe we should try to look on the process of collectivisation from several angles.

I was kidding...:glare: (kinda):D

But seriously, it's important to deal with history. She asked about Bukharin and what people thought of him. He was a revisionist. Revisionism leads to the restoration of capitalism. That is bad. He should not have been allowed to remain in the party (not necessarily killed) because he was no longer a communist!

[Leo]

Bukharin was probably among the most intelligent leaders of the Bolshevik Party, if not the brightest mind among them all. This did not, however, lead to good policies all the time - in fact this mind aided the death mark of the revolution in Russia by theorizing 'socialism in one country' for the Stalinists. He was well aware of what Stalin intended to do, "He will slay us, he will strangle us, he is the new Genghis Khan" he said of Stalin. Also, he appears to have perfectly grasped the internal direction in Russia, he said: "the root of the evil is that the party and the state are so completely merged". He did fail to see, however, the true cause of this being the isolation of the revolution internationally. Nor did he take the final step of concluding that the social regime in Russia had changed and that now the conflict was in between the ruling bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the working class which had lost it's power. Perhaps he would have had he not capitulated but he did. He was not the bravest after all and he died in a tragic way, begging Stalin for mercy.

Lots of ignorant Stalinists say that late Bukharin was a revisionist, a supporter of capitalism and so forth. He was not, although he did manage to see what the accusations against him were going to be: "Stalin will stop at nothing. His policy is leading us to civil war, he will compelled to drown rebellions in blood. He will denounce us as the defenders of the kulak". The issue for Bukharin was about industrialization Bukharin said in the 1924-28 faction fights that the application of Trotsky's 'super-industrialization' strategy could only be carried out by the most elephantine state bureaucracy history had ever seen. When Stalin stole the left oppositions industrial program and put it into practice, he completely confirmed Bukharin, as Trotsky himself acknowledged in a backhanded way after most of his faction in Russia had capitulated to Stalin. Bukharin had said: "The attempt to replace all the petty producers and small peasants by bureaucrats produces an apparatus so colossal that the expense of maintaining it is incomparably greater than the unproductive expenditures resulting from the anarchic conditions of petty production: in sum, the whole economic apparatus of the proletarian state not only does not facilitate but actually hinders the development of the productive forces. It leads directly to the opposite of what it is supposed to do". The issue was never about being supportive of capitalism, but it was about industrialization, and bureaucracy. For example the Italian left communist Bordiga and had supported Trotsky in the faction fight of the 20's, largely for reasons related to Soviet/Comintern foreign policy of opposition to 'socialism in one country', took his distance from the super-industrialization strategy of the Left Opposition. Bordiga felt after 1945 that only something like Bukharin's internal strategy had any hope of preserving the international revolutionary character of the regime, which to Bordiga was more important than Russian industrialization because it would not destroy the Bolshevik party. Although it is very doubtful that any policy could have prevented the counter revolution with the international wave of struggle being defeated, the industrialization policy was the fatal blow, and the Stalinists were indeed the gravediggers of the revolution, as Bordiga told to Stalin.

Despite some interesting theoretical arguements and analysis of the late Bukharin, the early, left communist Bukharin was far more interesting than the late Bukharin. Although the most famous position of the first Russian left communist group Kommunist was their opposition to the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty, this wasn't their most significant and strong point historically. Bukharin's analysis of imperialism basically laid the foundations of Lenin's work, however Bukharin had not fallen into the error Lenin felt to on the national question. Bukharin opposed the right of nations to self-determination as a proletarian tactic at the Berne Conference of the Bolshevik Party in 1915, Lenin was the first to point out that one could not reject one point in the proletariat’s struggle for democracy without calling into question this struggle itself: if self-determination was impossible to achieve in the imperialist epoch, why not all other democratic demands? Lenin posed the problem as how to link the advent of imperialism with the struggle for reforms and democracy, and from this standpoint he denounced Bukharin’s position as “imperialist economism”; that is, a rejection of the need for a political struggle, and therefore a capitulation to imperialism. But Bukharin was not rejecting the need for a political struggle at all, only the equation of this with the struggle for the minimum program. Bukharin and the Kommunist group posed the problem as the need for the proletariat to make a decisive break with the methods of the past, and to adopt new tactics and slogans corresponding to the need to destroy capitalism through proletarian revolution. Whereas communists were formerly in favour of the struggle for democracy, now they opposed it. As Bukharin more fully expressed it in a later amplification of this position: "It is perfectly clear, that the specific slogans and aims of the movement are wholly dependent on the character of the epoch in which the fighting proletariat has to operate. The past era was one of gathering strength and preparing for revolution. The present era is one of the revolution itself, and this fundamental distinction also gives rise to profound differences in the concrete slogans and aims of the movement. The proletariat needed democracy in the past because it was as yet unable to think about dictatorship in real terms...Democracy was valuable in so far as it helped the proletariat to climb a step higher in its consciousness, but the proletariat was forced to present its class demands in a ‘democratic’ form...But there is no need to make a virtue out of a necessity...the time has come for a direct assault on the capitalist fortress and the suppression of the exploiters."

Since the period of progressive bourgeois democracy was now over, and imperialism was inherent to capitalism’s continued existence; it was utopian and reactionary to advance anti-imperialist demands which left capitalist relations intact. The only answer to imperialism was the proletarian revolution: “Any advancement of ‘partial’ tasks, of the ‘liberation of nations’ within the realm of capitalist civilization, means the diverting of proletarian forces from the actual solution to the problem, and their fusion with the forces of the corresponding national bourgeois groups... The slogan of ‘self-determination of nations’ is first of all utopian (it cannot be realized within the limits of capitalism) and harmful as a slogan which disseminates illusions. In this respect it does not differ at all from the slogans of the courts of arbitration, of disarmament, etc, which presupposes the possibility of so-called ‘peaceful capitalism’ ”.

But Bukharin went further in his rejection of the minimum programme in the imperialist epoch, by showing the need for tactics and slogans which expressed the need for the proletariat to destroy the capitalism state. Whereas in ascendant capitalism the state had ensured the general conditions for exploitation by individual capitalist, the imperialist epoch gave rise to a militaristic state machine which directly exploited the proletariat, with a change from individual ownership of capital to collective ownership through unified capitalist structures (in trust, syndicates, etc.) and the fusion of these structures with the state. This tendency towards state capitalism spread from the economy to all areas of social life: “All these organizations have a tendency to fuse with one another and to become transformed into one organization of the rulers. This is the newest step of development, and one which has become especially apparent during the war... So there comes into being a single, all-embracing organization, the modern imperialist pirate state, an omnipotent organization of bourgeois dominance.... and if only the most advanced states have attained this stage, then each day, and especially each day of war, tends to make this fact general”. The only force which could confront these united forces of the entire bourgeoisie was the mass action of the proletariat. The need of the revolutionary movement in these new conditions was first of all to manifest its fundamental opposition to the state, which implied a rejection of support for any capitalist country. The Kommunist group also had remarkably accurate predictions on the way Russia would developed as early as in 1918: "In the event of a rejection of active proletarian politics, the conquests of the workers' and peasants' revolution will start to coagulate into a system of state capitalism and petty bourgeois economic relations. 'The defense of the socialist fatherland' will then prove in actual fact to be defense of a petty bourgeois motherland subject to the influence of international capital".

The late Bukharin almost completely reversed his early positions which turned out to be historically correct. In many ways, the first 'capitulation' of the early Bukharin into the majority of the party marked the end of the strongest opposition there was ever going to exist within the Bolshevik party. Bukharin, being a very intelligent revolutionary, continued being interesting in some theoretical issues, such as the issue of industrialization, but he never managed to be among the ones who throughly opposed the counter revolution, in fact he at times undertook important tasks for the counter revolution, such as formulating the policy of socialism in one country. But in the end, although he did not die as a brave revolutionary who confidently walked to his death, he died as a someone who was among the great generation of revolutionaries from the early days of the revolution who became a victim of the Stalinist counter revolution because he had tried to oppose it, whether too little or too late, at one point.

[careyprice31]

I was kidding...:glare: (kinda):D

But seriously, it's important to deal with history. She asked about Bukharin and what people thought of him. He was a revisionist. Revisionism leads to the restoration of capitalism. That is bad. He should not have been allowed to remain in the party (not necessarily killed) because he was no longer a communist!

He was a Marxist, and he did not really go against War Communism when Lenin implemented it in 1918 (although he did think the violence was excessive) but when Stalin wished to implement it in 1928 Bukharin had begun to be able to compare it with NEP. Whether you liked it or not, NEP was reviving the country. At that moment Bukharin was able to realize tha\e damage it would do to the country.

Svetlana, tell me about Bukharin and what he was for and what he did and why no one seems to like him...please... Yesterday 21:20


Bukharin was mainly an economist. He had joined the Bolsheviks in the first decade of the 20th century but then emigrated from Russia because he was getting rather fed up with the Okhrana provocateur, Roman Malinovsky. While abrod he met Stalin in Vienna and helped him with translations because stalin did not know German. Bukharin also met Trotsky in the US and they worked together on the paper Novi Mir "New World"

Bukharin had been to almost every westernized country and he spoke 4 languages: English, French, German, and Russian. He was highly educated, and more Western than Russian in his thinking althoguh he was a true Moscovite, born in October 5, 1888 in Moscow.

Bukharin was abroahen the Feb revolution and abdication of the Tsar took place; he returned to Russia in May. He did not object to the October 1917 takeover, although accoring to his third wife, Anna Larina, when he found out that several hundred people had died in the taking of Moscow he sat down and cried.

Bukharin opposed the signing of the Brest Litovsk Treaty by Lenin. His belief was that the Germans had to be defeated. In this he differed from Trotsky, who wanted "peace without winners and losers; peace without victors and vanquished."

He did not object to the implementing of War Communism by Lenin in 1918 although he did not like the excessive violence.

He was elected to the Politburo when it was first created on march 1919 and served there until 1929.

In 1920 he and a fellow Marxist, Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, wrote "the ABC of Communism." That was after a sentence of Lenin's in which he said classes areed by parties and parties are led by leaders and that autocratic methods are in no way incompatible with Russian tradition.

Afetr lenin's death Bukharin was put in charge of NEP along with Stalin. (NEP was formed in march 1921 and was opposed by the Communist Left because of its concessions supposedly made to the 'kulaks'. Kulak is a Russian term that literally means 'fist.' While there he saw that NEP was reviving the countryside. He made his famous "Enrich yourselves" speech in 1925 and this speech shocked the Left such as Kamenev and Zinoviev. A rich kulak !! Wtf!! that was their thinking.

Kamenev and Zinoviev were afraid of Trotsky and so they allied with Stalin to dispose of him politically. He was exiled in 1928. Stalin then allied with Bukharin to get rid of Kamenev and Zinoviev. Stalin's speech "Nikolai you and I are the Himilayans and the rest are no n entities" was damaging to Bukharin.

When Stalin had enoguh of his followers in the Politburo and the Central Committee, Bukharin was removed from his place in the Politburo along with his friends and supporters, Rykov, Tomsky, and Uglanov. In 1934 he was also removed from his place as editor in chief of Pravda, a place he had served since approximately 1919. He was given a spot as editor in chief of Izvestia ("News") newspaper, but in early 1937 he was dismissed freom that and arrested in Feb. He spent one year in prison and was put on show trial in March 1938. After the Trial of the Twenty One (so called because there was 21 defendants) he was executed on March 15 1938.

I won't repeat what Sky has already said, which is true and is a good post.

Nikolai's bright image should live in people's minds til their dying day.

I hope this helps, Johnny. :)

Leo that was such a beautiful post. xD

[Dimentio]

I wonder how Stalin's policies helped to not eventually restore capitalism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

svetlana, since you mentioned sovkhozy and kolkhozy, allow me to reiterate my stance on those:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-bolshevik-mistake-t59382/index.html


The first Bolshevik mistake was the redistribution of land over "statification." In spite of this, War Communism did provide the opportunity to rectify the mistake, but the Bolsheviks did not seize it.

There were two chances right there to "industrialize" agriculture and turn the landless peasants into proletarians right on the spot. There was the chance right there to consolidate the majority of Russian agriculture into sovkhozy (where the state was the actual owner, and where the farmers worked for a wage)!

Now, in today's world and in spite of the presence of so many family farms, increased efficiencies associated with industrial agriculture and negative profits for family farms are the key to implementing global sovkhozy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming#Role_in_food_production) (US government data in PDF [...] ) for this "commanding height" of the economy (per my stamocap thread).

Since you also look at NEP more fondly than I do (but I don't demonize this state capitalism unlike a lot of comrades), I would like to bring to your attention the Scissors Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scissor_crisis):


The crisis happened because agricultural production had rebounded quickly from the famine of 1921-1922 and the civil war. In contrast, the industry took longer to recover, due to the need to rebuild infrastructure. Furthermore, the problem was exacerbated by the government seeking to avoid another famine by keeping the bread grain prices at artificially low levels.

The widening gap in prices also showcased the inelastic nature of trading with the peasants. For example, a peasant did not need to buy a lantern from the state, as they could simply make candles themselves. Whilst on the other hand, peasants were unlikely to respond, according to classic economics, to lower prices by selling more grain to buy more goods; instead farmers would rather either eat more or work less, as they did not require these goods. It is worth noting that due to the NEP being implemented in 1921, it had rapid success, and by 1923 (the year of the Scissor Crisis), factory output had a huge increase of 200%, along with cereal output rising by 23%. Due to the success in the countryside, food prices fell, whereas industrial prices remained constant, and therefore the Smychka (union with peasants) was jeopardised.

And also discussions on "socialist" primitive accumulation:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-primitive-accumulation-t67536/index.html




Also, he appears to have perfectly grasped the internal direction in Russia, he said: "the root of the evil is that the party and the state are so completely merged".

Moshe Lewin made a much more factual (yet still left-leaning) analysis of this "No-Party State" than Trotsky and his supporters ever did. :(



Personally, I am torn on the issue of NEP versus industrialization. The ideal was NEP, but Russian Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky in the "socialist primitive accumulation" thread above made a curious link between the Depression and Preobrazhensky's material on "socialist" primitive accumulation. The reality is that, in any event, the Depression would have put an end to NEP at an earlier point than expected.

[careyprice31]

svetlana, since you mentioned sovkhozy and kolkhozy, allow me to reiterate my stance on those:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-bolshevik-mistake-t59382/index.html



Since you also look at NEP more fondly than I do (but I don't demonize this state capitalism unlike a lot of comrades), I would like to bring to your attention the Scissors Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scissor_crisis):



And also discussions on "socialist" primitive accumulation:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-primitive-accumulation-t67536/index.html





Moshe Lewin made a much more factual (yet still left-leaning) analysis of this "No-Party State" than Trotsky and his supporters ever did. :(



Personally, I am torn on the issue of NEP versus industrialization. The ideal was NEP, but Russian Marxist Boris Kagarlitsky in the "socialist primitive accumulation" thread above made a curious link between the Depression and Preobrazhensky's material on "socialist" primitive accumulation. The reality is that, in any event, the Depression would have put an end to NEP at an earlier point than expected.

Forcing people into sovkhozi and kolkhozi will never work. It is not voluntary, and it wrongly makes the assumption that the class struggle also existed in the country as it did in the city. Proletarians must develop naturally at the pace of history. You cannot force history, as the sad story of the USSR had proven. Even Marx had said that. Capitalism was as of yet in its early stages in Russia at that time. It had begun to develop in the 1830's with the appearance of merchants and so on. Buit it is directly tied with Russia being virtually cut off from the world. Knowing nothing of the Rennaissance etc, it never had the chance to develop at the pace of western countries. Even Marx said a revolution would be hard to achieve in Russia, it was not a urban proletarian country as say britain of the time. It had been proven that the forcing the people into the sovkhozi and kolkhozi will never make proles out of them. It will cause resentment and rejection of socilaism, not an understanding that it is a good idea. Therefore to keep it up a government, truthfully as it turned out, would have had to rely more and more on the use of force. Eventually socialism would no longer be considered the wondeful idea. The socialist country would become a sham, a mere shadow of an idea that had been distorted beyond its recognition.

The scissor crisis. It was wrong to assume that there would be no problems when NEP was introduced; after all, it hadn't been ten years since the famine and the war communism. New introductions take time. Bukharin's idea was to give the new economy more time, more leeway, and be gentle. This definitely would have revived it. Some of the peasants were actually organizing themselves into kolkhozi. those co operatives. That is what socialism is all about.

it was understandable; after all who wants to sell grain for some insanely low price? Instead of giving the economy more time to develop howvere, Stalin wanted to force the peasants onto sovkhozi, virtually enslaved by the state, told what to do where and how to do it, and not allowed an escape since the internal passports were introduced at the end of 1932. That wouldnt create socialism, thats chaos.

You also seem to forget that the russian peop,le themselves had chosen sociam as their country's ideology by choosing the SR party to be their government at the Constituent Assembly of 1917. By doing what Lenin/Stalin had done, they have delayed the development of natural socialism for many centries to come. The Russians had chosen a Leftist government. Unfortunately, that was not good enough for Lenin/Stalin.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why do you erroneously equate Lenin with Stalin? :confused:

You also seem to erroneously equate socialism with primitive accumulation of capital, and "kolkhozization" with "sovkhozization" (I support the latter, which wasn't pursued aggressively until KHRUSHCHEV's time). The "collectivization" scheme was an [albeit flawed] attempt to collect more food produce to sell abroad to get the needed $$$ for industrial equipment.

I think you need to REALLY brush up on your history knowledge regarding these two individuals more, and read more Marx and Luxemburg on primitive accumulation. :(



As for that bourgeois Constituent Assembly, please ask fellow comrades on this board (not necessarily this thread) on its relationship with the more democratic soviets, and with the soviets' relationship with the even more democratic factory committees. :)

[Dros]

Lots of ignorant Stalinists say that late Bukharin was a revisionist, a supporter of capitalism and so forth. He was not

How touching Leo.:glare:

How was he not a revisionist?

How does his opinion of Stalin reflect this hypothesis.

He was by all means incredibly bright but, as Lenin pointed out in 1924, his view was always more of a petty-bourgeois intelligentisian outlook then a proletarian one and he never got a complete handle on Marxist theory.

With regards to his revisionism, did he not oppose collectivisation? Did he not support the continuation of NEP era policies past their period of usefullness?

Please try and be civil. I have been. While you may disagree with my positions, either show where my knowledge of history is lacking or don't toss the word "ignorant" around.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't think he was a revisionist, but I do think he went overboard with his accommodation of the kulaks, and was overly optimistic about the world market situation for Soviet food produce (in order to import industrial equipment). :(

Leo, in this instance I don't think the Stalinists and Maoists are "ignorant," in spite of their own subscription to revisionist ideology.

[For example, why did Stalin compromise by collectivizing on the lines of the artel, rather than go with "sovkhozization"?]

[Dros]

He was a Marxist, and he did not really go against War Communism when Lenin implemented it in 1918 (although he did think the violence was excessive) but when Stalin wished to implement it in 1928 Bukharin had begun to be able to compare it with NEP. Whether you liked it or not, NEP was reviving the country. At that moment Bukharin was able to realize tha\e damage it would do to the country.

NEP had served its role. Stalin saw the need for collectivisation and industrialization on a rapid scale in order to build Socialism and prevent take over by imperialists. This was true and proved decisive in Stalin's defeat of fascism in WWII.

Bukharin advocated that the peasents should be able to keep control over their private land (private control of the means of production) in order to "enrich" themselves. Guess who wanted that? The kulaks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Too bad Stalin didn't opt for a vastly superior agricultural production model, huh? :glare:

[jacobin1949]

I don't agree with some of Bukharnin's political ideas but many of his economic ideas have been utilized with great success in Deng Xiaoping's China

[careyprice31]

^^^ Why do you erroneously equate Lenin and Stalin? :confused:

You also seem to erroneously equate socialism with primitive accumulation of capital, and "kolkhozization" with "sovkhozization" (I support the latter, which wasn't pursued aggressively until KHRUSHCHEV's time). The "collectivization" scheme was an [albeit flawed] attempt to collect more food produce to sell abroad to get the needed $$$ for industrial equipment.

I think you need to REALLY brush up on your history knowledge regarding these two individuals more, and read more Marx and Luxemburg on primitive accumulation. :(



As for that bourgeois Constituent Assembly, please consult fellow comrades here on its relationship with the more democratic soviets, and with the soviets' relationship with the even more democratic factory committees. :)

I know much about Lenin and Stalin. There isnt much I dont know about them. However, I failed to say, and this was my mistake, that they were not alike. I should have.

Define "primitive accumulation of capital" for me and perhaps I do know something about it. I dont recognize that put in those words though.

Yes I spoke of kolkhozi and sovkhozi but they are not the same either. I forgot to say that as well. Sovkhozi were are state run farms where the peasants were hired on a fixed wage, kolkhozi were farms where they were rewarded by results. Stalin preferred the sovkhozi type but he allowed kolkhozi to florish.

I refuse to discuss the constituent assembly here, i only brought it up just briefly. but it has nothing to do with this topic. We can discuss it in PM's if you like. Or you could make a topic. :)

I know some people might shit on me for this, but I think despite what lenin said Bukharin understood Marxism very well. Marxism was a westernized explaination of how and why society worked as it did. Bukharin was also Westernized in his thinking and outlook, and he knew Marxism. Lenin who had a head as hard as a rock and was as stubborn as a mule, was the one who did not want to wait for history to take its course as Marx himself had said.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulation_by_dispossession
http://www.answers.com/topic/primitive-socialist-accumulation

Regarding the Constituent Assembly, by "here" I meant this board, not necessarily this thread.

[careyprice31]

oh yes......primitive accumulation of capital. I knew about it as with the Russian peasantry but did not recognize it as such because the terminology threw me off.

well I learned something from you. Terminology the correct name for things. Thank you.

[Leo]

drosera;


How was he not a revisionist?

Because to me revisionism means things like Bernsteinism or Kautskyism in their time. Calling Bukharin, or in fact even people like Khrushchev "revisionists" is a historical anachronism, whether you like them or not. To me, for example, Khrushchev was a capitalist and imperialist, and the only thing about him 'socialist' was his rhetoric.


How does his opinion of Stalin reflect this hypothesis.

I doesn't have anything to do with this.


He was by all means incredibly bright but, as Lenin pointed out in 1924, his view was always more of a petty-bourgeois intelligentisian outlook then a proletarian one and he never got a complete handle on Marxist theory.

Lenin never said this. What he said was that Bukharin never made a study of dialectics and thus his approach was scholastic.


With regards to his revisionism, did he not oppose collectivisation? Did he not support the continuation of NEP era policies past their period of usefullness?

Yes, but what was collectivization? Was there really anything socialist about it, or was it an attempt to put all the small farms under the command of national capital. For me it was the latter. The "collectivization" did not change that much in the way agriculture was conducted in the period, it didn't even create the difference between private-owned farming and state-owned farming immediately. What it did was to put the bureaucracy in charge of agriculture also and to lay out the foundations of the future system of farming completely under the control of national capital where the agricultural workers would do all the work instead of small farmers. This was a part of the whole policy of Stalinist industrialization, which marked the massive rise of the bureaucratic bourgeois class. Bukharin's position was simply that having a massive bureaucratic ruling class is worse that having a small non-ruling peasant class. Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, non of this had to do with revisionism.


Did he not support the continuation of NEP era policies past their period of usefullness?

It is questionable that NEP policies were past their period of usefulness. On the other hand, it was Lenin himself who lead the formulation of those policies and who defended them; does this make Lenin a revisionist?


Please try and be civil. I have been.

Yes, you have been. Thank you for that.

Hammer;


For example, why did Stalin compromise by collectivizing on the lines of the artel, rather than go with "sovkhozization"?

Because it wasn't materially possible for him to do this then. The transition from a petty-bourgeois farming system to a big capitalist industrial state farming system was not an easy task, it took a good deal of time. By the end of the USSR however, the project was almost finished and the big capitalist industrial state farms produced most of the crops.


I don't think he was a revisionist, but I do think he went overboard with his accommodation of the kulaks

Well, his plan was to get the support of the entire peasantry against Stalin, which was quite a shitty plan to be honest, and he was condemned as a defender of the kulaks. In Stalinist literature this is what he is most remembered for, although I doubt if it had that much of a place in his ideas and actions in reality.

svetlana;


Leo that was such a beautiful post. xD

Thanks!

[careyprice31]

Bukharin wasnt trying to get the whole peasant populatin against Stalin. He disagreed with his policies but he wasnt opposed to him being the ruler per se. You would be hard pressed to find something where Bukharin actually wanted to overthrow him. It just doesnt exist and wasnt true. Bukharin and stalin had been friends actually and he visited back and forth with Stalin and Nadezhda Alliluyeva and Anna Larina and their children. Anna sent love notes to Nikolai throiugh Stalin. Although Bukharin was repulsed by certain aspect of stalin's hard personality, they were friends. And they were both friends with Sergei Mironovich Kostrikov "Kirov" who was with them also.

Other than that I agree with your post, Leo.

I think you make such beautiful posts. xD

[Leo]

Bukharin wasnt trying to get the whole peasant populatin against Stalin. He disagreed with his policies but he wasnt opposed to him being the ruler per se. You would be hard pressed to find something where Bukharin actually wanted to overthrow him. It just doesnt exist and wasnt true. Bukharin and stalin had been friends actually and he visited back and forth with Stalin and Nadezhda Alliluyeva and Anna Larina and their children. Anna sent love notes to Nikolai throiugh Stalin. Although Bukharin was repulsed by certain aspect of stalin's hard personality, they were friends. And they were both friends with Sergei Mironovich Kostrikov "Kirov" who was with them also.I was basing what I said about Bukharin and Stalin on Kamanev's notes, which of course have a very important value as a historical record (those notes are quoted in Deuthcher's Prophet Unarmed as well). Here, Kamanev records Bukharin said that the 'battle' would be like this: "We would say here's man who brought the country to famine and ruin. He would say they are defending Kulaks and Nepmen". He also said to Kamanev: "Our disagreements with Stalin are far, far graver than the ones we have had with you", trying to organize a cooperation with the Left Opposition. He is recorded talking about the workers and party's old members' hatred for Stalin. He said that the psychological conditions for Stalin's dismissal were not ripe yet but was getting there. Kamanev's notes indicate that Bukharin was planning to go on the open offensive, together with the left opposition. However, Stalinists made very careful maneuvers towards the left opposition, hinting that reconciliation with them was a possibility, and thus preventing the left opposition from uniting with Bukharin. This left the Bukharinists trapped and pushed them to pursue a much more 'defensive' line in regards to their position, and in my opinion this is the greatest reason why they were such a 'loyal' opposition, and why they capitulated later on too easily. Maybe among the things early Bukharin had revised about his ideas was the slogan of 'death rather than dishonor' as well.

This being said, Bukharin, while clear about his character and rightfully terribly frightened of him, was friends with Stalin, but from what I read about him he gives the impression of a person who was friends with everybody, the one everyone loved, the 'golden boy' of the party. I would imagine that he would be on good personal terms with practically everybody who he had any relationship with, despite being opposed to their politics.


Other than that I agree with your post, Leo.

I think you make such beautiful posts. xDThanks again :blushing: :)

[careyprice31]

If I was you, I would be extremely careful in makeing opinions based on what Lev Kamanev said regarding Bukharin. Kamenev and Bukharin were opponenents and Bukharin did not really like him.

Kamenev would want to use things to help get rid of Bukharin whom Stalin had been using at the time to help destroy the Political Lefitist group. One day about 1928, Bukharin sought out Kamenev to tell him that he had been right all along about Stalin, and that they must unite in opposition to him before it was too late. Whether someone else was in the room with them or wether "he walls were listening", the fact is that someone, it might have been Kamenev himself, snitched on Bukharin abouttheir talk. When Bukharin found out, he was [i]/furious[i]. That scoundrel ! That snitch !!

Then came the Himilayan contrversy. At one point Stalin had said to Bukharin, "Nikolasha, you and I are the Himilayans; the rest are non entities."

A the Sixteenth Party Congress held in July 1930, Nikolai did not go. Apparently he had suuffered a sickness while on vacation there. Some contraversy exists as to whether he made out his sickness was much worse than it was, but the fact is that he didnt go. His friend Alexei Ivanovich Rykov chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, came in and told him all about the Congress. Stalin had known all about the chat between Kamenev and Bukharin regarding possibly forming an alliance.

Rykov came in: "Who the heck were you talking to !! You're a fool, Kolya, a fool !! Stalin knows all about your 'conversation'!!"

Bukharin: "That scoundrel, that snitch!"

Stalin had told the whole sixteenth party congressall about the Himilayan comment. It was enough to split any possibility of an alliance between Bukharin and Kamenev and the rest. It seems that Stalin was clever in seeking to split any possibility of an opposition to his policies. It worked.

Therefater, Kamenev was always to be suspicious of anything Bukharin did or said. If you're looking for correct and true information about Bukharchik "little Bukharin" PLEASE do not look to Lev Kamenev.

(y the way, the thing about Bukharin being the golden boy, and being able to be friends with everyone or nearly everyone regardless of policy so on, I am like this too actually. I have the very same personality. I get along with and am friends with pretty much everyone. Actually I count as one of my friends Patrick Hanlon, the anti abortionist activist I mentioned in my topic on anti abortion groups in the discrimination subthread. It is VERY difficult for even opponenets to dislike me. Just thought Id bring that up. I think one of the reasons I admire Bukharin more than any of the others is that I have a similar personality and character to his.)

[Raúl Duke]

Very interesting...all these things that happened between Lenin's rule and before the end of WWII in the USSR.

[Leo]

If I was you, I would be extremely careful in makeing opinions based on what Lev Kamanev said regarding Bukharin. Kamenev and Bukharin were opponenents and Bukharin did not really like him.Perhaps, but this one is well documented and used frequently in various historical sources. Also, most of the Bolsheviks had came against each other in various political disagreements many times before, this was an ordinary part of the party at that period.


Stalin had known all about the chat between Kamenev and Bukharin regarding possibly forming an alliance.

Rykov came in: "Who the heck were you talking to !! You're a fool, Kolya, a fool !! Stalin knows all about your 'conversation'!!"

Bukharin: "That scoundrel, that snitch!"



One day about 1928, Bukharin sought out Kamenev to tell him that he had been right all along about Stalin, and that they must unite in opposition to him before it was too late. Whether someone else was in the room with them or wether "he walls were listening", the fact is that someone, it might have been Kamenev himself, snitched on Bukharin abouttheir talk. When Bukharin found out, he was furious. That scoundrel ! That snitch !! Therefater, Kamenev was always to be suspicious of anything Bukharin did or said. If you're looking for correct and true information about Bukharchik "little Bukharin" PLEASE do not look to Lev Kamenev.Yes, that is indeed exactly the very conversation I'm referring to. Bukharin had made Kamanev swear that he would not talk to anyone on this meeting. It might not be that Kamanev was the snitch however, he too was shot after all and he was too famous a man and must have had too much of an ego to be a Stalinist spy. However Kamanev did share the conversation with the people involved with the opposition (this is why I think the whole affair is so well recorded - they must have been keeping records while discussing which were circulated among the members of the opposition) and it is very likely that there were many spies within the opposition who shared this bit of very interesting information with Stalin. In fact, this would explain why Stalin suddenly maneuvered towards the left opposition to prevent a possible unity. Of course, not knowing the way internal practice of the opposition, Bukharin would have thought that Kamanev was the snitch. Regardless of Kamanev's relations with Bukharin, what you say here seems to support the validity of the conversation. But anyway, I am not referring to Kamanev's opinion on the issue but the content of the discussion he had with Bukharin.


Stalin had told the whole sixteenth party congressall about the Himilayan comment. It was enough to split any possibility of an alliance between Bukharin and Kamenev and the rest. It seems that Stalin was clever in seeking to split any possibility of an opposition to his policies. It worked.Yes, Stalin was very subtle while dealing with power politics. He did not end up as the leader of the Russian bourgeoisie and one of the strongest imperialist countries on earth for no reason.

[Dros]

drosera;
Because to me revisionism means things like Bernsteinism or Kautskyism in their time. Calling Bukharin, or in fact even people like Khrushchev "revisionists" is a historical anachronism, whether you like them or not. To me, for example, Khrushchev was a capitalist and imperialist, and the only thing about him 'socialist' was his rhetoric.

To me, and to most Leninists, Revisionism means someone who operates within a "Communist" party but advocates the restoration of capitalist production, like Krushchev.

I think Bukharin meets this definition because of his opposition to collectivization and the pro-Kulak policies.


I doesn't have anything to do with this.

We agree. Your post seems to suggest that because after claiming Bukharin wasn't a revisionist you started talking about Stalin which seemed to indicate a link.


Lenin never said this. What he said was that Bukharin never made a study of dialectics and thus his approach was scholastic.

Exactly. Scholastic implies a connection to the intelligentsia who are a subset of the petty bourgeoisie. Being a scholastic implies some sort of petty bourgeois outlook and considering his theories (especially the above mentioned) I think this is correct.


Yes, but what was collectivization? Was there really anything socialist about it, or was it an attempt to put all the small farms under the command of national capital. For me it was the latter. The "collectivization" did not change that much in the way agriculture was conducted in the period, it didn't even create the difference between private-owned farming and state-owned farming immediately. What it did was to put the bureaucracy in charge of agriculture also and to lay out the foundations of the future system of farming completely under the control of national capital where the agricultural workers would do all the work instead of small farmers. This was a part of the whole policy of Stalinist industrialization, which marked the massive rise of the bureaucratic bourgeois class. Bukharin's position was simply that having a massive bureaucratic ruling class is worse that having a small non-ruling peasant class. Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, non of this had to do with revisionism.

Of course I disagree with your interpretation of history regarding collectivisation (which went on in a very socialist manner) and I contest the existance of a "bureaucratic class." But this is not the thread for this conversation. I think that his positions are more reflective of petty bourgeois and kulak class interests then any real opposition to bureaucracy. And even if it was, pointing out that socialism requires some bureaucracy and opposing it on that grounds is still reactionary.


It is questionable that NEP policies were past their period of usefulness. On the other hand, it was Lenin himself who lead the formulation of those policies and who defended them; does this make Lenin a revisionist?

No. Lenin developed them to rebuild the economy. However, if you view collectivisation and industrialisation as I do, then you see that the NEP had fullfilled its usefullness as the industrialization process cause the USSR's economy to develop faster than any other economy in the world ever. So I think industrialization, after the NEP, was the best and only way to build socialism.

[careyprice31]

Perhaps, but this one is well documented and used frequently in various historical sources. Also, most of the Bolsheviks had came against each other in various political disagreements many times before, this was an ordinary part of the party at that period.




Yes, that is indeed exactly the very conversation I'm referring to. Bukharin had made Kamanev swear that he would not talk to anyone on this meeting. It might not be that Kamanev was the snitch however, he too was shot after all and he was too famous a man and must have had too much of an ego to be a Stalinist spy. However Kamanev did share the conversation with the people involved with the opposition (this is why I think the whole affair is so well recorded - they must have been keeping records while discussing which were circulated among the members of the opposition) and it is very likely that there were many spies within the opposition who shared this bit of very interesting information with Stalin. In fact, this would explain why Stalin suddenly maneuvered towards the left opposition to prevent a possible unity. Of course, not knowing the way internal practice of the opposition, Bukharin would have thought that Kamanev was the snitch. Regardless of Kamanev's relations with Bukharin, what you say here seems to support the validity of the conversation. But anyway, I am not referring to Kamanev's opinion on the issue but the content of the discussion he had with Bukharin.

Yes, Stalin was very subtle while dealing with power politics. He did not end up as the leader of the Russian bourgeoisie and one of the strongest imperialist countries on earth for no reason.


(referring to your first paragraph) Not at that period it wasnt. Not when Lenin had died and there was a power struggle over who would assume the party leadership, and stalin was forcing out all the other members, it certainly wasnt. Yes arguments were a normal part of the party but the circumstance were different here which makes the arguments at this time certainly not "a normal part of the party"

Again, nothing to say to the rest. Just..... if I repeat the same stuff I have already said about your posts I am going to end up like a robot.

I've only been here a few days I think though I see why Bukharin is not popular here and the first poster in my topic mocked "enrich yourselves"
Because this forum is mostly populated by left communists, the Trotskyite - Zinovievite - Kamenevite - group.

Btw Im not dissing those guys, they were very , wonderfully clever. and they had a wonderful part to play in the movement. In fact I like them well enough; my two favorite Left communists are Lev Kamenev and Grigori Zinoviev. It is just that they were wrong do go against Bukharin and his friends. They had the right idea for helping the country to recover. And it was working.

btw it sure feels weird to discuss Kamenev without his best friend. Usually the two of them are spoken of as almost like a conjoined twins.

btw i read that last post

all I have to say is......those stalinists.......

*shakes head*

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because it wasn't materially possible for him to do this then. The transition from a petty-bourgeois farming system to a big capitalist industrial state farming system was not an easy task, it took a good deal of time. By the end of the USSR however, the project was almost finished and the big capitalist industrial state farms produced most of the crops.

Huh? I know the sovkhozy were/are more efficient (hence my "bureaucratic" position), but they accounted only for 45% of the total number of farms. Care to cite stats here?

[careyprice31]

Huh? I know the sovkhozy were/are more efficient (hence my "bureaucratic" position), but they accounted only for 45% of the total number of farms. Care to cite stats here?

I know. The violence and things were threatening to get out of control; hence Stalin's "dizziness with success" article in march 1930. Possible because of all the trouble that was happening Stalin never did acieve what he wanted. Most of the farms always remained kolkhozi instead of becoming savkhozi.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Uh, the whole reason why the famine occurred because technically speaking the farms and produce were the property of the collective farmers, with the latter being subject to heavy taxation.

It is key to note here that the famine did NOT affect a single area that proceeded with "sovkhozization."

[careyprice31]

I still hold the opinion that whether sovkhoz or kolkhoz, doesnt really matter, it was still never going to work out at least not the way it should. It was still mostly force, hardly voluntary, and that meant the state had to rely on force to forcibly create what they wanted....so that they never were after to depend on any sort of popular support. In fact they made sure that people were going to think of socialism as a dirty word. Those co operatives were being created voluntarily throgh NEP. Through that they were creating support and reviving the economy.

of course you trots and zinovievites and kamenevites will disagree with me but i dont mind. That is your belief, and I understand why you hold the beliefs you do.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'm not a Trot, Zinovievite, or Kamenevite. :glare:

[careyprice31]

I never said you were.

I said those would disagree with me. Even Leninists have disagreed with me.

I never said you were a trot or zinovievite or kamenevite though.

I know you are a Leninist though.

[Leo]

svetlana;


(referring to your first paragraph) Not at that period it wasnt. Not when Lenin had died and there was a power struggle over who would assume the party leadership, and stalin was forcing out all the other members, it certainly wasnt. Yes arguments were a normal part of the party but the circumstance were different here which makes the arguments at this time certainly not "a normal part of the party"

Yes, I agree, I was referring to an earlier time also.


Because this forum is mostly populated by left communists, the Trotskyite - Zinovievite - Kamenevite - group.

Btw Im not dissing those guys, they were very , wonderfully clever. and they had a wonderful part to play in the movement. In fact I like them well enough; my two favorite Left communists are Lev Kamenev and Grigori Zinoviev. It is just that they were wrong do go against Bukharin and his friends. They had the right idea for helping the country to recover.

Well, I think there is something here which I should clarify, as a "left communist": Kamanev, Zinoviev, Trotsky and the "Left Opposition" were not left communists, left communism refers to something different, and something to the left of the "left opposition". Consequently, although in the early days of the left opposition, they were in contact with left communists and although some split from left opposition towards the positions of left communists, mainstream Trotskyism always opposed left communism.

I would say that the left communists in Russia were early Bukharin's group and later on mainlu Sapranov's Group of Democratic Centralism and perhaps more significantly Myasnikov's Workers' Group (but there were others as well), not the Left Opposition. On the left communists in Russia after 1920, I would suggest this article: http://libcom.org/library/communist-left-russia-after-1920-ian-hebbes


(y the way, the thing about Bukharin being the golden boy, and being able to be friends with everyone or nearly everyone regardless of policy so on, I am like this too actually. I have the very same personality. I get along with and am friends with pretty much everyone. Actually I count as one of my friends Patrick Hanlon, the anti abortionist activist I mentioned in my topic on anti abortion groups in the discrimination subthread. It is VERY difficult for even opponenets to dislike me. Just thought Id bring that up. I think one of the reasons I admire Bukharin more than any of the others is that I have a similar personality and character to his.

I somehow missed this bit in my last post. I think this is a very admirable character trait :)

Jacob;


Huh? I know the sovkhozy were/are more efficient (hence my "bureaucratic" position), but they accounted only for 45% of the total number of farms.

They ended up more effective, but in the beginning sovkhoz farms were in 'minority'., so to speak.


Care to cite stats here?

Didn't I provide some stats about this to you in a previous discussion?

drosera99


Exactly. Scholastic implies a connection to the intelligentsia who are a subset of the petty bourgeoisie. Being a scholastic implies some sort of petty bourgeois outlook and considering his theories

No, the only thing scholastic implies is being close minded and not open to other theories while defending one theory, it has got nothing at all to do with any sort of petty-bourgeois outlook.


To me, and to most Leninists, Revisionism means someone who operates within a "Communist" party but advocates the restoration of capitalist production, like Krushchev.

I know what Stalinists understand from the term 'revisionist', however the mode of production in Russia did not change during Khrushchev (as it was capitalist before and it was capitalist during), and Khrushchev certainly never openly advocating anything like 'the restoration of capitalist production'. In Stalinism, first comes the split and then the ideological reasons for it are made up. Mao's China and Khrushchev's Russia 'split' because their imperialist interests conflicted. It would have happened eventually even if Stalin was alive. The reason Maoists showed for defying Khrushchev as a 'revisionist' was his idea of peaceful coexistence. However if anything Stalin who they looked up to was really the precursor of this policy, having signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany and later having allied himself to American and British imperialism. Of course Maoists also were going to end up allying with American imperialism against the oh-so-evil 'revisionists'.

I know too well about the history and meaning of all this terminology. In the marxist sense, revisionist means someone who thinks peaceful transition to socialism without a revolution would be possible, such as Bernstein. In this sense, the term does not in any way apply to Bukharin. The term used by Maoists on the other hand is simply a product of imperialist rivalries, and thus does not apply.


Of course I disagree with your interpretation of history regarding collectivisation (which went on in a very socialist manner) and I contest the existance of a "bureaucratic class." But this is not the thread for this conversation.

Fine then, we'll discuss it elsewhere some other time.

[careyprice31]

svetlana;



Yes, I agree, I was referring to an earlier time also.



Well, I think there is something here which I should clarify, as a "left communist": Kamanev, Zinoviev, Trotsky and the "Left Opposition" were not left communists, left communism refers to something different, and something to the left of the "left opposition". Consequently, although in the early days of the left opposition, they were in contact with left communists and although some split from left opposition towards the positions of left communists, mainstream Trotskyism always opposed left communism.

I would say that the left communists in Russia were early Bukharin's group and later on mainlu Sapranov's Group of Democratic Centralism and perhaps more significantly Myasnikov's Workers' Group (but there were others as well), not the Left Opposition. On the left communists in Russia after 1920, I would suggest this article: http://libcom.org/library/communist-left-russia-after-1920-ian-hebbes



I somehow missed this bit in my last post. I think this is a very admirable character trait :)

.

ok
from reading the first couple of paragraphs he gave me they appear to be internationalists by which hey meant the revolution should occur in europe as well as russia and have the rev spread from russia to other nations. this trait does indeed separate them from Zinoviev - Kamenev groups. Ill read more, as when i think of the 'left' i always thought of Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotsky. Probably understandably.

oya they also believed the workers should not rush headlong into revolution and they were quite international. I have a better idea of them now because the article mentions Alexander Bogdanov whom I know. He and Lenin had many arguments. Bukharin liked him (Bukharin liked everybody !!), but Lenin disliked the man. Gabriel Miasnikov......the name sounds familiar. Never did come across him much in all the years I've been reading Russian/Soviet history though.

Yes it seems the Bolsheviks and the Zinovievite Kamenevite-Trotskyite Left appear to have been more intolerant than your Left, Leo.

Yes Bukharin was a part of this when he was younger. I do admire him for being really tolerant person.

[careyprice31]

Thank you btw for thinking I (and Bukharin) have (had) a very admirable charater trait. xD

U mentioned a young Bukharin being a member of this group. You, would be correect. It seemed to suit Bukharin's friendly tolrant nature actually. Later on, an older Bukharin became closer to Lenin and the Bolsheviks and NEP but he was never to lose his ability to make friends with almost anyone.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Didn't I provide some stats about this to you in a previous discussion?

You didn't. :(

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-bolshevik-mistake-t59382/index.html


Mao's China and Khrushchev's Russia 'split' because their imperialist interests conflicted. It would have happened eventually even if Stalin was alive.

This is why Stalin actually preferred to deal with the Guomindang than with Mao.

In 1947, for example, Mao gave American journalist Anna Louise Strong documents and instructed her to "show them to Party leaders in the United States and Europe" but did not think it was "necessary to take them to Moscow." Strong had also written an article, "The Thought of Mao Tse-tung," and a book, Dawn Out of China, which included claims that Mao's great accomplishment was "to change Marxism from a European to an Asiatic form... in ways of which neither Marx nor Lenin could dream." The Soviet government banned the book. Several years later, at the first international Communist gathering in Beijing, Liu Shaoqi, a prominent supporter of Mao, delivered a speech praising the "Mao Tse-tung road" as the correct road to communist revolution and warned that it would be wrong to follow any other path. Liu Shaoqi did not praise Stalin or the Soviet model. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split#Background)


I know too well about the history and meaning of all this terminology. In the marxist sense, revisionist means someone who thinks peaceful transition to socialism without a revolution would be possible, such as Bernstein.

That's too traditional a definition, though. However, even that said, Trotsky's "permanent revolution" could (and should) be deemed to be revisionist by this definition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html) - as if somehow a protracted period of "democratic tasks" and initiating the capitalist mode of production in the permanent revolution can give way to a complete change in the mode of production without a further revolution ( :glare: ).

[Dros]

No, the only thing scholastic implies is being close minded and not open to other theories while defending one theory, it has got nothing at all to do with any sort of petty-bourgeois outlook.

scholastic |sk??lastik| adjective 1 of or concerning schools and education

That definition seems to imply a connection to the Intelligentsia. The Intelligentsia are a part of the petty bourgeoisie.


I know what Stalinists understand from the term 'revisionist',

Then you fully understand what I was saying when I say that Bukharin is a revisionist and your argument is grounded in semantics instead.


however the mode of production in Russia did not change during Khrushchev (as it was capitalist before and it was capitalist during),

Another place, another time, we can discuss the mode of production in the Soviet Union under Stalin.


and Khrushchev certainly never openly advocating anything like 'the restoration of capitalist production'.

Of course not openly. But he did work towards it and undermined world revolution through his denunciation of Stalin and his "peaceful transition to socialism" policy.


In Stalinism, first comes the split and then the ideological reasons for it are made up.

Not so. In both the USSR and in China, it was very well known that certain elements within the party wished to restore capitalism. That was the whole point of the theories of "aggravated class struggle under socialism" and cultural revolution. The fact that this ideological rift existed prior to the coup disproves that argument.


Mao's China and Khrushchev's Russia 'split' because their imperialist interests conflicted. It would have happened eventually even if Stalin was alive.

What do you base that off of?


The reason Maoists showed for defying Khrushchev as a 'revisionist' was his idea of peaceful coexistence.

No. He was a reformist, his denunciation of Stalin, and his policies that moved towards the restoration of capitalism as well as escalating social imperialism (which was begun in one form or another under Stalin and that is a valid criticism).


However if anything Stalin who they looked up to was really the precursor of this policy, having signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany and later having allied himself to American and British imperialism.

Protecting the revolution from Fascism and imperialism is not revisionism.


Of course Maoists also were going to end up allying with American imperialism against the oh-so-evil 'revisionists'.

A mistake of Mao's probably. However, it is important to understand the material basis for that.


I know too well about the history and meaning of all this terminology. In the marxist sense, revisionist means someone who thinks peaceful transition to socialism without a revolution would be possible, such as Bernstein. In this sense, the term does not in any way apply to Bukharin.

I would call that a reformist.


The term used by Maoists on the other hand is simply a product of imperialist rivalries, and thus does not apply.

Which imperialist rival labelled Deng a revisionist?


Fine then, we'll discuss it elsewhere some other time.

With pleasure.

[Devrim]

Another place, another time, we can discuss the mode of production in the Soviet Union under Stalin.
The issues are intrinsically linked. Look at this:


In Stalinism, first comes the split and then the ideological reasons for it are made up. Not so. In both the USSR and in China, it was very well known that certain elements within the party wished to restore capitalism. That was the whole point of the theories of "aggravated class struggle under socialism" and cultural revolution. The fact that this ideological rift existed prior to the coup disproves that argument.
If you believe as we do that the USSR at this point was capitalist, then your whole argument is nonsense.

Devrim

[careyprice31]

The issues are intrinsically linked. Look at this:

If you believe as we do that the USSR at this point was capitalist, then your whole argument is nonsense.

Devrim


I dont see how anyone could call the russia capitalist even during the brief term of the provisional government that was mostly made up of socialists. Truth is that capitalism was in its infancy in a country that had only emerged from serfdom in 1861 and had recently thrown off the monarchy. The country was in no way ready to complete the transition to Marxism.

[Devrim]

I dont see how anyone could call the russia capitalist even during the brief term of the provisional government
It is not talking about that period, we are talking about the dispute with Mao in the 1950s.
Devrim

[Dros]

If you believe as we do that the USSR at this point was capitalist, then your whole argument is nonsense.

Devrim

I don't believe that the USSR was capitalist at that point.

[Devrim]

I don't believe that the USSR was capitalist at that point.
I know. As we have opposed views on this it makes any sort of common perspective impossible. If you thought the USSR were capitalist our perspective would make sense, and yours be nonsense, and vica versa.

The mode of production in the USSR is fundemental to this question, not something that can be discussed 'another place, another time'.

Devrim

[Dros]

I know. As we have opposed views on this it makes any sort of common perspective impossible. If you thought the USSR were capitalist our perspective would make sense, and yours be nonsense, and vica versa.

The mode of production in the USSR is fundemental to this question, not something that can be discussed 'another place, another time'.

Devrim

I see no reason why we should derail a thread which is supposed to be about Bukharin's ideas into a debate between Stalinists and Left Communists about the mode of production in the USSR. I can understand where you are coming from and you can understand where I am coming from. If we take for granted for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the USSR under Stalin was a socialist state then we understand aswell that Bukharin was a revisionist and my argument is correct. Those are the grounds on which I reject Bukharin's position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ There is still a problem with your argument: Stalin said that the USSR "achieved socialism" in the 30s, and NOT during his ascension to power (when Bukharin posited his Right-Communist ideas). Until then, the USSR was, for all intents and purposes, a capitalist state.

[Devrim]

If we take for granted for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the USSR under Stalin was a socialist state then we understand aswell that Bukharin was a revisionist and my argument is correct.

If we 'took your point for granted for a moment', it would still leave me thinking that the term 'revisionist' is just another piece of Stalino-Maoist mumbo-jumbo with no real meaning except as an insult to throw at certain opponents.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Personally, I don't think "socialist states" are the ones that persecute communists for trying to turn imperialist wars into civil wars, fund bourgeois liberals instead of working class organizations in conflicts, purges revolutionaries (yeah, sure the bolshevik revolution was lead almost exclusively by counterrevolutionaries), etc.

Call me infantile, or "ultraleftist", but I think it is quite evident.

[Comrade Hector]

Thats one of my favorite sayings. "Enrich yourselves, make yourselves prosperous, and do not worry that your holdings will be taken away from you." Bukharin, 1925.

I agree with everything said in this post. He/she certainly knows her/his Rightist stuff. I agree with them fully, Bukharin, Tomsky, Rykov, Uglanov, and even Sergei Kirov sympathized with them. Oh and Stalin's wife secretly.

I am not opposed to savhozes and kolhozes per se, but they've got to be organized voluntarily otherwise it would never be a democracy. Secondly, all the Leftists (at the time, Zinoviev, Kamenev and the like) all talked about kulaks. I have to say, what kulaks? There hadnt been any real Kulaks since before wwI and even if there were still some around they only made up some one odd percent of the total peasant population as it was. Thirdly, Lenin was thinking that the class struggle that existed in the cities also was the same for the countryside. This was a dangerous misconception, because the peasants defined as 'kulak' differently than the Bolsheviks did. Fourthly, of course there had to be an alliance with the peasantry, they made up most of the bulk of the Russian population. To ignore them and say their lives in the country were the same as the workers in the city and had the same 'kulaks' is outright turning away from democracy and a chance of developing a true Marxist society.

I think the Bolsheviks could have been really great. Russia could have lead the world in sciences (think brilliant scientists like Nikolai Vavilov) for example, and could have shown the world that Marxism is indeed a valid philosophy on how human nature works. but I think Lenin and later Stalin really messed up big time for pushing their own views forward and not yielding to the Constituent Assembly (which had voted in a Leftist Party in the November elections incidentally) bringing in War Communism, the Red Terror, civil war, the Food Brigades (to take the food of peasants by force) and then later Stalin wished to destroy NEP and bring in War Communism on a much more intense scale than even Lenin had.

One more fact. Lenin distorted Marism by making it more suitable to Russia, but if any of you are familiar with old Imperial Russia of Tsarist times (I mean like 16, 17th , 18th century Tsarist times), you could not fail to see that Lenin had based most of his ideas on old autocratic traditions and not on Marixms. Also the 'ends justify the means' philosophies of Sergei Nechayev and Pyotr Tkachev, not to mention Dmitri Pisarev and Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Lenin loved these.

Bottrom LIne: They should have listened more to Bukharin, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries. They were the true representative of what the people wanted , especially the SR's who won the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

This is my view on things. I am a Bukharinite. Feel free to agree or disagree with my views. :)

Svetlana is an old friend of mine. Although to date we've never had an agreement in this point in history.

Had Lenin stood by Bukharin and Stalin there never would've been an October Revolution. Bukharin proposed expanding the revolution by continuing the interimperialist WWI on the side of the western imperialists. Mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries stood on the side of the White Army, who was all for honoring Russian imperialism. Since the war was bleeding the Russian masses, the Bolsheviks were able to win them over.

[careyprice31]

Svetlana is an old friend of mine. Although to date we've never had an agreement in this point in history.

Had Lenin stood by Bukharin and Stalin there never would've been an October Revolution. Bukharin proposed expanding the revolution by continuing the interimperialist WWI on the side of the western imperialists. Mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries stood on the side of the White Army, who was all for honoring Russian imperialism. Since the war was bleeding the Russian masses, the Bolsheviks were able to win them over.

Nope we've never agreed on anything about the ussr (I think)

but Hector and I have been really good friends for literally years. :)

Hows it goin, mate? I emailed u this web forum url and just found out that you've already found it. xD

[Dros]

^^^ There is still a problem with your argument: Stalin said that the USSR "achieved socialism" in the 30s, and NOT during his ascension to power (when Bukharin posited his Right-Communist ideas). Until then, the USSR was, for all intents and purposes, a capitalist state.

Correct. We are talking about the period of collectivisation and industrialization wherein the means of production were socialised. Bukharin opposed these measures which brought socialism around to the USSR.


If we 'took your point for granted for a moment', it would still leave me thinking that the term 'revisionist' is just another piece of Stalino-Maoist mumbo-jumbo with no real meaning except as an insult to throw at certain opponents.

I have provided a very clear definition of what this term means to "Stalino-Maoists". Please show to me what the flaws in this terminology are and/or where I have misused the term in any way.

[spartafc]

There is now a Bukharin group here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=95 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../group.php?groupid=95)

[Vahanian]

This thread was started almost a year ago. Why wouldn't you just point this out in a separate thread.