7.) What can you say about Stalin purging the whole Old Leninist guard?
maoist noted:
It worked. What is accomplished is more important
than who does what. Many of your arguments
are like scriptural ones, with no reference to effectiveness.
Show us where Old Guard ideas
accomplished something in the world?
In this letter, Bukharin points out the fundamental difference between the old revolutionary Cheka under Dzerzhinsky and Stalin's GPU:
"TO A FUTURE GENERATION OF PARTY LEADERS
[snip]
This is all just ´capitalist propaganda´ for comrade maoist3, of course. I can also post more...
maoist3 replies: Why should I call it "capitalist propaganda?" There is no
need to with the facts as they are. Since the death of both Bukharin and Stalin,
exiled Mensheviks in France have admitted that Bukharin did in fact have ties to their movement.
As I am sure you are aware, such ties would have been off-limits under Lenin as well
as Stalin, both for being a violation of democratic-centralism and for
ties to imperialist powers.
maoist3 said:
Show us where Old Guard ideas accomplished something in the world?
[Turno replied:]
How about October revolution? (About that read my article "For all Stalinists and other who want to make Lenin equal to Stalin", link is below)
maoist3 replies: So then you are for restricting the revolution
to one country. You are saying only the October Revolution, but their
ideas have succeeded no where else in the world. On the one hand,
you say you are for socialism in more than one country but on the other
hand in all questions of practice you break down and go out of whack
with your "theory."
8.) What can you say about that Stalin was the first one who wanted to put the theory of Socialism in one country in practice?
comrade maoist3, finishes with:
Now you asked me 13 questions. I have one for you:
how did you pick your questions? Why are they of
concern to you other than that's what they train
people in Trotskyist sects? Is it not more important
to figure out how to make successful revolutions?
How to serve the needs of the oppressed and
exploited?
You and a lot of other people here need the A of "ABCs"
of Marxism to sink in more--materialism.
Try this. Sartre explained 50 years ago why
Trotskyism was idealism. It's been 50 years, and
all of what Sartre said is STILL true and even more
so thanks to Trotskyism's having no pull with the
proletariat in 80 years in over 150 countries.
[Turnoviseous replied:] Yes, it is very important
to make successful revolutions, but not only
revolutions, comrade maoist3. The revolutions must
be socialist.
Sartre, maybe explained why Trotskyism is
idealism, comrade maoist3, but all true Marxists
and philosophers would agree with me, that every
theory is tested with practice, and Trotskyism was
in practice way more successful than Stalinism.
Trotsky long ago predicted all things that were
unfolding in USSR. He said that either capitalist
restoration will come, or new political
revolution. There is no need of saying that
Lenin´s ideas were always more favourable to
Trotsky than to Stalin. Actually their ideas were
almost completely identical. (read article below
for better explanation).
You can find my article here
http://www.russia.com/forums/showthread.ph...3?threadid=9368 (http://www.russia.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=9368)
(Edited by Turnoviseous at 2:07 am on Aug. 29, 2002)
[email protected] replies: Trotsky's predictions were flagrantly
wrong, but I think this discussion is futile given the above
attitude toward truth, which was not Marx's, as expressed
in the "Theses on Feuerbach" and countless other places.
If Trotskyism had so many valuable predictions, we
would have expected that Trotskyists would have had
some major advantages in making revolution,
because they would have taken the shortest road
and they would have known where not to waste their
energies. Yet, it is only Trotskyism that has only
participated in one country's revolution (and then
used the prestige of that to oppose revolution
everywhere else). In more than 150 countries in 80
years there has been no progress rendered by
Trotskyism. Trotskyism can only be considered "way more
successful than Stalinism" if preserving starvation,
homelessness, poor health care, unemployment and patriarchy
are the goals.
Thus, Turno ends up playing word games with "socialism," while
the most progressive realities of whatever name they were given
appeared in the Soviet Union of Stalin, Mao's China, Albania etc.
That goes for the position of wimmin being advanced most quickly
or the life expectancy being advanced most quickly and countless
other important questions to the proletariat in contrast with
theologians.
(Edited by maoist3 at 4:06 am on Aug. 29, 2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------
MY ANSWER:
Maoist3, you are again talking around the subject.
First thing is clear that you haven´t read my article about Stalinism and Leninism. That is why I will post it in here after I finish with your ´answers´.
Thing that I said on many occasions is that Lenins´ and Stalins´ purges were very different. Purging the party under Lenin was just expelling them from it and NOT KILLING THEM AS STALIN AND MAO USED TO DO. On all occasions under Bolshevism, when workers´ country was relatively healthy, anyone was able to speak freely of his thoughts. If one opposed Lenin, he was not expelled from party and accused of of being ´enemy of people´ and then charged on frame-up trials, which ended with death. Under Stalin when they were passing votes for expels, who did not vote for expel was himself expelled!
[email protected] replies: Trotsky's predictions were flagrantly
wrong, but I think this discussion is futile given the above
attitude toward truth, which was not Marx's, as expressed
in the "Theses on Feuerbach" and countless other places.
If Trotskyism had so many valuable predictions, we
would have expected that Trotskyists would have had
some major advantages in making revolution,
because they would have taken the shortest road
and they would have known where not to waste their
energies. Yet, it is only Trotskyism that has only
participated in one country's revolution (and then
used the prestige of that to oppose revolution
everywhere else). In more than 150 countries in 80
years there has been no progress rendered by
Trotskyism. Trotskyism can only be considered "way more
successful than Stalinism" if preserving starvation,
homelessness, poor health care, unemployment and patriarchy
are the goals.
Trotsky´s conclusions were wrong you say. So you deny that USSR fall appart?
Next thing, again it is shown that you do not understand the basic principles of Marxism.
Afteral workers must be the leading role in the revolution, or it will never turn out as healthy workers´ state. It is wrong to think (as most Stalinist do), that Lenin came from Switzerland and had a magic wand in his hands, then he waved one time and revolution was here. Not at all, comrade maoist3. If you would be reading more about Bolshevism and its starts you would know that Russian Marxism took off a long time before revolution took place. Marxists (Lenin included) were on the start small groups, which then by true revolutionary programme and hard work, turned in mass party very slowly.
You are so proud of saying that Stalinists made so many revolutions, but have ectually destroyed very much revolutions. The most important was surely the German revolution, when they refused to ally with social-democracy against nazism. In practice your theory that they were social-fascist is wrong. On contrary were Stalinist in Germany beating up social-democrats together with nazis. They were sabotaging social-democratic conferences together with nazis.
"In the spring of 1931, the socialist Transport Workers' Union had called a conference of ship and dock delegates of all the main ports of western Germany. The conference took place in the House of Labour in Bremen. It was public and the workers were invited to listen to the proceedings. The Communist Party sent a courier to the headquarters of the Nazi Party, with a request for co-operation in the blasting of the trade union conference. The Hitlerites agreed, as they always did in such cases. When the conference opened, the galleries were packed with two to three hundred Communists and Nazis. I was in charge of operations for the Communist Party and a storm troop leader named Walter Tidow - for the Nazis. In less than two minutes, we had agreed on a plan of action. As soon as the conference of the Social Democrats was well under way, I got up and launched a harangue from the gallery. In another part of the hall Tidow did the same. The trade union delegates were at first speechless. Then the chairman gave the order to eject the two troublemakers, me and Tidow, from the building. We sat quietly, derisively watching two squads of husky trade unionists advance toward us with the intention of throwing us out. We refused to budge. As soon as the first trade union delegate touched one of us. Our followers rose and bedlam started. The furniture was smashed, the participants beaten, the hall turned into a shambles. We gained the street and scattered before ambulances and the Rollkommandos of the police arrived. The next day, both the Nazi and our own Party press brought out front page accounts of how 'socialist' workers, incensed over the 'treachery' of their own corrupt leaders had given them a thorough 'proletarian rub-down'." (J. Valtin, Out of the Night, pp. 252-3.)
About that how Stalinists ruined revolutions read more about in my article...
Name ´Trotskyism´ was anyway invented by Stalinists. In ideas is basically no different of Leninism, but that is how they tried to conceal true Leninism.
Trotskyism and Leninism was slandered not only by capitalists, but also by Stalinists. After Lenin´s death, Trotskyist were present in a lot of revolutionary movement, but were every time betrayed by Stalinists and were labelled as "Trotskyist are fascists" (Although without any ground at all). Not saying that whole families were killed by Stalin´s agent around the globe...
maoist3 replies: So then you are for restricting the revolution
to one country. You are saying only the October Revolution, but their
ideas have succeeded no where else in the world. On the one hand,
you say you are for socialism in more than one country but on the other
hand in all questions of practice you break down and go out of whack
with your "theory."
You misunderstood the whole point again. October revoution was socialist revolution, but the society in USSR was not socialism. In order to achieve socialism world-wide socialist revolution is necessary, but if you think that that world revolution should be carried at the same time at all places, you are utopian.
With socialist revolution in Russia, world working class was given new power and moral for more revolutions. And that is how revolution is to be carried from one country to another.
Again, I say that there was not possible to create a revolution when a big Stalinist country already existed. A good example is Hungarian revolution, when Russian tanks had to intervne, against ´counter-revolutionary´ forces of working class.
Anyway, now you are obliged to silence on all points (except 2), since you have no real answers to my answers.
Here is my article:
To really understand the policies of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks we must go back to the times of RSDLP (Russian social democratic labour party). RSDLP was one party until the split in 1912, when Menshevik and Bolshevik parties were formed. All Stalinists want to portray Trotsky as Menshevik, but we will see that that is not correct and made up from Stalin´s bureaucracy. RSDLP had two wings, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, but until 1912 they were actually not argued about anything. At the London Congress of 1903 there was no split between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks as Stalinists like to say. There was only disagreement on the question of the composition of the central bodies of the Party and on one clause in the Party Rules. This was however the first disagreement between Martov and Lenin, which was not considered as important by Lenin, however Lenin and his supporters considered important only one disagreement for not staying together with Martov and his supporters, that was the class question, later about that.
Let me quote from what Lenin said about »big« disagreements of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks under RSDLP before 1912. »Examinig the behaviour of the Martovites« (Martov was later the key figure of the Menshevik wing when RSDLP broke up) »since the Congress, their refusal to collaborate on the Central Organ..their refusal to work on the Central Commitee, and their propaganda of a boycott-all I can say is that this is an insensate attempt, unworthy of Party members, to disrupt the Party-and why? Only because they dissatisfied with the composition of the central bodies; for speaking objectively, it was only over this that our ways parted..«
And when Plekhanov went over to Martov´s side, Lenin wrote this: »Let me say, first, of all, that I think the author of the article [Plekhanov] is a thousand times right when he insists that it is essential to safeguard the unity of the Party [RSDLP] and avoid new splits-especially over the differences which cannot be considered to be important. To appeal to peaceableness, mildness and readiness to make concessions is highly praiseworthy in leader at all times, and at the present moment particular« Peaceableness, mildness, and readiness were however never the key figures of Stalin by the way.
There were no major disagreements that would be essential for braking up the Party up until 1912 when Bolsheviks and Mensheviks finally broke up. The fact is that Trotsky left the RSDLP in 1904 and staied out of both camps until 1917. The final broke up of RSDLP into two camps happened in 1912, because of one big difference on class question. But let us examine the question that turned out in the split slowly. At that time there were three tendencies, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Trotsky on his own. All sides came out with different ideas although as we will see Lenin´s and Trotsky´s ideas were practically the same, just that Trotsky determined something more, which was also confirmed by practice. All three tendencies agreed that incomming revolution will be bourgeois-democratic revolution (revolution produced by contradictions between the developing capitalist economy and the semi-feudal autocratic state of tsarism). But the question that separated all three tendencies was the question about leading class in revolution. The class which will lead the revolution.
First, Mensheviks came out with idea that since revolution will be bourgeois-democratic, the leading class of the revolution will be bourgeois class. They assumed that bourgeois class and its petty-bourgeois democrat allies will lead the revolution from the great bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the past, and that they will be supported by working class, again as in past revolutions.
Lenin was on the other hand arguing against Menshevik idea that they are holding back independent working class movement. He criticised them for currying favour with »progressive« bourgeois. As Marx in 1848 warned that German bourgeois class was unable to play a progressive role in the struggle against feudalism. The bourgeois were frightened of the workers movement and they preffered to make a deal with feudalists and by that the revolution fell in ruins and feudalists had the power once again. Lenin then explained that bourgeois will not side with working class, but will inevitably side with the counter-revolution. Lenin explained: »The bourgeois in the mass will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, towards autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it ´recoils´ from consistent democrac (and is already recoiling from it!)« (LCW, vol.9, p.98) Lenin´s idea who will lead revolution was : »There remains the people, that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeois recoiling« (LCW, vol.9, p.98)
Trotsky on the other side also warned: »This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political imporatance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.198)
»Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing this, and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois. Theirs surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers.« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.193)
As we see, both Lenin and Trotsky argued against class collaboration of Mensheviks and said that only proletariat with alliance with peasants can carry out the tasks of bourgeois-democratic revolution. So where did ideas of Lenin and Trotsky differ? Lenin was on one side saying that peasants and proletariat must carry out tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which will turn out in the democratic dictatorship of peasantry and proletariat. Trotsky was however worried about that Lenin did not decisevely said which class would exercise the dictatorship of proletariat. Trotsky warned that peasantry was never able to carry out the tasks of revolution independently and that it could only side with proletariat or with couter-revolution. If the peasantry would side with the forces of reaction, there was only thing that could happen, dictatorship of tsarism. On the other hand there would be dictatorship of proletariat. And that was not all. Lenin was at first saying that for carrying out socialist tasks there would be absolutely needed the socialist revolution in the west.Lenin notes that in this way: »The proletariat is already struggling to preserve the democratic conquests for the sake of the socialist revolution. This struggle would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable if the European socialist proletariat did not come to help of the Russian proletariat. At that stage the liberal bourgeoise and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry will organise the counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat will organise the revolution. In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is then not lost. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe. The European workers will show us ´how it is done´« (LCW, v.10, p. 92)
On the other side, Trotsky was saying that workers under Marxist banner will not stop just at bourgeois tasks, but will start carrying out socialist tasks and therefore the socialist revolution in Russia would be before the socialist revolution in the west, but he also noted that socialist revolution in Russia will not be enough for victory of socialism.
Comrade Vorosilov thinks that Stalin was a great Bolshevik man, a man with great Bolshevik policies, but that is not so. Vorosilov also accused Trotsky of being a Menshevik and even fightng for their policies. Well, comrade Vorosilov, that is far from truth. You can cover your eyes for as long as you want, but that will still be a big lie.
First let me start with the first lie that Stalin was a great Bolshevik. First a big blow against Bolshevism is ´Socialism in One Country´. With that Stalin made clear that his policies were in big contradictions with that of Lenin. Lenin was always using Marxist international approach (as we can see from quotes above) which is the only one that can guarantee victory of socialism, which is international. Stalin´s clear contribution to ´Socialism in One Country´ is made clear even in his own book Foundations of Leninism. When Lenin was still dieing on his bed Stalin´s view was as following:
»The overthrow of the power of the bourgeois and the establishment of the proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialim-the organization of socialist production-remains ahead. Can this be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is imposible. To overthrow the bourgeois in one country, the efforts of one country are sufficient-the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly the peasant country such as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced counries are necessary. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic feauters of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.«
But eight months after Lenin´s he changed the »characteristic feauters of Leninist theory« into this: » The Party always took as its starting point [?!] the idea that victory of socialism in that country, and that task can be accomplished with the forces of the single country[!!!].
Here I will repost what Lenin said about socialist victory in full: »The proletariat is already struggling to preserve the democratic conquests for the sake of the socialist revolution. This struggle would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable if the European socialist proletariat did not come to help of the Russian proletariat. At that stage the liberal bourgeoise and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry will organise the counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat will organise the revolution. In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is then not lost. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe. The European workers will show us ´how it is done´« (LCW, v.10, p. 92)
The same is evident from writtings of Trotsky: »..without the direct state support of the European proletariat the working class of Russia cannot convert its temporary domination into a lasting socialist dictatorship. Of this there cannot be any doubt. Left to its own resources the working class of Russia will inevitably be crushed by counter-revolution the moment the pesantry turns its back on it.« (Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution, p. 36.)
For the end I will quote from Engels, let us see what he said about ´Socialism in One Country´: »Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries -- that is to say, at least in [!!]England, America, France, and Germany[!!].
It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.« (Selected Works (Principles of Communism), Volume One, p. 81-97)
Comrade Vorosilov, theory of ´Socialism in one country´ is not the Bolshevik idea, so it is not the Marxist one. It is a opportunist idea of the opportunist leader and origintes way back to old Narodniks in tsarist Russia.
The next thing I would like to note is the thing about February revolution. Many people think that if there was only February revolution, Russia would be a great prosperous country, but that is not so. In February revolution the power was actually in hands of workers, soldiers and peasants, but they put their representatives, which were already representing them before in unions and parties (mostly SR´s and Mensheviks), in charge. In fact people portray the February revolution as bourgeois-democratic and October revolution as socialist one. But that is far from truth. Februar revolution was actualy where reactionary leaders of Social revolutionaries and Mensheviks were unable to play a progressive role. They were not able to cary out the bourgeois tasks of revolution. The tasks such as »Peace, Land and Bread« are bourgeois slogans, but as Bolsheviks predicted, they were unable to carry them out. People handed power over to Mensheviks and SR´s and they handed it over power again back to the bourgeois which was afraid of workers and did nothing at all. And there is one more thing, which should interest comrade Vorosilov. When Lenin was still in Switzerland and unable to come to Russia, Stalin started to speak for himself and wanted to make an alliance with Menshevik government! Comrade Vorosilov if it was for policies of Stalin there would be no October revolution and Russia would get another dictator, which certainly woulnd´t be Stalin (Only Kerensky or Kornilov were the possibilities), let me quote something about that issue:
“The arrival of the exiles from Siberia instantly imparted a sharp rightward slant to the political positions taken by the Bolshevik leadership in Petrograd. Up until this time, the local leadership made up of Shlyapnikov, Zalutsky and Molotov, had steered a more radical course. These three leaders stood on the left wing of the party. But the newly arrived Kamenev and Stalin used their seniority to push the party’s line sharply to the right. This was immediately reflected in the pages of the central organ. In an editorial in Pravda on March 14, two days after his return, Kamenev wrote an editorial in which he asked: “What purpose would it serve to speed things up, when things were already taking place at such a rapid pace?”[18] The next day, he wrote another piece commenting on Kerensky’s statement that Russia would “proudly defend its freedoms” and would not “retreat before the bayonets of the aggressors”. Kamenev enthusiastically concurred, in language which completely renounced Lenin’s policy of opposition to the war: “When army faces army, it would be the most insane policy to suggest to one of those armies to lay down its arms and go home. This would not be a policy of peace, but a policy of slavery, which would be rejected with disgust by a free people.”” (E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 1, p. 75.)
Stalin held the same position as Kamenev, only more cautiously. He published an article approving the stance of the Soviet in its Manifesto (which Lenin blasted) and said that what was needed was “to bring pressure to bear on the Provisional Government to make it declare its consent to start peace negotiations immediately”. According to Stalin it was “unquestionable” that “the stark slogan ‘Down with the war!’ was absolutely unsuitable as a practical means
“The first All-Russian Conference of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies was convened at the end of March 1917. Simultaneously with this, the Bureau of the Bolshevik Central Committee issued a call for the All-Russian Conference of party workers, which opened on March 28. This was the first really representative conference of the party to be held since the overthrow of tsarism. Lenin was still struggling to return from his Swiss exile, and was therefore absent. The political proceedings therefore constitute an accurate reflection of how the Bolshevik leaders in Petrograd viewed the revolution. Among the central issues discussed were the attitude to the war and the Provisional Government, as well as relations to other parties. The report on the attitude to the Provisional Government was delivered by Stalin. The whole thrust of this report, permeated through and through with opportunistic adaptation and conciliationism, is radically opposed to the line advocated insistently by Lenin.
The central idea of Stalin’s speech is that the Bolsheviks should give critical support to the bourgeois Provisional Government, to act as a kind of loyal opposition, which, while remaining outside the government, and with certain reservations, nevertheless supports it: “In so far as the Provisional Government fortifies the steps of the revolution,” he says, “to that extent we must support it; but in so far as it is counter-revolutionary, support to the provisional Government is not permissible.” “ (The History of Bolshevism-)
“The line of capitulation to middle class “democracy” advocated by Stalin and Kamenev effectively blurred the lines of demarcation between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. So much so, that the March Conference actually considered the question of fusion. Indeed, if the Stalin-Kamenev line were accepted, there would be no serious reason to maintain the existence of two separate parties. In the session of March 30, Kamenev reported on his contacts with the Mensheviks, as the minutes show:
“Kamenev: Reports that he has entered into negotiations with the internationalist SRs and Mensheviks. Inasmuch as it is clear that an absolutely unacceptable resolution of the Executive committee [of the Soviets] will be passed, it is necessary to counterpose to it a joint resolution of the internationalists. The SRs (22) are a national minority. They will not vote against the resolution of the Bolsheviks and will withdraw their resolution. The Mensheviks are seeking to introduce a single resolution and are for uniting on a joint resolution. Should factional discipline be imposed to compel the minority to submit to the majority, the internationalists will come out in favour of our resolution.”
Those speakers on the left of the party who opposed these moves towards unity and who dared to raise the question of the workers taking power were given short shrift. Thus, when Krassikov intervened on these lines, he was stopped in his tracks by the chairman:
“Krassikov: The gist of the matter is not in the amendments and not in a demonstrative presentation of social democratic slogans, but in the current moment. If we recognise the Soviets of Deputies as the organs that express the will of the people, then the question before us is not the consideration of what concrete measures must be taken on this or that issue. If we think that the time has now come to realise the dictatorship of the proletariat, then we ought to pose the question that way. We unquestionably have the physical force for a seizure of power. I believe that we will have sufficient physical force both in Petrograd as well as in other cities. [Commotion in the hall. Shouts: ‘Not true’.] I was present…
“The Chairman (interrupting): The question under discussion involves the practical steps for today. The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not under discussion.
“Krassikov (continues): If we do not pose the question that way then ought we to take steps in relation to the Provisional Government which…
“The Chairman deprives him of the floor.”
Although formally Kamenev’s proposal was to link up with the left (internationalist) wing of Menshevism, the real intention was to unite in a single party. Prominent Menshevik leaders like Lieber were present in the Conference, and participated in it. On the session of April 1, a resolution on unity written by the Georgian Menshevik leader Tsereteli was put to the congress. Although representatives of the Bolshevik left wing, including at that time the student Molotov, opposed it, Stalin expressed himself in favourable terms:
“Order of the day: Tsereteli’s proposal for unification.
“Stalin: We ought to go. It is necessary to define our proposals as to the terms of unification. Unification is possible along the lines of Zimmerwald- Kienthal.
“Luganovsky: The Kharkov Committee is carrying on negotiations precisely along these lines.
“Molotov: Tsereteli wants to unite heterogeneous elements. Tsereteli calls himself a Zimmerwaldist and a Kienthalist, and for this reason unification along these lines is incorrect both politically and organisationally. It would be more correct to advance a definite internationalist socialist platform. We will unite a compact minority.
“Luganovsky (in refuting comrade Molotov) says: At the present time we are unaware of any disagreements. The Mensheviks abstained in the Soviet and spoke more strongly than did … the Bolsheviks who came out against. Many disagreements have been outlived. It is out of place to underscore tactical differences. We can have a joint Congress with the Mensheviks, the Zimmerwaldists and Kienthalists.”
In view of the controversy sparked off by this proposal, Stalin once again intervened in the debate to defend unification in unmistakable terms which, despite his habitual caution, faithfully echo his earlier comments, describing the differences between Bolshevism and Menshevism as “a storm in a tea-cup”:
“Stalin: There is no use running ahead and anticipating disagreements. There is no party life without disagreements. We will live down trivial disagreements within the party. But there is one question—it is impossible to unite what cannot be united. We will have a single party with those who agree on Zimmerwald and Kienthal…” (History of Bolshevism)
Lenin was very irritated of the things Stalin and Co. were pursuing, so he decided to write some letters to his ´comrades´ in Russia. In the second letter, Lenin makes a withering criticism of the Manifesto issued by the leaders of the Soviet which hides behind pacifist phraseology and declares that all democrats must support the Provisional Government, and authorises Kerensky to enter it. Lenin retorts that “The task is not to ‘coax’ the liberals, but to explain to the workers why the liberals find themselves in a blind alley, why they are bound hand and foot, why they conceal both the treaties tsarism concluded with England and other countries and the deals between Russian and Anglo-French capital, and so forth.”
Comrade Vorosilov if it was the word of Stalin that prevailed, there would be no October revolution, there would be no bourgeois-revolution at all. Bourgeois were not ready to sign for a peace with Germany, they were not ready to take land from big landowners and give it to little farmers. Those were the bourgeois tasks which were not completed during the so called »bourgeois-revolution«. It is far from truth that workers and peasants did not want to have peace land and bread, but those were still appealing to their »loving leaders of bourgeois allies called«, which did nothing.
October revolution did on the other hand just what February did not. It carried out the bourgeois part and, as Trotsky predicted, because the bourgeois part was not carried out by bourgeois, the workers carried it out. But the workers, as Trotsky also said, were not stopping just at bourgeois tasks, but started carrying out the socialist ones as well.
I hope that now some things are clearer to our comrade Vorosilov.
Let us procceed to next step, the international policies of Comitern after Lenin´s death [The policies of Stalinists].
Comrade Vorosilov says that Trotsky was a Menshevik. Actually, what kind of policies did Trotsky pursue? The policies he pursued were very Bolshevik and Marxist ones. On the other hand we have Stalin. He was the one who actually accused Trotsky of being GESTAPO agent and a Menshevik, but Stalin was the one who pursued Menshevik policies. Class Collaboration with ´progressive´ bourgeois was the Menshevik idea, Stalin only put it in practice with his Popular Front. There is so many examples. Let me start with the French biggest strike in the world. It happened in the May of 1968 when 10 million of workers occupied the factories for six weeks. De Gaulle´s state was completely paralysed. De Gaule said »communists will take over«, but that did not happen. Why? Because their leaders were listening to Stalin´s Popular Front. Also some interesting things about Stalin´s magnificent theories, I will quote from Modern Marxist glossary : “The case of Indonesia in 1965 affords an ideal illustration of the bankruptcy and treachery of the “two-stage theory.” [Two stage theory was firstly presented by Mensheviks and put in practice by Stalinists. The first stage of the theory would be so called bourgeois revolution with all ´progressive´ elements in society, and the second one the socialist one on the base of economy. That is what all true Marxists were fighting against.] As class tensions mounted among the workers and the peasantry, and the masses began to rise up against the shaky regime of President Sukarno, the Stalinist leadership in Beijing told the Indonesian masses and their mass organization the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to tie their fate to the national bourgeoisie. In October, as many as 1 million workers and peasants were slaughtered in a CIA-organized coup led by General Suharto, which swept aside the Sukarno, crushed the rising mass movements, and installed a brutal military dictatorship.”
“The “two-stage theory” has also propelled the Stalinists into “popular fronts” with so-called“progressive”elements of the bourgeois class to “advance” the first revolutionary stage. Examples include Stalinist support (through the Communist Party, USA) to President Roosevelt 1930s. And, taking this orientation to its logical conclusion, the Communist Party in the United States consistently supports Democratic Party candidates for office, including the presidency. “
“In terms of the organization of a state, Stalinist policies are quite clear: democratic rights threaten the position of the bureaucracy, and hence democracy is incompatible with Stalinism. In basic terms on a world scale, the forces of Stalinism have done everything in their power to prevent socialist revolution.”
If we sum up all these things, saying that Stalinist criminal policies of Stalin and his followers (Khruschev, Brezhnev,...) are justified by the backwardness of the Russia is not a good answer at all. There were chances on many occasions for workers to take power in advanced western countries and with good international Leninist policies pursued by Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolsheviks which were exterminated by Stalinist bureaucracy, victory of socialism would really be guaranteed. But maybe comrade Stalin was affraid that workers in France, Spain, Italy, Britain, Indonesia,... would take power. Yes, comrade Vorosilov you are correct, but Stalin was not affraid of his western capitalist ´enemies´, but of his ´best friends´, workers. Stalin used the old trick. He claimed that his enemies were Mensheviks when he was Menshevik himself. Why Stalinists needed an allience with bourgeois when they had 10 million workers on strike willing to take power? This is what our comrade Vorosilov fails to understand. No, Stalinists have better plan. Ally with bourgeois make them come to power then ask them if they are maybe willing to give you power and you wil all be slaughtered. Very great plan indeed, especially if you want to make sure that workers will never come to power in any country. Comrade Vorosilov, yes there are really some missing screws in this Stalinist plan indeed. Yes comrade Vorosilov, now I can see the picture. You said “Lenin and the rest were spending lavishly in western countries. Stalin on the contrary was left in Russia and lived in illegality and in poverty.” Yes, Lenin was spending lawishly in western countries. He must have had spent a really big fortune for his one table and four chairs. Not having any bodyguards was lawishly, indeed, even for nowadays this seems like a record. Now we can all see why under Stalin all people were living “lavishly” in GULAGS, as comrade Vorosilov points out, and on the other hand comrade Stalin was living in ´poverty´ with whole bureaucratic machine together. We came to a very big conclussion. Special hospitals and markets only for bureaucrats was really a sign of poverty in life of every Stalinist bureaucrat. Western presidents that were visiting Stalinists were very impressed in how big poverty those people live. Oh what about these ´few´things : “In a study of Nixon's fall from power, The Final Days by Woodwood and Bernstein, a small glimpse is given of the life-style of Brezhnev and the top bureaucrats. "The President [Nixon] had his usual present for Brezhnev--an American automobile for the Secretary's extensive collection. Their first two summits, in 1972 and 1973, had yielded two $10,000 models, a Cadillac limousine and a Lincoln Continental. This time it was a $5,578 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, not very impressive in a garage that already housed a Citroen-Maserati speedster, Rolls Royce and Mercedes sedans, and Brezhnev's favourite, a new Mercedes 300SL roadster. But Brezhnev had learned that the Monte Carlo was named 'Car of the Year' by Motor Trend magazine, and he had let it be known that he would like one."According to Jan Sejna, a top Czech bureaucrat, who defected to the West and published his memoirs We Will Bury You: "Brezhnev is very fond of vodka, and pilsner beer, which we used to send to him direct to Moscow. He also loves Western clothesÉ Whenever he came to Prague, the Director of our Politburo shop--where the elite could buy luxuries unavailable to lesser men--would have to fly to Italy and West Germany before his arrival, to lay in a special stock for him." The same was true of the bureaucratic rulers of Eastern Europe. Writing about his own predecessor, Alexei Cepicka, Sejna explains: "He had a huge personal fortune, worth millions of dollars, for which he never accounted, and which he spent on magnificent luxuries--villas, cars, jewellery--for himself and his friends. His wife, for example, owned 17 mink coats."” That seems like a big poverty.
So at the end, why the revolution got alienated to workers? Why it degenerated? First I must say that the revolution managed to be carried out in a very backward country with a lot of peasant population and high rate of illiteracy. As we know Lenin was very aware of that issue and was always saying that revolution will be either brought to western countries or the counter-revolution will finish the Russian revolution in a dictatorship. Lenin was right on that issue again, it turned out to degenerate itself from working class. We can also use Trotsky´s term ´Thermidorian reaction´ and it would be also correct.
P.S.: rikbe, you will never convince me that programming groups need all that bureaucratic companies to make programmes or games. Even a barber knows that he needs scissors for cutting hair, right? Or maybe he needs rikbe to tell him that he gets too high salary?