Democratic centralism in Stalin' USSR

[nvm]

First of all , what is democratic centralism?

The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision.

Was there freedom of discussion in the Communist Party?

Thousands and thousands of people who expressed a different opinion than that of the party bureaucrats, were exiled , prisoned or sentenced to death. Among them Leon Trotsky . The power went from above to below, all the orders went from the top to the bottom, not the other way . Stalin and his clique , were certainly not elected democratically for the whole of their reign.
They were certainly not recallable by the people .
Whoever made criticism about any decision made by the bureaucrats was sent to prison /execution squad/exile.
Officially, the Party Congress elects a Central Comitee which, in turn, elects a General Secretary. Under Stalin however, this model was essentially reversed and it was the General Secretary who determined the composition of the Politburo and Central Committee.
All this cannot be "western propaganda" , as the facts are astonishing.

I will present you a list of names
23 October 1917 Andrei Bubnov, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Vladimir Lenin, Grigory Sokolnikov, Joseph Stalin, and Leon Trotsky elected members of the Political Bureau at the Central Committee meeting.

Andrei Bubnov : He was expelled from the Party Central Committee in November 1937, arrested and perished in the Great Purge.

Grigory Zinoviev: executed on August 25, 1936.

Lev Kamenev: executed on August 25, 1936.

Grigory Sokolnikov: Sokolnikov was arrested during the Trial of Parallel "Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Centre" and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. Reportedly, he was killed in a prison by other convicts

Trotsky: Trotsky was exiled to Alma Ata (now in Kazakhstan) on January 31, 1928. He was expelled from the Soviet Union in February 1929, accompanied by his wife Natalia Sedova and his son Lev Sedov.
On August 20, 1940, Trotsky was successfully attacked in his home by a NKVD agent, Ramón Mercader, who smashed the pick of an ice axe into Trotsky's skull.

Of course this is a small indication.
Stalin killed all the members of the Politburo of 1917!
Those were men with moral authority inside the party and more difficult to kill , prison or exile. Ordinary people did not stand a chance , compared with these men.
They were mercilessly killed for their crime of having different ideas!
The absence of democratic centralism inside the party proves that the Soviet Union was far from being socialist

[Dros]

Oh noes, they got rid of Trotsky!

Do you have a question? Does this thread have some sort of point?

Or are you just whining and taking another opportunist whack at Stalin and Stalinists grounded in your silly misunderstandings of reality?

Really, this is getting old. And your immaturity is getting older. Trots and MLs have been able to cooperate here for a long time. If you want to start a conversation, please do. But don't go about it with this bullshit "Stalin was an evil baby eater" mentality. That is trolling as you are clearly just posting this thread to get the Marxist-Leninists pissed off kind of like with your "ban the Stalinists" thread.

[BobKKKindle$]

Really, this is getting old. And your immaturity is getting older..[etc]The OP is making a legitimate argument, and your response suggests that you are unable to make an effective response to his post, and so are trying to undermine his argument with personal abuse. Stalinists often argue that mainstream (or "bourgeois") historians present a biased view of historical events to discredit Socialism. This argument should be examined carefully.

For any period of history, it is always difficult to gain a fully accurate narrative, because historians are unable to directly experience the period they are studying, and so are forced to rely on the evidence which they have available. Evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and new evidence is always emerging, which means it is rarely possible for historians to reach a consensus on what actually happened. Despite this difficulty, however, it is possible to be sure of some things - such as the fact that many of the original members of the Bolshevik Politburo were executed or forced into exile when Stalin was General Secretary. Socialists should ask what this fact tells us about the political system of the Soviet Union. Was Stalin responsible for this? Was there anything he could have done to stop it? Is it possible that all of the people who were removed were actually plotting to overthrow the Soviet government or in some other way undermine the process of constructing Socialism? Is there any evidence which can be used to support this hypothesis? If so, why was Lenin not able to recognize these reactionary tendencies and remove these individuals when he was leader of the party? How can the presence of so many reactionary people in the most important body of the Bolshevik party be explained - were these people always reactionary, or did something cause their ideas to change?

Alternatively, we could accept that, even though these individuals had disagreements with Stalin and may have made mistakes, they were still committed to fighting for Socialism, despite the difficult international conditions which isolated the Soviet Union. If we accept this, then the fact that these individuals were subject to oppression suggests that the Soviet government did not allow for freedom of discussion. There is evidence to support this view - with the benefit of hindsight historians know that the accusations made at the show trials were not truthful, and the people who lived during this time period can also give historians an idea of what life was like. Therefore, it would seem sensible to accept that the Stalinist government was oppressive, and unjustly so, because oppression was directed against supports of the revolution.

If the Soviet government used repression to prevent free discussion and criticism of the government's policy, this provokes further questions. In whose interests was this repression exercised? What implications does this have for future attempts to construct Socialism? How does this affect out understanding of the Stalinist era?

The "bourgeois history" argument has not been explained, because it not so much an argument as an attempt to deflect criticism and prevent honest discussion. Accusations of "bourgeois history" are not enough to win a debate - they must be supported by evidence which shows that the mainstream narrative is wrong and does not present a correct view of the Soviet Union.

[Rawthentic]

Drosera, as a "maoist" you should always struggle on line, no matter how the other responds or begins an argument or debate. I've seen this in you many times. If you disagree, then show why and prove it!

IMO, and as Mao correctly said, Stalin was unable to correctly handle the contradictions between the masses and the state. Instead of unleashing the masses to battle against capitalist restoration like was done in the GPCR, Stalin opted for purging and expelling those that had contradictory lines. He had a mechanical view of socialism in that sense, not a dialectical one. Under socialism, because it is a society still heavily marked by the old society, new forces arise within the broader society but particularly within the revolutionary party in the forms of policies and laws that pay lip service to socialism, but in reality, are policies and laws that actually lead back to capitalism. Stalin did not recognize this, nor how to combat it. He thought that socialism would continue by simply developing the productive forces and eliminating his opponents.

In China, Mao said that people are the ones that need to lead socialism, so their consciousness and political activity to advance the revolution were crucial. So, when it was recognized that capitalist roaders within the party, he called for the masses and Red Guards to "bombard the headquarters", or, in other words, criticize and agitate and act to destroy what went against the tide of socialism.

So, yes, there is truth to what BobKindles says. Drosera, it is also incorrect to say that simply because an argument comes from bourgeois sources, that it is false. As dialectical materialists, we need to see that there is also truth to what they say on the history of socialism, and we need to accept that. It is true that it is full of lies and distortions, but it does speak to the real shortcomings that occurred as well.

[mikelepore]

The absence of democratic centralism inside the party proves that the Soviet Union was far from being socialist

Even if the party had been democratic, it still wouldn't have been socialism. It's inconsistent with socialism for there to continue to exist a political party that has any involvement with administering the means of production. In Marxism the purpose of the workers' political party is to acquire the power of the state to issue and enforce a mandate that the privileges of the old ruling class are abolished, to transfer the managerial authority to the workplace organization. After that, it's supposed to be workers' workplace organization that manages production and services, not the state or any political party.

[Dros]

The OP is making a legitimate argument,

Certainly there is a legitimate argument to be made here. However, the OP is not making it. This is clearly and obviously trolling. He has posted this post in a very very skewed way as a deliberate and obvious, attempt to get a reaction from MLs. Obviously, I could argue the history of why I would support the ejection of Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and others from the party. The point is, the point of this thread is fundamentally not to start that conversation but to provoke a flame war that I'm not really interested in participating in at the moment.

I've been trying to build a more community conscious RevLeft by opposing dogmatism, bad sectarianism, etc. This kind of troll is not what is needed here. This reduces the quality of real political discussion.


drosera, as a "maoist" you should always struggle on line, no matter how the other responds or begins an argument or debate. I've seen this in you many times. If you disagree, then show why and prove it!

In principle, I would generally agree that it is always important to engage in principled line struggle. The point that I'm trying to make is that this thread is not an effort to start a line struggle! It's trolling. He wants me to react so that we can get into a flame war not so that we can have an intelligent conversation on these issues. Remember, this is the kid who started the thread calling for RevLeft to ban all Maoists, Hoxhaists, and Stalinists. He's not interested in actually going into this. If he was, he would have framed it differently. He would have asked:

"As I look over the history of the USSR under Stalin, and especially of the purges of the party, I'm confronted by what appears as a lack of democratic centralism in party operations. This includes the purging of such notable leaders as Trotsky, Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, etc. I would like to ask my Marxist-Leninist comrades why they think this was and what their position is on it."

instead of phrasing it like this:


Of course this is a small indication.
Stalin killed all the members of the Politburo of 1917!
Those were men with moral authority inside the party and more difficult to kill , prison or exile. Ordinary people did not stand a chance , compared with these men.
They were mercilessly killed for their crime of having different ideas!
The absence of democratic centralism inside the party proves that the Soviet Union was far from being socialist


as a "maoist"

I'm sorry. What do you mean by "maoist"?!



and your response suggests that you are unable to make an effective response to his post,

That is not a valid conclusion. If you are interested in seriously discussing this with me, as I suspect you are, you may write me a PM and I would be happy to go into it..


Stalinists often argue that mainstream (or "bourgeois") historians present a biased view of historical events to discredit Socialism. This argument should be examined carefully.

Most certainly. In a PM. Or you could start another thread and frame this question in a more balanced manner.


Drosera, it is also incorrect to say that simply because an argument comes from bourgeois sources, that it is false. As dialectical materialists, we need to see that there is also truth to what they say on the history of socialism, and we need to accept that. It is true that it is full of lies and distortions, but it does speak to the real shortcomings that occurred as well.

Where have I EVER made that claim?!?!!?!!??!?!?!??!?!?

I never have. Ever. If you're going to accuse me of these kinds of epistemological errors, I would like it if you would provide the evidence that led you to that conclusion so that I can either make a meaningful self criticism or explain why I don't think I was in error. But don't just accuse me of this shit based on nothing.

[Rawthentic]

I'm sorry. What do you mean by "maoist"?!
I mean thats what you call yourself. That's all.


Where have I EVER made that claim?!?!!?!!??!?!?!??!?!?
Chill, bro. I never said you said that either. I was only making a comment.

[Dros]

I mean thats what you call yourself. That's all.


Chill, bro. I never said you said that either. I was only making a comment.

Okay.

[BobKKKindle$]

Certainly there is a legitimate argument to be made here. However, the OP is not making it...[etc]It would be better if we had a discussion in this thread, so everyone can see where we disagree. The OP did start the thread in a somewhat confrontational way, but even if you don't like the combative tone, hopefully we can move beyond the initial post and start a sensible discussion. So:

Do you accept that, when Stalin was General Secretary, the Soviet government executed or exiled many members of the 1917 Politburo? If the answer to this question is yes, then the issue for debate is not whether these events occurred, but why they occurred, and whether they were justified. Basic principles of justice dictate that someone should only be punished if they have done something wrong, or something which violates the laws of the country they inhabit. What were the reasons given for the execution of these individuals? Generally it was claimed that they were plotting to undermine the Soviet government and had already committed acts of sabotage. For example, Zinoviev was accused of being part of a "Terrorist Center" and was allegedly complicit in the murder of Sergei Kirov. This leads us to ask a further question: Is there any evidence to support these allegations, or were they fabricated? If this evidence does exist and is convincing, then one should accept that Stalin's actions were at least partly justified. If evidence cannot be found, or if the evidence is insufficient, then one would come to a different conclusion - these individuals were executed without justification. This means that Stalin must have had a different motive for exercising repression against these individuals. Trotskyists would argue that Stalin exercised repression to ensure the hegemony of the bureacracy and prevent criticism of the government's policy.

So, the debate is ultimately about evidence, because evidence is such an important part of historical narrative. Can Stalinists provide evidence to show that the charges against those who were later executed/exiled were truthful?

[trivas7]

Even if the party had been democratic, it still wouldn't have been socialism. It's inconsistent with socialism for there to continue to exist a political party that has any involvement with administering the means of production. In Marxism the purpose of the workers' political party is to acquire the power of the state to issue and enforce a mandate that the privileges of the old ruling class are abolished, to transfer the managerial authority to the workplace organization. After that, it's supposed to be workers' workplace organization that manages production and services, not the state or any political party.
But as an historical point it was the case that political parties other than the Bolshis were allowed to exist after the October 1917 Revolution in Russia as long as they didn't speak out against the Revolution. I don't know in what numbers. It also seems consistent with socialism IMO.

[Dros]

It would be better if we had a discussion in this thread, so everyone can see where we disagree. The OP did start the thread in a somewhat confrontational way, but even if you don't like the combative tone, hopefully we can move beyond the initial post and start a sensible discussion.

Fair enough.


Do you accept that, when Stalin was General Secretary, the Soviet government executed or exiled many members of the 1917 Politburo?

Yes.


If the answer to this question is yes, then the issue for debate is not whether these events occurred, but why they occurred, and whether they were justified.

They did not all occur for the same reason and I think that Stalin was justified in certain cases and wasn't in others. I do understand why he did what he did even when he was not justified in doing son.


What were the reasons given for the execution of these individuals?

That they were counter revolutionaries. I would say this was exceptionally valid in the cases of Burkharin and Trotsky but also generally applicable to Kamenev and Zinoviev to a lesser extent.


Generally it was claimed that they were plotting to undermine the Soviet government and had already committed acts of sabotage.

That was pretty clearly untrue. The show trials are regrettable.


For example, Zinoviev was accused of being part of a "Terrorist Center" and was allegedly complicit in the murder of Sergei Kirov. This leads us to ask a further question: Is there any evidence to support these allegations, or were they fabricated?

They were clearly fabricated.


one would come to a different conclusion - these individuals were executed without justification.

Or that they were executed for a different reason.


This means that Stalin must have had a different motive for exercising repression against these individuals. Trotskyists would argue that Stalin exercised repression to ensure the hegemony of the bureacracy and prevent criticism of the government's policy.

I have never heard any reasonable argument that demonstrates that the bureaucracy had any significant power at this time.

This ultimately comes back to certain epistemological and philosophical errors Stalin made which Mao criticized him for.


So, the debate is ultimately about evidence, because evidence is such an important part of historical narrative. Can Stalinists provide evidence to show that the charges against those who were later executed/exiled were truthful?

No. That's not what this is about. I'm not about to uphold or defend the show trials. I also don't think Kamenev or Zinoviev should have been executed. The question was, was democratic centralism still used and would an absence there of negate the idea that the USSR was socialist?

[BobKKKindle$]

That they were counter revolutionaries. I would say this was exceptionally valid in the cases of Burkharin and Trotsky but also generally applicable to Kamenev and Zinoviev to a lesser extent.As the most important party member out of those who were accused, Trotsky should be closely examined. The accusation that Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary suggests that Trotsky wanted to restore capitalist property relations in the Soviet Union and overturn the achievements which had been made through the October Revolution. Is there any evidence to support this accusation?

There are several points which can be made to show that Trotsky was actually a committed revolutionary, not a counter-revolutionary, as suggested by Stalin. Trotsky was the commander of the Red Army during the Civil War, which meant he was given the responsibility of organizing the defense of the workers state and fighting against the external threats which aimed to overturn workers power. If Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary, then surely he would have taken advantage of this role to allow for the destruction of the revolution, by sabotaging the war effort? Trotsky did not commit acts of sabotage, but made effective command decisions, and arguably his skills as a commander enabled the survival of the workers state. This seems to directly contradict the accusation that Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary. Further evidence includes the fact that, prior to the October Revolution, Trotsky argued against Zinoviev and Kamenev, both of whom argued against an armed insurrection against the Kerensky government. If Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary, surely he would have attempted to prevent the revolution from going ahead, and would have sided with those party members opposed to an insurrection?


This ultimately comes back to certain epistemological and philosophical errors Stalin made which Mao criticized him for.Explaining Stalin's mistakes as the result of "philosophical errors" is an anti-materialist approach to history which emphasizes the role of abstract ideas without examining the material conditions which give rise to and support these ideas. Stalin's purge of the 1917 Politburo was not a mistake as such, in terms of Stalin's personal interests, because this purge secured Stalin's position as an individual, and the hegemony of the bureaucratic stratum.


No. That's not what this is about. I'm not about to uphold or defend the show trials. I also don't think Kamenev or Zinoviev should have been executedYou are correct - it is also possible to accept that Stalin's actions were unjustified [in some cases] but still defend Stalin. My apologies for not recognizing this approach to the issue. However, we should still discuss whether the exile (and subsequent assassination) of Trotsky was justified - you have claimed that Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary, but you have not yet provided evidence to support this claim.


The question was, was democratic centralism still used and would an absence there of negate the idea that the USSR was socialist?

The issue of evidence is closely connected to whether democratic centralism was used. If there is no evidence to show that these individuals were plotting to overthrow the Soviet government or conduct acts of sabotage, then it would appear that they were executed because they were in disagreement with Stalin and posed a threat to the hegemony of the bureacracy, especially in the case of Trotsky. This would violate democratic centralism, because democratic centralism is based on the principle that every party member should have the freedom to criticize and debate party policy.

[Dros]

As the most important party member out of those who were accused, Trotsky should be closely examined. The accusation that Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary suggests that Trotsky wanted to restore capitalist property relations in the Soviet Union and overturn the achievements which had been made through the October Revolution. Is there any evidence to support this accusation?

There are several points which can be made to show that Trotsky was actually a committed revolutionary, not a counter-revolutionary, as suggested by Stalin. Trotsky was the commander of the Red Army during the Civil War, which meant he was given the responsibility of organizing the defense of the workers state and fighting against the external threats which aimed to overturn workers power. If Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary, then surely he would have taken advantage of this role to allow for the destruction of the revolution, by sabotaging the war effort? Trotsky did not commit acts of sabotage, but made effective command decisions, and arguably his skills as a commander enabled the survival of the workers state. This seems to directly contradict the accusation that Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary. Further evidence includes the fact that, prior to the October Revolution, Trotsky argued against Zinoviev and Kamenev, both of whom argued against an armed insurrection against the Kerensky government. If Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary, surely he would have attempted to prevent the revolution from going ahead, and would have sided with those party members opposed to an insurrection?

There needs to be a distinction between subjectively and objectively counter revolutionary forces. Trotsky did not consciously work towards the overthrow of socialism. But his theories and actions would have led in that direction both before and after his fall from power.


Explaining Stalin's mistakes as the result of "philosophical errors" is an anti-materialist approach to history which emphasizes the role of abstract ideas without examining the material conditions which give rise to and support these ideas.

Not at all. Negating the influence of powerful individuals in history for purely economic or material factors is economic determinism and vulgar materialism. For instance, to say that the Holocaust would have happened if Hitler had not risen to power or had not been an anti-semite, is unscientific determinism. The material conditions in Germany allowed for and even favored the possibility for the holocaust but they did not in and of themselves cause it.I have also not neglected the material conditions in the USSR. Stalin acted within the context of those material conditions but Stalin's actions themselves also affected the material conditions around him. Thus, the way in which Stalin viewed the world is both grounded in material conditions (in the sense that there is a material basis that gave rise to Stalin's philosophical errors) but could also change the material conditions (in a way that was necessarily defined by the initial set of material conditions to be changed).


Stalin's purge of the 1917 Politburo was not a mistake as such, in terms of Stalin's personal interests, because this purge secured Stalin's position as an individual, and the hegemony of the bureaucratic stratum.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it also had to do with his attempt to get revisionists out of the party. Certainly, a lot of the old bolsheviks had become revisionists.

Either way, the executions of men like Kamenev and Zinoviev represent an error on Stalin's part. The reason for this is in my view grounded in a poor understanding of dialectics on the part of Stalin that caused him to view the world and view contradiction in mechanical and deterministic ways which resulted in a lot of the poor policies that he made during this period.


However, we should still discuss whether the exile (and subsequent assassination) of Trotsky was justified - you have claimed that Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary, but you have not yet provided evidence to support this claim.

He was not subjectively counter revolutionary but his theory of permanent revolution and such certainly would lead to a negation of socialism in the USSR had it been implemented.


The issue of evidence is closely connected to whether democratic centralism was used. If there is no evidence to show that these individuals were plotting to overthrow the Soviet government or conduct acts of sabotage, then it would appear that they were executed because they were in disagreement with Stalin and posed a threat to the hegemony of the bureacracy, especially in the case of Trotsky.

In the case of Trotsky, Trotsky had, in my view, become a revisionist and was a threat to socialism.


This would violate democratic centralism, because democratic centralism is based on the principle that every party member should have the freedom to criticize and debate party policy.

True. But party members are also supposed to be Communists and as Stalin learned during this period, a Vanguard party that's in power will begin to experience the phenomenon of revisionists within the party trying to take the party towards capitalism. Stalin responded to this serious threat, embodied by people such as Trotsky and Bukharin, by purging the party of revisionists in a rather mechanical way.

Make no mistake, the CPSU was certainly lacking in democracy during this period. This was something that derived from Stalin's faulty outlook and was heavily criticized by Mao Zedong.

[Invader Zim]

This is clearly and obviously trolling.

The only "trolling" going on here is your infantile bullshit.

[mikelepore]

But as an historical point it was the case that political parties other than the Bolshis were allowed to exist after the October 1917 Revolution in Russia as long as they didn't speak out against the Revolution. I don't know in what numbers. It also seems consistent with socialism IMO.

That's why I said "involvement with administering the means of production". If a socialist society has any number of political parties that each say things like "we want to get into political office because we propose a new kind of law to deal with people who assault their neighbors", that's consistent with socialism. But for any political party to appoint the managers of industry, instead of the workers electing the managers of industry, that's inconsistent with socialism.

[nvm]

There needs to be a distinction between subjectively and objectively counter revolutionary forces. Trotsky did not consciously work towards the overthrow of socialism. But his theories and actions would have led in that direction both before and after his fall from power.
How? Why?


Not at all. Negating the influence of powerful individuals in history for purely economic or material factors is economic determinism and vulgar materialism. For instance, to say that the Holocaust would have happened if Hitler had not risen to power or had not been an anti-semite, is unscientific determinism. The material conditions in Germany allowed for and even favored the possibility for the holocaust but they did not in and of themselves cause it.I have also not neglected the material conditions in the USSR. Stalin acted within the context of those material conditions but Stalin's actions themselves also affected the material conditions around him. Thus, the way in which Stalin viewed the world is both grounded in material conditions (in the sense that there is a material basis that gave rise to Stalin's philosophical errors) but could also change the material conditions (in a way that was necessarily defined by the initial set of material conditions to be changed).

then we should defend Hitler as well


Perhaps. Or perhaps it also had to do with his attempt to get revisionists out of the party. Certainly, a lot of the old bolsheviks had become revisionists.
How were they revisionists. Especialy Trotsky!


He was not subjectively counter revolutionary but his theory of permanent revolution and such certainly would lead to a negation of socialism in the USSR had it been implemented.

Do you even know what the permanent revolution is?
An example of the permanent revolution is the Revolution in Russia and afterwards until
Stalin.


In the case of Trotsky, Trotsky had, in my view, become a revisionist and was a threat to socialism.
How ?


T
rue. But party members are also supposed to be Communists and as Stalin learned during this period, a Vanguard party that's in power will begin to experience the phenomenon of revisionists within the party trying to take the party towards capitalism. Stalin responded to this serious threat, embodied by people such as Trotsky and Bukharin, by purging the party of revisionists in a rather mechanical way.




How? Why?



Stalin's policies were what led the Soviet union back to capitalism.
Trotsky even predicted it!

[Dros]

The only "trolling" going on here is your infantile bullshit.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I literally laughed out loud. I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the beautiful irony here. Even if your post had been true before you made it, it wouldn't have been true after!:lol::lol::lol::scared:


How? Why?

Permanent Revolution and a rejection of socialism in one country.


then we should defend Hitler as well

You're clearly misunderstanding my argument if that's what you gleaned from it. All that I'm doing here is critiquing the vulgar materialist idea that the outlook of an individual can't affect material reality.


How were they revisionists. Especialy Trotsky!

Do we really need to have this conversation for the fifty thousandth time? I'm certain you've heard Marxist-Leninist criticisms of Trotsky's economism and revisionism before.


Do you even know what the permanent revolution is?

Yes. I was probably a Trotskyist for longer than you've been one.


An example of the permanent revolution is the Revolution in Russia and afterwards until
Stalin.

That's not the part that I object to.


How ?

By opposing socialism in one country.

Here (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node95.html) is a generally good read although I really don't agree with all that is said, I think it sheds some light on Trotsky's opportunistic tendencies later in life. And indeed, some of his counter revolutionary ones.


How? Why?

What's your question? How/why what?


Stalin's policies were what led the Soviet union back to capitalism.

In a certain sense, that's true. In the sense that Stalin did not have the benefit of years of experience in dealing with revisionism, and due to his mechanical tendencies, he was not able to deal with the underlying contradictions. However, it is very hard to blame Stalin for this. Remember, he was the first person in human history to be confronted with these contradictions and his reaction failed at resolving them. It's a matter of a lack of prior historical experience. Newton didn't discover general relativity and asking him to would be absurd. Einstein was only able to come to general relativity because of Newton.


Trotsky even predicted it!
:lol:


`(H)ow could it come to pass that at a time like this, after all the economic successes, after the ``abolition'' --- according to official assurances --- of classes in the USSR and the ``construction'' of the socialist society, how could it come to pass that Old Bolsheviks ... could have posed for their task the restoration of capitalism

`Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counterrevolutionary coup d'etat that would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war.'

Emphasis is mine.

Writings Vol.7 p.116

And they accuse us of having a cult of personality... :rolleyes:

[nvm]

I dont know where you got that Trotsky quote but here goes

Trotsky (The transitional program)

"The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers’ state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism."

Socialism in one country IS revisionism!
no Marxist ever talked about socialism in one country.
Also don't forget that the Two Stage Theory was a Menshevik theory!

If the permanent revolution was applied in Russia then where is the problem with it ?

[BobKKKindle$]

He was not subjectively counter revolutionary but his theory of permanent revolution and such certainly would lead to a negation of socialism in the USSR had it been implemented.The problem with the concept of someone being a "subjective" counter-revolutionary is that this label can be applied to anyone who does not accept the opinion of the party leadership, and thus used as a weapon to secure the hegemonic control of a stratum within the party organization. The only way to determine how the party should proceed in the construction of socialism is through reasoned debate between different ideological currents, and not the use of terror against dissidents. Therefore, even if Trotsky was "wrong" he should not have been removed from the party and sent into exile. Arguably, of course, Trotsky was not wrong. The theory of permanant revolution does not mean that Trotsky opposed efforts to construct Socialism within the Soviet Union, following the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries. Trotsky was an opponent of attempts to reverse the nationalization of land and, in addition to other members of what would later become known as the Left Opposition, called for the use of central planning to develop an industrial base, before this policy was adopted by the Soviet government.

As for Trotsky's prediction of the restoration of capitalism, although he did not correctly predict the means by which restoration would occur (restoration did not take place through a prolonged civil war) he as able to show that restoration would be a direct result of bureaucratic degeneration, as the bureacracy restored private property so as to secure its material privileges.

Note the fact that I have just expressed disagreement with Trotsky wrote, and so clearly cannot be described as a cultist. I think it is to your credit that you also recognize Stalin's serious errors.

[Dros]

I dont know where you got that Trotsky quote but here goes

Writings vol. 7 p.116


"The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers’ state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism."

This feels like the way they used to debate in the Catholic church immediately prior to the middle ages. Whoever has the most quotes wins. All this means is that Trotsky made a categorical statement and then changed his mind a bunch of times.


Socialism in one country IS revisionism!

:lol: Do you have an argument, or do you simply hope we'll accept your erroneous proclamations as inherently factual?


no Marxist ever talked about socialism in one country.

There are so many problems with this argument. Where to begin. Firstly, it's patently untrue. Stalin, Mao, and even Lenin in his latter life believed that socialism could be built in one country. Secondly, this is at best an appeal to authority which is not a valid kind of argument and is based on all kinds of epistemological errors. Even if we were to pretend for a moment that this statement was true, it would in no way be able to refute the thesis of socialism in one country.


Also don't forget that the Two Stage Theory was a Menshevik theory!

So what? Non sequitur?


If the permanent revolution was applied in Russia then where is the problem with it ?

Again, it's not the first part that I have a problem with. It's the whole opposition to socialism in one country that fails and that was not applied in Russia.

Opposing socialism in one country is always a reactionary position because that is the only way that socialism can develop because capitalist production relations on a world scale leads to uneven development.


The problem with the concept of someone being a "subjective" counter-revolutionary is that this label can be applied to anyone who does not accept the opinion of the party leadership, and thus used as a weapon to secure the hegemonic control of a stratum within the party organization.

This is an argument based on relativism. A counterrevolutionary is someone who's actions work against the revolution. This can be done by someone who is actively trying to advance the revolution but is in fact working against it. When that person clings to outdated, historically invalidated, anti-materialist, and unscientific theories that in a very material way jeapordize the revolution they no longer belong in the Vanguard party. Communist parties should get rid of those people who are no longer Communists (objectively). And when that individual, no matter how revolutionary in the past, begins to work against the revolutionary movement, as Trotsky did, then assassination is by all means an acceptable tactic.


The only way to determine how the party should proceed in the construction of socialism is through reasoned debate between different ideological currents, and not the use of terror against dissidents.

True. But there comes a point when Communist dissidence become revisionists.


As for Trotsky's prediction of the restoration of capitalism, although he did not correctly predict the means by which restoration would occur (restoration did not take place through a prolonged civil war) he as able to show that restoration would be a direct result of bureaucratic degeneration, as the bureacracy restored private property so as to secure its material privileges.

But it wasn't. Trotsky's obsession with the rather irrelevant bureaucracy has nothing to do with why the USSR turned capitalist in 1953. It had everything to do with Stalin's inability to finally destroy revisionist trends.

[nvm]

There are so many problems with this argument. Where to begin. Firstly, it's patently untrue. Stalin, Mao, and even Lenin in his latter life believed that socialism could be built in one country. Secondly, this is at best an appeal to authority which is not a valid kind of argument and is based on all kinds of epistemological errors. Even if we were to pretend for a moment that this statement was true, it would in no way be able to refute the thesis of socialism in one country.

First of all Stalin and Mao were not Marxists.
Also Lenin never talked about socialism in one country. He even said that without help from a revolution in Germany or somewhere else , the proletariat can take power but not hold it. I am aware of the passage from Lenin that all Stalinists use as their propaganda that Lenin did actualy support socialism in one country. But that is just "propaganda" from Lenin in order to boost people's morale in case the revolution in Germany failed.


So what?

So what? Stalin claimed to be the continuation of Lenin, but he took the Two Stage Theory from the Mensheviks, the enemies of Bolshevism and portrayed it as being Leninist and himself of being a Leninist , but in reality he was a revisionist of the worst kind!


Again, it's not the first part that I have a problem with. It's the whole opposition to socialism in one country that fails and that was not applied in Russia.


Opposing socialism in one country is always a reactionary position because that is the only way that socialism can develop because capitalist production relations on a world scale leads to uneven development.
First of all opossing socialism in one country does not mean that if things go bad and the revolution is isolated, you would not build socialism in that country. But the Stalinists used the theory of socialism in one country and combined with the Two Stage theory , they undermined revolutions elsewhere like in China in 1927 , in Germany where they played a shameful role, by allying with the nazis and in Spain where they killed revolutionaries while the fight was going on.
so clearly the stalinists had no intention of building revolutions elsewhere and they were traitors of the worst kind in an international level. They feared that a successfull revolution elsewhere would undermine their bureaucratic positions and will overthrow their thermidorian hegemony .
Clearly socialism in one country and the Two Stage theory were developped in order to secure the status quo of the bureaucratic elite.
If you deny that then you are dumb.
End of Story!

[Dros]

If you deny that then you are dumb.
End of Story!

You're so clearly a troll.

If anyone who seriously wishes to debate these issues wants to seriously discuss the history of the USSR or the nature of the theory of Socialism in One country, or debate whether or not Stalin was a revisionist, please PM me or start another thread.

I'm sorry, but I don't feed trolls.