A question to Stalinists

[communard resolution]

So when browsing for info on Stalinism to form an objective opinion, I stumbled upon this Stalin era text from Pravda:

http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/chernov/chernov-cosmo-e.html

Excerpts:

"The rootless-cosmopolitan Subotsky tried with all his might to exterminate all nationality from Soviet literature. Foaming at the mouth this cosmopolitan propagandist hurls epithets towards those Soviet writers, who want "on the outside, in language, in details of character a positive hero" to express his belonging to this or that nationality."

"These cosmopolitan goals of Subotsky are directed against Soviet patriotism and against Party policy, which always has attached great significance to the national qualities and national traditions of peoples."

"In mockery of literary works showing the superior qualities of Soviet people, Subotsky competed with the notorious cosmopolitan Yuzovsky."

"By these antipatriotic exertions Yuzovsky sought to slander the Soviet people, to belittle their national dignity, to sow lack of faith in the ability of Soviet people to overcome any difficulties and achieve an intended goal, shown by the entire thirty year practice of Communist construction."

"An antipatriotic group of rootless-cosmopolitans in theatre criticism aspired to spread national nihilism, alien to Marxism-Leninism and deeply inimical to the Soviet people."

"National nihilism is a manifestation of the antipatriotic ideology of bourgeois cosmopolitanism"

"... disrespect for the national pride and the national dignity of peoples."


I found the lingo quite alienating, to put it mildly.

Seriously: what's with all that nationalist, ultrapatriotic, and anti-internationalist mumbo-jumbo?

And what exactly is "rootless cosmopolitanism" and "national nihilism"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Code-word for Stalinist anti-Semitism ;)

[PigmerikanMao]

I have no idea of the former, but National Nihilism is the idea that a division of people along national lines is pointless- a rude phrase to describe internationalism, if you will. :laugh:

[Winter]

Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but also must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better.... For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China's case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defense of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism.
- Mao Tse-Tung

I think the above quote tells about the type of patriotism these quotes you have founded are espousing.

True, Russia was not fighting a war for national liberation, but, the Soviet Union had countless threats against her. In order for socialism to spread, the socialism of the Soviet Union had to be defended.

[communard resolution]

True, Russia was not fighting a war for national liberation, but, the Soviet Union had countless threats against her. In order for socialism to spread, the socialism of the Soviet Union had to be defended.

Yeah, but what does defending the Soviet Union against threat have to do with the "great significance of the national qualities and national traditions of peoples"?

Or with fighting those who want to "exterminate all nationality from Soviet literature?"

[Ismail]

During the 20's and 30's, Lenin and Stalin were very strict about the nationality policy. Russian was seen as chauvinistic and Turkmen, Georgian, Kazakh, and all the other nationalities were encouraged to develop. Hell, Turkmen was even created. (There was no unified Turkmen culture before the USSR) According to Lenin, having each Republic develop socialism by 'itself' would reduce racial tensions among other things and would also build up trust between Republics since most of them were extraordinarily opposed to being Russian puppets. Any attempts by 'internationalists' to change this were seen as Russian chauvinists. Marr was one of these. (Stalin later called his work anti-semitic but by then Marr's work was pretty much discredited)

A good read on this is Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan. Shows a lot on the policy the Bolsheviks had in regards to Republics, particularly the Central Asian ones. I hear Affirmative Action Empire is even better. AAE description says this on Amazon:

In the popular imagination, the Soviet Union was always synonymous with Russia, but in the U.S.S.R.'s early days Soviet leaders had a very different idea in mind: they wanted to establish a true multinational, multi-ethnic empire. To that end, they attacked Russian nationalism as a vestige of Tsarism, and instituted a set of policies that looked very much like affirmative action, enforcing the use of local languages and fostering the development of ethnic leaders, even at the cost of discriminating against Russians. Yet, as Martin shows in this fascinating history, simply giving an order was not enough, even in the Stalin years, and the complex relationship between socialism and nationalism in places like Ukraine often frustrated Soviet intentions. More important, ethnicity, once fostered, was frequently a counterweight to, rather than a bulwark of, Communist ideology; although Stalin remained rhetorically committed to the multi-state idea, he ended up terrorizing those ethnic leaders he saw as threats.

[black magick hustla]

Its also hilarious how "rootless cosmopolitanism" is a word used by anti-semitic nationalists today.

I think mao and stalin were wrong. I think that marx was right when he said workers have no country, and therefore communists aren't patriots, they are internationalists. more than some nebolous concept of bureacracy, i think this type of theoretical justifications for stalinist nationalism show how the counterrevolution consolidated in the ussr.

Internationalism is the highest of the communist principles, because it is a principle that only communists and the proletariat can defend. the class interests of the bourgeoisie lie in the division of the world along nation-states and imperialist blocs, hence the logical conclusion of capital is always a permanent state of war.

there is no such thing as "national nihilism" - internationalism is not nihilism, its a principle that affirms the universal essence of the working class, and in a similar sense, of humanity.

[Dros]

I think mao and stalin were wrong. I think that marx was right when he said workers have no country, and therefore communists aren't patriots, they are internationalists.

Oddly enough, I'm in agreement here. Both Mao and Stalin had a tendency towards to much nationalism in their thinking.

Birthmarks of capitalism and such...

[Benos145]

The idea that Stalin was a racist or chauvanist, which is what the crude implication our revisionist friends are making, is ludicrous in the extreme, and contradicted by almost everything known on the subject. I mean just read Stalin's work Marxism and the National Question please.

It was actually Brezhnev who later developed the 'international division of labor' state-capitalist theory, in which the periphery Soviet states were purposely run-down and left undeveloped, so resources did not have to be redirected from the more developed republics (Russia and Ukraine) to make the lives of the people in the small republics better by developing a national industry for each.

So you'd have Russia with the big industrial capacity to consume the raw resources and the population to consume the agricultural produce from the undeveloped states. It was, simply enough, a neo-colonial relationship. One which Krushev promoted also in the eastern bloc under the slogan 'specialization', in which those countries were encouraged not to develop their own national industry, but to limit production to simply the raw materials which the Soviet industry needed, which contributed to manifest poverty and undevelopment in many countries in Eastern Europe. It was the 'Stalinists' who adovocated all countries developing their own self-sufficient industry, so they could improve the lives of their people, pull people out of rural life, and develop urban industrial socialism.

As a side note, the Breshenvite policy of 'international division of labor' was/is felt hardest in Cuba, where once the colonial 'motherland' collapsed the colony collapsed economically too. Che Guervara actually advocated Cuban industrialization after the Revolution, he compiled a report on the prospects for developing an independence Cuban industry which was filled with quotes from Stalin and Lenin, which MAJORLY pissed off the Soviet revisionists, and got Che basically kicked off the economic committees.