How can

[Pogue]

How can people still be Marx-Leninist when everytime in every country where this has been applied it has resulted in an authoritarian capitalist state where the Party holds utter control?
Look at the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. The only exception is CUba really, which is no where near perfect but is not as bad as the others. But honestly - Stalin was an enemy of the people, so was Mao, so was Pol Pot, they all resulted in major fuck ups which were anti-working people and worse than the capitalist liberal democracies of the time such as Britain and the USA.

[Dros]

:lol:

Because in the USSR and in China, these "totalitarian dictatorships" also lead to truly monumental and historic leaps for the Proletariat.

My question is, how can you have been at RevLeft for this long and not have already figured out the answer to your question? Are you a troll? Or do you just not listen?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How can people still be Marx-Leninist when everytime in every country where this has been applied it has resulted in an authoritarian capitalist state where the Party holds utter control?
Simple answer: For all their faults, those states were the only stable, long term non-capitalist societies in the 20th century.

True, Marxist-Leninists haven't been able to build socialism. But they have proven themselves able to abolish capitalism, which is more than can be said about anyone else.

Now, I myself am not a Marxist-Leninist. I think their ideas about the political organization of socialism are crap, particularly their post-revolutionary vanguardism (the stuff about the "leading role of the Communist Party"). But their ideas about the struggle against capitalism and the proper way to carry out a revolution are very good.

Marxist-Leninism can't teach us how to build socialism, but it can teach us how to fight capitalism effectively and abolish it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Whoa. Hold on a minute...are you saying that capitalism was abolished in the USSR?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Whoa. Hold on a minute...are you saying that capitalism was abolished in the USSR?
Yes, precisely.

Granted, the Soviet system wasn't socialism, but it wasn't capitalism either. Capitalism requires private property over the means of production, as well as markets in labour and capital. The Soviet Union had no markets in labour or capital, and the means of production were owned collectively by an oligarchy rather than being owned privately by separate capitalists.

[mikelepore]

when everytime in every country where this has been applied

Think carefully: was democratic control by the workers over the means of production and social institutions "applied"? Or did political leaders merely say that it was on the agenda to apply it, but did they then do the opposite?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, precisely.

Granted, the Soviet system wasn't socialism, but it wasn't capitalism either. Capitalism requires private property over the means of production, as well as markets in labour and capital. The Soviet Union had no markets in labour or capital, and the means of production were owned collectively by an oligarchy rather than being owned privately by separate capitalists.

I wouldn't exactly say that the means of production controlled by an oligarchy (in essence, controlled by organized kleptocrats) is any better or worse than capitalism. They have no more right to the means of production than businessmen do, and in fact are probably worse, being that they claim to represent the proletariat's "best interests". :rolleyes:

The USSR doesn't exist anymore, and China is mired in state capitalism. What was once a vibrant movement (Marxism) is now very marginalized in most industrialized, developed nations. So obviously there was a glitch somewhere in the equation.

[Black Sheep]

I would say that Marxist - Leninists should learn by their mistakes, and take actions to ensure the down -> up check to the upper members in the hierarchy of the communist party is permanent and "fierce" by the regular members and by the worker's councils' representatives.I am not sure exactly how ,or even IF this can be done.

I can see no other option,except that and a hierarchical-free mode of organization.

[OI OI OI]

How can people still be Marx-Leninist when everytime in every country where this has been applied it has resulted in an authoritarian capitalist state where the Party holds utter control?


Seriously do you even know what MArxism-Leninism stands for?
It stands for a way of organizing in order to abolish capitalism on the one hand. How? By building a party of cadres that will show the path of seizing power to the workers when a revolutionary situation comes. Now I won't elaborate more on this . Make a new thread if you want to understand more on this topic.

Second of all. To believe that it is the fault of Leninism for the undemocratic nature of the workers states of the 20th century it is to be an idealist fool and not understand the material condition that lead to the degeneration of the USSR.

Marxism Leninism talks about the democratic control of the workers over the means of production, with elected and recallable officials and rotation of the bureaucratic tasks, while the state is merely an organ of repression of the capitalist class and will wither away while its historical role is completed and of course when there is an economic base for it to wither away. Now can you tell me how did marxism get it all wrong , while I presume that the Anarchists got it right , even though they have failed pitilesly even to overthrow capitalism!



Look at the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. The only exception is CUba really, which is no where near perfect but is not as bad as the others

Cuba after the collapse of stalinism in the Soviet Union has been more "relaxed" but there is no workers democracy.
Now China , Cambodia and Vietnam were deformed workers states because the way capitalism was overthrown was unorthodox plus we have the influence of the already degenerated Soviet Union on them.

Now the USSR as I already explained degenerated due to its isolation and backwardness.


But honestly - Stalin was an enemy of the people, so was Mao, so was Pol Pot,

Who told you that they are Marxists Leninists? They are Stalinists...



they all resulted in major fuck ups which were anti-working people and worse than the capitalist liberal democracies of the time such as Britain and the USA

Wow!
So you are saying that Stalin and deformed socialism is worse for the people than liberal democracies?
First of all you are comparing apples to oranges.
Ex-Imperialist dominated states with advanced capitalist countries.
Now let us compare apples to apples.
Do you think that life under the Czar was better off for Russians than life after the revolution? Because if you do yo got it all wrong. Same goes with the other countries. After the revolution the standard of living of the people increased massively.

Now in general your attitude is not materialist at all. It is utterly idealist and if I didn't know that you are an anarchist at best , I would presume you for a liberal.



Now, I myself am not a Marxist-Leninist. I think their ideas about the political organization of socialism are crap, particularly their post-revolutionary vanguardism

So the ideas of democratic workers control etc etc are crap?
Again you forget the material conditions responsible for the development of these ideas.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I wouldn't exactly say that the means of production controlled by an oligarchy (in essence, controlled by organized kleptocrats) is any better or worse than capitalism.
In most cases, the Soviet system was better for the working class than liberal capitalism, but worse than social democratic capitalism. All the countries that used to operate under that system have now adopted liberal capitalism, with catastrophic results for the working class.

But that's not the point; the point is that it was different from capitalism. Thus, Marxist-Leninists proved that they can abolish capitalism and replace it with something else.


The USSR doesn't exist anymore, and China is mired in state capitalism. What was once a vibrant movement (Marxism) is now very marginalized in most industrialized, developed nations. So obviously there was a glitch somewhere in the equation.
Very true. Notice, however, that the fall of Marxism as a vibrant political movement in developed nations was due to the rightward shift of Communist Parties in those nations. By the 1970s, all the big Communist Parties in the developed nations had fallen into social democracy. This would have led to the inevitable decline of Marxism in the West regardless of what happened inside the Soviet Union.

[Tower of Bebel]

How can people still be Marx-Leninist when everytime in every country where this has been applied it has resulted in an authoritarian capitalist state where the Party holds utter control?
Look at the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. The only exception is CUba really, which is no where near perfect but is not as bad as the others. But honestly - Stalin was an enemy of the people, so was Mao, so was Pol Pot, they all resulted in major fuck ups which were anti-working people and worse than the capitalist liberal democracies of the time such as Britain and the USA.
Because capitalist conditions lead people to socialist alternatives. Stalinism is to many an "alternative" to the current system.

Also, the current divergence between communists themselves and revolutionaries of various types, the petty sectarianism, opportunism and bureaucratic centralism leads to nothing but continuous mistakes and some flawed head-banging against a wall of capitalist rule. This standstill of revolutionary theory and activity is one reason why many flawed or old-fashioned tactics, strategies and currents keep coming back. Most communists are not able to advance because they cannot verify theory through some serious practice (class struggle, working class economic and political activity).

[Pogue]

Why are responses to such questions always so aggresive on this forum?
I'm just saying how everytime a communist movement proclaiming itself to follow Marx-Leninsm has seized power, its turned into a pretty bad state with little freedom and alot of poverty, with the possible exception of Cuba. My personal conclusion is that this is a fault of the whole 'party seizes power and proclaims to implement socialism with no elections and limited actual worker control. I'm not denying theres been industrialisation and the abolition, in some cases, of capitalism, but in every case, it has failed, either by collapsing (like the USSR) or by turning into state controlled capitalism (China), and in all cases theres been a lot of oppression of the people.

And I'm loving that within the first page of the thread I've already been accued of being a 'liberal'. :lol: Same old RevLeft.

And 'Dros', this is the learning section right? Clearly I'm not clued up enough on Marxist Leninsm, so I posted here for info. No need to pull out the old HE'S A TROLL stuff. I await your response. No doubt it'll be something to do with me being a troll, liberal, idiot, social fascist or whatever else you can think of.

From my, apparently limited, knowledge of Marxist Lenninsm I thought that the whole letting a party which has authority because it has guns and claims to reperesent the people seizing power and then do what it sees fit was something which clearly never worked and should be abandoned, thats all.

[Tower of Bebel]

My personal conclusion is that this is a fault of the whole 'party seizes power and proclaims to implement socialism with no elections and limited actual worker control.

From my, apparently limited, knowledge of Marxist Lenninsm I thought that the whole letting a party which has authority because it has guns and claims to reperesent the people seizing power and then do what it sees fit was something which clearly never worked and should be abandoned, thats all.
Too many leninist parties base themselves on the conclusions and resolutions of the first congresses of the Comintern while, but out of context. So too many leninist parties are not adapted to the current situation.

[Dros]

Why are responses to such questions always so aggresive on this forum?

You are not new here. You've been here for quite a while. You should have figured out what the answer to this question is, or at least what a Marxist-Leninist's answer to this question would be..

1.) Marxist-Leninists in Russia and China did create socialism between 1917 and 1953 and the 1950's through 1976 respectively.

2.) The fact that you made this thread even though you've particpated in the exact same argument before shows that you are either very forgetful or that you are trolling.


I'm just saying how everytime a communist movement proclaiming itself to follow Marx-Leninsm has seized power, its turned into a pretty bad state with little freedom and alot of poverty, with the possible exception of Cuba.

I've invited you on numerous occasions to go back and do an independent investigation without just blindly excepting the bourgeois narrative of history.


From my, apparently limited, knowledge of Marxist Lenninsm

Your knowledge of Marxism-Leninism is clearly limited. I wonder if you've read anything Lenin wrote?


I thought that the whole letting a party which has authority because it has guns and claims to reperesent the people seizing power and then do what it sees fit was something which clearly never worked and should be abandoned, thats all.

The party can't seize power "because it has guns". The party is ONLY ever able to seize power because it has support from the masses.

[spice756]

How can people still be Marx-Leninist when everytime in every country where this has been applied it has resulted in an authoritarian capitalist state where the Party holds utter control?


You do it different and learn from the mistakes.



Stalin was an enemy of the people, so was Mao


Well Stalinism is not good but life did improve under them.Mao was not a dictator like Stalin .




True, Marxist-Leninists haven't been able to build socialism. But they have proven themselves able to abolish capitalism, which is more than can be said about anyone else.

Marxist-Leninism can't teach us how to build socialism, but it can teach us how to fight capitalism effectively and abolish it.



Every time they try to abolish capitalism there are reformists that go back to capitalism.





Granted, the Soviet system wasn't socialism, but it wasn't capitalism either. Capitalism requires private property over the means of production, as well as markets in labour and capital. The Soviet Union had no markets in labour or capital, and the means of production were owned collectively by an oligarchy rather than being owned privately by separate capitalists.


There was private property own by high up communist party members.There was markets in the Soviet system.



I wouldn't exactly say that the means of production controlled by an oligarchy (in essence, controlled by organized kleptocrats) is any better or worse than capitalism. They have no more right to the means of production than businessmen do, and in fact are probably worse, being that they claim to represent the proletariat's "best interests".
00



A group of communist party members who become capitalists :( are bad because they over work people and low pay.Well the communist party members live in nice house and nice car!! And become rich.

[Vendetta]

which is more than can be said about anyone else.

Oh come on.

[Saorsa]

I'm just saying how everytime a communist movement proclaiming itself to follow Marx-Leninsm has seized power, its turned into a pretty bad state with little freedom and alot of poverty, with the possible exception of Cuba.Sit down, and let me tell you a story...

One day, in a world that existed only in H-Liberal-V-S's head, everything was perfect. The people were happy, there was lots of freedom and no poverty, and the rivers ran with chocolate. Then along came a group of very bad men, who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts". They were carrying an enormous magical sack, and they all reached deep inside it and pulled out a gun!

Because the bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" had a lot of guns, they were able to seize power. They obviously had no popular support (because they were bad men), but because they had so many guns everyone was afraid and ran away to hide in the bushes. The bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" were now in charge!

The first thing these bad men did was create a state, and because they were bad men the state they created was also pretty bad. The bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" then used this state to get rid of all bit a little of the wondrous freedom that had existed before the bad men came, and they oppressed the people greatly. There are no classes in the world that exists in H-Liberal-V-S's head, you see, only "people". All the people became sad.

But the bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" were not finished yet. They then took away all the riches that the people had had before the arrival of the bad men, they destroyed the beautiful luxury mansions the people had lived in before the bad men came, they destroyed the advanced industry and modern infrastructure that had been there before, they purposefully burned all the crops and caused a famine just to make the people starve to death, and when they were finished there was alot of poverty. This made all the people very sad.

"Why are you doing this?" asked one old man in a quavering, terrified voice.

"Because we are bad men" said the "Marxist Lenninsts", and they purged the poor old man and sent him to the death camps along with a trillion other people on that day alone.

Many years later, this story was told to a high school history class by a pro-capitalist teacher. Needless to say, nobody questioned it, least of all young H-Liberal-V-S.

[RHIZOMES]

now china , cambodia and vietnam were deformed workers states because the way capitalism was overthrown was unorthodox

Heathens!!!

[Incendiarism]

"Because we are bad men" said the "Marxist Lenninsts", and they purged the poor old man and sent him to the death camps along with a trillion other people on that day alone.

Liar, the western media places deaths at 8 quadrillion!

But really, I used to heavily dislike Stalin too, but then I realized how good looking he was when he was younger and examined the USSR a bit myself. I don't thin he's a glorious leader and sometimes I find him to be a bumbling idiot, but I think what he did and why is far more complicated than him being an asshole.

[Saorsa]

Liar, the western media places deaths at 8 quadrillion!True, but at a trillion plus a day Stalin would probably have reached that by the end of his career. I have nothing but admiration for a man who managed to personally stab to death that many people with a screwdriver.


But really, I used to heavily dislike Stalin too, but then I realized how good looking he was when he was youngerAs good a reason as any! :lol: For me, the Trotsky/Stalin question came down to the clear superiority of Stalin's macho slug over Trotky's vague, wispy art student look.


and examined the USSR a bit myself. I don't thin he's a glorious leader and sometimes I find him to be a bumbling idiot, but I think what he did and why is far more complicated than him being an asshole.Yeah, I agree. Stalin was leading the first ever socialist state in the first ever effort to construct, consolidate and defend socialism in one country while promoting revolution abroad (often badly). It was inevitable that mistakes were going to be made, and they were. But it's always pissed me off how so many trotskyists use their trotskyism as an excuse, as a way of dodging fire when the bourgeoisie attack communism.

"Co0munizm killd a skrillion peplz z0mfg!!!!"

"I'm a Trotskyist I don't defend that! Please don't hurt me!"

The funny thing is that if these Trotskyists sat down and had a conversation with Trotsky, they'd probably end up storming off and denouncing him as a closet Stalinist! :lol: Trotsky advocated a loyal opposition to the USSR, and upheld it as a workers state that was at least semi-socialist in an economic sense, just deformed politically by beuracratic domination.

I don't any problem with most orthodox Trotskyists (I quite like the CWI for example, and have a few contacts in it), but the Cliffite line is just crap.

It would be simply ridiculous to claim that Stalin's leadership of the USSR did not achieve any positive results, and that the people of the USSR did not benefit enormously from the socialist construction that took place under his rule.

[Saorsa]

now china , cambodia and vietnam were deformed workers states because the way capitalism was overthrown was unorthodox

She's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!!!

[spice756]

Sit down, and let me tell you a story...


You story is wrong .:(The problems in the USSR was state capitalism allowing high up people to privatize and allowing markets.

If you a high up communist party member you can privatize your sector.

[Yehuda Stern]

To answer the original question: I can still be a Marxist because I believe that although Lenin, Trotsky and the other Bolsheviks did create a workers' state in Russia, the failures of revolutions in other countries led to the growth of cynicism among workers as to the prospects for a world revolution, which led to the consolidation of the nationalist Stalin wing of the party which later led the capitalist counterrevolution in the late 1930s. As far as I'm concerned, neither the USSR itself after this period, nor any of the 'socialist' states which arose afterwards, were truly socialist, but were all capitalist states where the state took over the means of production, and in some cases, the nationalist regimes were able to perform a few tasks of the democratic revolution. Neither nationalization nor the coming to power of a Stalinist party is enough to constitute a socialist revolution.

[Pogue]

Sit down, and let me tell you a story...

One day, in a world that existed only in H-Liberal-V-S's head, everything was perfect. The people were happy, there was lots of freedom and no poverty, and the rivers ran with chocolate. Then along came a group of very bad men, who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts". They were carrying an enormous magical sack, and they all reached deep inside it and pulled out a gun!

Because the bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" had a lot of guns, they were able to seize power. They obviously had no popular support (because they were bad men), but because they had so many guns everyone was afraid and ran away to hide in the bushes. The bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" were now in charge!

The first thing these bad men did was create a state, and because they were bad men the state they created was also pretty bad. The bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" then used this state to get rid of all bit a little of the wondrous freedom that had existed before the bad men came, and they oppressed the people greatly. There are no classes in the world that exists in H-Liberal-V-S's head, you see, only "people". All the people became sad.

But the bad men who called themselves the "Marxist Lenninsts" were not finished yet. They then took away all the riches that the people had had before the arrival of the bad men, they destroyed the beautiful luxury mansions the people had lived in before the bad men came, they destroyed the advanced industry and modern infrastructure that had been there before, they purposefully burned all the crops and caused a famine just to make the people starve to death, and when they were finished there was alot of poverty. This made all the people very sad.

"Why are you doing this?" asked one old man in a quavering, terrified voice.

"Because we are bad men" said the "Marxist Lenninsts", and they purged the poor old man and sent him to the death camps along with a trillion other people on that day alone.

Many years later, this story was told to a high school history class by a pro-capitalist teacher. Needless to say, nobody questioned it, least of all young H-Liberal-V-S.

Oh do shut up, loser. You're not even a communist.

[Saorsa]

Oh do shut up, loser. You're not even a communist.

Now now, don't throw a tantrum. I know it's hard for you, but surely you can come up with a more crushing response than that?

[RHIZOMES]

Oh do shut up, loser. You're not even a communist.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8084/bawwwwhm3.jpg

[Chicano Shamrock]

Yeah I have thought a lot about this question. It is the main reason I don't come to this forum much. I just can't understand why someone would double-think to that point. I know what their answer is I just can't wrap my mind around how they convince themselves.

Anyways four legs good, two legs bad!

[RHIZOMES]

I just can't understand why someone would double-think to that point. I know what their answer is I just can't wrap my mind around how they convince themselves.

Well all the anarchists on the forum haven't stopped me posting here! :lol:


Anyways four legs good, two legs bad!

I don't get all these morons who take Animal Farm as a legitimate source on the history of the USSR. It's written by a man who not only never went to the USSR, but also got all his information from privately-owned newspapers (You know, the ones whose class interests it is to see socialism fail) and to top it off gave a list of names of Communists to the British Secret Service. What an upstanding revolutionary, we should believe everything he said about Stalin. :rolleyes:

[Saorsa]

I don't get all these morons who take Animal Farm as a legitimate source on the history of the USSR. It's written by a man who not only never went to the USSR, but also got all his information from privately-owned newspapers (You know, the ones whose class interests it is to see socialism fail) and to top it off gave a list of names of Communists to the British Secret Service. What an upstanding revolutionary, we should believe everything he said about Stalin. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Word.

[spice756]

Oh do shut up, loser. You're not even a communist.

I know that Comrade Alastair does not believe what he wrote is real ;) it is made up.Or else he would debunk other views here.

He knows the USSR was state capitalism and had a market .And high up communist party member where allowed to privatize their sector.

[Black Sheep]

Typical debate regarding history:

A:In USSR,stuff happened like blah!
B:No,it happened like blah!
A:X says [quote] so it happened like blah!
B:No, X was a nada-nada , as clearly stated by Y, who also says [quote],so it did happen like blah!
A:No! Y was a nada-nada, so.....

etc..
:sneaky::sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:

[Winter]

Typical debate regarding history:
A:In USSR,stuff happened like blah!
B:No,it happened like blah!
A:X says so it happened like blah!
B:No, X was a nada-nada , as clearly stated by Y, who also says,so it did happen like blah!
A:No! Y was a nada-nada, so.....

etc..
:sneaky::sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:


You're absolutely right. I have given up arguing about history because it seems people accept certain things and disregard others. All I can say is that the winners who write history can say whatever they damn please.

[Black Sheep]

It is not only about people who rewrite history,it is about us revlefters as well. I am sick of people accepting this or that branch, judging solely from history ( or more correctly,from a version of history they have heard, and which they have accepted as the objective true events.

That is why i think we should focus on theory.

[spice756]

[/color][/color]

You're absolutely right. I have given up arguing about history because it seems people accept certain things and disregard others. All I can say is that the winners who write history can say whatever they damn please.

No it up to people who claim stuff to source their claim or explain why it was like that.Than just going on and on saying garbage.

I'm sure 98% of the people here believe the USSR was state capitalism and for profit and not the working class.I sure 98% of the people here believe the USSR was not true socialism but better than China and North Korea that gone crazy.

[Winter]

No it up to people who claim stuff to source their claim or explain why it was like that.Than just going on and on saying garbage.

I'm sure 98% of the people here believe the USSR was state capitalism and for profit and not the working class.I sure 98% of the people here believe the USSR was not true socialism but better than China and North Korea that gon crazy.

You're right. What really sucks is when you do back up your claims with sources but nobody bothers to read the source. That's what happens most the time around here.

And, btw, post 500! :w00t::hammersickle:

[Hit The North]

You're right. What really sucks is when you do back up your claims with sources but nobody bothers to read the source. That's what happens most the time around here.

And, btw, post 500! :w00t::hammersickle:

Just because you have a source doesn't mean it automatically legitimises your point. For instance, in another thread you posted a scurrilous attack on Trotsky claiming that he wanted to lead a Nazi invasion of the USSR or some such crap. The fact that you quoted another source doesn't make that writer or yourself any less of a liar.

[Winter]

Just because you have a source doesn't mean it automatically legitimises your point. For instance, in another thread you posted a scurrilous attack on Trotsky claiming that he wanted to lead a Nazi invasion of the USSR or some such crap. The fact that you quoted another source doesn't make that writer or yourself any less of a liar.

Then once again we return to the question of what version of history does one want to accept.

Mind sharing the link to the post where I had a link of Trotsky wanting to lead a nazi invasion??? I don't recall that one.

[Hit The North]

It was the thread on Sectarianism - ironically enough. You quoted a long passage and fully endorsed it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sectarian-grrrr-t87247/index6.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../sectarian-grrrr-t87247/index6.html)

[Random Precision]

I don't get all these morons who take Animal Farm as a legitimate source on the history of the USSR. It's written by a man who not only never went to the USSR, but also got all his information from privately-owned newspapers (You know, the ones whose class interests it is to see socialism fail)

It's true enough that Animal Farm was never to be taken as a historical source, even Orwell would have agreed to that. But although he had never been to the USSR, he had experienced firsthand what the Stalinists did to revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War.


and to top it off gave a list of names of Communists to the British Secret Service. What an upstanding revolutionary, we should believe everything he said about Stalin. :rolleyes:

That's not true. He gave a list of people he thought would be unsuitable for working at the Information Research Department (an anti-communist propaganda organization run by the Foreign Office) to a personal friend when she asked for it.

[OI OI OI]

Originally posted by Spice
I'm sure 98% of the people here believe the USSR was state capitalism and for profit and not the working class.I sure 98% of the people here believe the USSR was not true socialism but better than China and North Korea that gone crazy.

You are a fool if you believe so.
And let me prove it to you.

Take a look at this thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-think-t82803/index.html?t=82803&highlight=USSR

also take a look at my and The Unbroken Thread's arguments where we argue that the USSR was actually not state capitalist

[spice756]

You are a fool if you believe so.
And let me prove it to you.

Take a look at this thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-think-t82803/index.html?t=82803&highlight=USSR

also take a look at my and The Unbroken Thread's arguments where we argue that the USSR was actually not state capitalist

Okay I will have a look at that thread.. But you do not believe there was a market? You do not believe high up communist party member where allowed to privatize their sector

[OI OI OI]

Okay I will have a look at that thread.. But you do not believe there was a market? You do not believe high up communist party member where allowed to privatize their sector


I believe and Trotsky believes that too along with the vast majority of trots that the Soviet Union had a socialist base meaning that the economy was socialized.
But the political side of the equation was degenerated with a bureaucracy controlling the people and no workers democracy.

Even though some market aspects existed in the USSR the base was still socialist.

Ill give you an example .

In Quebec we have Hydro-Quebec nationalized. Does this mean that we are socialist? No , because there is a capitalist base in Quebec.

Same in the USSR they had some market traits mostly after the death of the dear leader but still the base of the economy was socialist.


That is why we call it a degenerated workers state.

[Bilan]

:lol:

This is the learning subforum. Keep the patronising bullshit out.




They also led to the disempowerment of the proletariat within industry - a fundamental of socialism. The means of production merely changed hands from one ruler to another, rather than fundamentally reorganizing the structures of industry and abolishing capitalism.

[quote]
My question is, how can you have been at RevLeft for this long and not have already figured out the answer to your question? Are you a troll? Or do you just not listen?

Keep this shit out of the learning forum.

[Bilan]

I believe and Trotsky believes that too along with the vast majority of trots that the Soviet Union had a socialist base meaning that the economy was socialized.
But the political side of the equation was degenerated with a bureaucracy controlling the people and no workers democracy.

Of which Trotsky was a major proponent in...



Even though some market aspects existed in the USSR the base was still socialist.

Really? So the organization of industry was from the bottom upwards? The working class organized industry? What exactly was socialist about the USSR, if the fundamental relationship to production had not changed?



Same in the USSR they had some market traits mostly after the death of the dear leader but still the base of the economy was socialist.


The dear leader was also a major proponent in the disempowering of the working class. Do you deny that?



That is why we call it a degenerated workers state.

You're beating around the bush; it was state capitalism, as Lenin himself said he was aiming for (Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Mentality)

[spice756]

Even though some market aspects existed in the USSR the base was still socialist.


Well even if only 5% or 10% was markets that is still bad.



Ill give you an example .

In Quebec we have Hydro-Quebec nationalized. Does this mean that we are socialist? No , because there is a capitalist base in Quebec.


Well even if 95% was nationalized in the USSR and 5% not nationalized.Still did the working class get same pay has the labor he put in with commodity profit. Or did some one else exploit the working class lebor .

In order for it to be non capitalism there has to be no competition and workers getting same pay for the commodity profit for the labor he put in .

If there was 2 factories making shoes one communist party minister xx and other shoes communist party minister yy they are capitalists.On less the leader dam well made sure all money was audit from communist party ministers and the communist party ministers got same pay has the workers.

But why have competition in socialism that is not socialism.

[Winter]

It was the thread on Sectarianism - ironically enough. You quoted a long passage and fully endorsed it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sectarian-grrrr-t87247/index6.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../sectarian-grrrr-t87247/index6.html)

That's very irresponsible of me. Thanks for the friendly criticism. The part of the quote I agreed with were the parts dealing with Trotskyism never taking action in revolutions around the world, I should have pointed that out. I actually like Trotsky, he was a good Bolshevik, I just disagree with him on theory. So let me formally say this: I would never believe Trotsky was a Nazi.

Although I do believe a Nazi 5th collumn was in the process of infiltrating the USSR.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Well all the anarchists on the forum haven't stopped me posting here! :lol:



I don't get all these morons who take Animal Farm as a legitimate source on the history of the USSR. It's written by a man who not only never went to the USSR, but also got all his information from privately-owned newspapers (You know, the ones whose class interests it is to see socialism fail) and to top it off gave a list of names of Communists to the British Secret Service. What an upstanding revolutionary, we should believe everything he said about Stalin. :rolleyes:

Yeah the anarchists here haven't stopped you from posting because we use logic and practicality. :P

I threw the Animal Farm thing in there just because I knew it would upset some. Yes it might have been written by a man who possibly gave a list of communists to the secret service(I am not sure how true this is) but the same man also participated in a revolution that was stomped by Stalin and authoritarian Communists so can you blame him if he did make a list?

So he was a writer that worked for a newspaper that wasn't independent... That's what workers do. I have had a job helping offload fuel at a port which is indirectly killing people for oil and polluting the earth. I directly participate in moving international cargo which helps globalization and the WTO survive.

We mostly all work somewhere that makes us hypocrites. Calling someone out because they are a wage-slave at a job that does not progress their class interests is intellectually low.

But seriously does it matter whether or not Communist theory is fatally flawed because of the state? The damage has already been done to the Marxist ideology in the eyes of the masses. In my opinion it would be easier to make up a new name for Communism and revise it than to change the minds of many many people. Maybe we could take out the state and manager class and call it Anarchism. :P jk It was a serious question. At what point do Marxists just abandon the name because of the bad memories it brings up?

[Saorsa]

At what point do Marxists just abandon the name because of the bad memories it brings up?

The moment they betray Marxism. And I take it the workers and peasants of Nepal just elected the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to government because they're sadomasochists? After all, the workers and peasants all hate Marxism right...

[Chicano Shamrock]

The moment they betray Marxism. And I take it the workers and peasants of Nepal just elected the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to government because they're sadomasochists? After all, the workers and peasants all hate Marxism right...
I was thinking about mainly the US when I was talking about how hard it is to talk to people about communism. Does abandoning the name really betray Marxism? Does altering it betray Marxism? It's about the end product not the name... right?

[OI OI OI]

Of which Trotsky was a major proponent in...Yes, he pushed for workers democracy . He led the Left Opposition during the rise of Stalin and when he was exiled under unfavorable conditions he continued his work of pushing for a political revolution in the USSR in order to bring back workers democracy.



Really? So the organization of industry was from the bottom upwards? The working class organized industry? What exactly was socialist about the USSR, if the fundamental relationship to production had not changed?The relationship to production had been changed. A bureaucrat is not an owner, he is not a capitalist. He is what is called a "manager" in the capitalist mode of production.

He does not form a special class but a privileged caste which feeds of surplus value indirectly and his share is not increased in no rate ear the increae of productive capacity.

therefore we do not have the same relationship to production.

Also the largest part of surplus value goes back to society with the creation of roads, hospitals etc (and of course the arms race:)) and not to the bureaucrats pocket.
He is a parasite but he is not an owner.

The Soviet state of that period was held to be a workers' state because the bourgeoisie had been politically overthrown by the working class and the economic basis of that state lay in nationalized property. The Soviet state degenerated because the working class became politically dispossessed. After the death of Lenin, the ruling stratum of the Soviet Union was held to be a bureaucratic caste, and not a new ruling class, because its political control did not also extend to economic ownership. The theory that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state is closely connected to Trotsky's call for a political revolution in the USSR, as well as Trotsky's call for defense of the USSR against capitalist restoration.



The dear leader was also a major proponent in the disempowering of the working class. Do you deny that?

No because when I talk about the Dear Leader I refer to Stalin:lol:
and occasionally Malte



You're beating around the bush; it was state capitalism, as Lenin himself said he was aiming for (Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Mentality)

Distorting Lenin I see?

Oh my Marx,
humanity has fallen in its lowest level!

[OI OI OI]

Well even if only 5% or 10% was markets that is still bad.

No it is not.
Depending on the conditions and in order to save the revolution we need to implement some special measures at times.

Look at Cuba !

How have they managed to survive 18 years after the collapse of the Soviet Motherland?

They have implemented some special measures that allowed them to survive while still keeping the nationalized base.

Making some adjusments is better than collapsing all together and leaving the people in the mercy of imperialism and capitalism.




Well even if 95% was nationalized in the USSR and 5% not nationalized.Still did the working class get same pay has the labor he put in with commodity profit. Or did some one else exploit the working class lebor .


What the hell are you talking about? Socialism is not getting the same pay as the labour you put into something. That is impossible to determine for all people at all times.
Also you need doctors , teachers, machines for hospitals etc which means that you will need some surplus value to fund all that shit. Which means that surplus valu will exist until the post scarcity society which is communism.


In order for it to be non capitalism there has to be no competition and workers getting same pay for the commodity profit for the labor he put in .

No competition yes. Thats why Titoists are idiots. But the second thing is wrong .


If there was 2 factories making shoes one communist party minister xx and other shoes communist party minister yy they are capitalists.On less the leader dam well made sure all money was audit from communist party ministers and the communist party ministers got same pay has the workers.

But why have competition in socialism that is not socialism.

I agree and there was no competition in the USSR at least not in a wide scale.

Now the Ministers by which you mean the bureaucrats do not form a class of its own they are just a parasitic caste.

Now if they fed off some of the surplus value that doesn't mean that they are capitalists.

In the same logic a baby that feeds of his dads surplus value is part of the ruling class:lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

You're beating around the bush; it was state capitalism, as Lenin himself said he was aiming for (Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Mentality)

This is the second time I've seen this myth being posted on Revleft in the past two days, the first time I ignored it but it's really getting ridiculous now.

SACT, I don't know in what anarchist or left-communist site you read the above but they were purposefully falsifying history by taking what Lenin said out of historic context and misrepresenting what he actually meant.

This myth was first created over 70 years ago by a guy named Urbahns:



However, what interests us most within the limits of this analysis is the fact that Urbahns attempts also to include the economy of the USSR under the term “state capitalism.” And while so doing he refers – it is hardly believable! – to Lenin. There is only one possible way of explaining this reference: as the eternal inventor who creates a new theory a month, Urbahns has no time to read the books he refers to.

Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control. All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved; the quotation marks were intended to stress just this difference of no little importance. However, insofar as the proletarian state allowed private capital and permitted it within definite restrictions to exploit the workers, it shielded bourgeois relations under one of its wings. In this strictly limited sense, one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP, when he presupposed that the concessions and the “mixed companies,” that is, enterprises based upon the correlation of state and private capital, would occupy a major position in the Soviet economy alongside of the pure state trusts and syndicates. In contradistinction to the state capitalist enterprises – concessions, etc., that is – Lenin defined the Soviet trusts and syndicates as “enterprises of a consistently socialist type.” Lenin envisioned the subsequent development of Soviet economy, of industry in particular, as a competition between the state capitalist and the pure state enterprises.

We trust that it is clear now within what limits Lenin used this term that has led Urbahns into temptation. In order to round out the theoretical catastrophe of the leader of the “Lenin(!)bund,” we must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm)

This Urbahns guy created the myth that "Lenin aimed for state-capitalism!" over 70 years ago and it was pointed out that he made it up because he did not understand or know what the hell Lenin was referring to.

[spice756]

I agree and there was no competition in the USSR


Well that was good!!



What the hell are you talking about? Socialism is not getting the same pay as the labour you put into something. That is impossible to determine for all people at all times.

But it is okay for the communist party members to get the surplus value and exploit the working class?




Also you need doctors , teachers, machines for hospitals etc which means that you will need some surplus value to fund all that shit. Which means that surplus valu will exist until the post scarcity society which is communism


True if the surplus value gone there and not in the hands of communist party members in charge of the sector.




Depending on the conditions and in order to save the revolution we need to implement some special measures at times.
Look at Cuba !


This is a gray area because capitalists can bribe them or do other things they normally do not do to get them away from socialism.

Also minds of the working class and communist party members may get brainwash by capitalism.It is best they unlearn what capitalism is at all.

This is a gray are because having this may be good or bad.It is not good or bad.