Hello again, I came up with another question while reading the "Stalinism" thread, which you did a very good job refuting the claims there by the way. I was wondering why Nin was killed? Not that wikipedias a good source to find out.
Mao, like Stalin, purged their party of capitalists, reactionaries and infiltrators. This was necessary to sustain their revolutionary struggle and socialist construction. In my opinion, Mao failed to purge the party totally; standing aside even while Deng gave a speech to the United Nations calling for market reforms. Also, the idea that Mao 'rejected' Stalin is pretty absurd, since he consistently upheld him. I usually see that kind of thing promoted by capitalists and bourgeois scholars. China treaded towards revisionism by siding with the United States against the Soviet Union to gain their favor.
So I was watching a documentary that there was a thread about in the literature and film sub-forum about Mao called "The passion of the mao" , and I think it helped to change a lot of my views on him; though there are two things I don't understand that maybe you could clarify. The first is that there was a part in the movie where it said that Mao outed as many as "70 party bueracrats", was this a good thing or a bad thing? Doesn't it just concentrate power in fewer hands? Maybe I just dont understand party structure enough. Second, the movie was in support of a ARML view of Mao, yet, when talking about many of the democratic reforms and grassroots movements, it repeatedly contrasted these to Stalin's soviet union and its bureaucratic centralization. Is this contrast fair? It was under my impression that people who were "pro-mao" were also "pro-stalin" and just favored one over the other, not completely denounced the other.
As the early 90's saw the destruction of the socialist camp in Europe and Asia, Cuba was left to fend for itself. Fidel Castro, instead of making Cuba self-sufficient, relied on trade with the Soviet Union, notably with rice, which is abundant in Cuba and is one of its primary resources. After the collapse, the Cuban economy hardly managed to hang on. They were lucky to survive. I believe Cuba is socialist, but they could have done a lot better at implementing it and because of their mistake, they are having trouble keeping up industrially. I would say that most anti-revisionists view Cuba favorably and the grievance I had is one shared by a lot of other anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists. Cuba is the only functioning proletarian state in the world right now and it should be defended vigorously.
Thanks for the congratulations. On to your question, I'll answer this the best I can. I believe Cuba to be a socialist state. Legislature is debated and passed by workers, there is no hierarchal elitism and everyone has access to healthcare, education, food, shelter and much more. However, I also subscribe to Joseph Stalin's theory of 'socialism in one country.' To be brief, the theory states that all developing socialist states should develop as if they were the only socialist states alive. That doesn't mean they shouldn't work, collaborate, struggle and trade with other socialist states, but merely that they should not be relied upon. (Read this first, part 2 is next. I can only post 1000 characters)
First of all, Congrats on becoming a mod! Second, i have a quick question about the ARML. So i believe that Cuba is socialist, does this mean that i believe china and the ussr were socialist? In other words: Are ARMLs the only ones who think that Cuba is socialist?
I would love to provide some type of source in that regard, but due to the massive passage of time and the consistent fabrication by bourgeois sources, I highly doubt you can find many workers accounts, let alone positive ones, of the former Soviet Union. Right now, all I can tell you is that when observing revisionism in the Soviet Union, you must take into account the role of imperialist intervention and aggression. Trotskyists hardly acknowledge it and Anarchists don't acknowledge it at all.
Hello again comrade, another question if you dont mind. When listening (reading) to the debates between Trortskyists and AR-Marxist-Leninists concerning the USSR; ive heard both sides claim that if "you simply look at the worker's accounts of the people who where living there" you would prove their side right. But, i have never seen either side produce evidence to back up such, and that may just be my ignorance. Anyway, do you know of any of these accounts from people living there (in the USSR) that would certify the ARML view? all ive seen when i looked is stupid bourgeois "documentaries" about how "communism killed 100 million people", which of course isnt true.
Well, to be brief, anti-revisionists like myself uphold Stalin's contributions to socialist application and the ideological application of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We believe that Stalin's leadership promoted massive industrial and social development that successfully combated imperialist power grabs. Without the Soviet Union's internal progress, the gains it made would have been unfeasible. These social and industrial gains, as well as the lack of socialist development, came after Stalin's death with coexistence with bourgeois elements in the Soviet Union and abroad.
Hello Comrade, A question if you dont mind, im trying to learn more about Marxist-Leninism, how do you guys view Stalin's place in the USSR? Was he a strong leader militarly supressing the bourgeois? Or a democratically elected one? How does your answer compare to the state that is pictured by lenin in "The State and Revolution"?
