Let's Have It

Well, I'll be honest. After a couple different discussions, I'm really starting to feel almost unwelcome here. Not because any of you are anything but respectful and friendly, but because I see a glaring contradiction in the anti-revisionist ideology. I always see people saying "Well, we aren't uncritical of Stalin." but fuck if I ever see anything after this. Give me some reasons or rationalizations as to where and when Stalin made mistakes. Also, explain to me how a state that still has poverty, unemployment and a lack of total healthcare and education coverage is socialist. I can see that it's a developing socialist state or a potential socialist one, but how can a state be socialist if there is a hierarchy where one group rules over another.

I don't want to lose faith in an ideology I consistently promote and view as solid, but it seems that there is a consistent lack of conditionality in the anti-revisionist camp where those who support it fail to mention the flaws of people like Stalin. I don't want this to be a bickering match, so please don't let it degenerate into such a thing.

So let's have it.

Perhaps you could be more specific, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by:

Also, explain to me how a state that still has poverty, unemployment and a lack of total healthcare and education coverage is socialist. I can see that it's a developing socialist state or a potential socialist one, but how can a state be socialist if there is a hierarchy where one group rules over another.

Well once for as time ARs were restriced from Revleft into the OI. We are also a low group compared to others such as Troskyist and Anarchist. Some of the ARs in the AR camp can admit Stalin made mistakes while others see that he made no mistake. But sadly I really cant help you with this but some adivce when your look down apon here. This is just a site remember and this site has alot of Communist ideals so yes of course some will be looked down apon but to be honest we arent the only ones but were the ones most looked down apon.

Also, explain to me how a state that still has poverty, unemployment and a lack of total healthcare and education coverage is socialist. I can see that it's a developing socialist state or a potential socialist one, but how can a state be socialist if there is a hierarchy where one group rules over another.

where have you heard this from?

Socialism is the total destruction of the capitalist bourgeois state, thus eliminating the exploitation in that state. It is a centrally planned economy to distribute goods and resources so that everyone has their needs properly satisfied, as opposed to using resources for profit and exploitative means. If there is not a total distribution of resources, there is not socialism, especially if there is not workers control. I would state that the Soviet Union was developing socialism, as it did not have the means to totally implement totally comprehensive socialist reforms, but that doesn't mean that North Korea is socialist just because it is attempting to provide some of these things. If these things cannot be provided, then it is developing socialism, not socialism, as socialism infers that the workers are in control and that resources are distributed totally.

But if there was discrimination and a lack of comprehensive revolutionary reforms, how can you claim that authentic socialism was being implemented?

Socialism is the total destruction of the capitalist bourgeois state, thus eliminating the exploitation in that state. It is a centrally planned economy to distribute goods and resources so that everyone has their needs properly satisfied, as opposed to using resources for profit and exploitative means. This was present in the former Socialist camp until revisionism took hold.
If there is not a total distribution of resources, there is not socialism, especially if there is not workers control. I would state that the Soviet Union was developing socialism, as it did not have the means to totally implement totally comprehensive socialist reforms, but that doesn't mean that North Korea is socialist just because it is attempting to provide some of these things. If these things cannot be provided, then it is developing socialism, not socialism, as socialism infers that the workers are in control and that resources are distributed totally.

Correct, and the capitalist state was indeed destroyed as a result of working class seizure of power after the October revolution, where the workers were 'were in the saddle' and democratically controlled the state by means of Soviets. You know this, we all know this. But the total elimination of bourgeois influence on society was almost impossible for Russia to accomplish given the conditions they were faced with, like imperialist invasion and simultaneous civil war; perpetrated by the bourgeois themselves. The deterioration of worker's democracy is a direct result of the attacks on the working class, not due to poor management or corruption in the working class's representation/vanguard (the Bolsheviks).
So really, what you must be claiming is that, the Soviet Union during this time was merely developing socialism, rather than having achieved socialism. Well whats the difference between 'developing socialism' and 'socialism'? I would say one pretty much requires the other, as socialism never stops developing; and can be led either progressively forward towards abolishing bourgeois rule in its entirety and developing communism, or it can simply degenerate into revisionist trends such as adopting "peaceful coexistence," or market economic structures. We cannot create some idealist standard of what a country needs to be/look like to be socialist (or interchangeably 'developing socialism'), because every country has different conditions which need to be addressed by socialist's in their tactics, organization, and goals.

Give me some reasons or rationalizations as to where and when Stalin made mistakes.

I don't want to lose faith in an ideology I consistently promote and view as solid, but it seems that there is a consistent lack of conditionality in the anti-revisionist camp where those who support it fail to mention the flaws of people like Stalin.

But Kassad, what should we do, start threads like "Mistakes and flaws of Stalin" or "Things I hate about Stalin"?
I believe that the Trots don't agree 100% with everything Trotsky said or did, too, but they don't talk about his mistakes and errors but try to study his ideas. And that is what we do here, studying, learning and discussing and not praying and chanting alleluias to Stalin and it's not only about Stalin, we're Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Hoxhaists and not only "Stalinists" and we also do not claim that the USSR was perfect or the holy promised land.

Tell us some things you dislike about Stalin and we can discuss it as we do it with the problems of the USSR now. I'm pretty sure that I will agree with some of your points.

I admit that I dislike certain character traits of Marx, but I admire his ideas nevertheless. But this doesn't mean that I deify him.

Well, I'll be honest. After a couple different discussions, I'm really starting to feel almost unwelcome here. Not because any of you are anything but respectful and friendly, but because I see a glaring contradiction in the anti-revisionist ideology. I always see people saying "Well, we aren't uncritical of Stalin." but fuck if I ever see anything after this. Give me some reasons or rationalizations as to where and when Stalin made mistakes. Also, explain to me how a state that still has poverty, unemployment and a lack of total healthcare and education coverage is socialist. I can see that it's a developing socialist state or a potential socialist one, but how can a state be socialist if there is a hierarchy where one group rules over another.

I don't want to lose faith in an ideology I consistently promote and view as solid, but it seems that there is a consistent lack of conditionality in the anti-revisionist camp where those who support it fail to mention the flaws of people like Stalin. I don't want this to be a bickering match, so please don't let it degenerate into such a thing.

So let's have it.

Ahh...
Repeat a lie many times, and it becomes truth.

That's my beef with this forum.
People just keep repeating and repeating lies, and when faced with an actual critical debate they just flood the thread with irrelevant crap and (maybe) send people to OI if they start to bother.

Where did you get that anti-revisionists are stalinists, or even, blind followers of the word of stalin?
Where did you get that we should have faith in any ideology?

Self criticism is an important part of anti-revisionism, its its birth actually.
Not to say that we'll engage on the trot agenda of bashing irrationally at everything outside our sphere of influence instead of focusing in building an united and polycentric political movement, but yes, criticism is very important.

Flaws of stalin...

• Lysenkoism. Not just lysenkoism, but political intervention in academia in general and promotion of dubious "scientific" practices for the sake of propaganda (as in, lysenkoism/lamarckism as a proletarian science as opposed to genetics being a bourgeoise science, for the sake of indocrination). Mikhail Tukhachevsky's suggested tactics could be inserted here too, deep combat was the best for the red army and yet stalin resisted to implement it for political reasons, and instead of organizing the army through merit valorized yes-men and micromanaged everything.
• The lack of an attempt to a transition towards a more open and less authoritharian society, without giving in to liberalism or bourgeois democracy, the lack of an attempt to build a proper proletarian democracy and empower the soviets.
• Tolerance towards the promotion of mass terror as a permanent tool for sustaining the pseudo dictatorship of the proletariat. There is an old chinese saying, "you can ride china on horseback, but you have to get off from it to rule it".
• Tolerance towards the empowering of revisionist opportunists (kruschev didn't magically appear from anywhere...) for political gains.

I could keep on going.
But when we don't have the weight and responsibility of power and decision-making on our backs, it is easy to criticize. As Tupac already said, socialism won't appear from one day to another, it is something we have to build.

Don't give in to the trotskyst agenda, there is a reason behind the fact that there was hardly ever a significant (as in, achieved anything) trotskyst movement anywhere in the world, and it is not a bourgeoise conspiracy.

But Kassad, what should we do, start threads like "Mistakes and flaws of Stalin" or "Things I hate about Stalin"?
I believe that the Trots don't agree 100% with everything Trotsky said or did, too, but they don't talk about his mistakes and errors but try to study his ideas. And that is what we do here, studying, learning and discussing and not praying and chanting alleluias to Stalin and it's not only about Stalin, we're Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Hoxhaists and not only "Stalinists" and we also do not claim that the USSR was perfect or the holy promised land.

Tell us some things you dislike about Stalin and we can discuss it as we do it with the problems of the USSR now. I'm pretty sure that I will agree with some of your points.

I admit that I dislike certain character traits of Marx, but I admire his ideas nevertheless. But this doesn't mean that I deify him.

One thing is defending a political movement for the sake of propaganda (i'm afraid this is necessary given the nature of politics), and the other is acting like trotskysts and to "avoid talking about his mistakes and instead study his ideas". Fuck that shit.
We're better than them, we're neither sheep or opportunists.
If we are to build a movement, at least the people already liberated and with a proper understanding of how the world works should discuss every issue withour restrictions.
To put it bluntly: we are not trotskysts, and although hierarchy is necessary for action, we are not elitists either.
No self respecting anti-revisionist will idealize anyone, not in a serious discussion.

One thing is defending a political movement for the sake of propaganda (i'm afraid this is necessary given the nature of politics), and the other is acting like trotskysts and to "avoid talking about his mistakes and instead study his ideas". Fuck that shit.
We're better than them, we're neither sheep or opportunists.
If we are to build a movement, at least the people already liberated and with a proper understanding of how the world works should discuss every issue withour restrictions.
No self respecting anti-revisionist will idealize anyone, not in a serious discussion.

Just what I said. I never said anything about "avoid talking about his mistakes", I said that it would be sensless to start whole threads about Stalin's mistakes and bash at him there, that is already done by the Trots and Anarchists enough.

...that is what we do here, studying, learning and discussing and not praying and chanting alleluias to Stalin... Tell us some things you dislike about Stalin and we can discuss it as we do it with the problems of the USSR now.

And I also never wanted to present the Trots as great example, what I wanted to point out is that it's not an Anti-Revisionist speciality to concentrate on other things than criticising one of their main "leaders". But actively avoiding to discuss such things like many other leftists seem to do because of the fear you might discover some inconsistencies, that would be idiotic, childish and makes us look like fanatics.

People who criticize Stalin are usually the same people who defend America, which was born as part of the largest genocide in history

So you sugguest the Trots and others who critize Stalin are same as the people who defend america?

I said that it would be sensless to start whole threads about Stalin's mistakes and bash at him there, that is already done by the Trots and Anarchists enough.

Now comrade the Trots dont always do that hell some of them see the benifits he had. Anarchists I really cant speak for though....but the Trots well some do bash Stalin alot and others dont.

AvanteRedGarde: #2 on the ignore list. Thanks, cutie pie.

There's a good chance I'm just pissed off that Cumannach (now ignored, so I don't know if he can even see my posts? I can't see his, which is nice) is trying to claim that I am a revisionist for differentiating between what I believe is socialism and developing socialism. As Organ pointed out, there were, of course, many authoritarian aspects to Stalin's rule. Some of them necessary, in my opinion, some of them not. I'm not claiming that the Soviet Union was 'state capitalist' or anything of the sort, but I acknowledge that if there is not total workers control and comprehensive reforms that are widespread, there is not socialism. That's what I see as developing socialism: a state that is combatting the bourgeois state and struggling for socialism that is led by a vanguard party of the working class that is in power, but at the moment, does not or may not have the resources to properly sustain widespread reforms. This does not mean it was degenerating or revisionist, but merely that it was developing socialism. Is that revisionist?

Let's clear up a couple of things.
1) I'm not a Trotskyist. I'm not giving into their agenda, so stop acting like this is a tug-of-war competition.
2) I'm not saying that anti-revisionism is a flawed ideology and I shouldn't have said anything like that. What I think I'm trying to say here is that there's a lot of anti-revisionists here who claim to be critical of Stalin on some issues, but they never say what. I appreciate all of you taking the time to do that, but you should always do that. Don't leave a gray area.

I thank those of you who took the time to expand on my and your ideology. To those of you who insist on being petty and sectarian, eat me.

There's a good chance I'm just pissed off that Cumannach (now ignored, so I don't know if he can even see my posts? I can't see his, which is nice) is trying to claim that I am a revisionist for differentiating between what I believe is socialism and developing socialism.

Every camp has their bad apples as we have seen alot. There are those who deny that Stalin was bad and those who beleive Stalin made mistakes but still all out good.

As Organ pointed out, there were, of course, many authoritarian aspects to Stalin's rule.

Theres always flaws in goverments so Same aspect with Mao-Tse Tung's Red China and Ho min chins's Vietnam and so on.

1) I'm not a Trotskyist. I'm not giving into their agenda, so stop acting like this is a tug-of-war competition.

I know your not a Trot at all. Besides only Trot here is Insertnamehere and some in the Trot camp think shes turning "Stalinist" just because she wants to learn.

I, and this may conflict with some of your views, honestly believe Cuba is the only socialist state in existence and the only one that ever crossed the threshold between developing socialism into authentic socialism. Besides that, we have developing socialism that existed in the Soviet Union, China and other states. Each of these revolutionary struggles were doomed by imperialist intervention, not by the ideals of Leninism, however.

I'm not denying it or anything, just curious, but how is a Cuba a real socialist state? Do workers run the factories and make the decisions?

Tupac, I don't think there's any real evidence that there was total workers democracy; in and out of the workplace. It was developing, yes. The state was run by a workers party that organized and struggled against the bourgeoisie, therefore it was definitely on a road of socialist construction, but until total comprehensive reforms and workers democracy take effect, much like in Cuba, I believe it is only developing. Mere ideological differences here.

LeninBalls, yes. Workers vote on legislation and direction in the workplace. If it is good for the workers, they pass it. If not, it is shot down. There is no elitist legislature where politicians pass legislation. In fact, those who sit on the legislature are unpaid. They volunteer to do so, but must also work at the same time. Therefore, there is no elitism. There are workers in the legislature, thus why they do what is best for the working class. It is a total workers democracy.