Communist Mutant From Outer Space

I have a degree of respect for the Italian variant of 'Left Communism', but none for the dutch-german, which I consider thoroughly alien to Marxism. I am not sure what 'Luxemburgism' means exactly, but it isn't possible to uphold Luxemburg while disregarding Lenin. Both belong to the same tradition of revolutionary social democracy, and despite their differences, these differences exist in that framework (I tend to sympathize with Luxemburg's position on the national question compared to Lenin's).

Ha, I can understand that, my own path to left-communism is similar to yours. Rejection of trots after some support, and being drawn in towards anarchism. I stop short because of their rejection if the transition state, but others don't. Anyways, there's an old thread around discussing the differences between the two main left-com groups if you'd like me to dig it up. It also discusses the influence Luxembourg had on their ideas lightly.

I noticed you were asking about Trotskyism with Anglo Saxon Philistine before he got banned. I also saw he asked you four questions about Trotskyism, and I know where he was going depending on his you answered. If you would like, I could help you along a little until a more knowledgeable Trotskyist comes around, seeing as how I used to be a trotskyist sympathizer back in the day. Suppose you could actually still call me as such, depending on what point we're talking about.

1. Well the USSR was qualitatively different from Cuba or the DPRK, insofar as it was a gigantic country which in itself possessed practically all the raw materials it needed to build a strong industrial base. That being said, both Cuba and the DPRK, for all the latter's "self-reliance" demagogy, oriented their economies towards the social-imperialist USSR, Cuba in regards to neglecting industry in favor of increasing sugar exports and the DPRK in regards to having its agricultural production reliant on a steady supply of Soviet oil.

2. Besides that 1937 book I linked to, I can also send you some other books. Send me a private message giving me your email.

You also ought to look at the following posts of mine in this thread:
* http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=69
* http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=102
* http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=154
* http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=157

3. "Actually existing socialism" was a term introduced under Brezhnev, who damned Stalin and who argued (as did Khrushchev) that the dictatorship of the proletariat had "outlived its historical function" and that the USSR had supposedly become a "state of the whole people." "Actually existing socialism" was an attempt by the revisionists under him to claim that socialism was not a transitional stage from capitalism to communism, but instead a whole historical epoch.

2. The basis of government under Lenin and Stalin was soviet power. Led by its vanguard, the proletariat was drawn into the administration of both the political and economic life of the country. Elected deputies were not professional politicians but instead retained their original jobs as factory workers, farmers, soldiers, professors, artists, etc., their position as a deputy was part-time and they received no special salary related to said position. The economy itself was planned by the whole of society, from the "top" (the Politburo, Gosplan and the Council of Ministers) to the "bottom" within each individual factory.

A good account on this subject is Pat Sloan's Soviet Democracy from 1937: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Z...NVQkQxYmM/view

1. The possibility of building socialism in one country was mentioned by Lenin multiple times, it was justified by practice. One of the things that made SIOC possible was the development of the imperialist stage of capitalism, which increased contradictions between the capitalist powers as well as between said powers and the colonies and neo-colonies under them. This meant that a "united front" of capitalist states against a single socialist state, although obviously not impossible (as the Civil War demonstrates), was much shakier than hitherto and also would break down due to the aforementioned contradictions between said powers. Thus in the 1920s for example the USSR was able to take advantage of Weimar Germany's strained relations with those who imposed Versailles on it, as the German bourgeoisie hungered for a return of its colonies in Africa and for the return of German control over Alsace-Lorraine, full control over the Ruhr, etc.