The Stalin Thread 2: all discussion about Stalin (as a person) in this thread please

The substance of the quote was the quote itself. Unless you think the USSR had achieved "socialism" by 1923, you'd have to accept Trotsky's interpretation of Lenin's writing in that article as well. For by 1923, it had already achieved the "necessary and sufficient" conditions of cooperative production. Your handwaving and distraction can't alter this undeniable fact, coffee stain!!!

I don't get what you mean. Having the preconditions to construct socialism is obviously not the same as constructing it. The Albanians didn't accomplish the construction of socialism in the main until 1960.

You cited Lenin's quote in "On Cooperation" about the Soviet Union having everything, in 1923, "necessary and sufficient" to construct socialism in the Soviet Union as proof that Lenin believed that socialism could be realized just in a single country. I responded by pointing out that this could not possibly be what Lenin was saying, because he referred to supposedly sufficient prerequisites that were already in place by 1923, which would have meant that the USSR was already fully socialist by then. Obviously Lenin did not mean that the possession of those prerequisites by themselves, independent of international or other contexts, meant that socialism had been established. If he had meant that, then he would have been saying that socialism had already been established by 1923, when the prerequisites he was discussing in the article already existed. Other factors were obviously necessary. Those other factors included an international revolution. Only revisionists like you would deny this or pretend to be baffled by it. It was a basic precept of the party and the international socialist movement until Stalinism infected it and produced little parasites like your little cultist hero Hoxha, who presided over rivaling nationalist bureaucracies hurling the label "revisionist" at all their bureacratic enemies presiding over similarly oppressive class regimes in other countries.

The Trotsky quote, which you have no responded to substantively at all, expands on this by pointing out what Lenin meant when was referring to "necessary and sufficient" in the context of the article. You have to resort to off-topic references to 1903, which doesnt relate to Lenin's On Cooperation or Trotky's specific interpretation of it at all, because you have no other argument to make.

The fact that both Trotsky and Lenin were tyrants in their own right can be reserved for another discussion altogether. Suffice it to say for now that they were both correct in their rejection of Stalinist nationalism.

Down with coffee stains!!!

This simply makes no sense to me. It's like saying the USA is a dictatorship of the proletariat because it has all the prerequisites for proletarian revolution. And it wasn't you who pointed anything out, it was you just copy-pasting Trotsky.

... until the proletariat conquered state power and was faced with the prospects and possibilities of retaining this power and building upon it a socialist society. Lenin and Stalin subsequently enriched Marxism through their writings on this subject.

It was the modern revisionists who were nationalists: Titoism, Castroism, Juche, etc. all formed in opposition to the supposed "dogmatism" of Stalin and, implicitly, Lenin. The Soviet revisionists legitimized these various "national roads" and declared them "socialist."

I find it funny, Ismail, how you and other State Capitalists manage to read a quote by Lenin and just butcher it's context and twist it to fit the revisionist theory of "socialism in one country". Honestly, it's probably the worst way to defend the theory, "er mah gerd, Lenin says clearly right here 'victory of socialism in one country' so Stalin is right", even though he was talking about the victory of the socialist movement to overthrow the capitalist state.

Get a Fucking grip man, read capital, the gundrisse, critique of the Gotha programme.. Actually read some Lenin, as opposed to reading what x Stalinist has to say he said. "Socialism in one country" is a product of Stalin, a product of justifying the continuation of value production, wage labour, etc. You're socialism, is state capitalism.

What's funny is that I actually do own all three volumes of Capital (late 60's Soviet editions.) You also seem unaware of the fact that the Grundrisse was translated into English by Martin Nicolaus, a "Stalinist" who was one of the first Westerners to write on the process of capitalist restoration in the USSR under the Soviet revisionists.

It would be nice if Ismail would substantiate his claims against Trotsky with quotes.

You've been shown repeatedly you have mangled Lenin's quote, bucko!! Lenin was discussing economic-organizational prerequisites "necessary and sufficient" for building socialism, and somehow you manage to twist this into Lenin making a statement that these economic-organizational prerequisites manifest in the cooperatives exhausted all the prerequisites in general, including international revolution! Yet his very own quote says otherwise, noting "It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."

How can the presence of cooperatives be "sufficient" for building socialism, yet at the same time not be the same thing as "building socialism"? Obviously because there are other prerequisites that are not the focal point of this text! As Trotsky pointed out in his interpretation, the cooperatives provided an economic form of organization that would have to be used in the process of building socialism, so they provided an organizational prerequisite.

The actual act of building socialism completely, though, which Lenin said was different than just having the organizational prerequisites, entailed something entirely different. Otherwise, he would have made no distinction between prerequisites for building socialism and the actual act of building socialism. Clearly the essence of building socialism is something quite distinct from the form of the cooperative. If you read the piece carefully, like the title itself, you will see that socialism for Lenin is essentially a mode of egalitarian economic cooperation that is built using the form of the cooperatives and develops through them. At no point in this article can you identify a single sentence or phrase where Lenin suggests that this essence can be fully realized through the cooperative forms only in a single country when capitalism still predominates globally. Not in one place!!

As Trotsky pointed out, Lenin understood and wrote in the text that cooperation of a socialist type can only be achieved when a material basis has been laid against scarcity. Yet in a global system dominated by capitalist powers, each country regardless of its internal political or economic regime has to compete against one another in a global struggle. Guess that what creates, Ismail?? Artificial material scarcity so as to stimulate accumulation to build better rockets, larger nuclear arsenals, more efficient steel factories, more ugly looking cement bunkers to prevent the Martians from invading!! Economic decisions flowing from international competition are every bit as alienated and every bit as much an impediment to concrete socialist production as decisions flowing from purely domestic competition. This is why scarcity is the very thing that had to be overcome, in Lenin's estimation, if cooperation were ever to be established on a firm socialist basis. Marxist economics 101, Ismail!!

All of this is very easy to understand if you just read the text itself rather than reading Hoxha's interpretation of Stalin's interpretation of Lenin!

Take off those Hoxha-colored glasses, Ismail!! See the light!!!

I figure the multi-party bit is sufficiently well-known; he explicitly argues for it in The Revolution Betrayed as part of his rant against Stalin's declaration that socialism had been successfully built in the main. As for his early 30's alarmism, see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...10/sovecon.htm (one of his suggestions: "The policy of mechanically 'liquidating the kulak' is now in effect discarded. A cross should be placed over it officially. And simultaneously it is necessary to establish the policy of severely restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulak.")

The final victory of socialism, as Stalin noted, requires the victory of the proletarian revolution more or less worldwide. The process of constructing socialism, however, and of building it in the main can be achieved in one country. No one claimed you could build a stateless and classless society within the confines of the USSR.

The Soviet revisionists made precisely the same point: that through material abundance the USSR would magically achieve communism. Class struggle and carrying out the further revolutionization of society did not factor into their arguments. By reducing everything to consumer goods production (or the mere development of the productive forces, as Deng and other revisionists did) one distorts Marxism.

And it was precisely the Soviet revisionists who restored capitalism and built up a war economy bent on global domination, not because of material scarcity, but because imperialist logic (which came out of the capitalist base) dictated it.

Take your ADHD medication, Ismail!! We're not talking about what Stalin said or didn't say about socialism!! We're talking about what Lenin said about socialism, in particular whether his On Cooperation implies that socialism as a mode of production can exist in a single country alone. This is different than the question of whether the process of moving toward and constructing socialism can take place in a single country. Of course efforts can be made to move toward socialism in a single country. One of those steps is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Trotskyists that you claim are revisionists do not dispute this. Left communists do not dispute this. Not even anarchists like me dispute this! The unique claim of Stalinism is that socialism can exist within one country, not that maneuvers can be made to construct it or transition toward it in a single country alone.

Honey, you need to pay closer attention to what people say to you instead of just writing so many generic form letters to what others are saying to you. If you did, you would have seen that I was not saying that material abundance alone magically creates socialism. Material abundance, things, don't do anything. Workers construct socialism by overthrowing capitalist states and relations of production. The point I was making was that the elimination of scarcity can only occur after capitalism has been overthrown by workers around the entire globe. Otherwise, even if you've overthrown capitalists within the confines of a single country, that country will still have to make production decisions from a framework of global competition and artificial scarcity.


The only revising I see going on here is from you. You cannot point a single phrase or sentence in the work you cited as proof for Lenin's Stalinism of where Lenin talks about socialism existing within a single country alone, while the globe is still by and large capitalist.

I do not care if he advocated multiple parties and arguing about the merit of such a view would drag this discussion further than I would like. However the accusation that he wanted some controlled restoration of the kulak class is a pretty serious one and not supported or suggested by this quote. You also rely on fallacious logic when talking about how Gorbachev and various liberals praise trotsky. It wouldn't be particularly hard to find NazBols and other assorted fascists that have a thing for stalin.

There is a perceivable continuity between the politics of Gorbachev, liberals, and Trotskyists. In contrast, most Russian nationalist groups praise Stalin for defeating Germany and making Russia "great," but condemn his communist policies. Notable Cossacks even go as far as expressing support for Hitler instead.

And what continuity would that be?

The call for multi-party elections is one of them. There's also the opposition to collectivization, the demonization of Stalin, the insistence that class struggle ends under socialism. Actually, a lot of Trotskyist groups initially praised Khrushchev for fighting "Stalinism," and many more praised Tito.

It's kind of interesting when you examine those things. Of course Soviet revisionists would never dare come out and say "Yes we agree with Comrade Trotsky on this," or vice versa, but the different revisionists ended up sharing the same line on a lot of things during the USSR's existence.

Case in point:

"Regardless of motivation, the Kremlin's exposure and denunciation of the savagely repressive regime in Albania furthers the process of democratization within the Soviet bloc and the Communist parties internationally....

The rapidity and boldness of this trend is dramatically evidenced in the Nov. 11 issue of Nuova Generazione, organ of the Young Communist of Italy. In addition to publishing a photograph of Trotsky beside Lenin, it states that Trotsky is 'one of the most original personalities of the October Revolution, about whose ideas discussion is now reopened. Among other works, he is the author of one of the most interesting Histories of the Revolution and some of the finest pages on Lenin.' Nuova Generazione calls for a critique of the whole history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well as a new examination of Trotsky's role. Two articles, moreover, discuss some of Trotsky's theses in a serious political manner.

Italy's Young Communists may be a bit more advanced and daring than their counterparts in other countries, but the most militant elements in all Communist parties and youth organizations have already taken the same road." - The Militant, December 18, 1961.

It's worth noting that the Italian CP was actually to the right of Khrushchev, accusing him of not going far enough in slandering Stalin. Togliatti's "polycentrism" theory was also a precursor to Eurocommunism.

Likewise the Soviet revisionists after 1956 informally declared that the Moscow Trials were illegitimate and ceased mentioning them, while successfully rehabilitating some of those connected to them such as Tukhachevsky. This, of course, stands in marked contrast to Albania, which upheld their legitimacy. In his 1982 work The Titoites Hoxha noted of his first meeting with Vyshinsky:

I would guess because the first 1917 revolution took everyone by surprise, and it took them a while to work out how they felt about it. Plus there would have been a certain amount of broad left-wing fellowship in the Euphoria immediately after the revolution. Lenin was the man who had clear, decisive ideas about what to do, and he was incommunicado for a few days.

Remember that it is only with hindsight that the Provisional Government was seen as an archenemy of the Bolsheviks, and as a reactionary force. In the moment this was not so clear. Kerensky was (at least nominally) a Socialist, and a huge step forward had already been made in the overthrow of the Tsarist system. It would have been entirely understandable in those circumstances to have seen the Provisional Government as a friendly force.

I am very far from a fan of Stalin, by the way, just seeking to explain this particular action.

As I noted back when ******* made that post, Stalin never hid that he indeed supported the Provisional Government when it was first proclaimed. So did many other Bolsheviks. Kamenev, later one of the most notable opponents of Stalin, went significantly further than him in supporting the Provisional Government and drew specific scorn from Lenin. Molotov, later obviously one of the foremost "Stalinists," condemned the Provisional Government from the start.

So it's hardly an indictment against Stalin or "Stalinist" policy.

He wasn't. He had the less important Ukrainian front. His insistence on seizing Lviv/Lwow/Lodz, capital of Western Ukraine, and refusal to send some of his forces north to reinforce the advance on Warsaw did play a role in the Soviet defeat. He wanted personal glory as the liberator of Ukraine from Polish oppression.

Why did he get this assignment? Because, despite his intrigues vs. Red Army commander Trotsky, he had played a useful role as a commissar in the military, particularly his overseeing the Bolshevik victory in the siege of Tsaritsyn, later to be named Stalingrad.

Stalin was a capable organizer and quite competent in his own way, foolish to deny that.

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for another thread, so...A friend of mine had a question:

"Did the Americans and British play any roles in the power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky?"

I honestly don't know what to tell him. I know Trotsky ended up in Mexico and was assassinated there, and I know the U.S. and U.K. weren't exactly on friendly terms with the Soviet Union even up to the year Trotsky was killed. I never heard anything about who the U.S. or Britain would have "preferred" as leader, though, beyond that the U.S. government in particular wasn't exactly eager to make an alliance with Stalin even when the Nazis first invaded the Soviet Union, and that this happened: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa...ws-trotsky.pdf