Stalinists: Why Are You?

[bailey_187]

Comrade, a game of chess is not won by counting the pieces at the end!

lol Ok. Who got the Nazis king stuck in a position he could not get out of of(the bunker)? Whos guns were firing in the background when he shoot himself in the head?

[Bud Struggle]

Oh god at least somebody gets it.

Fuck stalin. Russian news media can debate him but for godsakes the guys dead and buried and just not worth it.

The success or failure of Communism is marketing--nothing more. Stalin isn't a good marking tool. Drop him. He doesn't play in any part of the world with a real honest to God PROLETARIAT (America and Europe.) Talk all you want about Nepal and people running around with guns in the various jungles of the world--Stalin doesn't sell to your core audience.

Sorry, move on.

[Brother No. 1]

Comrade, a game of chess is not won by counting the pieces at the end!

And how did the Americans stop Facism? Was it becuase they sent money to them during the 30s? Or how the british just counqered the Germans when they gave then 1/2 of czechsolovakia? or how the French and english didnt want to form an anti-Facist alliance with the U.S.S.R? Also where were the british during the battle of berlin? did they miss it? I'm pretty sure the Red Army was the only one in Berlin at the time. So,then, who defeated Facism again?

[Bud Struggle]

And how did the Americans stop Facism? Was it becuase they sent money to them during the 30s? Or how the british just counqered the Germans when they gave then 1/2 of czechsolovakia? or how the French and english didnt want to form an anti-Facist alliance with the U.S.S.R? Also where were the british during the battle of berlin? did they miss it? I'm pretty sure the Red Army was the only one in Berlin at the time. So,then, who defeated Facism again?

Fine, old news--but what has Stalin done for us lately.

[Brother No. 1]

Fine, old news--but what has Stalin done for us lately.

Still be handsome.

[Bud Struggle]

Still be handsome.

Indeed-great hair.

But for Communism to succeed we REALLY can't be going on and on about past victories and failures.

Ther reason Communism look like a bunch of nerds on an Internet site is because that's all it is.

Move on--develope a future.

[Brother No. 1]

But for Communism to succeed we REALLY can't be going on and on about past victories and failures.

Because History doesnt count in anything at all. Communism kill a billion people? Nope, the past is just the past and we can't possibly debate that, or try to correct it to a truthful form.

Ther reason Communism look like a bunch of nerds on an Internet site is because that's all it is.

I gotta tell those people in the streets on May day or the anniversery of the October Revolution that they are nerds on the internet. Or how about those Communist parties in Nepal,India, and the Philpines? Nerds, arent they.

Move on--develope a future.

Isnt this the part where you get off this site and enjoy your luxrious life while the rest of us just dont work hard enough to have what you have?

Since that's what Capitalism is all about.

[Bud Struggle]

Good post.

Because History doesnt count in anything at all. Communism kill a billion people? Nope, the past is just the past and we can't possibly debate that, or try to correct it to a truthful form.

Who cares? We're selling an ideology not reliving the past.

I gotta tell those people in the streets on May day or the anniversery of the October Revolution that they are nerds on the internet. Or how about those Communist parties in Nepal,India, and the Philpines? Nerds, arent they.

Didn't I mention "Jungle Commies" a post or two above? Who cares? Communism is a Proletariat business--people running around in their underware in forests aren't the future of Communism. Marx even say so.

Isnt this the part where you get off this site and enjoy your luxrious life while the rest of us just dont work hard enough to have what you have?

Since that's what Capitalism is all about.

Nope. I'm a believer. Communism a great idea, fair to everyone if done correctly. I'm a Catholic and I believe in the total equality of all people before the hand of God--and I'm not going to let a really good plan like Communism fall into the hands of a bunch of dufuses (if you will excuse the expression. ) as it has in the PAST (Stalin included.)

[Brother No. 1]

Who cares? We're selling an ideology not reliving the past.

Since we did we say we wanted to relive the past? And I never knew we are 'selling' this ideology as if it was an actually commodity in itself. So when are we selling this commodity?
In June? on 2012?

Didn't I mention "Jungle Commies" a post or two above?

An over-simplification of the Nepalese Communist movement or the Indian people rising up against the state? Uh, yeah for the proletariat just hate them and dont support them at all.

Who cares?

Yeah who cares about Socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat or fighting against the bourgoise?

Wait, maybe the Proletariat and the opressed peasants do.

Communism is a Proletariat business

It can be any revolutionary class "Business" since it is revolutonary classes against the reactionary/counter-revolutionary classes fighting.

--people running around in their underware in forests aren't the future of Communism.

And you'd know about the future of Communism or how it can develop? Then, please, exlaborate how it would come in your eyes. I mean theories dont develop or anything or change to adapt to the conditions of the said country or the condition of the state or anything right?

Marx even say so.

oh here's one you'll remember. "Who cares."

[danyboy27]

No one is saying that we should exactly copy what Stalin did.
We uphold Stalin a a positive figure in Socialist history and as a great leader of the working class.

well, what left of the stalinist legacy that we could be proud of?
ww2 dosnt count btw, it was a team effort.

[bailey_187]

most parties in the west dont uphold Stalin, and in the case of the trotskyists most of their ideology is from opposition to Stalin. Yet they are still irelevent.

THe biggest Communist Party in the West (the KKE, the CP of Greece) upholds Stalin.

As for the Nepal Communists just being people in the Jungle with Guns, have a look in the Nepal threads in Politics. Look at the pictures of huge demos in the the capital city.

Many many many Communist parties in the world do not like Stalin. Yet i see no evidence of this giving them more support.

Stalin is part of Communist history whether we like it or not. Usually it is a subject to be avoided when engaging with people are Communism for the first time, but its going to come up sooner or later so we may as well understand and explain what happened.

[bailey_187]

well, what left of the stalinist legacy that we could be proud of?
ww2 dosnt count btw, it was a team effort.

It does count. Socialist workers and peasents from the USSR killed 80% of the German soldiers that were killed.

Industrialising the USSR (not Stalin personally)
Showing the potential of a planned Socialist economy
Raising the culural and educational level of the people of the USSR
Mechanising agriculture
Aiding Socialism around the world (although with some wrongful decisions)

[Bud Struggle]

Since we did we say we wanted to relive the past? And I never knew we are 'selling' this ideology as if it was an actually commodity in itself. So when are we selling this commodity?
In June? on 2012?

What's the difference between Communism and Coca-Cola or representitive Democracy? Nothing

It's a commodty that needs to be sold to eager buyers.

An over-simplification of the Nepalese Communist movement or the Indian people rising up against the state? Uh, yeah for the proletariat just hate them and dont support them at all.

OK, if you think "So goes Nepal,so goes the World" so be it.

Yeah who cares about Socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat or fighting against the bourgoise?

Wait, maybe the Proletariat and the opressed peasants do.

Didn't Marx make a good point about the peasants? Hasn't ever Communist Revolution been Peasent revolutions at heart--HASN'T EVER COMMUNIST REVOLUTION SO FAR FAILED?

And you'd know about the future of Communism or how it can develop?

I know how it HASN'T developed. With Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky and Mao. They sucked.

Then, please, exlaborate how it would come in your eyes. I mean theories dont develop or anything or change to adapt to the conditions of the said country or the condition of the state or anything right?

Sell it. Make it worthwhile for people today to be Communists. Show how we all can be equal--don't tell stories about Stalin and Gulags and arguements about the Katlyn Forest and all of that nonsense.

Loose Stalin and get an "Obama."

oh here's one you'll remember. "Who cares."

So far that's the history of Communism in a nutshell.

Arguing with Stalin (or Trotsky) fans is like arguing with Hitler fans.

It's all really the same, isn't it?

[danyboy27]

It does count. Socialist workers and peasents from the USSR killed 80% of the German soldiers that were killed.

and most of the airstrike that crippled nazi germany lostics where performed by the allies, the conquest of africa was stopped by the allies.

it was a team effort.

Industrialising the USSR (not Stalin personally)

nothing special, any ruthless dictator could have done the same.

Showing the potential of a planned Socialist economy

not really. if it was the case the soviet union would still exist today.

Raising the culural and educational level of the people of the USSR

cant really deny that.

Mechanising agriculture

i cant deny that.

Aiding Socialism around the world (although with some wrongful decisions)

i dont see why i should be proud of that.

[Brother No. 1]

What's the difference between Communism and Coca-Cola or representitive Democracy? Nothing

This wins the most idiotic statement award!

The difference is that in representive democracy you have assholes who try to 'represent your interests' in the bourgoise state. So, how has that worked out for us in the past centuries?

Working getting killed, people's killed in the name of god and other names, invasion, counqering,etc.

Coca Cola is an actual commodity.

But do you want to know why? Well here are your favorite writers to explain it to you for your to lazy of an ass to read it up yourself.


(1"A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when its owner sells it he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes the owner of the commodity, which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot. Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not. In the first place, means of production are not 'sold' to any purchaser;.. they are only allocated by the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring the means of production to any enterprise, the owner -- the state -- does not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are deemed to be agents of the state in the utilisation of the means of production in accordance with the plans established by the state.
It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can certainly not be classed in the category of commodities".
(J. V. Stalin: "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"; Moscow; 1952; p. 58).


(2
"The value of labour power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour time necessary for the production, and consequently also for the reproduction, of this special article.. In other words, the value of labour power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer... On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them,... depend... to a great extent on the degree of civilization of a country....In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour power a historical and moral element. Nevertheless, in a given country at a given period the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer is practically known...
The sum of the means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour power must include the means necessary for the labourer's substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar commodity-owners may perpetuate its appearence in the market."
(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 1; London; 1974; p. 167, 168).

Didn't Marx make a good point about the peasants?

Mao and others have made a better point. That they are a revolutionary class that can help the proletariat in the time of revolution and help in organizing the community. they just be their own revolutionary class, not a puppet of another class as you would see it to them.

Hasn't ever Communist Revolution been Peasent revolutions at heart

You know didnt China and Russian (during their imperial days) have a majority of peasants in revolutions? granted most peasants in the Russian Revolution werent bolshevik but didnt the Chinese Revolution have a majority of peasant supporters?

But I see your going to go thusly. "OH BUT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE SO WHO CARES."

great case, will you be doing this for the case on Capitalism?

HASN'T EVER COMMUNIST REVOLUTION SO FAR FAILED?

You can name the revolutions that failed and that, somehow through sheer luck created Socialist states or, even, progressive states leading to Socialism.

Sell it.

"Buy Communism for only 29.99$ today!"

Somehow i think that'd only work inyour mind alone.

I know how it HASN'T developed.

Somehow i doubt that seeing your posts, accusations,etc you'd only like to say how you think they "havent developed" in any shape way or form. Since, to you, History is nothing. If History says such and such just say "who cares" and everything will be dandy. I mean it's not like people actually read about history do they?

Make it worthwhile for people today to be Communists.

I somehow think that you mean "worthwhile" is a house on a beach with everything just perfect as can be. what is it called...utopian? Apperently you havent read Lenin's "Te State and the Revolution" but why dont I just make it a bit more clear. (though I doubt it can enter through your mind)

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.
Instead of Lassalle's hazy, obscure, general phrase ("the full product of his labor to the worker"), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:
"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."
It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.
The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.
“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.
But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.
"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).
But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:
"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."
The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).
The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.
Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."
And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.
However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.
Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.
The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.
But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.
4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society

Marx continues:
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Only now can we fully appreciate the correctness of Engels' remarks mercilessly ridiculing the absurdity of combining the words “freedom” and “state”. So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.
The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.
This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life's prime want"--we do not and cannot know.
That is why we are entitled to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state, emphasizing the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of communism, and leaving the question of the time required for, or the concrete forms of, the withering away quite open, because there is no material for answering these questions.
The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs".
From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.
Ignorance--for it has never entered the head of any socialist to “promise” that the higher phase of the development of communism will arrive; as for the greatest socialists' forecast that it will arrive, it presupposes not the present ordinary run of people, who, like the seminary students in Pomyalovsky's stories,[2] are capable of damaging the stocks of public wealth "just for fun", and of demanding the impossible.
Until the “higher” phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers.
The selfish defence of capitalism by the bourgeois ideologists (and their hangers-on, like the Tseretelis, Chernovs, and Co.) consists in that they substitute arguing and talk about the distant future for the vital and burning question of present-day politics, namely, the expropriation of the capitalists, the conversion of all citizens into workers and other employees of one huge “syndicate”--the whole state--and the complete subordination of the entire work of this syndicate to a genuinely democratic state, the state of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.
In fact, when a learned professor, followed by the philistine, followed in turn by the Tseretelis and Chernovs, talks of wild utopias, of the demagogic promises of the Bolsheviks, of the impossibility of “introducing” socialism, it is the higher stage, or phase, of communism he has in mind, which no one has ever promised or even thought to “introduce”, because, generally speaking, it cannot be “introduced”.
And this brings us to the question of the scientific distinction between socialism and communism which Engels touched on in his above-quoted argument about the incorrectness of the name "Social-Democrat". Politically, the distinction between the first, or lower, and the higher phase of communism will in time, probably, be tremendous. But it would be ridiculous to recognize this distinction now, under capitalism, and only individual anarchists, perhaps, could invest it with primary importance (if there still are people among the anarchists who have learned nothing from the “Plekhanov” conversion of the Kropotkins, of Grave, Corneliseen, and other “stars” of anarchism into social- chauvinists or "anarcho-trenchists", as Ghe, one of the few anarchists who have still preserved a sense of humor and a conscience, has put it).
But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism. The great significance of Marx's explanations is that here, too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, “concocted” definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.
In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.
It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!
This may sound like a paradox or simply a dialectical conundrum of which Marxism is often accused by people who have not taken the slightest trouble to study its extraordinarily profound content.
But in fact, remnants of the old, surviving in the new, confront us in life at every step, both in nature and in society. And Marx did not arbitrarily insert a scrap of “bourgeois” law into communism, but indicated what is economically and politically inevitable in a society emerging out of the womb of capitalism.
Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". By what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this supreme aim we do not and cannot know. But it is important to realize how infinitely mendacious is the ordinary bourgeois conception of socialism as something lifeless, rigid, fixed once and for all, whereas in reality only socialism will be the beginning of a rapid, genuine, truly mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, in all spheres of public and private life.
Democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalists for its emancipation. But democracy is by no means a boundary not to be overstepped; it is only one of the stages on the road from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to communism.
Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state. This, in turn, results in the fact that, at a certain stage in the development of democracy, it first welds together the class that wages a revolutionary struggle against capitalism--the proletariat, and enables it to crush, smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth the bourgeois, even the republican-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine, but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceed to form a militia involving the entire population.
Here "quantity turns into quality": such a degree of democracy implies overstepping the boundaries of bourgeois society and beginning its socialist reorganization. If really all take part in the administration of the state, capitalism cannot retain its hold. The development of capitalism, in turn, creates the preconditions that enable really “all” to take part in the administration of the state. Some of these preconditions are: universal literacy, which has already been achieved in a number of the most advanced capitalist countries, then the "training and disciplining" of millions of workers by the huge, complex, socialized apparatus of the postal service, railways, big factories, large-scale commerce, banking, etc., etc.
Given these economic preconditions, it is quite possible, after the overthrow of the capitalists and the bureaucrats, to proceed immediately, overnight, to replace them in the control over production and distribution, in the work of keeping account of labor and products, by the armed workers, by the whole of the armed population. (The question of control and accounting should not be confused with the question of the scientifically trained staff of engineers, agronomists, and so on. These gentlemen are working today in obedience to the wishes of the capitalists and will work even better tomorrow in obedience to the wishes of the armed workers.)
Accounting and control--that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts.[1]
When the majority of the people begin independently and everywhere to keep such accounts and exercise such control over the capitalists (now converted into employees) and over the intellectual gentry who preserve their capitalist habits, this control will really become universal, general, and popular; and there will be no getting away from it, there will be "nowhere to go".
The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labor and pay.
But this “factory” discipline, which the proletariat, after defeating the capitalists, after overthrowing the exploiters, will extend to the whole of society, is by no means our ideal, or our ultimate goal. It is only a necessary step for thoroughly cleansing society of all the infamies and abominations of capitalist exploitation, and for further progress.
From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism--from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the “state” which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.
For when all have learned to administer and actually to independently administer social production, independently keep accounts and exercise control over the parasites, the sons of the wealthy, the swindlers and other "guardians of capitalist traditions", the escape from this popular accounting and control will inevitably become so incredibly difficult, such a rare exception, and will probably be accompanied by such swift and severe punishment (for the armed workers are practical men and not sentimental intellectuals, and they scarcely allow anyone to trifle with them), that the necessity of observing the simple, fundamental rules of the community will very soon become a habit.
Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state.

Loose Stalin and get an "Obama."

Yeah for Capitalism is just perfect for people isnt it?

Do we have Stalin as the idol of the gods? No, not really why you think such is really something but I'd rather not know.

So far that's the history of Communism in a nutshell.

Arguing with Stalin (or Trotsky) fans is like arguing with Hitler fans.

It's all really the same, isn't it?

its more like your brain trying to operate on an argument that you try to 'understand' but,sadly, you can't but at least try to mend it into your own stlye. I mean Stalin Hitler and Trotsky had everything in common and nothing in difference didnt they?

Lets see....arguing on behalf of Trotsky and his theories of permeant revolution, how the bueacrracy took hold of the Soviet state thus making the U.S.S.R into a "Stalinist bueacratic dictatorship" compared to Adolf Hitler and his theories of extermination of the jewish people, ayran race,etc.

Stop being an idiot, you make the OI look worse then when "RedIcepick" was around.

[Bud Struggle]

This wins the most idiotic statement award!

So your not a Trotskyist?

The difference is that in representive democracy you have assholes who try to 'represent your interests' in the bourgoise state. So, how has that worked out for us in the past centuries?

Well in Soviet countries "Soviets" ever even existed. At least some democracy existed in democratic societies.

Coca Cola is an actual commodity.

so is Communism.

Somehow i doubt that seeing your posts, accusations,etc you'd only like to say how you think they "havent developed" in any shape way or form. Since, to you, History is nothing. If History says such and such just say "who cares" and everything will be dandy. I mean it's not like people actually read about history do they?

Look, Communism so far has been a failure--nothing wrong with that. But it's time to try a new path--not dragging up the name of one of the highpoints of Communism's failure. Not only did Stalin not spread Communism around the world--he failed to bring about Communism in the Country he ruled ith an iron hand for thirty years. Time to move on.

I somehow think that you mean "worthwhile" is a house on a beach with everything just perfect as can be. what is it called...utopian? Apperently you havent read Lenin's "Te State and the Revolution" but why dont I just make it a bit more clear. (though I doubt it can enter through your mind)

It's pointless and it's old.

Yeah for Capitalism is just perfect for people isnt it?

For some. Really it's pretty good--let's make it good for even more people and that's Social Democracy.

its more like your brain trying to operate on an argument that you try to 'understand' but,sadly, you can't but at least try to mend it into your own stlye. I mean Stalin Hitler and Trotsky had everything in common and nothing in difference didnt they?

They have this in common: they are all dead and they are all yesterday's news.

Stop being an idiot, you make the OI look worse then when "RedIcepick" was around.

OK, I'm an idiot and you are the genius selling STALIN. So how's it going?

[mykittyhasaboner]

^Probably one of the worst posts on revleft ever.

[Bud Struggle]

^Probably one of the worst posts on revleft ever.

Yea, and bringing Communism to the world means waking up Stalin from the dead.

Really comrade, get over it--he's gone.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yea, and bringing Communism to the world means waking up Stalin from the dead.

Really comrade, get over it--he's gone.

I don't have to get over anything, in fact I didn't even mention Stalin anywhere in my post. Obviously this is irrelevant to you because you lack comprehension skills and continue to make the weakest arguments and pointless assumptions like waking Stalin from the dead.

Your right, he's gone. He was a good comrade in my opinion and had a lot of good ideas about building socialism in the USSR, and we can learn from his experiences and ideas. That's it. If you disagree then fine, I don't really care. The thing that strikes me as odd is how you insist that Stalin is dead and he doesn't matter, yet constantly bring up how "socialism was a failure" without EVER making an argument that has even the most basic comprehension of the history of socialism--or even the most cursory grasp of the economic and political concepts of socialism.

You say the stupidest things I've read on this forum like "my communism will be better than yours" or that communism is a commodity and its all about marketing, how we should be "melding capitalism and communism". For fucks sake you'd think that someone who's been posting here for as long as you have would have actually learned a thing or two. But no, it's still "socialism was a failure" and we have to learn how to be capitalists so we can successfully "market" socialism. Have fun getting nowhere in all your discussion, because it seems whenever your positions are challenged you simply fall back on the same old shit.

[danyboy27]

but why focus on stalin??
we could sure learn from the mistake of nearly every leader/political figures on earth.