Stalin's Dictatorship as the Natural End for Communism?

[Buffalo Souljah]

Leszek Kolakowski argues in the third volume of his Main Currents of Marxism that the dictatorship and tyranny of Joseph Stalin was the natural embodiment of communism, that a system based on the dictatorship of the proletariat required such a ruler.

"In short,

he argues,

Stalin as a despot was much more the party's creation than its creator: he was the personification of a system which irresistably sought to be personified." ( M.C. V. III, pp. 5)

He argues further that Stalin was not an extremist in the party and was, in fact, "somewhat of a moderate" (ibid), and that the atrocities which were committed under his rule had the mark of party ideology in general.

"The inevitable conclusion was",

K. argues,

"that a party ruling despotially must itself be despotically ruled, and that, having destroyed democratic institutions in society at large, it was idle to think of preserving them within the party, let alone for the benefit of the whole working class." (ibid, 20).

"As long ashe was still in power, he was one of the most autocratic champions of bureacracy and of military or police control over the whole political and economic order." (25)

Ultimately, K.

"[does] not mean to belittle Stalin's historical importance. After Lenin and alongside Hitler, [he] did more to shape the present-day world than any other individual since the First World War."

What does this say about natural tendencies in Communism? Is Kolakowski right in his summation? Does Communism manifest itself in a dictatorship of the state by despots or tyrants acting on behalf of the proletarian class? Is there hope for the "withering away" of the State that Lenin calls for in The State and Revolution after upheaval and overthrow of existing institutions? What can be done to ensure this "withering away"?

[robbo203]

Leszek Kolakowski argues in the third volume of his Main Currents of Marxism that the dictatorship and tyranny of Joseph Stalin was the natural embodiment of communism, that a system based on the dictatorship of the proletariat required such a ruler. he argues, He argues further that Stalin was not an extremist in the party and was, in fact, "somewhat of a moderate" (ibid), and that the atrocities which were committed under his rule had the mark of party ideology in general. K. argues, Ultimately, K. What does this say about natural tendencies in Communism? Is Kolakowski right in his summation? Does Communism manifest itself in a dictatorship of the state by despots or tyrants acting on behalf of the proletarian class? Is there hope for the "withering away" of the State that Lenin calls for in The State and Revolution after upheaval and overthrow of existing institutions? What can be done to ensure this "withering away"?

Kolakowski is talking about state capitalism not communism and he is also alluding the idea of a vanguard elite which is totally at variance with the marxian principle that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself. Far from shunning or abolishing democracy, it needs to win the "battle of democracy". Communism without democracy is inconceivable

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If one replaces Communism with Bolshevism - to avoid any connotations with any small 'c' communist tendencies, such as anarchist, libertarian or left schools of thought - then that is probably an accurate summary.

One though, must recognise the current of continuity between the outlook of both Lenin and Stalin. Of course, many will refute such a link based on the prevalence of the NEP in Lenin's later years, contrasted with the rapid collectivisation and industrialisation. However, the point is not that one camp in the Bolshevik movement necessarily always supported industrialisation or a moderate economic policy throughout whichever economic conditions were prevailing at a particular point in time. However, the main link, and the salient point, is that the continuation from Lenin to Stalin was more the methodology that both, as Bolsheviks, shared, in terms of achieving Socialist aims. At the heart of this was vanguardism. The demerits of vanguardism were probably exacerbated by the geo-political and socio-political situation in Russia at the time. In a country where the population is huge and far flung, the overriding majority of people are hugely poor and illiterate and where transport and media infrastructure and extremely under-developed, it is certainly an onerous task, once a revolution has been enacted, to transfer real power and influence from a small group of revolutionaries to the mass of poor workers. This was the root cause of the Nomenklature that became entrenched in the Soviet political system from the late 1920s/early 1930s and thereafter.

I would, however, warn against quite using words such as 'despot' and 'extremist' when talking about Stalin. This only gives rise to agreement with the Capitalist lies about Stalin, which any Socialist, even those like myself who oppose some of Stalin's actions as a matter of course, must refute as propaganda and lie. This includes the lies spread about the living standards of workers and the number of deaths of people attributable to Stalin.

Indeed, one could write a thesis defending Stalin for gains relating to the former, and one could use contemporary sources from the Moscow archives to hit a more accurate number than the likes of Conquest, Service, Pipes or Davies could ever get close to without shedding their ideological bias relating to the latter. However, numbers or defending Stalin are not the point. The point is to establish that there was a solid current between Leninism and Stalinism. Moreover, there is little to suggest that Trotsky would have taken the USSR in a non-Leninist direction. Of course, from the outposts of exile Trotsky was articulating and writing from, he could afford a more dramatic tone and raft of ideas. It is difficult to see, however, how in practice his theories of permanent revolution would have been relevant to a changing domestic policy in Russia, when one considers the sad ends that Focoism met, and when one considers that the prevailing history has not seen a large number of revolutions in the name of Socialism in the third world.

To conclude, if one is going to attribute Stalin as a 'moderate' Bolshevik as opposed to a one-man ruling as a despot, which would be a correct analysis, then the roots of the destruction (or 'excesses' and 'mistakes' as some Communists would say) can be traced to the roots of Leninism. As a result, it is a moot point whether the state will wither away as Lenin theorised. The issue becomes, if one accepts the analysis thus far of the current betwen Lenin and Stalin, that Communism, through a withering of the state or otherwise, cannot be achieved if the initial revolutioanry war is waged by a vanguard party that excludes active participation by the masses. This would seem to be especially true in countries where the prevailing conditions are similar to Russia's in 1917, as illustrated earlier. The new issue becomes one of not expanding the State apparatus - even for Socialist means - to an extent where, under Bolshevism, even the moderate and rational Kruschevite aim of achieving Communism within 20 years became somewhat ridiculous and unworkable in reality, clearly. As such, the vanguard party, particularly in larger, less developed nations with less educated populaces, must be done away with and a new focus placed on of linking the working class with their own emancipation, via revolution; indeed, we as Socialists should return to the Marxian concept of encouraging the working class to act 'for itself', rather than simply existing as a class 'in itself' that is led wholly at the wim of, and in the direction that, the vanguard party says is best for it's class interests.

[Buffalo Souljah]

indeed, we as Socialists should return to the Marxian concept of encouraging the working class to act 'for itself', rather than simply existing as a class 'in itself' that is led wholly at the wim of, and in the direction that, the vanguard party says is best for it's class interests.

Thanks for your thoughts. What do you see as the primary moving force behind this sort of encouragement? I hear much talk about developing class consciousness in the proletariat and raising the level of consciousness, but, at the end of the day, the odds are still stacked overwhelmingly against the working class as a whole. How can we turn simple misconceptions, like the role of labor in bargaining initiative and the extension of basic civil rights to all people on their heads and achieve and achieve any progress towards these ends? The means are simply not there for real encouragement, save for morale boosters and pep rallies and the like, which seem ineffectual at influencing real social change.

What we lack on the left, it seems, is the well-established infrastructure by means of which to encourage and motivate certain points of view. The right, by far, has us outgunned on this front. The question is, though, how can we draw from what resources are at hand to get somewhere from now until tomorrow, and the next day. It seems the propaganda machine weighs very heavily against the interests of social progress, so, my question is, how to combat this force? It seems like we've got the working class entrenched in the existing ideological perspective, and in that perspective, theirs is a consciousness of object-status, like you said.

My question is, how do we draw real world progress out of a class which is taught every day that the life they are living is the best possible, when we know this is obviously not the case? How do we cater to the interests of a class whose sole purpose is to subsist and perpetuate their current conditions? It seems to me that the methods are ultimately ineffectual if the broad base is not there, and it doesn't seem to be there at present. How can you build up awareness when the stakes are so low most people aren't even aware of them? I'm sorry, but this has been keeping me up at night, so I would like some answers, ebcause this for sure isn't the best way things could be.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed you raise many good points. I wonder about this at night too, as i'm sure, do many on the left.

It is true that we are outgunned in terms of resources, and access to resources (via government, big business organisations, intelligence agencies), but the Capitalist class. That is only natural though, in any situation where there is a ruling and an oppressed class.

What we do have, which the Capitalists will never have, is a majority of people. I am talking about the broad working class, not Socialists. What we have, are a mass of people who are daily exploited by the ruling system. In the first world the workers seem to put up with Capitalism because of a mix of economic development, home ownership, social/cultural narcissism and so on. In the third world, though the situation is different. One billion people on this planet live on less than $1 per day, and many, many more live in destitution and squalor. Our biggest weapon, therefore, is these masses of people who prove that Capitalism doesn't work.

Our greatest weakness, and one that very few on the left seem to either want or be able to analyse, is our divided nature. I am not talking about Sectarianism. It is healthy to have lively debate, and only natural in an ideology which is steeped in academic thought and masses of intellect, compared with the rough and ready methods of Capitalism and all of its accompanying ideologies. It can almost be equated to the question of nationalism. Just as we Socialists know that nationalism leads to conflict, xenophobia, closed borders and ultimately the dividing of the working class, it is true that rampant and unabated factionalism leads to a similar effect on the Socialist movement - it is divided and weakened, and distracted from forumulating policy and carrying it out in strength as a united movement. Indeed, Capitalists are united against Socialism, yet I get the impression that many Socialists would rather see no revolution at all than see one under the guise of an opposing leftist tendency. It is simply ridiculous that factions will emerge and new parties will form over the slightest programmatic question.

We can all agree on revolution. We can all agree on the emancipation of the working class, and we all want to establish the Socialist ideal and sink Capitalism. We should be united in this goal. Beyond this there is indeed scope for debate, but revolution is chronologically the first task of any Socialist, and shame on us if we do not achieve Socialism because we are squabbling over the minor points of a post-Capitalist society.

[Faust]

I don't believe that the USSR were communistic at all. Their people's dictatorship meant nothing, it was just a title.

Despots like Stalin have used the word "Communism" in the past in order to gain support for their own power hungry desires. When they achieved power they ceased to seek out anything that even closely resembled communism. They were more fascist then communistic, state-capitalism and all.

This is why communism has been given such a bad name. Not because people truly disagree with our ideas, but because they disagree with what they have been told by the capitalist upper class. The capitalist's propaganda is conveniently fueled by the actions of so called "communistic" dictatorships in Europe and Asia, etc.

If you read the news, on websites like the BBC, etc. You'll see that they wont hesitate to label North Korea, Cuba, and the like as communist.

You'll see "the communist dictatorship of Korea" "Marixt Cuba" etc. Even when they display no signs of actually communism, and the corporate media knows this.

They seek to besmirch something pure, by associating our ideas with dictatorship and genocide... even our histories and literature...

If Stalin and the like were wiped from the history of communism we would be much better off.

[ReggaeCat]

I don't believe that the USSR were communistic at all. Their people's dictatorship meant nothing, it was just a title.

Despots like Stalin have used the word "Communism" in the past in order to gain support for their own power hungry desires. When they achieved power they ceased to seek out anything that even closely resembled communism. They were more fascist then communistic, state-capitalism and all.

This is why communism has been given such a bad name. Not because people truly disagree with our ideas, but because they disagree with what they have been told by the capitalist upper class. The capitalist's propaganda is conveniently fueled by the actions of so called "communistic" dictatorships in Europe and Asia, etc.

If you read the news, on websites like the BBC, etc. You'll see that they wont hesitate to label North Korea, Cuba, and the like as communist.

You'll see "the communist dictatorship of Korea" "Marixt Cuba" etc. Even when they display no signs of actually communism, and the corporate media knows this.

They seek to besmirch something pure, by associating our ideas with dictatorship and genocide... even our histories and literature...

If Stalin and the like were wiped from the history of communism we would be much better off.

uhm cuba is marxist...albania was marxists...ussr was marxist...stalin was marxist...that's exactly what media wants..they wants us to deny our achievements...and they are doing great..

[robbo203]

uhm cuba is marxist...albania was marxists...ussr was marxist...stalin was marxist...that's exactly what media wants..they wants us to deny our achievements...and they are doing great..

So you believe the capitalist media when they say the Soviet Union et al was "communist" or "marxist" but you dont believe Marxists who emphatically deny there was anything "communistic" about the Soviet Union

[Comradejim]

Well describing any past or present nation as Communist is silly- to my knowledge there has thus far been no classless stateless nation, so in that respect media depictions of "the horrors of Communism" are pure fallacy.
There are countries who have been trying to work towards Communism, (although not really any left now), some of which used rather dictatorial means. There are those that claim to be Communist (such as the current People's Republic of China) which appear more to be using elements of Marxist ideology in order to justify a repressive state which offers cheap submissive laborourers for the Capitalists of the world. As of yet I'm unsure which of these I would place Stalin in, but my gut feeling makes me think that he was attempting to do a difficult enough thing in incredibly difficult circumstances.

[Psy]

If one replaces Communism with Bolshevism - to avoid any connotations with any small 'c' communist tendencies, such as anarchist, libertarian or left schools of thought - then that is probably an accurate summary.

One though, must recognise the current of continuity between the outlook of both Lenin and Stalin. Of course, many will refute such a link based on the prevalence of the NEP in Lenin's later years, contrasted with the rapid collectivisation and industrialisation. However, the point is not that one camp in the Bolshevik movement necessarily always supported industrialisation or a moderate economic policy throughout whichever economic conditions were prevailing at a particular point in time. However, the main link, and the salient point, is that the continuation from Lenin to Stalin was more the methodology that both, as Bolsheviks, shared, in terms of achieving Socialist aims. At the heart of this was vanguardism. The demerits of vanguardism were probably exacerbated by the geo-political and socio-political situation in Russia at the time. In a country where the population is huge and far flung, the overriding majority of people are hugely poor and illiterate and where transport and media infrastructure and extremely under-developed, it is certainly an onerous task, once a revolution has been enacted, to transfer real power and influence from a small group of revolutionaries to the mass of poor workers. This was the root cause of the Nomenklature that became entrenched in the Soviet political system from the late 1920s/early 1930s and thereafter.

Yet the Bolsheviks plan was to put Russia in a holding pattern till the revolution spread west into industrialized Europe while Stalin plan was to derail the revolutions in the west and build a industrial powerhouse in Russia.

[Faust]

uhm cuba is marxist...albania was marxists...ussr was marxist...stalin was marxist...that's exactly what media wants..they wants us to deny our achievements...and they are doing great..

You really should learn that just because they are called marxist, doesn't mean they are marxist.

And I wouldn't really call those accomplishments; nothing to be proud of there.

Mind you, the soviet union did have some pretty amazing music.

[Charles Xavier]

blanky.

[Faust]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype]So you seek to spread the false rumour that state-capitalist dictatorships such as the USSR and China were, in fact, truly marxist?[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype]If you believe that they are/were, then you seek to proclaim their fallacy as an "achievement", for marxism and the working class? when millions of people were killed in the name of a lie?[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype]You are defiling the name of communism. You not only accept without question the propaganda which has been fed to you by the capitalist media, but seek to spread it. You should learn more thoroughly about that which you speak, otherwise you are merely an instrument of the enemy.[/FONT]

[Weezer]

Stop denying our achievements. Stop denying the achievements of Marxism and of the working class. The only achievements you should deny are your own. We have a proud history.

On a side note, I think everyone would be thankful if you would stop trolling. I'm not saying this post is a troll post, but hell, even other post you make you be trolling.

[Robocommie]

It boggles my mind, the attitude that Leftists have about Stalin. The Left is about democracy, the Left is about freedom and equality. Stalin instituted autocracy, despotism, and rule through secret police.

If you want to oppose capitalism while also favoring totalitarianism, if you think this kind of thing is too "liberal" then you should go over to the Fascists. They like to thump their chest about the People and the working class too, only they don't make any pretensions about democracy.

People who deny the truth about Stalin, about totalitarianism which has besmirched the name of Communism, and associated Marxism with the very things Marxism seeks to oppose, make it that much harder for the Left to find support among the working class, who want nothing to do with NKVD-style thuggery.

[FSL]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype]So you seek to spread the false rumour that state-capitalist dictatorships such as the USSR and China were, in fact, truly marxist?[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype]If you believe that they are/were, then you seek to proclaim their fallacy as an "achievement", for marxism and the working class? when millions of people were killed in the name of a lie?[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype]You are defiling the name of communism. You not only accept without question the propaganda which has been fed to you by the capitalist media, but seek to spread it. You should learn more thoroughly about that which you speak, otherwise you are merely an instrument of the enemy.[/FONT]

I for one am pleading guilty to all these.

The Left is about democracy, the Left is about freedom and equality

Yes, proletarian democracy where proletarians and allied classes oppress the remnants of the old order until their very extinction.

The Soviet Union was for quite some time doing a pretty good job on this matter.

[Robocommie]

Yes, proletarian democracy where proletarians and allied classes oppress the remnants of the old order until their very extinction.

The Soviet Union was for quite some time doing a pretty good job on this matter.

Once the old order has been deprived of it's control of society, it shouldn't need to be oppressed anymore. The bourgeois will be deprived of their property and power and transformed into proletarians.

And I don't think the Soviet Union was really a proletarian democracy, it was a despotism, an oligarchy.

[FSL]

Once the old order has been deprived of it's control of society, it shouldn't need to be oppressed anymore. The bourgeois will be deprived of their property and power and transformed into proletarians.

And I don't think the Soviet Union was really a proletarian democracy, it was a despotism, an oligarchy.

If you think that all that's needed is a decree, of course you'll find any socialist state that lasts longer than 5 minutes an oligarchy. Most people tend to believe -for good reasons- it will take more than that.

[Robocommie]

If you think that all that's needed is a decree, of course you'll find any socialist state that lasts longer than 5 minutes an oligarchy. Most people tend to believe -for good reasons- it will take more than that.

Well what the hell kind of socialist state wouldn't be able to defend it's own fucking laws without firing squads and secret police? Let violators of the socialist order stand trial and face just, civilized punishment.