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

[Old Bolshie]

Wait, now we're defending the right to oppress women? Oh, what freedoms have been taken away from our comrades in the Caucasus! They can no longer coerce half their population into covering themselves! What immodesty we are forcing on them! Give me a break. If someone other than Stalin did this, you'd be wetting yourselves over the great leap in crushing reactionary gender roles. But Stalin? No! He didn't care about that! All along it was just an excuse for man in the mustache to wield his iron fist of death! Stalin is a horrible reactionary when he makes strategic concessions to the church, but when he does something about an oppression that effects millions, he's suddenly doing too much!

It's as if we were to consider Stalin's actions bad, before we even knew what those actions were! To hell with class character, anything he did can and will be used against him!

Pathetic.

Pathetic and extremely idiotic was your interpretation of the arguing going on this thread.

Take a careful look of what was said specially in the most recent posts.

Firstly, the veil isn't always imposed against the will of the women as I already said many times here. There are women who chose to use it voluntarily.

Secondly, the prohibition of the veil was just an aspect of the larger repression against Muslims in USSR taken by Stalin. If you think the only concern of Stalin was the oppression against the Muslim women you better ask yourself why the repression wasn't limited to the prohibition of the veil.

[Sea]

Pathetic and extremely idiotic was your interpretation of the arguing going on this thread.

Yeah, sorry. I'll try to be less of a pathetic extreme idiot next time.

Firstly, the veil isn't always imposed against the will of the women as I already said many times here. There are women who chose to use it voluntarily.

Be careful what you call voluntary when it happens under class society. I used the term coerced for a reason. Millions of women "voluntarily" refuse to press charges against rapists. Millions of workers "voluntarily" show up at the sweatshop every day to work their way to death. And what about those "voluntarily" self-hating ethnic minorities that have appeared under various genocidal regimes?

Secondly, the prohibition of the veil was just an aspect of the larger repression against Muslims in USSR taken by Stalin. If you think the only concern of Stalin was the oppression against the Muslim women you better ask yourself why the repression wasn't limited to the prohibition of the veil.

Islam is anti-materialistic. It advocates outright the repression of women. Islam is reactionary. Some faithful Bolshevist you are, who does not believe in combating reactionism! And some liberal you are too, who frames this as if it were an evil campaign against freedom.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't see how peasant banditry is a threat to the soviet rule.

Considering that the peasant banditry in the Tambov region necessitated the mobilisation of several Red Army divisions, including special Che-Ka detachments, and the use of armoured trains, artillery and chemical weapons, and that the Soviet forces were generally stretched to their limit, demoralised and badly supplied, peasant banditry was a very real problem.

There was no major threat to Soviet control in those areas after the end of the Civil War.

Except, again, peasant bandits, Islamist rebels, particularly the Basmachi, the possibility of intervention by the surrounding states etc. etc.

My point was that those courts weren't shut down because there was a concern by the soviet power with the people targeted by the Islamic Courts.

They were shut down because it was always the intention of the Soviet authorities to shut them down when the communist power in Turkestan and the Caucasus was consolidated.

Considering the history of repression that the Muslims and other minorities suffered at the hands of the Tzar and the Orthodox Church it showed an unprecedented freedom for the Muslim minority in Russia History pretty much like the abolition of homosexuality punishment for the homosexuals.

Except that homosexuals did not oppress any other groups. Again, the freedom to oppress is no freedom at all.

The Muslims were one of the minorities heavily repressed by Stalin in soviet territory. The prohibition of the veil was one aspect of a larger policy of repression against Muslims.

And how were the Muslims oppressed under evil old Stalin? Do go on. I expect the complaints will be something like - certain Turkestani leaders were liquidated. The clergy were suppressed (it's not as if the Orthodox clergy fared any better). Anything else?

Wait, now we're defending the right to oppress women? Oh, what freedoms have been taken away from our comrades in the Caucasus! They can no longer coerce half their population into covering themselves! What immodesty we are forcing on them! Give me a break. If someone other than Stalin did this, you'd be wetting yourselves over the great leap in crushing reactionary gender roles. But Stalin? No! He didn't care about that! All along it was just an excuse for man in the mustache to wield his iron fist of death! Stalin is a horrible reactionary when he makes strategic concessions to the church, but when he does something about an oppression that effects millions, he's suddenly doing too much!

It's as if we were to consider Stalin's actions bad, before we even knew what those actions were! To hell with class character, anything he did can and will be used against him!

I am reminded of J. Robertson's description of the left-Shachtmanist leader Draper - that to him Stalinism was not a certain configuration of class forces, but a "form of black magic" that was always to be opposed.

It should also be kept in mind that a fair number of traitor-"socialist" groups do support religious courts, for Muslims at least. Some of these groups have basically abandoned the proletariat, and "Muslims" (really the reactionary religious Islamic leadership, not the Muslim proletarians and plebeans) are for some an acceptable substitute, whereas others have simply assimilated the liberal-racist orientalism that sees "Muslim people" as one giant reactionary religious block that shouldn't be interfered with because handwaving about collective rights.

[Old Bolshie]

Yeah, sorry. I'll try to be less of a pathetic extreme idiot next time

Be careful what you call voluntary when it happens under class society. I used the term coerced for a reason. Millions of women "voluntarily" refuse to press charges against rapists. Millions of workers "voluntarily" show up at the sweatshop every day to work their way to death. And what about those "voluntarily" self-hating ethnic minorities that have appeared under various genocidal regimes?

I thought you would try to be less idiotic the next time. The use of the veil is a religious tradition that strong religious Muslim women believers tend to respect because of its religious beliefs and not because someone forces them to use it. Sure, I don't deny that the use of the veil is reactionary like any other religious practice and there are women who are forced to use but there are also women that use it without any mean of coercion.

For instance, when the prohibition of the veil was recently introduced in France most of the protesters were women.

Islam is anti-materialistic. It advocates outright the repression of women. Islam is reactionary. Some faithful Bolshevist you are, who does not believe in combating reactionism!

I am a reactionary in the same sense Lenin was when he said that the religious beliefs and practices of the Muslim were protected by the October revolution.

And some liberal you are too, who frames this as if it were an evil campaign against freedom.

Too bad that those women who Stalin "liberated" were also imprisoned and deported by him at the same time.

[Old Bolshie]

Considering that the peasant banditry in the Tambov region necessitated the mobilisation of several Red Army divisions, including special Che-Ka detachments, and the use of armoured trains, artillery and chemical weapons, and that the Soviet forces were generally stretched to their limit, demoralised and badly supplied, peasant banditry was a very real problem.

The fact that it was a problem doesn't mean that it constitutes a threat to the soviet rule over the region especially when the military power of one side is incomparable higher than the other.

Except, again, peasant bandits, Islamist rebels, particularly the Basmachi, the possibility of intervention by the surrounding states etc. etc.

The Basmachi movement was defeated by 1922 and the main cause of it was precisely the lack of popular support for it after Lenin gave them a great deal of religion freedom. Some minor fractions remained active but they never threatened soviet rule again.

the possibility of intervention by the surrounding states etc. etc.

If for you this means that the soviet rule remained tentative then one has to assume that the soviet rule has remained tentative during its entire existence.

They were shut down because it was always the intention of the Soviet authorities to shut them down when the communist power in Turkestan and the Caucasus was consolidated.

The communist power was already consolidated when the courts began to operate.

Except that homosexuals did not oppress any other groups. Again, the freedom to oppress is no freedom at all.

You are taking one part for the whole again. The issue here was the unprecedented freedom conceded to religious minorities and not a specific part of Islam tradition.

And how were the Muslims oppressed under evil old Stalin? Do go on. I expect the complaints will be something like - certain Turkestani leaders were liquidated. The clergy were suppressed (it's not as if the Orthodox clergy fared any better). Anything else?

Religious schools and mosques were forcibly closed down, the entire practice of the Muslim religion was forbidden and its members persecuted for religious practices, mass deportations and so on.

I am reminded of J. Robertson's description of the left-Shachtmanist leader Draper - that to him Stalinism was not a certain configuration of class forces, but a "form of black magic" that was always to be opposed.

It's a shame that for the homosexuals that you so hardly defend against the evilness of Islam Stalinism was not only a "form of black magic". That could have spared them from a beautiful vacation in the paradisiacal Gulag.

[Ismail]

In 1984 both Khrushchev and Brezhnev were already dead.

I don't see what that has to do with anything considering that Andropov and Chernenko obviously didn't differ to any significant extent from them on the question of religion.

It shows that Lenin saw no problem with the Quran's existence in a society advancing towards socialism.

How? Do you think a successful socialist revolution in Europe is going to see persons going around burning Gutenberg Bibles? Lenin's action was one promoting friendship between peoples.

Besides, saying that the revisionists promoted "religious socialism" just because they supported Ben Bella is ridiculous. If they were promoting religious socialism would they unleash strong anti-religious campaigns at home? Non-sense.

Again, it was the Soviet revisionists who promoted the idea that one could advance towards socialism with a Quran in one hand and Das Kapital in the other.

This was precisely what happened with the fall of the USSR and the entire Eastern Bloc. Capitalism and social-democracy were restored and even the former communist parties were renamed. It could have happened earlier but both Khrushchev and Brezhnev opposed to it which completely contradicts your version that the revisionists sought to restore capitalism.

Using this logic the Communist Party of China is not a capitalist party. This is an absurd and completely un-Marxian analysis which does not take one look at the relations to the means of production, how the social product is distributed, etc. but literally hinges on whether the leadership praises Lenin in words or not.

This doesn't mean that Gorbachev belonged to the same line of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. In fact his policies were totally divergent from the ones taken by the later two. Gorbachev had a social-democrat agenda as he admitted. This wasn't the case of Khrushchev and Brezhnev who actually destroyed any attempt of it in the Eastern Bloc.

It was the Khrushchevites who rehabilitated Imre Nagy as a "victim of Stalinism," as with Gomułka in Poland. When Nagy demonstrated his resolve to go against the geopolitical interests of the Soviet revisionists and align his country with US imperialism the Soviets took one of his assistants, János Kádár, and brought him to power. Kádár was another "victim of Stalinism" who had been rehabilitated.

The Soviet revisionists likewise had no problems with Dubček until he began severing his country from Soviet social-imperialism and linking it up completely with American imperialism. Only then did Brezhnev and Co., as Hoxha notes, act opposed to revisionism, demagogically posing as the upholders of Marxism-Leninism against it.

Besides, Gorbachev admitted to be a social-democrat contrary to Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

Neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev were in a position to do that. Gorbachev, as you are probably aware, is still alive and has had decades to denounce Marxism-Leninism as much as he wants.

The difference is that both US and USSR were two imperialistic powers competing against each other with no economic association between the two whereas it isn't the case of France or China. You didn't see US capital and loans to massively entering in the USSR as you saw in some Eastern countries.

Actually the Albanians noted various times that the Soviet social-imperialists were linking the Soviet economy with the West. See for example: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...ve/nanopla.htm

Actually Romania distanced itself from both Comecon and Warsaw Pact since its refusal to participate in the Valev Plan and it was the only country beside Albania which didn't participate in the Prague invasion by the countries of the Warsaw Pact and even condemned it.

And yet Romania did not withdraw from the Warsaw Treaty nor from Comecon, and continued to extol the Soviet revisionist leaders as "Communists."

[Old Bolshie]

I don't see what that has to do with anything considering that Andropov and Chernenko obviously didn't differ to any significant extent from them on the question of religion.

Yes they did. Khrushchev revived anti-religious campaigns in 1958 which lasted until his displacement and Brezhnev launched an anti-religious campaign himself.

How? Do you think a successful socialist revolution in Europe is going to see persons going around burning Gutenberg Bibles? Lenin's action was one promoting friendship between peoples.

The same can be said about the revisionists.

Again, it was the Soviet revisionists who promoted the idea that one could advance towards socialism with a Quran in one hand and Das Kapital in the other.

And after the October Revolution Lenin said that the Muslims rights and practices were forever free and inviolate under the protection of the revolution.

Using this logic the Communist Party of China is not a capitalist party. This is an absurd and completely un-Marxian analysis which does not take one look at the relations to the means of production, how the social product is distributed, etc. but literally hinges on whether the leadership praises Lenin in words or not.

LOL. The relations to the means of production in USSR were the same before and after Stalin. Thinking otherwise like you do is completely idiotic.

As far as China is concerned the Chinese economy went through a process of change from a planned economy to a market one whereas the Soviet Economy didn't go through any similar transformation during Khrushchev or Brezhnev tenures.

If I think that Khrushchev or Brezhnev followed communist principles just because they praised Lenin? Hell no. But the same goes for Stalin as it's obvious.

It was the Khrushchevites who rehabilitated Imre Nagy as a "victim of Stalinism," as with Gomułka in Poland. When Nagy demonstrated his resolve to go against the geopolitical interests of the Soviet revisionists and align his country with US imperialism the Soviets took one of his assistants, János Kádár, and brought him to power. Kádár was another "victim of Stalinism" who had been rehabilitated.

Nagy, a victim of Stalinism, was actually killed under Khrushchev orders and Kadar, another victim of Stalinism, was the man behind his execution. This shows very well how the denunciation of Stalin was merely superficial and did not change the Stalinist course in USSR.

The Soviet revisionists likewise had no problems with Dubček until he began severing his country from Soviet social-imperialism and linking it up completely with American imperialism. Only then did Brezhnev and Co., as Hoxha notes, act opposed to revisionism, demagogically posing as the upholders of Marxism-Leninism against it.

Actually Dubček's main political concern through all the "Prague Spring" was to assure Czechoslovakia's commitment to the Soviet Union which he did until the military intervention and his downfall.

Neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev were in a position to do that. Gorbachev, as you are probably aware, is still alive and has had decades to denounce Marxism-Leninism as much as he wants.

Gorbachev confessed while he was still head of the USSR (it was not yesterday) to the Portuguese President of the time, Mario Soares, during a presidential trip that he wanted to end the one party rule in USSR and implement a social-democratic system.

Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev were in position to do precisely what Gorbachev did in his tenure, especially the first. The difference is that the former two were committed to their political regime whereas the later had the specific objective of turning USSR into a social-democratic system.

If I wanted I could use the same argument for Stalin calling him anti-communist like many left people do who was in no position to do what he wanted to do.

Actually the Albanians noted various times that the Soviet social-imperialists were linking the Soviet economy with the West. See for example: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...ve/nanopla.htm

I see nothing here but a completely biased document. The foreign trade especially with West countries remained nominal in the Soviet economy throughout its existence until Perestroika.

And yet Romania did not withdraw from the Warsaw Treaty nor from Comecon and continued to extol the Soviet revisionist leaders as "Communists."

I don't see how this was damaging Romania's sovereignty. The fact that Romania took an anti-soviet stance while being a member of the Warsaw Treaty shows very well that the fact of Romania being a member of the Warsaw Treaty didn't affect their sovereignty and autonomy from Moscow.

[Red_Banner]

Yes they did. Khrushchev revived anti-religious campaigns in 1958 which lasted until his and Brezhnev launched an anti-religious campaign himself.

Source?

[Fred]

Considering that the peasant banditry in the Tambov region necessitated the mobilisation of several Red Army divisions, including special Che-Ka detachments, and the use of armoured trains, artillery and chemical weapons, and that the Soviet forces were generally stretched to their limit, demoralised and badly supplied, peasant banditry was a very real problem.



Except, again, peasant bandits, Islamist rebels, particularly the Basmachi, the possibility of intervention by the surrounding states etc. etc.



They were shut down because it was always the intention of the Soviet authorities to shut them down when the communist power in Turkestan and the Caucasus was consolidated.



Except that homosexuals did not oppress any other groups. Again, the freedom to oppress is no freedom at all.



And how were the Muslims oppressed under evil old Stalin? Do go on. I expect the complaints will be something like - certain Turkestani leaders were liquidated. The clergy were suppressed (it's not as if the Orthodox clergy fared any better). Anything else?



I am reminded of J. Robertson's description of the left-Shachtmanist leader Draper - that to him Stalinism was not a certain configuration of class forces, but a "form of black magic" that was always to be opposed.

It should also be kept in mind that a fair number of traitor-"socialist" groups do support religious courts, for Muslims at least. Some of these groups have basically abandoned the proletariat, and "Muslims" (really the reactionary religious Islamic leadership, not the Muslim proletarians and plebeans) are for some an acceptable substitute, whereas others have simply assimilated the liberal-racist orientalism that sees "Muslim people" as one giant reactionary religious block that shouldn't be interfered with because handwaving about collective rights.

Well, there is repression and there is repression. I don't know the details of Stalin's repression of Muslims -- during the early period of the USSR, women communists would don the veil in order to be able to speak to Muslim women. The idea was to win them over to breaking with the oppressive customary treatment of women under Islamic codes. The laws in France are reactionary and should be opposed. Communists don't seek to abolish religion, we seek to make it completely irrelevant.

[Old Bolshie]

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_an...%E2%80%9364%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_an...2%80%931987%29

[Red_Banner]

Yes, I have seen that page before.


Mostly Dimitry V. Pospielovsky stuff, not much else in the ways of sources.


I'm not convinced that happened.

[Old Bolshie]

Yes, I have seen that page before.


Mostly Dimitry V. Pospielovsky stuff, not much else in the ways of sources.


I'm not convinced that happened.

I don't see the problem with Dimitry V. Pospielovsky but both articles have more than one source.

"Khrushchev replaced Stalin's plans with his own, which included economic industrialization and an anti-religious campaign that started in 1959 and ended in 1964...By 1947, with Stalin's approval of reopening churches there existed approximately 14,000 but this number fell to 7,466 due to Khrushchev's anti-religious campaign."

Lee Trepanier, Political Symbols in Russian History: Church, State, and the Quest for Order and Justice

"However, Khrushchev did not launch his anti-religious campaign fully until 1960, except for a brief period in 1954. The worst period of the anti-religious was between 1960 and 1964...Under Brezhnev the anti-religious campaign acquired a less hostile tone although there was no tangible improvement in the conditions of religious institutions and the clergy...Nevertheless, the mosques remained closed and few, if any, of the official clergy were reinstated...By the end of the Brezhnev era the number of working mosques had been reduced even further."

Shireen T. Hunter, Islam in Russia: The politics of Identity and Security.

I hope you don't have any problem with those sources quoted above too.

[Ismail]

As far as China is concerned the Chinese economy went through a process of change from a planned economy to a market one whereas the Soviet Economy didn't go through any similar transformation during Khrushchev or Brezhnev tenures.

In other words, the issue of capitalism can be reduced entirely to the market (or lack thereof) vis-à-vis the state. This is a cartoonish view of capitalism that one can expect to hear from libertarians, not Marxists.

As one anti-revisionist article notes:

Following Trotsky, the modern revisionists hold that it is absurd to say that capitalism is developing in the Soviet Union because industry is nationalised and it is not owned by private capitalists. They also assert that expanding commodity production, which is becoming the general form of production, is not leading to capitalism because it is 'planned' and that production for profit is not bourgeois because it is production for 'socialist' profit. For many years the revisionists have been vulgarising the Marxist analysis of capitalism in order to hide their treachery. In Britain, at least, they have been replacing Lenin's interpretation of 'Capital' with Rosa Luxemburg's. (Though she died the death of a revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg made a number of very serious theoretical mistakes, including a false criticism of Marx's Capital, which were refuted by Lenin.) In their vulgarisation, capitalism equals the ownership of enterprises by individuals. This however, was only the main characteristic of one stage in the development of the system of capitalism. The system of capitalism is the system of commodity production, production for profit, in which labour power appears as a commodity and which is exchanged against variable capital in the form of wages and salaries. The central question concerns the nature of the system of production. The ownership of enterprises by individuals is a secondary question. If the latter were the central question then nationalisation of industries would in fact make them non-capitalist. The British coalmines, electricity industry, and railways are not owned by individuals. Shortly the greater part of the steel industry will not be owned by individuals. But the workers in these industries remain wage workers exploited by capital:

"...neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. The modern state is only the organisation with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists... The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme." (Engels: Anti-Duhring, p. 307)

Whether state property is bourgeois or socialist depends therefore on the class nature of the state. The Trotskyist argument, which the revisionists are taking up in an attempt to hide their treachery (as Trotsky developed it to hide his), to the effect that the state is a workers' state because it owns the main industries, and that the industries are socialist because they are owned by the state, is gibberish. The notion that the introduction of planning into commodity production make it socialist was also refuted by Engels three quarters of a century ago in his criticism of the Draft Programme of the German Social Democratic Party (1891). The Draft Programme held that the absence of planning was rooted in the very nature of capitalist private property. Engels said: "Capitalist production by Joint Stock companies is no longer private production, but production in the joint account of many. Not only private production but also lack of planning disappear when we proceed from joint stock companies to trusts which control and monopolise whole branches of industry". Chen Po-ta, one of the leaders of the cultural revolution in China, wrote: "...there is nothing strange in certain forms of public ownership being tolerated in a particular society which is governed by an exploiting class, so long as they do not harm, and may even help the fundamental interests of that exploiting class... In capitalist society a joint stock company may be considered a kind of capitalist form of 'public ownership' and some workers may even hold shares in it". ('Yugoslav Revisionism', Peking Review, No. 16, 1958).

Nagy, a victim of Stalinism, was actually killed under Khrushchev orders and Kadar, another victim of Stalinism, was the man behind his execution. This shows very well how the denunciation of Stalin was merely superficial and did not change the Stalinist course in USSR.

Why? Because a social-democrat got shot? Kádár in fact carried forward a more moderate program than Nagy's, instituting "goulash socialism" which made Hungary the most Western-oriented and liberal of the Warsaw Treaty countries in the 60's.

Actually Dubček's main political concern through all the "Prague Spring" was to assure Czechoslovakia's commitment to the Soviet Union which he did until the military intervention and his downfall.

Of course Dubček wanted to be in the good graces of both American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, but the pro-Western forces he unleashed made it clear that events would overtake him. When the Soviet social-imperialists invaded he capitulated to them, and they in turn discarded him because he was of no use whatsoever afterwards.

Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev were in position to do precisely what Gorbachev did in his tenure, especially the first. The difference is that the former two were committed to their political regime whereas the later had the specific objective of turning USSR into a social-democratic system.

Khrushchev presided over a growing economy with rising living standards, at least during the 50's. Brezhnev presided over a period of stagnation. Gorbachev presided over a period of pronounced stagnation which his faction of the revisionists sought to remedy by bring into much greater prominence market forces, which led to severe economic disruption and which, together with intensified slanders against Stalin and the whole period of socialist construction under him, had the effect of discrediting Marxism-Leninism in the eyes of the people.

Again, there was no incentive whatsoever for Khrushchev or Brezhnev to declare they were capitalists. The entire legitimacy of the CPSU rested on its status as the vanguard of the Soviet workers and of Soviet society towards the construction of communism. The revisionists took the prestige of the CPSU in the time of Lenin and Stalin and completely squandered it by the 80's.

I don't see how this was damaging Romania's sovereignty. The fact that Romania took an anti-soviet stance while being a member of the Warsaw Treaty shows very well that the fact of Romania being a member of the Warsaw Treaty didn't affect their sovereignty and autonomy from Moscow.

How about the fact that Romania was jointly exploited by American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism? That it was always threatened with the prospect of a Soviet invasion if it went too far into the camp of American imperialism?

Again, to you sovereignty means the freedom for a bourgeois government to enter into deals with rival imperialist superpowers to subjugate the country said government presides over.

[Old Bolshie]

In other words, the issue of capitalism can be reduced entirely to the market (or lack thereof) vis-à-vis the state. This is a cartoonish view of capitalism that one can expect to hear from libertarians, not Marxists.

I've already stated many times not only in this thread but also in others that USSR's economy was capitalist during its entire existence. When I referred to the differences between China's reforms I was alluding to the difference between a market economy and a state capitalist economy which are two sides from the same coin: capitalism.

You are the one claiming the stupid notion that USSR's mode of production changed to socialism during Stalin's tenure and reverted to state capitalism after he died.

Why? Because a social-democrat got shot? Kádár in fact carried forward a more moderate program than Nagy's, instituting "goulash socialism" which made Hungary the most Western-oriented and liberal of the Warsaw Treaty countries in the 60's.

Nagy sought to destroy the communist rule in Hungary by implementing a multiparty system in Hungary, announced his intention to withdraw form the Warsaw Pact and looked for the help of US. On the other hand, Kádár remained committed to the Warsaw Pact and assured the maintenance of communist rule in Hungary. I don't see the similarity between both programs. The goulash socialism meant a simple relaxation on economic restrictions and political repression in Hungary. The main features of the Hungarian system remained the same.

Of course Dubček wanted to be in the good graces of both American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, but the pro-Western forces he unleashed made it clear that events would overtake him. When the Soviet social-imperialists invaded he capitulated to them, and they in turn discarded him because he was of no use whatsoever afterwards.

Unlike Nagy, Dubček never intended to leave the Warsaw Pact or to replace the Communist Party rule for a multiparty system and never made any appeal to US. Not in any moment of time Czechoslovakia commitment to Moscow was in doubt. So your argument (which would be valid as far as Nagy goes) completely fails as far as Dubček is concerned.

Khrushchev presided over a growing economy with rising living standards, at least during the 50's. Brezhnev presided over a period of stagnation. Gorbachev presided over a period of pronounced stagnation which his faction of the revisionists sought to remedy by bring into much greater prominence market forces, which led to severe economic disruption

So maybe the fall of the USSR was not due to a secret plan to bring it down by secret capitalists like Khrushchev and Brezhnev but because of USSR's material conditions which were deteriorating massively since the 70's. Seems to be a much more materialistic analysis and less idealistic.

and which, together with intensified slanders against Stalin and the whole period of socialist construction under him, had the effect of discrediting Marxism-Leninism in the eyes of the people.

Well, in this case Brezhnev who presided over the longest period of stagnation could very well have proceeded to social-democratic and capitalist reforms in USSR. Not only he didn't but he also stopped any reform which was pointing to that way.

Again, there was no incentive whatsoever for Khrushchev or Brezhnev to declare they were capitalists. The entire legitimacy of the CPSU rested on its status as the vanguard of the Soviet workers and of Soviet society towards the construction of communism. The revisionists took the prestige of the CPSU in the time of Lenin and Stalin and completely squandered it by the 80's.

This is not an argument at all. The legitimacy and prestige of CPSU was equal in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

How about the fact that Romania was jointly exploited by American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism? That it was always threatened with the prospect of a Soviet invasion if it went too far into the camp of American imperialism?

Again, to you sovereignty means the freedom for a bourgeois government to enter into deals with rival imperialist superpowers to subjugate the country said government presides over.

If it had the freedom to enter deals with rival imperialist superpowers it means that it was not submitted to either side.

[Ismail]

Unlike Nagy, Dubček never intended to leave the Warsaw Pact or to replace the Communist Party rule for a multiparty system and never made any appeal to US. Not in any moment of time Czechoslovakia commitment to Moscow was in doubt. So your argument (which would be valid as far as Nagy goes) completely fails as far as Dubček is concerned.

Gorbachev said that his policies were basically akin to those of Dubček's tenure, while Dubček himself during Gorbachev's leadership claimed that Sweden was a great example of "socialism" in action.

One of Dubček's goals in office was to "reinvigorate" the Czechoslovak National Front with its various parties representing bourgeois ideology. As Hoxha said in 1967, "The degeneration of the communist parties and socialist order in certain countries, where revisionist cliques hold sway, is bringing about the revival of the system of two or more bourgeois parties under the guise of socialism and on behalf of the alleged development of socialist democracy. The fronts that exist in some of these countries have remained so on paper, they are lifeless and signs are already apparent of the revival and political and organizational activation of parties taking part in these fronts striving to win commanding posts in the socialist state which is continually assuming the features of a bourgeois state." (Report on the Role and Tasks of the Democratic Front for the Complete Triumph of Socialism in Albania, pp. 45-46.)

So maybe the fall of the USSR was not due to a secret plan to bring it down by secret capitalists like Khrushchev and Brezhnev but because of USSR's material conditions which were deteriorating massively since the 70's. Seems to be a much more materialistic analysis and less idealistic.

Except no one argued that Khrushchev and Brezhnev sought the "fall of the USSR," which obviously would conflict with the whole "transform it into a social-imperialist superpower rivaling the USA" thing.

Well, in this case Brezhnev who presided over the longest period of stagnation could very well have proceeded to social-democratic and capitalist reforms in USSR. Not only he didn't but he also stopped any reform which was pointing to that way.

Actually the role of profit continued to grow under Brezhnev. A number of works on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR point this out.

This is not an argument at all. The legitimacy and prestige of CPSU was equal in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

That's absurd and contradicts just about any account of the USSR. Do you honestly believe that the same amount of people in 1985 as in 1960 thought that the CPSU was leading the USSR into a period of material abundance and communism?

If it had the freedom to enter deals with rival imperialist superpowers it means that it was not submitted to either side.

Again, this is absurd. As Hoxha noted, "What is Ceausescu's anti-Sovietism based on? On nothing important. Allegedly, he does not take part with troops in the Warsaw Treaty manoeuvres, but he takes part through army staffs. Rumania is in the Warsaw Treaty and there it will stay. It is totally involved in Comecon, but raises some opposition, kicks out a little, but even the Bulgarians, who are as intimate with the Soviets as 'their underpants', do this in Comecon." (Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 153.)

Romania was no more "independent" and "non-aligned" in its foreign policy than the DPRK, Ba'athist Iraq, and other bourgeois nationalist regimes given room under the circumstances to conclude certain deals with the two superpowers. In fact it was less so due to its membership in the two organizations just mentioned above.

[Old Bolshie]

Gorbachev said that his policies were basically akin to those of Dubček's tenure, while Dubček himself during Gorbachev's leadership claimed that Sweden was a great example of "socialism" in action.

Gorbachev also said that his policies were a return to Leninist principles.

while Dubček himself during Gorbachev's leadership claimed that Sweden was a great example of "socialism" in action.

I don't see the interest in the context of our arguing on what Dubček said or did decades after the Prague Spring period when he had no political power over Czechoslovakia. What matters is what he said or did during this time.

One of Dubček's goals in office was to "reinvigorate" the Czechoslovak National Front with its various parties representing bourgeois ideology. As Hoxha said in 1967, "The degeneration of the communist parties and socialist order in certain countries, where revisionist cliques hold sway, is bringing about the revival of the system of two or more bourgeois parties under the guise of socialism and on behalf of the alleged development of socialist democracy. The fronts that exist in some of these countries have remained so on paper, they are lifeless and signs are already apparent of the revival and political and organizational activation of parties taking part in these fronts striving to win commanding posts in the socialist state which is continually assuming the features of a bourgeois state." (Report on the Role and Tasks of the Democratic Front for the Complete Triumph of Socialism in Albania, pp. 45-46.)

The National Front existed throughout the entire period of communist rule in Czechoslovakia. It was an important political instrument to keep the political unity of Czechoslovakia. The other parties of the National Front were totally submitted to the Communist Party. I don't see the problem with reivingorate it.

Except no one argued that Khrushchev and Brezhnev sought the "fall of the USSR," which obviously would conflict with the whole "transform it into a social-imperialist superpower rivaling the USA" thing.

But if they were like Gorbachev they would have wanted USSR to fall.

Actually the role of profit continued to grow under Brezhnev. A number of works on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR point this out.

Unless you have something to back this up it means zero.

That's absurd and contradicts just about any account of the USSR. Do you honestly believe that the same amount of people in 1985 as in 1960 thought that the CPSU was leading the USSR into a period of material abundance and communism?

Yes I do. Despite the economic stagnation there was a significant material improvement for the soviet citizens and a rise in the standard of living.

Again, this is absurd. As Hoxha noted, "What is Ceausescu's anti-Sovietism based on? On nothing important. Allegedly, he does not take part with troops in the Warsaw Treaty manoeuvres, but he takes part through army staffs. Rumania is in the Warsaw Treaty and there it will stay. It is totally involved in Comecon, but raises some opposition, kicks out a little, but even the Bulgarians, who are as intimate with the Soviets as 'their underpants', do this in Comecon." (Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 153.)

Romania was no more "independent" and "non-aligned" in its foreign policy than the DPRK, Ba'athist Iraq, and other bourgeois nationalist regimes given room under the circumstances to conclude certain deals with the two superpowers. In fact it was less so due to its membership in the two organizations just mentioned above.

For you everything that contradicts what Hoxha said is absurd. For me it is completely idiotic to uphold Hoxha as some kind of socialist prophet whose sacred word held the "truth" like if socialism was some type of religion as you do. For someone who likes to give Marxist lessons to others that's hilarious.

If Romania had the freedom to enter deals with US that meant that it was not submitted to Moscow otherwise it wouldn't have such freedom as it's obvious.

Regarding the membership that's really pathetic. I already presented to you an example of how the fact that Romania was in the Warsaw Pact didn't affect their autonomy from Moscow when it refused to take part in the Warsaw troops intervention in Prague and even took a a political stance against it.

[Ismail]

Gorbachev also said that his policies were a return to Leninist principles.

Indeed, now engage in a test:

1. When did Gorbachev say these two things and which does he continue to state?
2. Which sounds more believable?

I think you'll find him being influenced by Dubček is far more believable than claiming he was returning to Leninism.

The National Front existed throughout the entire period of communist rule in Czechoslovakia. It was an important political instrument to keep the political unity of Czechoslovakia. The other parties of the National Front were totally submitted to the Communist Party. I don't see the problem with reivingorate it.

As Hoxha said during the same speech in which he discussed the revisionist efforts to "revive" the fornts, "After the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established and consolidated, which is achieved under the guidance of the communist party, the existence for a long time of other parties, inside or outside the front, even if they are 'progressive' ones, has no meaning, no 'raison d'être' even formally on account of their alleged traditions. Every progressive tradition is blended with the revolutionary line of the communist party. The revolution overthrows a whole world, let alone a single tradition. As long as the class struggle goes on during the whole period of socialist construction of society and transition to communism, and since political parties uphold the interests of specific classes, it would be absurd and opportunist to have other non-Marxist-Leninist parties existing in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, especially when the economic basis of socialism has been laid." (op. cit., p. 44.) After pointing out the efforts of various East European revisionists to "reinvigorate" the fronts, he noted that, "The extreme groupings of modern revisionists, particularly in capitalist countries like France and Italy, are striving to persuade their revisionist colleagues in socialist countries to speedily proceed along this road in order to give a further proof to the western bourgeoisie that they are prepared to put an end to 'Stalinist socialism' and to re-establish a new bourgeois socialism of the social-democratic type and to make the work of revisionists in capitalist countries easier to unite and merge with the bourgeoisie and their parties, in order to join it in setting up such a 'socialist' order in these countries." (p. 46.)

But if they were like Gorbachev they would have wanted USSR to fall.

And obviously they weren't like Gorbachev, anymore than Bernstein was like Kim Jong Il or Castro was like Kautsky. They were all revisionists, but obviously no one groups them together as sharing the exact same policies.

Unless you have something to back this up it means zero.

I already mentioned the existence of texts on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. You have:

* http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html (Bill Bland's)
* http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RU/...RU-RP7-Ch3.pdf (the Revolutionary Union's analysis; this chapter deals specifically with the Brezhnev period, the whole book can be read here)
* http://marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html (Martin Nicolaus' analysis, which is one of the earliest and most simplistic)

And then of course there are various Albanian and Chinese analyses, most of which are not online.

For you everything that contradicts what Hoxha said is absurd.

Alternatively, Hoxha's analysis is correct. Ceaușescu was a corrupt opportunist who remained essentially pro-Soviet while being able, due to his "maverick" image at home and abroad, to accrue loans from the West and take "defiant" positions such as indirectly continuing to support Pol Pot after the latter's downfall and criticizing certain Soviet policies from a nationalist and not Marxist perspective.

If Romania had the freedom to enter deals with US that meant that it was not submitted to Moscow otherwise it wouldn't have such freedom as it's obvious.

Using this logic various African states aren't submitted to French neo-colonialism because they're occasionally able to cut deals with American or Chinese imperialism. Was Venezuela under Chávez an "independent" country even though its economy was obviously tied to US imperialism?

Regarding the membership that's really pathetic. I already presented to you an example of how the fact that Romania was in the Warsaw Pact didn't affect their autonomy from Moscow when it refused to take part in the Warsaw troops intervention in Prague and even took a a political stance against it.

And yet it continued participating in an aggressive, social-imperialist alliance which was to serve as a springboard for a Soviet invasion of Europe in the event of a third world war.

BTW I missed this bit:

I've already stated many times not only in this thread but also in others that USSR's economy was capitalist during its entire existence. When I referred to the differences between China's reforms I was alluding to the difference between a market economy and a state capitalist economy which are two sides from the same coin: capitalism.

You don't consider these states capitalist, you most certainly consider them "degenerated" or "deformed" no matter how much you my want to pretend you do not. You've already stated elsewhere that the idea that Eastern Europe was exploited in the 50's-80's was incorrect because their living standards increased during that time period. I haven't heard that sort of explanation anywhere else but from Trots trying to hide the class nature of the Soviet state-capitalist regime.

[Old Bolshie]

Indeed, now engage in a test:

1. When did Gorbachev say these two things and which does he continue to state?

2. Which sounds more believable?

I think you'll find him being influenced by Dubček is far more believable than claiming he was returning to Leninism.

He could even been influenced by both. Stalin also claimed to be a follower of Leninism despite the fact that his course went against Leninism itself. This only proves that what he said means nothing.

As Hoxha said during the same speech in which he discussed the revisionist efforts to "revive" the fornts, "After the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established and consolidated, which is achieved under the guidance of the communist party, the existence for a long time of other parties, inside or outside the front, even if they are 'progressive' ones, has no meaning, no 'raison d'être' even formally on account of their alleged traditions. Every progressive tradition is blended with the revolutionary line of the communist party. The revolution overthrows a whole world, let alone a single tradition. As long as the class struggle goes on during the whole period of socialist construction of society and transition to communism, and since political parties uphold the interests of specific classes, it would be absurd and opportunist to have other non-Marxist-Leninist parties existing in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, especially when the economic basis of socialism has been laid." (op. cit., p. 44.)

The issue with this is that the other parties didn't have any power or influence at all since their class representation was none within the country. The communist party leadership was never threatened by the National Front. And again, the National Front existed from the beginning of the regime and not since 1968.

After pointing out the efforts of various East European revisionists to "reinvigorate" the fronts, he noted that, "The extreme groupings of modern revisionists, particularly in capitalist countries like France and Italy, are striving to persuade their revisionist colleagues in socialist countries to speedily proceed along this road in order to give a further proof to the western bourgeoisie that they are prepared to put an end to 'Stalinist socialism' and to re-establish a new bourgeois socialism of the social-democratic type and to make the work of revisionists in capitalist countries easier to unite and merge with the bourgeoisie and their parties, in order to join it in setting up such a 'socialist' order in these countries." (p. 46.)

Even if those western parties called their eastern counterparts to give further proofs the fact is that it was never delivered. There wasn't any substantial change occurred.
.

I already mentioned the existence of texts on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. You have:

* http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html (Bill Bland's)
* http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/RU/...RU-RP7-Ch3.pdf (the Revolutionary Union's analysis; this chapter deals specifically with the Brezhnev period, the whole book can be read here)
* http://marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html (Martin Nicolaus' analysis, which is one of the earliest and most simplistic)

And then of course there are various Albanian and Chinese analyses, most of which are not online.

Firstly, that economic reform which those sources talk about was implemented in 1965 and not in 1956.

Secondly, none of the measures contained in the reform changed the nature of USSR's economy or its mode of production.

Thirdly, the economic reform was abandoned precisely by Brezhnev who had a particular dislike for Kosygin and his liberal ideas.

Alternatively, Hoxha's analysis is correct. Ceaușescu was a corrupt opportunist who remained essentially pro-Soviet while being able, due to his "maverick" image at home and abroad, to accrue loans from the West and take "defiant" positions such as indirectly continuing to support Pol Pot after the latter's downfall and criticizing certain Soviet policies from a nationalist and not Marxist perspective.

A "pro-soviet" who took anti-soviet stances on crucial matters such as he Prague Spring and the Afghanistan invasion which you consider to be both social-imperialistic actions.

Using this logic various African states aren't submitted to French neo-colonialism because they're occasionally able to cut deals with American or Chinese imperialism. Was Venezuela under Chávez an "independent" country even though its economy was obviously tied to US imperialism?

Sure it was and US's constant attempts to bring him down proven that he was not submitted to them.

As far as the African countries are concerned I've already told you that the American, Chinese and French imperialisms aren't imperialisms in confront as it was the case between the US and the USSR. So the logic can't be apply here.

And yet it continued participating in an aggressive, social-imperialist alliance which was to serve as a springboard for a Soviet invasion of Europe in the event of a third world war.

Their presence was residual and Romania continued to take anti-soviet stances as it was the case of Afghanistan.

BTW I missed this bit:
You don't consider these states capitalist, you most certainly consider them "degenerated" or "deformed" no matter how much you my want to pretend you do not. You've already stated elsewhere that the idea that Eastern Europe was exploited in the 50's-80's was incorrect because their living standards increased during that time period. I haven't heard that sort of explanation anywhere else but from Trots trying to hide the class nature of the Soviet state-capitalist regime.

The USSR was state capitalist from the very beginning, including during Stalin and Lenin's tenures. If you want you can check my posts to verify that I have always maintained that position. The fact that standard of livings were superior in other Eastern countries outside USSR is a fact. I didn't use it to hide anything.

[Ismail]

And again, the National Front existed from the beginning of the regime and not since 1968.

Czechoslovakia did not claim to have achieved socialism by the time Stalin died. Soviet articles at the time stressed that the Fronts were temporary phenomena and would cease to exist under socialism. The Soviet revisionists, as usual, modified this.

Firstly, that economic reform which those sources talk about was implemented in 1965 and not in 1956.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The denunciation of Stalin paved the way for getting rid of all the "mistakes" and "subjectivism" inherited from his era, such as abolishing the machine-tractor stations in 1958 under the banner of overcoming the supposed Stalin-era "distrust of the peasantry." Khrushchev's policy of regional economic councils, which were disastrous for the economy, likewise occurred not long after the 20th Party Congress.

Thirdly, the economic reform was abandoned precisely by Brezhnev who had a particular dislike for Kosygin and his liberal ideas.

Except Brezhnev's profit-expanding policies were not connected to the Kosygin reforms but were carried out after the most "radical" aspects of them were turned down. The texts I cited make this quite clear.

A "pro-soviet" who took anti-soviet stances on crucial matters such as he Prague Spring and the Afghanistan invasion which you consider to be both social-imperialistic actions.

Except he didn't take an "anti-Soviet" stance on these issues. He continued to extol the USSR as the land of Lenin, the CPSU as an internationalist party, its economy and society as marching towards communism, etc. He merely spoke about the dangers of "hegemonism" and stressed, like his friends Tito and Kim Il Sung, how countries should deal with each other on an "equal" basis. His criticisms were of a nationalistic and opportunistic character, meant to paint him as a "maverick" in Western circles so that he could expand ties with those countries.

Bit different from Chinese and Albanian rhetoric, which stressed that the USSR had degenerated into a fascistic state and was building up a militarized economy and consolidating its strategic positions in order to launch a third world war.

[Old Bolshie]

Czechoslovakia did not claim to have achieved socialism by the time Stalin died. Soviet articles at the time stressed that the Fronts were temporary phenomena and would cease to exist under socialism. The Soviet revisionists, as usual, modified this.

Czechoslovakia never achieved socialism and I don't think it ever claimed to.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The denunciation of Stalin paved the way for getting rid of all the "mistakes" and "subjectivism" inherited from his era, such as abolishing the machine-tractor stations in 1958 under the banner of overcoming the supposed Stalin-era "distrust of the peasantry." Khrushchev's policy of regional economic councils, which were disastrous for the economy, likewise occurred not long after the 20th Party Congress.

The "mistakes" were much more associated to political issues than to economic ones. Although some economic reforms (such as the wage reform) were introduced during Khrushchev's tenure none of it changed the nature of USSR's economy. Khrushchev's regional economic councils were abandoned by Brezhnev.

Except Brezhnev's profit-expanding policies were not connected to the Kosygin reforms but were carried out after the most "radical" aspects of them were turned down. The texts I cited make this quite clear.

Yes they were connected. One of the points of Kosygin reform was to turn to turn the state enterprises economic objectives toward profit and was certainly one of the most radical aspects of it

Except he didn't take an "anti-Soviet" stance on these issues. He continued to extol the USSR as the land of Lenin, the CPSU as an internationalist party, its economy and society as marching towards communism, etc. He merely spoke about the dangers of "hegemonism" and stressed, like his friends Tito and Kim Il Sung, how countries should deal with each other on an "equal" basis. His criticisms were of a nationalistic and opportunistic character, meant to paint him as a "maverick" in Western circles so that he could expand ties with those countries.

Bit different from Chinese and Albanian rhetoric, which stressed that the USSR had degenerated into a fascistic state and was building up a militarized economy and consolidating its strategic positions in order to launch a third world war.

The fact that Romania didn't take an ideological break with Moscow as Albania did doesn't mean that it was submitted to Moscow though. Albania was ideological aligned with Moscow before Stalin's death and I don't consider it to have been submitted to it during that time, or China.