Stalinists are traitors

[A New Era]

are workers who wage class struggle "reactionary" if they belong to the "wrong" organization?

If they are in the end against workers liberation and workers control of society (also the result in the USSR, China, North Korea etc.), then yes.

Apparently, they're not traitors, because you just backpedalled again!

One usually think of a traitor as a bad guy who turn sides and is now against the side he or she once supported. But if you support the state having control of the means of production, and support the state being controlled by a few men, and will in the end supress the effort of the proletariat to gain real control of society, you are indeed reactionary. Many of the stalinists think they are fighting for the workers, when in the end they are really infecting the workers movement. And the workers movement is ailing due to this infection.

No other political group ha done as much damage to the struggle for workers liberation as the stalinists. Their method is disastreous. The history of their so-called "socialist states" are proof enough. And so they are are a great, great danger and a very real infection to our struggle for our liberation.

They have banged our head in the wall again and again and we are bleeding and suffering heavily due to their insanity, and after the collapse of state capitalism all over the world, they say, let's bang our head in the wall again, you'll get your freedom if you do it long enough!

[Die Neue Zeit]

RNK, class alliances with PETIT-bourgeois elements for a CAPITALIST revolution (with a "revolutionary-democratic" political superstructure instead of a bourgeois one) is fundamentally different from allying with national HAUTE bourgeoisie.

This is something that the Mensheviks (and their Stalinist-under-Stalin students) and the Social-Revolutionaries (and their Maoist students) never understood.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Stalin's dead

stop raping his corpse

[A New Era]

Stalinists support in general the same model of the USSR under Stalin (ie state capitalism), so the actions of Stalin is very much relevant.

[Comrade Rage]

Stalinists support in general the same model of the USSR under Stalin (ie state capitalism), so the actions of Stalin is very much relevant.

Much like your support for capitalism.

[RNK]

RNK, class alliances with PETIT-bourgeois elements for a CAPITALIST revolution (with a "revolutionary-democratic" political superstructure instead of a bourgeois one) is fundamentally different from allying with national HAUTE bourgeoisie.

In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie. - Communist Manifesto, Position Of The Communists In Relation To The Various Existing Opposition Parties

Quite revisionist of you to try and say that Marx ever claimed that an alliance with the petit-bourgeois was ok (under some circumstances) while an alliance with the haute bourgeoisie was not. Communists can and should make and break alliances whenever the benefit to the working class is greatest.

And this in no way contradicts the Block Of Four Classes theory and New Democracy (ie, creating an alliance of Peasant, Proletariat, Petit-Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie under Proletarian rule) in a fuedal or peasant society. Since it is impossible for a classless society to exist in pre-industrialized conditions, it makes senses that any industrialization, any industrial revolution would preferably fall under the direction of the proletariat rather than be under the full control of capitalists and bourgeoisie.

[A New Era]

Much like your support for capitalism.

You are flaming, using personal attacks and posting claims that are untrue. Comrade Crum haven't done anything in this thread except trying to sabotage the discussion.

[Comrade Rage]

You are flaming, using personal attacks and posting claims that are untrue. Comrade Crum haven't done anything in this thread except trying to sabotage the discussion.

You're the one flaming, and calling me a 'state-capitalist'. I'm just returning the favor.

[black magick hustla]

Can you be more substantive?

A lot (or if not most) of the old Communist Parties were dominated by a "Left" wing. From the famous "childish" ultraleftist parties, like the German, Dutch, or Italian Communist Parties, to some other that weren't as famous as the Mexican Communist Party.

Gramsci and Togliatti, under the influences of Moscow, seized control of the Italian Communist Party and subordinated its role to the antifascist bourgeosie and eschewed the pursue of world revolution. Same with the Mexican Communist Party, which was founded by both Anarchists and Marxists. Mexican Anarchists came from a solid, communistic, class struggle background, and took an internationalist position on the question of WWI, contrary to a lot of other "socialists". The Mexican Communist Party purged its left wing and anarchist elements and become another organ of Moscow.

Its also important to remind that the most "ultraleft" parties came from the countries with most solid class struggle tradition. Like Germany and Italy.

Another example could be Spain. Stalinists did help to move the pole from left to right by allying themselves with the liberal bourgeosie and destroying the autonomy of working class organs like the CNT and POUM. Both organizations were forced to join the Popular front due to the sabotage of a power that obviously had more economic resources than them.




[Qoute]Like the Alliance with capitalism against Nazism? [/Quote]

Nazism is capitalism. Comintern parties cheered for the millions and millions of workers sent to die for bourgeois democrats.

This accusation has been repeatedly proven false.

I don't mean socialism "in one country". I mean more concrete trends like supporting millions to die for their bourgeois masters in WWII, or pushing against working class revolution in Spain.

First, how does beauraucratization lead to a party becoming strict adherants to the Moscow line?

Second, can you prove this occured?

Third, doesn't that disprove the claim that the CPSU was anti-international?

Parties became strict adherents to the Moscow line because the right wing, which terminated in dominating the left wing, was supported by a nation willing to finance it.

I think, you as a Maoist, already understand that "orthodox communist parties" became simply organs of Moscow. Except that you think it had noithing to do with Stalin and everything with Kruschev.

Anyway, I think the most stellar example is the Spanish Communist Party and the International Brigades, which were financed by the CPSU and did take over the Left.

[RNK]

Another example could be Spain. Stalinists did help to move the pole from left to right by allying themselves with the liberal bourgeosie and destroying the autonomy of working class organs like the CNT and POUM. Both organizations were forced to join the Popular front due to the sabotage of a power that obviously had more economic resources than them.

Basically, the Soviet Union (and Stalin, naturally) destroyed the Civil war in Spain by supporting who they believed were the more progressive, worthwhile sections?

I think, you as a Maoist, already understand that "orthodox communist parties" became simply organs of Moscow. Except that you think it had noithing to do with Stalin and everything with Kruschev.

Actually, no.. as a "Maoist" I am privy to my own beliefs and opinions based on my own knowledge which are not forced to conform to some imaginary mass line. Of all "Maoists" I know I am one of the most critical of the USSR; I just believe in placing blame where it's due, and not in blaming the USSR for everything from the failure of the anarchists to win the Civil War to the boogyman to the Challenger disaster.

[black magick hustla]

Basically, the Soviet Union (and Stalin, naturally) destroyed the Civil war in Spain by supporting who they believed were the more progressive, worthwhile sections?

It doesn't matter what were their motives. What matters its that it represented a counterrevolution and a subordination of workers to bourgeois liberals.

[RNK]

Actually, it does; failing to grasp the potential motivation for an act is a grievous error. Sometimes people kill others to defend themselves; sometimes they do it as an outright act of murder. Punishing both instances as the same is stupid.

What I find silly is that even though the Soviet Union was supporting the war against Franco and his fascism, you still see it as counter-revolutionary because they did not support the "right section' of the anti-Franco alliance.

[black magick hustla]

Actually, it does; failing to grasp the potential motivation for an act is a grievous error. Sometimes people kill others to defend themselves; sometimes they do it as an outright act of murder. Punishing both instances as the same is stupid.

What I find silly is that even though the Soviet Union was supporting the war against Franco and his fascism, you still see it as counter-revolutionary because they did not support the "right section' of the anti-Franco alliance.

I dont really care about their motives, because I cant never know them. I think it had more to do with the USSR's geopolitics than for real belief in workers revolution though.

I see it as counterrevolutionary, because again, it subordinated class struggle to bourgeois liberals. Supporting the "right sections" is what communists do, because we support communist revolution. If partie sstarted supporting bourgeois liberals instead of communism then there is a clear counterrevolution.

[spartan]

What I find silly is that even though the Soviet Union was supporting the war against Franco and his fascism, you still see it as counter-revolutionary because they did not support the "right section' of the anti-Franco alliance.

It was counter revolutionary because the Stalinists suppression of the most popular sects of the revolutionary militias, parties and trade unions led to an easy victory for Franco and his Monarcho-Catholic-Fascists!

You Stalinists seem to conveniantly forget that it was Anarchist militias and trade unions who were the first to demanded that the government give them arms to defend the Republic from the rebellious Franco (The government had previously refused).

You also seem to forget that the overwhelming majority of people holding the line against Franco at the start of the war were members of Anarchist militias raised by Anarchist trade unions!

Things only started to go wrong when the Popular Army (Armed with brand spanking new Mosin Nagant rifles and with Russian tanks and aeroplanes) forced the militias to become apart of the new PA.

This soon followed with the reintroduction of ranks and hierarchies in a society that had previously successfully abolished both.

[Sky]

Just look at the history of stalinists.

How about the history of the Trotskyists?

During the Revolution of 1905-07, Trotskyists, distorting Marx's idea of permanent revolution, propounded their own theory of permanent revolution, which they opposed to Lenin's doctrine of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois democratic revolution and the doctrine of the transformation of this revolution into a socialist revolution. Trotskyists repudiated the revolutionary nature of the peasant masses as well as the proletariat's ability to establish a firm alliance with the peasantry; they ignored the bourgeois democratic tasks of the first Russian revolution and put forth the voluntaristic idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat as a result of the bourgeois democratic revolution.

[FONT=Verdana]During World War I, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Trotskyism[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] was a component of international centrism, a social democratic trend that wavered between social chauvinism and petit bourgeois pacifism. Trotksyists rejected Lenin's conclusion that it was possible in the period of imperialism for the proletarian revolution to triumph first in a few countries or even in a single country. In opposition to Lenin's slogan transforming the imperialist war in to a civil war, Trotsky advanced the slogan "Neither victory nor defeat," which essentially meant that everything would remain as before; consequently, even tsarism would be preserved.[/FONT]

After the February Revolution of 1917, just as in 1905, the Trotskyists confused the bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution in Russia with the socialist stage; failing to recognize the bourgeois democratic stage, they demanded the immediate creation of a "true workers' government," the leading role in which they assigned to conciliatory parties.

The Trotkskyists opposed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and foild the timely conclusion of the negotiations, thus exposing the still weak Soviet republic to the threat of German imperialist aggression. As a result, the Soviet government was compelled to sign a peace treaty at a later date under worse conditions.

During the 1968 general strike in France, Trotskyists and other "ultrarevolutionaries" supported the adventuristic idea of an immediate armed uprising. In Japan the Trotskyists gave the reactionary forces a pretext for the bloody suppression of the demonstrations in Shinjuku in October 1968 and in Yokosuka in January 1969. Trotskyists have engaged in similar activities in other countries as well. Schismatic efforts of the Trotskyists in Chile aided the fascist coup there.

[RNK]

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that the anarchists with their old hunting rifles and home-made weapons were on the verge of victory, and that the establishment of conventional armed forces with tanks, airplanes and modern weapons somehow led to a counter-revolution.

It's easy enough to use the Soviet Union as the scapegoat. Afterall, the war was lost only after the Soviet Union got involved (which is, I suppose, a turn-around from the original claim that the Soviet Union rejected internationalism). There could, therefore, be no other reason for the defeat of the revolutionary forces in Spain other than the Soviet Union's involvement.

This, my friends, is called "circumstantial evidence" which at most shows that the re-organization of the revolutionary forces, with the Soviet Union's help, inadvertently led to a victory for Franco. It in no way whatsoever proves that the Soviet Union's activities were "counter-revolutionary", let alone show that the Soviet Union acted maliciously and purposely to help Franco. You weak lot are simply using the USSR as a scapegoat, someone to blame for the failure.

[Nusocialist]

Just look at the history of stalinists. Take, for instance, USSR robbing the Republican side during the spanish civil war for gold, practically it's only really valuable resource.

Or Mao closing the Shanghai commune. Or Mao ordering the halt of the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

That revolutionaries are willing to cooperate with these people is beyond me. They are reactionaries, whether they like it or not, despite their red flags.

Yeah because those were the worst bits about Stalin and Mao, not the amazing loss of life.

[spartan]

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that the anarchists with their old hunting rifles and home-made weapons were on the verge of victory, and that the establishment of conventional armed forces with tanks, airplanes and modern weapons somehow led to a counter-revolution.

So what your saying is that its okay to suppress the workers, and their hard fought for control, so long as it creates a sense of Bourgeois stability?

It's easy enough to use the Soviet Union as the scapegoat. Afterall, the war was lost only after the Soviet Union got involved (which is, I suppose, a turn-around from the original claim that the Soviet Union rejected internationalism).

The only reason the USSR got involved in this conflict was because their Bourgeois allies France wanted them to kill off any workers revolution, because France (A Bourgeois state) didnt like the idea of having a truely workers run state as a neighbour, especially when they had their own militant workers to deal with (Who could use the example of the success that was Anarchist run Spain, to attract French workers to their cause).

Add to that the Spanish Bourgeois, who were willing to pay lots of money (Which they did) for the USSR's crushing of workers revolution services, and you can see that Stalin and the USSR were more than willing to help out his Bourgeois allies for money and sell the workers out to Fascist rule (What a great example of a Socialist there folks).

[black magick hustla]

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that the anarchists with their old hunting rifles and home-made weapons were on the verge of victory, and that the establishment of conventional armed forces with tanks, airplanes and modern weapons somehow led to a counter-revolution.

It's easy enough to use the Soviet Union as the scapegoat. Afterall, the war was lost only after the Soviet Union got involved (which is, I suppose, a turn-around from the original claim that the Soviet Union rejected internationalism). There could, therefore, be no other reason for the defeat of the revolutionary forces in Spain other than the Soviet Union's involvement.

This, my friends, is called "circumstantial evidence" which at most shows that the re-organization of the revolutionary forces, with the Soviet Union's help, inadvertently led to a victory for Franco. It in no way whatsoever proves that the Soviet Union's activities were "counter-revolutionary", let alone show that the Soviet Union acted maliciously and purposely to help Franco. You weak lot are simply using the USSR as a scapegoat, someone to blame for the failure.

I never said anarchists had the capabiliy to win or not. The issue isn't that though. THe real issue is that the USSR funded bourgeois liberals.

[Wanted Man]

If they are in the end against workers liberation and workers control of society (also the result in the USSR, China, North Korea etc.), then yes.

So a person's ideas are more important than their objective position in the class struggle?