Stalin?

  1. Red Brigade
    Red Brigade
    How dose the PSL feel about Stalin I know the party has Trotsky roots but do they hate Stalin? Also how do they feel about North Korea?
  2. Chimurenga.
    We do not hate Stalin. We also don't have a written position on Stalin. From what I've gathered, we acknowledge his vital leadership in the building of Socialism in Russia as well as leading the Soviet Red Army in defeating Nazi Germany. At the same time, we disprove of the killing of the remaining original Bolsheviks and we are against the bureaucracy that arose during his leadership. We also study and gain inspiration from people like Harry Haywood, who was quite sympathetic to Stalin.

    On the subject of North Korea, we recognize them as a Socialist state and also defend them on the basis of Anti-Imperialism.
  3. Queercommie Girl
    Queercommie Girl
    Do you recognise the deformations in the NK political superstructure, such as the lack of direct worker's democracy?
  4. Kassad
    Kassad
    Quote Originally Posted by Iseul
    Do you recognise the deformations in the NK political superstructure, such as the lack of direct worker's democracy?
    As Sam Marcy acknowledged, when socialism is isolated to countries and is not existent on a massive international basis, the intervention of capitalism and imperialist intervention often leads to a bureaucracy and deformity in some aspects. However, we still acknowledge Korea's development of socialism and defend it from all imperialism.
  5. Red Brigade
    Red Brigade
    Quote Originally Posted by Iseul
    Do you recognise the deformations in the NK political superstructure, such as the lack of direct worker's democracy?
    If the workers wanted to change the DPRK leadership they could in the peoples assembly.
  6. Red Brigade
    Red Brigade
    Also dose the PSL support Socialism in One Country?
  7. A Revolutionary Tool
    A Revolutionary Tool
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Brigade
    Also dose the PSL support Socialism in One Country?
    Well I think Kassad already answered that question in the above post. Of course socialism in one country is not a desirable thing, but if it's what we got then that's what we have to work with right? The "Socialism in one country" was only the practical line that could be taken at the time as socialist countries were not emerging through revolutionary action in the rest of the world, especially in Europe,(That is to say the revolutionary action was not successful in workers taking State power)that could support the USSR. So I think the phrase "Socialism in One Country" has to be put into it's historical context as such, at the time of 1924 the USSR was isolated as the only State trying to implement socialism with economic imperialism, previous invasion which left the already undeveloped country in ruins, and a lot of class enemies within(Damn kulaks). So I believe in a situation like that you're going to see distortions and deformities like Kassad said. But I believe we have to stand in solidarity with them and have to make the revolutionary situation ourselves in our own country so we wouldn't have "Socialism in One Country" lines of thought, because those situations only cause distortions, socialism is not supposed to be isolated to one country and a single country can't last forever with the imperialists at their necks.
  8. Macera
    Macera
    The other thing is the idea of Socialism in One Country is not solely an idea by Stalin it was actually referred to by Lenin in 1915 in his article, "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe." (Which you can find on the Marxist Internet Archive.) He refers to it in this section;
    "A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.
    Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists"
    So the idea of Socialism in One Country is based off of materialism and being realistic about the political situation in each country.
Results 1 to 8 of 8