Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 241 to 258 of 258

Thread: Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    You continue to place all blame on the Bolsheviks when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites that caused an objective need for consolidation of the nascent soviet society, for self-defensive combat.
    You continue to spread false claims about the white Despite the fact that their "Impending invasion" was nothing more then Bolshevik propaganda to rally support against a perceived threat when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites was over before Kronstadt.

    You keep making it sound like there would be a call from somewhere to *recreate* the USSR, when you're not realizing that the USSR was the undesired *outcome* of a materially-deprived, politically-isolated, and under-siege workers revolution, devolving into state socialism as a matter of empirical *necessity*.
    While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.

    Basically true, but you're still not accepting *reality*, that, due to the larger environment of capitalism any revolution has-been / will-become attacked from without, and having a 'buffer' bureaucratic-collective state apparatus is the best-possible option under such dire conditions when / if the revolution is unable to spread regionally and worldwide.

    Yes of course all revolutions will be attacked by the government forces of that nation states. The stupid idea would be to plan to face the capitalist nations face to face; nation vs nation instead of internally.
    All you are doing is asking for a second cold war (at best; nuclear war more likely)

    We have to disarm the capitalists; the only way to do that is to abolish the worlds nation states internally and world wide.

    I'm a self-declared 'vanguardist'
    Where is your party? Where is your organization?

    You dont even fir your own definition of a vanguardist.


    This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.
    And we come to the flaw of neo-Vanguardism; Willing to Justify and support the "Necessary" deaths of millions of workers for your ideology but loath we talk about the real job task of revolution!
    Turning Musket and cannon against our oppressors in the most authoritarian of tasks.

    [L]enin never advocated for the physical extermination of the entire bourgeoise as a class, just the execution of those who were actively involved in opposing and undermining Bolshevik rule.
    "Yes fuck those communists and their fucking soviets; ALL POWER TO THE BOLSHEVIK Party and their Military dictatorship!"

    The soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule
    Communism demands the end of Bolshevik rule

    >Death to all those who oppose the party equals death to communists.<

    And goodness did he deliver on his promise to violently repress workers and instill a military dictatorship.

    Millions dead for a failed state.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    The Moon,
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    It's obvious that Trotsky deserved it. He was a total ass, and believed that reform was a simple way to achieve a socialist state.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Many men, I know, speak of liberty without understanding it; they know neither the science of it, nor even the sentiment. They see in the demolition of reigning Authority nothing but a substitution of names or persons; they don’t imagine that a society could function without masters or servants, without chiefs and soldiers; in this they are like those reactionaries who say: “There are always rich and poor, and there always will be. What would become of the poor without the rich? They would die of hunger!” The demagogues do not say exactly that, but they say: “There have always been governors and governed, and there always will. What would become of the people without government? They would rot in bondage!”

    Joseph Déjacque: Down with the Bosses
    .
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,779
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You continue to spread false claims about the white Despite the fact that their "Impending invasion" was nothing more then Bolshevik propaganda to rally support against a perceived threat when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites was over before Kronstadt.

    'Perceived threat' contradicts 'invasion of the Whites' in the same sentence of yours. (Which was it?)

    Since there *was* an invasion that had to be neutralized...



    Eight foreign nations intervened against the Red Army, notably the Allied Forces and the pro-German armies.[13] The Red Army defeated the White Armed Forces of South Russia in Ukraine and the army led by Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak in Siberia in 1919. The remains of the White forces commanded by Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel were beaten in Crimea and evacuated in late 1920. Lesser battles of the war continued on the periphery for two more years, and minor skirmishes with the remnants of the White forces in the Far East continued well into 1923. Armed national resistance in Central Asia was not completely crushed until 1934. There were an estimated 7,000,000–12,000,000 casualties during the war, mostly civilians. The Russian Civil War has been described by some as the greatest national catastrophe that Europe had yet seen.[14]

    ...This fact and its magnitude have to be taken into consideration, not downplayed and practically ignored, with the results *displaced* onto Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as you keep doing.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.

    'Reactionary' is an incorrect / inappropriate term in this context. Consider that *full workers-government collectivization* is the real-world equivalent of all of today's wished-for liberal reforms coming true, all at once:


    https://www.marxist.com/100-years-ag...revolution.htm


    In Defence of Marxism

    100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution

    Fanny Labelle 08 March 2017

    1917 Struggle for Women's Emancipation

    100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution 8 Mar 2017

    Violence against women – an international movement in search of revolution 6 Mar 2017

    Share
    Tweet
    +1

    Every year on March 8th, International Women’s Day is celebrated all over the world. Today, it has become what is essentially a day to raise awareness about the oppression of women. This year, it has particular significance because it is also the anniversary of the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Most people are not aware of the fact that on March 8th 1917 it was actually women who started the events that created the revolution. This began a revolutionary process that brought the working class to power, allowing for spectacular advancements for women.



    Women workers, the vanguard of the Russian Revolution!

    On February 23rd 1917 – March 8th in the Gregorian calendar – it was women workers who were the first the take to the streets of Petrograd, triggering a movement that would lead to the fall of the Tsar a week later.

    Women textile workers, following attempts of the Tsarist government to ban demonstrations on Women’s day, refused to work and went on strike. Taking to the streets and sending delegates to the other factories, they sparked the revolution. Against all odds, and without any prior plan, a mass strike broke out. Around 90,000 workers were on strike for the first day. Women were demanding bread, an end to the war and an end to Tsarism. In the following days, the strike became general and a soviet was founded in Petrograd. The fall of Tsarism became an inevitability when the army came over to the side of the revolution.

    Women workers played an essential role, fraternizing with the soldiers and inciting them to turn their bayonets on their common enemy. This key role of women in the Russian Revolution is in fact nothing new. Women are quite often the first to enter the struggle and the last to leave. As an oppressed group, they have everything to win from the abolition of the capitalist system and the struggle for the establishment of socialism. Conversely, they are the first to suffer from the defeat of the revolution and the liquidation of its gains. The Russian Revolution is no exception here.

    The revolution and the condition of women



    After eight months of struggle between the soviets - representing the workers, peasants and soldiers - and the provisional government - representing the bourgeoisie - the Bolshevik Party organized the seizure of power by the soviets in October 1917 (November in the Gregorian calendar). The soviet regime made it a goal to put in place the conditions for the genuine liberation of women. After the revolution, there were several laws adopted making it so that women had the same rights as men. There was a law that stipulated that a woman must be paid the same wage as a man. For the first time in history, a woman was part of the government:

    Alexandra Kollontai, the first People’s Commissar of Social Welfare. In December 1917, a public insurance fund was created, with no deductions from workers wages. Six weeks after the revolution, civil marriage was legalized. Spouses now had the same rights as one another and divorce was legal and accessible to all.

    In 1918, a Ministry for the Protection of Maternity and Childhood was established. This led to reforms such as 16 weeks of maternity leave, exemption from overly burdensome work, banning of transfers, layoffs and night work for pregnant and postpartum women as well as access to clinics specializing in maternity, counseling services and daycares. Measures to socialize domestic work were introduced so that this burden would no longer only fall on women, isolated in their homes. In addition to the aforementioned daycares, restaurants, laundromats, medical dispensaries and hospitals were developed.

    The distinction between a legitimate and an illegitimate child was abolished by the soviet regime. Starting in 1920, women had the right to abortion. Russia became the first country to grant this right, almost 53 years before the United States and 71 years before Canada! Women were beginning to take control of their bodies and over society. They took part in it through workers’ democracy.

    All of these reforms would never have been possible, so early in history, under the capitalist system. Soviet power, in an economically backwards country where the oppression of women and minorities was possibly among the most fierce in the entire world, achieved in a few years what the capitalists in other countries took decades to concede under massive pressure from the struggle of the working class and of women. At a time when Donald Trump’s clique in 2017 is trying to restrict access to abortion and we are faced with repeated attacks on women and minorities all over the country, the Russian Revolution is an inexhaustible source of inspiration.

    The return of capitalism in Russia: a catastrophe for women

    The Stalinist reaction, through a series of counter reforms, represented a big step back at the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s. The soviet bureaucracy that had formed needed stability, and this went hand in hand with reinforcing the nuclear family unit inherited from the past – that is to say reducing women to the role of a slave for men. In 1934, prostitution became illegal and punishable by at least eight months in prison. Divorce became less accessible and more expensive. The Stalinist regime went as far as criminalizing abortion in 1936, saying that it was supposedly not necessary in a society where women were liberated and where “socialism had been achieved.”

    In spite of all of the detrimental effects of Stalinism, women in the Soviet Union made huge leaps towards equality. The revival of the soviet economy after the Second World War allowed for significant gains. Women constituted 49% of students in higher education in 1970; only Finland, France and the United States had also surpassed the 40% mark. Pregnant women could benefit from a reduction in their workload and paid maternity leave. As well, there was an increase in daycare spaces, an increase in life expectancy and a drop in infant mortality. All of this progress was the fruit of the planned economy, an economy freed from the need to satisfy the investors’ thirst for profit.

    The return of capitalism in Russia in the 1990s undermined, one after another, all of the advances made by women following the revolution. Capitalism has brought back all of the evils usually associated with it: family oppression, unemployment, prostitution and homelessness. Women were the first to be laid off, the first to suffer wage cuts and were the ones who returned to the home as a result of the draconian cuts in social services. The rise in unemployment meant that women accounted for almost 70% of the unemployed and up to 90% in some regions. The decrease in women’s wages, which fell from 70% to 40% of that of men after 1989, increased their material dependence on men. There was also a huge increase in violence against women.

    In the 1990s, the bourgeoisie jubilantly proclaimed the “end of history” and the victory of liberal democracy. What has been accomplished in Russia since then? Russia is now dominated by gangsters, inequality has never been so high, and the condition of women and other oppressed groups has been getting worse and worse. A direct attack against women has recently occurred: the Russian Duma (parliament) has decriminalized domestic violence at the first offense and there are no serious consequences. Previously, such acts could be punished by two years in prison. The responsibility is now on the victim who must personally provide a record of evidence, and this may have the effect of increasing the difficulty for the victims to bring to justice their aggressor. According to Duma spokesman Vyacheslav Volodin, the law “would help build strong families”! Twenty-five years after the end of the Soviet Union, this new law is a tragic testimony to the position of women made possible by the victory of “democracy”.

    Take inspiration from 1917

    Today, under capitalism, social services such as those mentioned above exist and mitigate the burden on women, but these programs are at risk of being abolished or cut severely as austerity is on the order of the day in all countries. Women still do not have the same wages as men for equal work. They are still forced to perform the majority of domestic tasks and are underrepresented in the political and cultural spheres.

    The October 1917 revolution not only wanted formal equality between men and women, but it wanted to create the material conditions to give women real access to all political, economic and cultural fields of society. We are facing the same task today. As long as a system based on exploitation persists, as long as the family in its present form exists, women will not be able to free themselves completely from their chains.

    Today, the same as one hundred years ago, women play a leading role in the struggle against oppression and exploitation. The Women’s March against Donald Trump on January 21 was a clear demonstration of this. And today, as was the case a hundred years ago, we must link the struggle of against women’s oppression with the wider struggle for the overthrow of the established order, for the overthrow of capitalism. There must be a new foundation for society, through which the daily struggle for survival, competition between workers and the slave mentality will be destroyed, a society where truly harmonious relations between human beings will become the standard. Women in the struggle for emancipation will find in the Russian Revolution of 1917 an inspiring example from which we must draw lessons in order to accomplish the socialist transformation of society.



    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Yes of course all revolutions will be attacked by the government forces of that nation states. The stupid idea would be to plan to face the capitalist nations face to face; nation vs nation instead of internally.

    As I said, socialism-in-one-country is not the *desired* implementation -- it was a materially-necessary *fallback* political configuration due to the prevalence of detrimental factors at the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    All you are doing is asking for a second cold war (at best; nuclear war more likely)

    No, I'm not *calling* for socialism-in-one-country.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    We have to disarm the capitalists; the only way to do that is to abolish the worlds nation states internally and world wide.

    True.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Where is your party? Where is your organization?

    I've noted before that since communication technologies like the Internet now exist, human society no longer *requires* a necessarily-somewhat-substitutionist 'party' formulation:


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    Hierarchy is just a *vehicle* -- it's not automatically 'bad' but depends on the political *trajectory* chosen by such a hierarchy / institution. It's definitely more *expedient*, but at the cost of being less bottom-up in participation, which *could* become a problem over the long-term, all other factors being neutral.

    I don't justify hierarchy (a vanguard *party*) in the abstract, as any kind of *desired* vehicle, especially when today's communications technology would allow all revolutionaries worldwide to be active in an ongoing participatory 'vanguard' (not 'vanguard party').
    Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...50#post2881150


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You dont even fir your own definition of a vanguardist.

    On what grounds -- ? (What's the reasoning behind this baseless accusation -- ?)


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Our job as revolutionaries; As killers,

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    And we come to the flaw of neo-Vanguardism; Willing to Justify and support the "Necessary" deaths of millions of workers for your ideology but loath we talk about the real job task of revolution!

    As political people (revolutionaries) we're *not* primarily 'killers' -- and I'm not justifying or calling-for internal repression in any way in making this distinction, contrary to more reckless accusations from yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Turning Musket and cannon against our oppressors in the most authoritarian of tasks.

    I disagree with your *emphasis* on violence since the point of revolution is to *empower* the *working class*, which can potentially be done with sheer numbers, to simply *displace* counterrevolutionary forces, as happened in history. Here's from the article posted above:



    [T]he strike became general and a soviet was founded in Petrograd. The fall of Tsarism became an inevitability when the army came over to the side of the revolution.

    Women workers played an essential role, fraternizing with the soldiers and inciting them to turn their bayonets on their common enemy.

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    "Yes fuck those communists and their fucking soviets; ALL POWER TO THE BOLSHEVIK Party and their Military dictatorship!"

    You're erroneously conflating party-type general organization with an automatically anti-worker dictatorship.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule

    You have no evidence for this fatuous contention.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Communism demands the end of Bolshevik rule

    >Death to all those who oppose the party equals death to communists.<

    And goodness did he deliver on his promise to violently repress workers and instill a military dictatorship.

    Millions dead for a failed state.

    Again you retreat to your 'Great Man Theory' since it allows you to place all blame on one person, irrespective of all other world events going on at the time.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Pingu View Post

    It's obvious that Trotsky deserved it. He was a total ass, and believed that reform was a simple way to achieve a socialist state.

    Trotsky was a revolutionary, not a reformist.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    852
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    "100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution"

    And that workers revolution was successfully countered when the Bolsheviks made it illegal for workers to strike.

    You call Stalinism *full workers-government collectivization* when it was the farthest thing in the world from it. It was a fascist dictatorship; Stalin "No different then Mussolini." by eye-witness accounts of the party's fascism.
    You can call the right-wing government of Russia "workers-control" all you want; But party members themselves admitted that the party leadership was far-right of even Lenin (who again made it illegal for workers to protest their working conditions).

    You are defending a right-wing party leadership for enacting one of the most brutal anti-worker dictatorships in human history; and somehow think that the term "Reactionary" is inappropriate.

    Fuck that. Stalin was fascist.
    The party; full of right-wingers who countered every attempt at workers revolution (as a direct >reaction< to the already existing movement started by women).


    On what grounds
    "vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies."

    You have no organization that intents to "draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics"
    You are a graphic designer who is arguing online that your home made graphics are the framework for the future.
    Form a vanguard then call yourself a vanguardist.

    I disagree with your *emphasis* on violence
    Women workers played an essential role, fraternizing with the soldiers and inciting them to turn their bayonets on their common enemy.
    Sorry what was that again?

    You're erroneously conflating party-type general organization with an automatically anti-worker dictatorship.
    No I am saying that specifically; The BOLSHEVIK leadership was Anti-worker (as admitted by Trotsky)


    You have no evidence for this fatuous contention.(that the soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule)
    Here is the evidence

    Again you retreat to your 'Great Man Theory' since it allows you to place all blame on one person, irrespective of all other world events going on at the time.
    Not one person; the party leadership; A group of people who we can proved lied and used propaganda to rally populist support for a right-wing anti-worker party leadership.


    Trotsky was a revolutionary, not a reformist.
    And he himself admitted that the party was right-wing and dead set against the workers.

    "They (the party leadership) did not know how to refute the premise about the bourgeois character of the revolution"
    "Every time the Bolshevik leaders had to act without Lenin they fell into error, usually inclining to the Right."
    "The Bolshevik leaders policy "of waiting, of accommodation, and of actual retreat before the Compromisers"
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,779
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    "100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution"

    And that workers revolution was successfully countered when the Bolsheviks made it illegal for workers to strike.

    All you're doing is taking pot-shots at those who were tasked to handle the actual dire circumstances -- the revolutionary workers society *supported* the Bolsheviks, and a Red Army was raised to deal with counterrevolutionaries from within and without.

    Under more-typical conditions we would *encourage* workers to strike, of course, but at the time of the October Revolution such actions were too similar to *counter-revolutionary* actions, and so were *inappropriate*. I'm not *cheering* Lenin here, it's just what would have been done by anyone else in that position, under those conditions.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    'Reactionary' is an incorrect / inappropriate term in this context. Consider that *full workers-government collectivization* is the real-world equivalent of all of today's wished-for liberal reforms coming true, all at once:

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You call Stalinism *full workers-government collectivization* when it was the farthest thing in the world from it.

    I was only critiquing your use of the descriptor 'reactionary' -- I'm not defending the domestic policies of Stalin.



    Beginning in October 1918, the Soviet Union liberalized divorce and abortion laws, decriminalized homosexuality, permitted cohabitation, and ushered in a host of reforms that instigated a red sexual revolution.[1] But without birth control, this early emancipation produced many broken marriages and broken hearts, as well as countless children born out of wedlock.[2] The epidemic of divorces and extramarital affairs created social hardships when Soviet leaders wanted people to concentrate their efforts on growing the economy. Giving Soviet women control over their fertility also led to a precipitous decline in the birth rate, perceived as a threat to their country’s military power. By 1936, Joseph Stalin reversed most of the liberal laws, ushering in a conservative, pronatalist era that lasted for decades to come.[3]

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    It was a fascist dictatorship; Stalin "No different then Mussolini." by eye-witness accounts of the party's fascism.
    You can call the right-wing government of Russia "workers-control" all you want;

    No, of course I haven't, and wouldn't, describe Stalinism as being workers-control. But it *wasn't* right-wing or fascist -- it was bureaucratic-collectivist-nationalist:


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    What I'm *trying* to do with this portion is to *show* that there's a clear distinction between left-wing and right-wing, so that you'll cease conflating Bolshevism and Stalinism, with fascism. The clear distinction can be seen in the active policies regarding private property, as with the example of dekulakization, which was definitely *anti*-private-property, and therefore generally left-wing, and *not* 'fascist'. It will always be negligence on your part, or anyone's, to flippantly ignore the 'ends' ('ideology'), to focus only on the 'means'.

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    But party members themselves admitted that the party leadership was far-right of even Lenin (who again made it illegal for workers to protest their working conditions).

    All you're doing is making an academic exercise out of the left-right spectrum of political positions, while continuing to *ignore* the actual material situation at the time.

    We could mark the timeline at exactly the moment that the Russian Revolution failed to spread to Germany -- at this point Bolshevik Russia then became decidedly *isolated* and *internal* within a necessarily *geopolitical* context:



    [In October 1918] another series of strikes swept through Germany with the participation of over 1 million workers. For the first time during these strikes, the so-called Revolutionary Stewards took action. They were to play an important part in further developments. They called themselves "Councils" (Räte) after the Russian "Soviets". To weaken their influence, Ebert joined the Berlin strike leadership and achieved an early termination of the strike.

    On 3 March 1918, the newly established Soviet government agreed to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk negotiated with the Germans by Leon Trotsky. The settlement arguably contained harsher terms for the Russians than the later Treaty of Versailles would demand of the Germans. The Bolsheviks' principal motivation for acceding to so many of Germany's demands was to stay in power at any cost amid the backdrop of the Russian Civil War. Lenin and Trotsky also believed at the time that all of Europe would soon see world revolution and proletarian internationalism, and bourgeois nationalistic interests as a framework to judge the treaty would become irrelevant.

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You are defending a right-wing party leadership for enacting one of the most brutal anti-worker dictatorships in human history; and somehow think that the term "Reactionary" is inappropriate.

    It *is* inappropriate, objectively / empirically -- the entire country at that point was *no longer* revolutionary in any sense, and had to collectively operate in the larger environment of bourgeois nation-states.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Fuck that. Stalin was fascist.

    You're just venting and name-calling in a simplistic way without a care for what these pejorative terms actually *mean* or what the historical / situational context actually *was*.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The party; full of right-wingers who countered every attempt at workers revolution (as a direct >reaction< to the already existing movement started by women).

    Nope, it wasn't right-wing -- it was bureaucratic-collectivist on a nationalist scale. I'm not defending it, I'm saying that there were no other realistic options at that point.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    "vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies."

    You have no organization that intents to "draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics"

    I'm not trying to be like an ahistorical Lenin, as you imply -- I participate here at RevLeft, and that is a sufficient use of my time for political purposes.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You are a graphic designer

    Only by obsession. (grin)


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    who is arguing online that your home made graphics are the framework for the future.

    What are you even disparaging here -- ? You've *agreed* that at least one component of my model would be realistically useful (post #203):


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    If you want to build a system for processing public requests maybe some unions will sign up; As you say it would be efficient to have a central hub for possessing societys requisitions.

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Form a vanguard then call yourself a vanguardist.

    Here's the link: tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism.

    Feel free to pass it along.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    No I am saying that specifically; The BOLSHEVIK leadership was Anti-worker (as admitted by Trotsky)

    The historical conditions at that time were *not* conducive to a gradual bottom-up soviet-type workers control over social production -- there was insufficient material productivity for such, hence the objective / empirical need for centralization and defense on a necessarily-*national* scale.


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    You have no evidence for this fatuous contention.(that the soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule)

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    I misspoke -- here's some background:




    Other revolts[edit]

    The first large CHEKA action against alleged anarchists where people were killed was in mid April 1918 in Petrograd. Then at the end of April and beginning of May coordinated CHEKIST attacks against alleged anarchists were launched in both Petrograd and Moscow. ( P. Avrich. G. Maximoff. ) These violent attacks without warning from the Bolsheviks forced anarchists underground and prompted measured retaliation by them in self-defense. Anarchists in Rostov, Ekaterinoslav and Briansk broke into prisons to liberate the prisoners and issued fiery proclamations calling on the people to revolt against the Bolshevik regime. The Anarchist Battle Detachments attacked the Whites, Reds and Germans alike. Many peasants joined the revolt, attacking their enemies with pitchforks and sickles. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the Underground Anarchists were formed by Kazimir Kovalevich and Piotr Sobolev to be the shock troops of their revolution, infiltrating Bolshevik ranks and striking when least expected. On 25 September 1919, the Underground Anarchists struck the Bolsheviks with "their heaviest blow against the 'oppressors'".[30] The headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party was blown up, killing 12 and injuring 55 Party members, including Nikolai Bukharin and Emilian Iaroslavskii. Spurred on by their apparent success, the Underground Anarchists proclaimed a new "era of dynamite" that would finally wipe away capitalism and the State.[citation needed] The Bolsheviks responded by initiating a new wave of mass repression in which Kovalevich and Sobolev were the first to be shot.[citation needed] The remaining Underground Anarchists blew themselves up in their last battle with the Cheka,[when?] taking much of their safe house with them.[citation needed]

    Further repression[edit]

    However, strikes continued. In January 1920, Lenin sent a telegram to Izhevsk telling that "I am surprised that you are taking the matter so lightly and are not immediately executing large numbers of strikers for the crime of sabotage."[31]

    In June 1920, female workers in Tula who refused to work on Sunday were arrested and sent to labor camps.[32]

    Workers opposition[edit]

    Alexandra Kollontai increasingly became an internal critic of the Communist Party and joined with her friend, Alexander Shlyapnikov, to form a left-wing faction of the party that became known as the Workers' Opposition. The Workers Opposition had some similar demands to some of the rebellions, but supported the government and argued peacefully within it rather than resorting to violent uprisings. Instead the Workers Opposition energetically supported the crushing of these rebellions, including volunteering government representatives to participate in the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion. After the Kronstadt Rebellion, Lenin argued that the party needed unity at that time because their enemies were trying to exploit disunity. The Workers' Opposition and other factions were dissolved, but the leaders of the two main factions Workers Opposition and Democratic Centralists were included in the new leadership.

    Tyumen revolt[edit]

    In January 1921, the largest uprising[33] in Russia since the civil war broke out. Insurgents blocked the railway, occupied Tobolsk, Surgut, Berezovo, and Salekhard, stormed Ishim, and came within four km of Tyumen. Both sides fought a battle of unprecedented savagery.[dubious – discuss] Regular Red Army units using armored trains, warships, and other means took part in suppressing the uprising, which was finally crushed only in 1922.

    Revolutionary Insurrectionary (Anarchist) Army[edit]

    The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine or Anarchist Black Army led by anarchist and former Red Army leader Nestor Makhno took control of most of the southern Ukraine and Crimea after its abandonment by Red Army troops in 1919. Makhno's forces fought on the side of the Bolsheviks and played an important role in the eventual defeat of the White Armies. However, they were at odds with the Bolshevik view of a unitary Bolshevik dominated political movement. Occasionally Makhno's Black Army troops fought Red Army forces, whom the Ukrainian anarchists had viewed with mistrust after Chekist and Red Army raids on anarchist centers, including arrests, detentions, and executions commencing in May 1918.

    For his part, Makhno stated his support for "free worker-peasant soviets"[34] independent of centralized control by Moscow. Makhno, a rural anarchist, viewed the Bolsheviks as urban dictators out-of-touch with the people, opposing the Bolshevik-controlled "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[34] In practice, Makhno's Anarchist Black Army, the Anarchist Revolutionary Military Council, and the Ukrainian anarchists' political arm, the Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups (NABAT) formed an overall government over the area they controlled, though they did permit local self-governing autonomous committees of peasants. Like the Red Army, they used forced conscription and summary executions, though as a relatively popular native Ukrainian movement, these measures were not used on the same scale as that of the Bolshevik Red Army.[35] In the areas under his military control, the Anarchist Revolutionary Military Council banned all opposition parties[34](,[35] 119), and like the Bolsheviks, used two secret police counter-intelligence forces: the Razedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del.[36]

    Some members of the Bolshevik Central Committees considered allowing an independent area for Makhno's libertarian experiment,[35] an idea fiercely opposed by both Lenin and Leon Trotsky, War Commissar of the Red Army. After each successful repulse of White Army forces, Trotsky ordered fresh attacks against Makhno and the Anarchist Black Army, halting only when White forces threatened to once again defeat the Red Army in the field. At the instructions of Moscow, the Cheka sent two agents to assassinate Makhno in 1920. After repudiation of two military alliances, and the final defeat of White General Wrangel in the Crimea, Trotsky ordered the mass executions of Makhnovist sympathizers, followed by the liquidation of many of Makhno's subordinate commanders and his entire headquarters staff at a "joint planning conference" in November 1920. By August 1921, Makhno and the remainder of the Anarchist Black Army had been forced into exile.

    Revolts against grain requisitioning[edit]

    SRs were among the main leaders of the uprisings of the Tambov Rebellion and the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921. Protests against grain requisitioning of the peasantry were a major component of these uprisings and Lenin's New Economic Program was introduced as a concession.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-w...#Other_revolts



    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Not one person; the party leadership; A group of people who we can proved lied and used propaganda to rally populist support for a right-wing anti-worker party leadership.

    Yes, we can generalize to the Bolsheviks, as a whole, for national defense. (It wasn't right-wing, and it wasn't anti-worker on principle.)


    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    Trotsky was a revolutionary, not a reformist.

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    And he himself admitted that the party was right-wing and dead set against the workers.

    "They (the party leadership) did not know how to refute the premise about the bourgeois character of the revolution"
    "Every time the Bolshevik leaders had to act without Lenin they fell into error, usually inclining to the Right."
    "The Bolshevik leaders policy "of waiting, of accommodation, and of actual retreat before the Compromisers"

    Again you may as *well* be using Great Man Theory because you continue to lay blame -- in a right-wing manner -- on those who simply *actively handled* a rapidly-devolving situation. Under such conditions *nothing* is going to be pretty, and you insist on an ahistorical idealism which just wasn't possible at the time.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New York, United States
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    It's truly incredible that threads like these are still being made.
    "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." - Karl Marx

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,779
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowoftheFlag View Post

    It's truly incredible that threads like these are still being made.

    'Incredible' in what sense of the word -- ?

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    To sum it up: Trotsky was a revolutionary, Stalin was a murdering pig and anarchists are just plain silly (and occasionally extremely destructive).

    Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jdneel For This Useful Post:


  11. #250
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    87
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    No,the sum is the following: Stalin was a revolutionary,Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig and anarchists are just plain silly.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.

  12. #251
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,779
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Winter View Post

    No,the sum is the following: Stalin was a revolutionary,Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig and anarchists are just plain silly.

    My understanding (from this thread) is that Trotsky introduced formal intra-party factionalism where none was necessary -- but, even accepting this premise at face value, what about all of his previous contributions to the revolution, as in the Red Army -- ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_T...spring_1918.29


    (My position from post #246 stands -- after the failed spreading of the revolution to Germany, and then the start of formal bourgeois-international relations, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), there was *no* revolution anymore. There were no options except to nationalize further, industrialize, and do geopolitics as a nation-state within the larger context of capitalist relations.)


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    We could mark the timeline at exactly the moment that the Russian Revolution failed to spread to Germany -- at this point Bolshevik Russia then became decidedly *isolated* and *internal* within a necessarily *geopolitical* context:

  13. #252
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    87
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    My understanding (from this thread) is that Trotsky introduced formal intra-party factionalism where none was necessary -- but, even accepting this premise at face value, what about all of his previous contributions to the revolution, as in the Red Army -- ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_T...spring_1918.29
    The point is that the great many of people see the revolution as something static and changeless and that is their misstake.There is an interesting Marx's remark on the French revolution:

    "In the first French Revolution the rule of the Constitutionalists is followed by the rule of the Girondists and the rule of the Girondists by the rule of the Jacobins. Each of these parties relies on the more progressive party for support. As soon as it has brought the revolution far enough to be unable to follow it further, still less to go ahead of it, it is thrust aside by the bolder ally that stands behind it and sent to the guillotine. The revolution thus moves along an ascending line."" https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...18th-brumaire/

    In February 1917 Kerensky and prince Lvov were surely revolutionaries but already a few months later they were clearly counter-revolutionary - the revolution kept moving along an ascending line and they could not follow it any more.

    In 1917-1920 Trotsky really has made a big contributions to the revolution,but when the revolution has entered a fully socialist phase in 1929 all anti-Stalinist opposition became counter-revolutionaries for they could not follow it further and not surprisingly finally was "sent to the guillotine" - that is the dialectic of the revolution.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to General Winter For This Useful Post:


  15. #253
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,779
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Winter View Post

    The point is that the great many of people see the revolution as something static and changeless and that is their misstake.There is an interesting Marx's remark on the French revolution:

    "In the first French Revolution the rule of the Constitutionalists is followed by the rule of the Girondists and the rule of the Girondists by the rule of the Jacobins. Each of these parties relies on the more progressive party for support. As soon as it has brought the revolution far enough to be unable to follow it further, still less to go ahead of it, it is thrust aside by the bolder ally that stands behind it and sent to the guillotine. The revolution thus moves along an ascending line."" https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...18th-brumaire/

    In February 1917 Kerensky and prince Lvov were surely revolutionaries but already a few months later they were clearly counter-revolutionary - the revolution kept moving along an ascending line and they could not follow it any more.

    In 1917-1920 Trotsky really has made a big contributions to the revolution,but when the revolution has entered a fully socialist phase in 1929 all anti-Stalinist opposition became counter-revolutionaries for they could not follow it further and not surprisingly finally was "sent to the guillotine" - that is the dialectic of the revolution.

    Thanks, that's a valuable point.

    The only thing is I myself can't see the trajectory of Stalinist policies as being 'revolutionary' because to me they were more nationally-necessary-centralization-and-consolidation since the initial October Revolution of soviets was unable to spread *outwards*.

  16. #254
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    905
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Long before 1929, Trotsky was advocating for most of the policies that the USSR ended up doing as early as 1923 with other members of the opposition such as Preobrazhensky arguing for collectivisation and industrialisation as early as 1921. Comparatively, Stalin as late as July 1928 was claiming that the people who advocated against individual farms, as in the people who were advocating for the collectivisation of agriculture, had nothing in common with the party. Stalin railed against the 'super-industrialisers' and Molotov called the ideas of collectivisation a 'poor peasants illusion'. And then, a year later, they were doing exactly that - conveniently once they had expelled the 'super-industrialisers with poor peasant illusions'.

    Trotsky was advocating the increase in working class membership of the party, increasing the representation of the poor agricultural workers to better organise the changing economic climate in the rural areas and maintain the working-class character of the party. Stalin was expelling and arresting working class members and oversaw the increase in bureaucratic and state officials as members of the party. Trotsky and the left opposition were arguing for proletarian internationalism. Stalin told the workers in China to disarm and, in a mirror of Menshevism, to align themselves the the Chinese bourgeois republicanism of Chiang Kai-shek which led to the workers being massacred and the revolutionaries forced to flee into the countryside. Stalin thought it possible to construct socialism in one country where anyone with a basic understanding of Marx or Lenin would know that capitalism is a global system that cannot be completely dismantled in one area alone.

    It would be clear to anyone with a basic grasp of history that Stalin was a counter-revolutionary of an unprecedented scale, only opportunistically utilising revolutionary phrases where it best shored up his power, and Trotsky remained consistently revolutionary, always advocating for the greater power for the workers to better facilitate international proletarian revolution.
    Strengthened and hardened in the revolutionary melting-pots of the great industrial centres, toughened by repeated economic struggles, victim of crisis and unemployment, witness of the blatant injustice which allows the same cities to contain the palaces of the parasites and the slums of the workers, the proletariat is certainly the revolutionary class, and consequently the only class whose violence can put an end to the social war. - Victor Serge


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  18. #255
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,779
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    GMM, maybe you can clear something up for me -- was the focus on *primarily* *agricultural* collectivism (as distinct from *urban*, proletarian collectivization of the means of mass industrial production) in Russia and/or China strictly a 'mistake' of priorities, or was it objectively a *prerequisite* to doing the same for the cities, since urban workers needed / need food from the countryside for their sustenance -- ?

  19. #256
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Thank you, Comrade. Until recently, I didn't even know that there were still Stalinists out there. I consider myself schooled.

    Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

  20. #257
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    905
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    GMM, maybe you can clear something up for me -- was the focus on *primarily* *agricultural* collectivism (as distinct from *urban*, proletarian collectivization of the means of mass industrial production) in Russia and/or China strictly a 'mistake' of priorities, or was it objectively a *prerequisite* to doing the same for the cities, since urban workers needed / need food from the countryside for their sustenance -- ?
    It's hard to put my thoughts to words. Suffice to say, collectivisation of agriculture wasn't a prerequisite for rapid industrialisation. Collectivisation under Stalin had only a minor impact on industrialisation and its greatest impact was through a by-product of the forced nature of Stalin's implementation of the change, that of the mass of unemployed peasants fleeing to the cities who took on proletarian jobs. If you look at comparative economic booms from the likes of Japan, Korea, India, some parts of Latin America etc it becomes clear that rapid urbanisation and industrial growth can happen regardless of the nature of agricultural production - and where there are proletarians there can be proletarian collective control. Collectivisation was a 'good' thing in that it changed economic relations in the rural areas but its implementation by Stalin, after years of basically advocating policies that allowed richer peasants to exploit poorer agricultural workers and gain individual wealth, had at best a short term negative impact on agricultural production and at worst led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands. Which is one of the sad things about Stalinists at times - they'll justify the deaths of thousands by pointing to economic growth when in reality that economic growth had little to do with collectivisation.
    Strengthened and hardened in the revolutionary melting-pots of the great industrial centres, toughened by repeated economic struggles, victim of crisis and unemployment, witness of the blatant injustice which allows the same cities to contain the palaces of the parasites and the slums of the workers, the proletariat is certainly the revolutionary class, and consequently the only class whose violence can put an end to the social war. - Victor Serge


  21. #258
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    87
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    Thanks, that's a valuable point.

    The only thing is I myself can't see the trajectory of Stalinist policies as being 'revolutionary' because to me they were more nationally-necessary-centralization-and-consolidation since the initial October Revolution of soviets was unable to spread *outwards*.
    We can judge the presence or absence of a revolution only by change of socio-economic basis of the society,while anti-stalinist always talk about superstructure,ie about what is secondary, showing their anti-marxist views.

    So in short what do we see? In October 1917 we see capitalist economic structure, from 1918 till 1929 there is five structures including communist,the communist "offensive" of 1929-1936 and the establishment of a new socio-economic basis and a new mode of production.

    We see that the revolution lasted for 20 years,that there were periods of it's retreat and offensive and we see at every turn of the revolution the appearanse of former revolutionaries who could not follow the revolution any more.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.

Similar Threads

  1. Was Trotsky a revisionist?
    By BolshevikOG in forum Learning
    Replies: 248
    Last Post: 16th April 2014, 19:40
  2. Views of Stalin as a person and his actions?
    By Always Curious J in forum Learning
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 26th May 2013, 09:00
  3. Stalin’s spy in the Fourth International
    By Small Geezer in forum History
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 7th May 2012, 09:15
  4. Do you support Stalin?
    By Comrade1 in forum History
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 12th May 2011, 10:04
  5. Hitler was a socialist - A good short essay.
    By Anonymous in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 25th February 2003, 22:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •