Thread: Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

Results 281 to 290 of 290

  1. #281
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location UK
    Posts 927
    Rep Power 28

    Default

    A good example of a brainwork of anti-Staliist: those who reject the possibility of the continuation of the revolution are "dedicated revolutionaries";those who stand for it continuation are "bureaucrats".In fact it was a bit different.
    It would take the most confused of people to suggest that the revolutionaries who were murdered to shore up Stalinist power were not dedicated to the continuation and spread of revolution. All through the 20's the revolutionaries were arguing for the collectivisation of agriculture, the development of state-controlled industry, the support of international revolutions and the increased participation of the working class in the state machinery and through that greater workers control of the means of production. The Stalinists, by comparison, cynically claimed that the private peasant production would never end to the point where one of their key propaganda slogans amongst the peasantry was literally 'Get Rich!', the revolutionaries advocating for an expanded industry to provide greater economic support were derided as 'super-industrialisers' and the Stalinist control of Comintern ordered the Chinese revolutionary workers to give up their arms and support Chiang Kai-Shek's government to disastrous results, as if the Stalinists learned nothing from the Mensheviks who similarly advocated supporting a bourgeois Provisional government. As for increased working class involvement, the Stalinists cared little. The bureaucrats, half of whom were former Tsarists, did everything in their power to prevent working class involvement in decision making.

    It was only after 1929, when they had expelled the dedicated revolutionaries, that the Stalinists zigzagged on their policies - opportunistically adopting aspects of the Opposition's platform but in such a disorganised and careless manner that it led to famine and death and a bloated internal police force. Yet even still these bureaucrats cared little for working class involvement, one of the pillars of any socialist revolution. A party that had once nearly entirely composed of workers, poor peasants and soldiers had turned into a party which was nearly half state bureaucrats and that trend wouldn't alter.

    No sence in repressing those who are already nothing more than a political corpse.But political bankruptcy clutch at a straw and go to any adventure to seize a power.
    The revolutionaries were trying to resuscitate a corpse by rejuvenating the working class heart of the state in order to better pump that essential sustenance to revitalise the whole process. By comparison, the Stalinists were wrapping a skeleton in a red flag and calling it socialism.

    I've already tried to explain these events from the marxist point of view: http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...43#post2881643
    You abuse the theory of dialectics.
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  3. #282
    Join Date Feb 2017
    Posts 92
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    I see it's a question of belief for you: "everyone ever arrested under a Communist regime was most likely innocent of any crime, Communists only arrested harmless political prophets who had a beautiful message to share with the world" ,and the article of unknown Pierre Broué is something like Holy Scripture.I apologize if I hurt your religious feelings.
    Stalin purged all of his rivals. In fact the vast majority of those he murdered were devoted Communists! I'm tired of hearing defence of this homicidal sociopath. The truth of this matter was well known ages ago in the Soviet Union.

    Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk
  4. #283
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 109
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    You can't just blithely dismiss those who opposed Stalin's consolidation of political power by using the derisory terms of 'anti-Stalinist', and 'anti-continuation-of-the-revolution'.

    By *that* point (circa 1923) there *was* no revolution remaining, because it had stalled in spreading to Germany and Europe, and was circumscribed, at best, by Russia's borders. It *was* already non-continuable, and Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country' line slammed the lid shut on any *continuation* of a proletarian-based revolution against capital-based rule throughout the world. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, by that point, *was* a formulation of bureaucrats.
    Really by that point there was no revolution remaining in Europe and not because Stalin "slammed the lid shut" but for objective reasons..And naturally, with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every intensification of difficulties must inevitably appear disagreements within the party. Those who stood for revolution only because they expect the victory of the revolution the very next day, then obviously they must be disillusioned in the revolution if the revolution is delayed.This is the objective reason for the emergence of the "Left Opposition",of those who now "was unable to follow revolution further,still go ahead of it,and was thrusted asisde by the bolder ally". The opposition rejected the possibility of building socialism in one country,ie they rejected the possibility of the continuation of revolution in Russia.But if they believed that socialism was impossible what policy could they offer in exchange ? Only capitulation to capitalism - this is the only possible alternative .Those who stand for capitulation to capitalism cannot be called "dedicated revolutionaries".

    As for bureaucratism - by that point oppositionists were high-ranking bureaucrats themselves.Like any power, the power of the Bolsheviks had all the common drawbacks of power including the drive to bureaucratization.

    "You can throw out the tsar, throw out the landowners, throw out the capitalists. We have done this. But you cannot “throw out” bureaucracy in a peasant country, you cannot “wipe it off the face of the earth”. You can only reduce it by slow and stubborn effort...To “throw off” an ulcer of this kind is impossible. It can only be healed....“Throw off” the “chief administrations”? Nonsense. What will you set up instead? You don’t know. You must not throw them off, but cleanse them, heal them, heal and cleanse them ten times and a hundred times." https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../may/16mfs.htm

    Bureaucratization in the USSR started just in post-Stalin times.khrushchevism is a wish of the bureaucracy to be above the law, the hatred of the bureaucracy to any control over it.The myth of "unjustified repressions" and "innocent victims of personality cult" was necessary for a justification of certain "security guarantees" for the bureaucracy. After a propaganda campaign of high-profile reabilitations that shocked the Soviet society was adopted a law wich in fact made impossible a persecution of representatives of the bureaucracy.Since this time started a decay of the Soviet ruling top wich finished in 1991 by the collapse. We in Russia already passed through it,we know what anti-Stalinism leads to.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
  5. The Following User Says Thank You to General Winter For This Useful Post:


  6. #284
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,495
    Blog Entries 4
    Rep Power 59

    Default


    Really by that point there was no revolution remaining in Europe and not because Stalin "slammed the lid shut" but for objective reasons..

    Okay, so we agree that the Russian (October) Revolution didn't spread as it needed to -- but the *subjective* factor of Stalin's 'Socialism in One Country' *was* slamming-the-lid-shut as well since it didn't look to the international proletariat for any continuation / internationalization of the revolution as it was, contained in the Soviet Union.


    From post #280:



    In late 1924 [...] Stalin proposed his new Socialism in One Country theory

    ---



    And naturally, with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every intensification of difficulties must inevitably appear disagreements within the party. Those who stood for revolution only because they expect the victory of the revolution the very next day, then obviously they must be disillusioned in the revolution if the revolution is delayed.

    Here you're summarily *dismissing* the Left Opposition as being ultra-leftist (unrealistically impatient), when in fact it *had* the correct line for the context of the actual situation then, which was Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution':



    'Permanent revolution' according to Trotsky[edit]

    Trotsky's conception of Permanent Revolution is based on his understanding, drawing on the work of fellow Russian Alexander Parvus, that a Marxist analysis of events began with the international level of development, both economic and social. National peculiarities are only an expression of the contradictions in the world system. According to this perspective, the tasks of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution could not be achieved by the bourgeoisie itself in a reactionary period of world capitalism. The situation in the backward and colonial countries, particularly Russia, bore this out.[9] This conception was first developed in the essays later collected in his book 1905 and in his essay Results and Prospects, and later developed in his 1929 book, The Permanent Revolution.

    The basic idea of Trotsky's theory[10] is that in Russia the bourgeoisie would not carry out a thorough revolution which would institute political democracy and solve the land question. These measures were assumed to be essential to develop Russia economically. Therefore, it was argued the future revolution must be led by the proletariat who would not only carry through the tasks of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution but would commence a struggle to surpass the bourgeois democratic revolution.

    How far the proletariat would be able to travel upon that road would depend upon the further course of events and not upon the designation of the revolution as "Bourgeois Democratic". In this sense the revolution would be made permanent. Trotsky believed that a new workers' state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was advanced in opposition to the position held by the Stalinist faction within the Bolshevik Party that "socialism in one country" could be built in the Soviet Union.

    Trotsky's theory was developed in opposition to the Social Democratic theory that undeveloped countries must pass through two distinct revolutions. First the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution, which socialists would assist, and at a later stage, the Socialist Revolution with an evolutionary period of capitalist development separating those stages. This is often referred to as the Theory of Stages, the Two Stage Theory or Stagism.

    ---



    This is the objective reason for the emergence of the "Left Opposition",of those who now "was unable to follow revolution further,still go ahead of it,and was thrusted asisde by the bolder ally".

    'The bolder ally' -- ??

    *This* is your criterion for the continuation of class struggle -- ? That whoever is 'bolder' automatically has the objective credentials to represent the revolution such-as-it-is, going-forward -- ?

    You're falling into a right-wing-type 'might makes right' rationale, instead of looking at the entire *situation* objectively.



    The opposition rejected the possibility of building socialism in one country,ie they rejected the possibility of the continuation of revolution in Russia.

    You and I both know that a revolution is *supposed* to be *proletarian* and internationalist.



    But if they believed that socialism was impossible what policy could they offer in exchange ? Only capitulation to capitalism - this is the only possible alternative .Those who stand for capitulation to capitalism cannot be called "dedicated revolutionaries".

    Opposing a nationalist consolidation of elitist collectivist bureaucratism ('Socialism in One Country') is *not* 'capitulating to capitalism' -- look at the Left Opposition *position* (post #280):



    Trotsky and his supporters, on the other hand, refused to capitulate to Stalin and were exiled to remote areas of the Soviet Union in early 1928.

    ---



    As for bureaucratism - by that point oppositionists were high-ranking bureaucrats themselves.Like any power, the power of the Bolsheviks had all the common drawbacks of power including the drive to bureaucratization.

    Now you're using a historical-revisionist line of saying that the Bolshevik formulation was somehow *inherently* bureaucratic, and you're ignoring all of the historical *context* of actual events, such as:



    The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks, who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military Revolutionary Committee began the occupation of government buildings on 7 November 1917 (New Style). The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia), was captured.

    The Bolsheviks viewed themselves as representing an alliance of workers and peasants and memorialized that understanding with the Hammer and Sickle on the flag and coat of arms of the Soviet Union. Other decrees:

    • All private property was nationalized by the government.
    • All Russian banks were nationalized.
    • Private bank accounts were expropriated.
    • The properties of the Church (including bank accounts) were expropriated.
    • All foreign debts were repudiated.
    • Control of the factories was given to the soviets.
    • Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.


    The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people regardless of their political orientation. The war was fought mainly between the Red Army ("Reds"), consisting of the uprising majority led by the Bolshevik minority, and the "Whites" – army officers and cossacks, the "bourgeoisie", and political groups ranging from the far Right to the Socialist Revolutionaries who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks following the collapse of the Provisional Government to the soviets (under clear Bolshevik dominance).[29][30] The Whites had backing from nations such as Great Britain, France, USA and Japan, while the Reds possessed internal support which proved to be much more effective. Though the Allied nations, using external interference, provided substantial military aid to the loosely knit anti-Bolshevik forces, they were ultimately defeated.[29]


    [T]he British and French governments decided upon an Allied military intervention in Russia. They had three objectives:[6][better source needed][not in citation given]

    • prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk
    • mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian Railway[not in citation given]
    • resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the Czechoslovak Legions[not in citation given] and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force of local citizens and stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.


    The Russian economy was devastated by the war, with factories and bridges destroyed, cattle and raw materials pillaged, mines flooded and machines damaged. The industrial production value descended to one-seventh of the value of 1913 and agriculture to one-third. According to Pravda, "The workers of the towns and some of the villages choke in the throes of hunger. The railways barely crawl. The houses are crumbling. The towns are full of refuse. Epidemics spread and death strikes—industry is ruined."[citation needed] It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories in 1921 had fallen to 20% of the pre-World War level, and many crucial items experienced an even more drastic decline. For example, cotton production fell to 5%, and iron to 2%, of pre-war levels.

    War Communism saved the Soviet government during the Civil War, but much of the Russian economy had ground to a standstill. The peasants responded to requisitions by refusing to till the land. By 1921 cultivated land had shrunk to 62% of the pre-war area, and the harvest yield was only about 37% of normal. The number of horses declined from 35 million in 1916 to 24 million in 1920 and cattle from 58 to 37 million. The exchange rate with the US dollar declined from two rubles in 1914 to 1,200 in 1920.

    ---



    "You can throw out the tsar, throw out the landowners, throw out the capitalists. We have done this. But you cannot “throw out” bureaucracy in a peasant country, you cannot “wipe it off the face of the earth”. You can only reduce it by slow and stubborn effort...To “throw off” an ulcer of this kind is impossible. It can only be healed....“Throw off” the “chief administrations”? Nonsense. What will you set up instead? You don’t know. You must not throw them off, but cleanse them, heal them, heal and cleanse them ten times and a hundred times." https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../may/16mfs.htm

    Bureaucratization in the USSR started just in post-Stalin times.khrushchevism is a wish of the bureaucracy to be above the law, the hatred of the bureaucracy to any control over it.The myth of "unjustified repressions" and "innocent victims of personality cult" was necessary for a justification of certain "security guarantees" for the bureaucracy. After a propaganda campaign of high-profile reabilitations that shocked the Soviet society was adopted a law wich in fact made impossible a persecution of representatives of the bureaucracy.Since this time started a decay of the Soviet ruling top wich finished in 1991 by the collapse. We in Russia already passed through it,we know what anti-Stalinism leads to.

    Collectivist bureaucracy (or 'Stalinism' for short) is historically-*progressive* compared to the market system, but obviously falls short of being real proletarian internationalism.

    You're trapped in the corner of merely criticizing the Stalinist-type collectivist bureaucracy while proposing no alternative except for a return to more 'strongman'-type rule, or consolidation of political power in one personage, like Stalin. This trajectory is certainly *not* revolutionary, and is a *static* formulation at best.
  7. #285
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 109
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    At first,let us be honest: 'Socialism in One Country' is not Stalin's idea,аs early as 1915, Lenin made the assumption: " Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world.... http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/le...923/jan/06.htm .Ie in this question Stalin stood on Lenin's position while Trotsky acted as anti-Leninist.

    At second,you constantly stick up the label " collectivist bureaucratism", this term is unscientific,Marxist science knows feudal, capitalist, communist formations.This label express nothing except the personal negative attitude towards the USSR.

    At third, you recognise yourself that the Soviet system (no matter how you brand it) was "progressive compared to the market system". But the replacement of an old system by a new one progressive is revolution.Clear,one would think,that opposition opposed here revolution.Don't say they proposed something more revolutionary - they rejected any possibility of a revolutionary movement further in one country.

    I strongly disagree with your brand,I repeat.In the middle of 1930s the socialist form became dominant in the Soviet economy,therefore the socialist basis and the appropriate superstructure appeared.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
  8. #286
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,495
    Blog Entries 4
    Rep Power 59

    Default


    At first,let us be honest: 'Socialism in One Country' is not Stalin's idea,аs early as 1915, Lenin made the assumption: " Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world.... http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/le...923/jan/06.htm .Ie in this question Stalin stood on Lenin's position while Trotsky acted as anti-Leninist.

    But at the *time* Lenin *wasn't* arguing for this 'victory of socialism in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately':



    Aims[edit]

    The goals of the Bolsheviks in implementing war communism are a matter of controversy. Some commentators, including a number of Bolsheviks, have argued that its sole purpose was to win the war. Vladimir Lenin, for instance, said that "the confiscation of surpluses from the peasants was a measure with which we were saddled by the imperative conditions of war-time."

    [2] Other Bolsheviks, such as Yurii Larin, Lev Kritzman, Leonid Krasin and Nikolai Bukharin argued that it was a transitional step towards socialism.[3] Commentators, such as the historian Richard Pipes, the philosopher Michael Polanyi,[4] and the economists such as Paul Craig Roberts [5] or Sheldon L. Richman,[6] have argued that War communism was actually an attempt immediately to eliminate private property, commodity production and market exchange, and in that way to implement communist economics, and that the Bolshevik leaders expected an immediate and large-scale increase in economic output. This view was also held by Nikolai Bukharin, who said that "We conceived War Communism as the universal, so to say 'normal' form of the economic policy of the victorious proletariat and not as being related to the war, that is, conforming to a definite state of the civil war".[7]

    ---



    At second,you constantly stick up the label " collectivist bureaucratism", this term is unscientific,Marxist science knows feudal, capitalist, communist formations.This label express nothing except the personal negative attitude towards the USSR.

    Then what do you call the superstructure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the time -- ?

    *Of course* the term 'bureaucratic collectivism' is valid, because that's exactly how the country's economy was run.

    I have *no* negative attitudes towards the fUSSR, so I'm *not* demeaning it with my descriptions -- my line, though, is that the actual social movement of revolution was over once Lenin had to take the reins and implement the 'war communism' and 'New Economic Policy' policies -- I wouldn't be *opposed* in that historical context, since the USSR had to function *geopolitically* from that point on, but I wouldn't call it 'revolutionary' once national decision-making became top-down.


    Political Spectrum, Simplified






    ---



    At third, you recognise yourself that the Soviet system (no matter how you brand it) was "progressive compared to the market system". But the replacement of an old system by a new one progressive is revolution.

    Sure, I'm not trying to *quibble* here -- but, due to my politics, I'd much rather term 'revolution' as being that of the *international proletariat*, rather than the internal (USSR) consolidation of political power. If you like, you can say that the USSR was 'revolutionary' within the international bourgeois context of competing, imperialist nation-states.



    Clear,one would think,that opposition opposed here revolution.Don't say they proposed something more revolutionary - they rejected any possibility of a revolutionary movement further in one country.

    So you're contending that Trotsky and the Left Opposition were anti-Stalin, or factional, but without proposing any kind of way-forward in those particular social circumstances -- ?

    Here's from the founding document of the Left Opposition, the 'Declaration of 46':



    If the situation which has developed is not radically changed in the very near future, the economic crisis in Soviet Russia and the crisis of the fractional dictatorship within the party will strike heavy blows to the workers' dictatorship in Russia and to the Russian Communist Party. With such a burden on its shoulders, the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and its leader, the RCP, cannot enter the field of the impending new international shocks in any other way than with the perspective of failure along the entire front of proletarian struggle. Of course, it would at first glance be easiest of all to resolve the question in the following sense: in view of the situation, there is not and there cannot be any place now for raising the questions of changing the party's course, of placing on the agenda new and complex tasks, etc., etc. But it is absolutely clear that such a point of view would be a position of officially closing one's eyes to the actual situation, since the entire danger lies in the fact that there is no genuine ideological or practical unity in the face of exceedingly complex domestic and foreign situations. In the party, the more silently and secretly the struggle is waged, the more ferocious it becomes. If we raise this question before the Central Committee, then it is precisely in order to find the swiftest and most painless resolution of the contradictions which are tearing the party apart, and to rapidly place the party on healthy foundations. We need real unity in discussions and in actions. The impending ordeals require the unanimous, fraternal, absolutely conscious, extremely energetic, and extremely unified activity of all the members of our party.

    The fractional regime must be eliminated, and this must be done first of all by those who have created it; it must be replaced by a regime of comradely unity and inner-party democracy.

    In order to realize all that has been outlined above, and to take the necessary measures to extricate ourselves from the economic, political and party crisis, we propose that the CC, as a first and most urgent step, call a conference of members of the CC with the most prominent and active party cadres, in order that the list of those invited include a number of comrades who have views concerning the situation which differ from the views of the majority of the CC.

    ---



    I strongly disagree with your brand,I repeat.

    Again you seem to think that I am *opposed* to the USSR in the geopolitical context, which I am not.



    In the middle of 1930s the socialist form became dominant in the Soviet economy,therefore the socialist basis and the appropriate superstructure appeared.

    Bureaucratic collectivism is preferable to the market mechanism, but it also falls short of being 'a regime of comradely unity and inner-party democracy', as Trotsky put it, much less being an ever-growing proletarian revolution internationally.
  9. #287
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 7,948
    Rep Power 161

    Default Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

    At first,let us be honest: 'Socialism in One Country' is not Stalin's idea,аs early as 1915, Lenin made the assumption: " Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world.... http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/le...923/jan/06.htm .Ie in this question Stalin stood on Lenin's position while Trotsky acted as anti-Leninist.
    Let's be honest and look at the whole paragraph without selective edits: "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, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states."

    Lenin was not arguing for socialism developing in one country or block of countries... he was writing about a United States of Europe and arguing against the idea that capitalist-nationalism could be overcome by capitalists which then would create a big block where industrial workers in advanced countries and ones in places like Russia would be in a position to fight for socialism in one united step.

    To argue against this he makes an argument that parallels... if not directly cites... Permanent revolution! The underlying assumption is that socialist revolution in one region would also lead to a prolonged crisis because European economies are interconnected.

    This is consistent with his post-revolution insistence that revolution had to happen in Germany or other major powers or socialism would not sustain in Russia. This was not original to him, most people - even Stalin - accepted this. Stalin's theory, on the other hand, came after the revolutionary wave was defeated... rather than theory, it was political justification for defeated conditions - and attempt to sell this shit and tell people it was actually roses.

    Crucially, Lenin insists in this paragraph that:"The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic ... The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat."

    I wonder why Stalin failed to quote that part when selectively quoting Lenin to justify the opposite of what Lenin, the bolsheviks and other revolutionary workers believed and fought for.

    I strongly disagree with your brand,I repeat.In the middle of 1930s the socialist form became dominant in the Soviet economy,therefore the socialist basis and the appropriate superstructure appeared.
    Cool, but socialism is not a brand or a form or economic policy. As Marx described it's worker's power... he was very clear that nationalization in the abstract is not socialism as he described. Capitalists pass land reform and nationalize industries... without actual workers power, this is meaningless as far as "socialism". But Stalinism did not use theory to understand the world to help workers like us change it, Stalinism turned theory on its head to act as dogma to justify the status-quo. Marxist-Leninism is the opposite of Marxism or Leninism (Bolshevism).




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  11. #288
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 109
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    But at the *time* Lenin *wasn't* arguing for this 'victory of socialism in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately
    That's not correct.

    In 1921 Lenin again raised the question of the possibility of the victory of socialism declaring in his speeches and articles that we were introducing NEP not as a departure from our course, but as a continuation of it under the new conditions, with a view to laying "a sicialist foundation for our economy". (see Lenin’s The Tax in Kind).

    Then a year later, in 1922, Lenin at the plenary meeting of the Moscow Soviet says: "Permit me to conclude by expressing the conviction that, difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and no matter how many difficulties it may entail, we shall all—not in one day, but in the course of several years—all of us together fulfil it whatever happens so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia".

    And here is what Lenin says in the articles "On Co-operation":

    "As a matter of fact, state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc.—... is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building".

    You and I both know that a revolution is *supposed* to be *proletarian* and internationalist.
    At first,I don't understan why do you think that to recognise the possibility of completely building socialism in one country means a "national narrow-mindedness", while to deny such a possibility means internationalism.

    At second,I think it's impossible to counterpose the national tasks of the proletarians of a particular country to the international tasks ,these tasks merge into the one general task of the victory of the socialist revolution in all countries. The proletariat of the USSR was interested in the support of the world proletariat,the world proletariat was interested in the excistance of the USSR as a base of the world revolution - that is the unity and inseparability of the national and international.

    At third,you say that the power in the USSR was not proletarian.I think some people don't quite understand what power is. The point is that between the guiding directives of the power and their fulfilment lie the will and actions of those who are led, the will and actions of the class, its willingness (or unwillingness) to support such directives."Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves in power for two-and-a-half months, let alone two-and-a-half years, .... without the fullest and unreserved support of the latter by the whole mass of the working class".(Lenin). Clear,one would think. Only fools can think that the authorities can do whatever they want.The biggest freacks believe that one man,a leader, being omnipotent,a sort of an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu,is absolutely independent on the will of others and can commit eveything he want.It is the religious,not the Marxist point of view. As a matter of fact,any authority is restricted in actions by the willingness or unwillingness of it's class.The Soviet regime would not only be unable to expropriate capitalist elements,to withstand a stiff class struggle in 1929-1935,it would not be able even to "maintained in power for two-and-a-half months" in this struggle if it wasn't proletarian in its essence and didn't base on the will of the proletariat.
    Last edited by General Winter; 21st May 2017 at 10:13.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
  12. #289
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,495
    Blog Entries 4
    Rep Power 59

    Default

    I have no *empirical* contentions here, GW, but I still have reservations about an NEP-based economy being the basis for *any* kind of socialism. I think War Communism and the NEP were *appropriate* for the circumstances at the time, but at the social cost of taking the country off of full nationalization of industry:



    The New Economic Policy was an economic policy of Soviet Russia proposed by Vladimir Lenin, who described it as a progression towards "state capitalism" within the workers' state of the USSR.[1] Lenin characterized “state capitalism” and his NEP policies in 1922 as an economic system that would include “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control” while socialized state enterprises were to operate on “a profit basis.”[2]

    The NEP represented a more capitalism-oriented economic policy, deemed necessary after the Russian Civil War of 1917 to 1922, to foster the economy of the country, which was almost ruined. The complete nationalization of industry, established during the period of War Communism, was partially revoked and a system of mixed economy was introduced, which allowed private individuals to own small enterprises,[3] while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries.[4] In addition, the NEP abolished prodrazvyorstka (forced grain requisition)[3] and introduced prodnalog: a tax on farmers, payable in the form of raw agricultural product.[5] The Bolshevik government adopted the NEP in the course of the 10th Congress of the All-Russian Communist Party (March 1921) and promulgated it by a decree on 21 March 1921 "On the Replacement of Prodrazvyorstka by Prodnalog". Further decrees refined the policy.

    Other policies included the monetary reform (1922–1924) and the attraction of foreign capital.

    The NEP policy created a new category of people called NEPmen (нэпманы), nouveau riches due to NEP.

    Joseph Stalin abolished the New Economic Policy in 1928.

    Policies[edit]

    The laws sanctioned the co-existence of private and public sectors, which were incorporated in the NEP, which on the other hand was a state oriented "mixed economy".[12]

    The NEP represented a move away from full nationalization of certain parts of industries. Some kinds of foreign investments were expected by the Soviet Union under the NEP, in order to fund industrial and developmental projects with foreign exchange or technology requirements.[13]

    The NEP was primarily a new agricultural policy.[14] The Bolsheviks viewed traditional village life as conservative and backward. It was reminiscent of the Tsarist Russia that had supposedly been overthrown by the October Revolution. With the NEP, the state only allowed private landholdings because the idea of collectivized farming had met strong opposition.[15]

    Lenin understood that economic conditions were dire, so he opened up markets to a greater degree of free trade, hoping to motivate the population to increase production. Under the NEP, not only were “private property, private enterprise, and private profit largely restored in Lenin’s Russia,” but Lenin’s regime turned to international capitalism for assistance, willing to provide “generous concessions to foreign capitalism.”[16] Lenin took the position that in order to achieve socialism, he had to create “the missing material prerequisites” of modernization and industrial development that made it imperative for Soviet Russia to “fall back on a centrally supervised market-influenced program of state capitalism”.[17] Lenin was following Karl Marx’s precepts that a nation must first reach “full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization.”[18] The main policy Lenin used was an end to grain requisitions and instead instituted a tax on the peasants, thereby allowing them to keep and trade part of their produce. At first, this tax was paid in kind, but as the currency became more stable in 1924, it was changed to a cash payment.[3] This increased the peasants' incentive to produce, and in response production jumped by 40% after the drought and famine of 1921–22.[19]

    NEP economic reforms aimed to take a step back from central planning and allow the economy to become more independent. NEP labor reforms tied labor to productivity, incentivizing the reduction of costs and the redoubled efforts of labor. Labor unions became independent civic organizations.[citation needed] NEP reforms also opened up government positions to the most qualified workers. The NEP gave opportunities for the government to use engineers, specialists, and intelligentsia for cost accounting, equipment purchasing, efficiency procedures, railway construction, and industrial administration. A new class of "NEPmen" thrived. These private traders opened up urban firms hiring up to 20 workers. NEPmen also included rural artisan craftsmen selling their wares on the private market.[20]

    ---



    Lenin and his followers saw the NEP as an interim measure. However, it proved highly unpopular with the Left Opposition in the Bolshevik party because of its compromise with some capitalist elements and the relinquishment of state control.[5] The Left saw the NEP as a betrayal of Communist principles, and believed it would have a negative long-term economic effect, so they wanted a fully planned economy instead. In particular, the NEP fostered a class of traders ("NEPmen") whom the Communists regarded as "class enemies" of the working class. On the other hand, Vladimir Lenin is quoted to have said "The NEP is in earnest and long-term" (НЭП – это всерьез и надолго),[citation needed] which has been used[by whom?] to surmise that if Lenin had lived, the NEP would have continued beyond 1929. Lenin had also been known to say about NEP, "We are taking one step backward to later take two steps forward",[citation needed] suggesting that, though the NEP pointed in another direction, it would provide the economic conditions necessary for socialism eventually to evolve.

    Despite Lenin's opinion that the NEP should last several decades at least, until universal literacy was accomplished,[citation needed] in 1928, after only seven years of NEP, Lenin's successor Stalin introduced full central planning, re-nationalized much of the economy, and from the late 1920s onwards introduced a policy of rapid industrialization. Stalin's collectivization of agriculture was his most notable departure from the NEP approach.

    I agree with the *theoretical* spirit of the Left Opposition here, though I think the NEP was *materially* necessary at the time -- it looks like Stalin was later able to re-integrate the economy under a bureaucratic collectivism, decisively breaking with the NEP's dependence on markets.

    The take-away here is that no revolution should *strive* for socialism-in-one-country -- rather, this was a 'fallback' that had to happen given the specific historical circumstances of the combined capitalist counter-revolution right from the start.
  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  14. #290
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 109
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    I think War Communism and the NEP were *appropriate* for the circumstances at the time
    ...as long as the policy of collevtivisation was not voluntarily.A little few remember why did this policy started just at this time but no sooner or later.The matter is that it was not the power but the capitalist elements in countryside who have "broken a truce" .In 1927 took place a so cold "grain strike" when peasants refused to give grain at a state price placing a country before a threat of hunger.In response, the authorities in fact returned to the policy of food surplus requisitioning.The situation was so dangerous that all the Politburo members including Stalin left their duties in center and went to the provinces to pursue this policy.

    "As for the capitalist elements in the countryside, there is still less reason to regard as accidental the opposition of the kulaks to the Soviet price policy, which has been going on for over a year already. Many people are still unable to understand why it is that until 1927 the kulak gave his grain of his own accord, whereas since 1927 he has ceased to do so. But there is nothing surprising in it. Formerly the kulak was still relatively weak; he was unable to organise his farming properly; he lacked sufficient capital to improve his farm and so he was obliged to bring all, or nearly all, his surplus grain to the market. Now, however, after a number of good harvests, since he has been able to build up his farm, since he has succeeded in accumulating the necessary capital, he is in a position to manoeuvre on the market, he is able to set aside grain, this currency of currencies, as a reserve for himself, and prefers to bring to the market meat, oats, barley and other secondary crops. It would be ridiculous now to hope that the kulak can be made to part with his grain voluntarily."

    "Further, in connection with the grain-procurement difficulties, in connection with the opposition of the kulaks to the Soviet price policy, we stressed the question of developing collective farms and state farms to the utmost, of launching an offensive against the kulaks, of organising grain procurements by means of pressure on the kulak and well-to-do elements."

    http://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/...29/04/22.htm#I

    Ie, situation always dictates policy,not vise versa.The collectivisation started not because the Politburo desided to do it,but because the current situation left no other choice.The policy of "socialism in one country" took place not because Lenin or Stalin prefered it but because there was no other choice at the time of stabilization of capitalism in Europe.

    Ie,objective conditions are primary, ideas are secondary.
    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, 23:28

Posting Permissions

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