U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

What articles are you reading?

Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 28 Jun 2015, 00:03
The woman who exposed Roof's racist manifesto was a Maoist Communist.

Quangel told the Daily Beast, “As a communist, it is my duty and obligation to spend at least $49 to help ruin this guy’s insanity plea.” ... 1712829469
Post 07 Jul 2015, 03:57
Ismail wrote:
It is easier to uphold Jefferson, Paine and Lincoln than it is to uphold Washington or Jackson, though Washington was still a bourgeois revolutionary (albeit more conservative, like Adams and Hamilton) and Jackson was seen in his time as a representative of democratic forces. That aspect of the CPA was not different from the CPUSA, what was different was Browder using American history and "exceptionalism" to justify the liquidation of the party.

Here is a recent article, on the trend within the Democratic Party base to reject the legacy of Jackson. It reveals the sea change in attitude within American politics, from a time in 1944 when even the CPA could hold Jackson as a populist hero, for whose ideas the CPA was still fighting, to 2015 in which even mainstream liberal publications denounce him as a genocidal war criminal. ... obama.html

Party politics in America are complicated by the fact that the Jeffersonian Democratic Party was founded with the help of Citizen Genet and the French Revolution, almost in the same manner that the Comintern was founded. The Democratic Republican clubs enthusiastically supported the Jacobins in France, while the New England Federalists were the conservatives, even having Glen Beck type fears, that Jefferson would confiscate their Bibles if elected, and hiding Bibles in wells. But on the other hand the New England bourgeoisie have traditionally represented the progressive wing of the American capitalist class, as opposed to the die hard reactionary Slavocrats of the South. In this sense the New England tradition of the Federalist-Whig-Republican parties represented the liberal wing of US politics into the 20th century. WJ Bryan was a transitional figure in this, in that he combined the old agrarian populist tradition with what would become the New Deal coalition. WZ Foster even titled his autobiography from Bryan to Stalin.

Its a complicated issue, and even in Marx's lifetime there were some in the German Socialist immigrant community which advocated supporting the Democratic Party as the party of the working class, while Marx sided with the Republicans and abolitionism.

I partially agree with this article written by a conservative, which sees the Democratic Party as the traditional conservative party, and the Federalist-Whig-Republican Party as the liberal party up to FDR. Although I laugh at him trying to claim WJ Bryan's planned nationalization of the railroads as an attack on "crony capitalism". I'm sure he wouldn't consider any modern attempt to nationalize "crony capitalist" industries as a conservative move.

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... ition.html
Post 11 Jul 2015, 01:46
V. I. Lenin

The Fall of Port Arthur[1]

Published: Vperyod, No. 2, January 14 (1). 1905. Published according to the text in Vperyod. ... jan/14.htm

The Russo-Japanese war was the 1st major war in which a non-western power defeated a great European empire, in conventional warfare using all the cutting edge modern military technology. This victory was celebrated by anti-imperialist forces across the world, including in Africa, India and the Middle East. A young Mao Zedong who would later become the fierce enemy of Fascist Japan, also saw it as a victory of Asia over Europe.

It is interesting to read Lenin's contemporary work on the subject, where as a Russian Marxist he identifies with the rising progressive power of Japan against the Russian autocracy. While the Meiji regime left much to be desired, it successfully completed most of the constitutional projects of 19th century European liberalism with remarkable speed.

The first thing that strikes the eye is the effect of this event on the trend of the war. The main objective of the Japanese in this war has been attained. Advancing, progressive Asia has dealt backward and reactionary Europe an irreparable blow. Ten years ago this reactionary Europe, with Russia in the lead, was perturbed by the defeat of China at the hands of young Japan, and it united to rob Japan of the best fruits of her victory. Europe was protecting the established relations and privileges of the old world, its prerogative to exploit the Asian peoples—a prerogative held from time immemorial and sanctified by the usage of centuries. The recovery of Port Arthur by Japan is a blow struck at the whole of reactionary Europe. Russia held Port Arthur for six years and spent hundreds of millions of rubles on the building of strategic railways, harbours,and new towns, on fortifying a stronghold which the en tire mass of European newspapers, bribed by Russia and fawning on Russia, declared to be impregnable. Military commentators write that Port Arthur was as strong as six Sevastopols. And behold, little Japan,hitherto despised by all, captures this stronghold in eight months, when it took England and France together a whole year to capture Sevastopol. The military blow is irreparable. The question of supremacy on the seas, the main and vital issue of the present war, has been settled. The Russian Pacific fleet, which at the outset was certainly not weaker, if actually not stronger, than the Japanese fleet, has been completely destroyed. The very base for naval operations has been lost, and the only thing left for Rozhdestvensky’s naval squadron is to turn back shamefully after a useless expenditure of more millions, after the great victory of his formidable battleships over the English fishing smacks. It is believed that Russia’s loss in naval tonnage alone amounts to 300,000,000 rubles. More important, however, is the loss of some ten thousand of the navy’s best men, and the loss of an entire army. Many European papers are now trying to minimise the importance of these losses, and their efforts to do so lead them to such ridiculous assertions as that Kuropatkin is now “relieved”, “freed” of his worries over Port Arthur! Russia’s military forces have also been relieved of an entire army. According to the latest English reports, no fewer than 48,000 men have been taken prisoner, and there is no telling how many thousands more were killed in the battles of Kinchow and at the fortress itself. The Japanese are in complete possession of the Liaotung Peninsula; they have acquired a base of operations of incalculable importance for exerting pressure on Korea, China, and Manchuria; they have released for action against Kuropatkin a battle-tried army of from 80,000 to 100,000 strong, reinforced by formidable heavy artillery which, when brought up to the Shaho River, will give them an overwhelming superiority over the main Russian forces.
Post 20 Jul 2015, 17:26
It is of note that as late as 1917 after the Revolution, the Bolsheviks were still a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. A little surprising that the term Social Democracy was still being used positively, considering how centrist the term has come to be today, when even a Tony Blair is a Social Democrat.

I recall reading a quote from Engels somewhere that he wasn't crazy about the term Social Democrat, but that it would do. Lenin without referencing that quote, says essentially the same thing, that Marx and Engels were forced to put up with that term after 1871 due to the lull in revolutionary action.

It is not what it was during the years 1871 to 1914, when Marx and Engels knowingly put up with the inaccurate, opportunist term “Social-Democracy”. For in those days, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history made slow organisational and educational work the task of the day. Nothing else was possible. The anarchists were then (as they are now) fundamentally wrong not only theoretically, but also economically and politically. The anarchists misjudged the character of the times, for they failed to understand the world situation: the worker of Britain corrupted by imperialist profits, the Commune defeated in Paris, the recent (1871) triumph of the bourgeois national movement in Germany, the age-long sleep of semi-feudal Russia.

Marx and Engels gauged the times accurately; they understood the international situation; they understood that the approach to the beginning of the social revolution must be slow.

Despite the extreme importance Marx had put on the Communist Party in 1848, between 1871-1917, the world was without a single Communist Party, despite the rise of Marxism. In the day to day struggles of the Socialist Parties, the ultimate goal of Communism was totally lost. In this we can see the early evolution of SD from orthodox marxism to modern welfare liberalism.

Abandoning terms like Socialist and Social Democratic was a radical break with the 2nd International, and prevailing socialist politics of the 1871-1917 era.

The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution

(Draft Platform for the Proletarian Party)


These are the reasons Lenin gives for abandoning the term Social Democracy

The name “Social-Democracy” is scientifically incorrect, as Marx frequently pointed out, in particular, in the Critique of the Gotha Programme in 1875, and as Engels re-affirmed in a more popular form in 1894[Engels, Preface to Internationales aus dem Velkstaat (1871-1875)].[1] From capitalism mankind can pass directly only to socialism, i.e., to the social ownership of the means of production and the distribution of products according to the amount of work performed by each individual. Our Party looks farther ahead: socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into communism, upon the banner of which is inscribed the motto, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

That is my first argument.

Here is the second: the second part of the name of our Party (Social-Democrats) is also scientifically incorrect. Democracy is a form of state, whereas we Marxists are opposed to every kind of state.

The leaders of the Second International (1889-1914), Plekhanov, Kautsky and their like, have vulgarised and distorted Marxism.

Marxism differs from anarchism in that it recognises the need for a state for the purpose of the transition to socialism; but (and here is where we differ from Kautsky and Co.) not a state of the type of the usual parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republic, but a state like the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies of 1905 and 1917.

My third argument: living reality, the revolution, has already actually established in our colmtry, albeit in a weak and embryonic form, precisely this new type of “state”, which is not a state in the proper sense of the word.

This is already a matter of the practical action of the people, and not merely a theory of the leaders.

The origins of the term Social Democracy can be seen in the aftermath of the 19th century revolutions which established political but not economic democracy. The revolutionary democrats wanted to complete the goals of the French Revolution, not just in the government sphere, but in the relations of labor. Lenin objects to the very used of the term democracy, as democracy is inherently statist, and in the context of Social Democracy, is a deliberate reference to the state of political liberalism. Communism seeks the total dismantling of state machinery. On the surface this might seem like theoretical niceties. But we see what the long term consequences were, in the modern day, in which all Social Democratic parties have been entirely absorbed into working within the framework of the bourgeois state.

It is a sad evolution that in 1914, Social Democracy meant orthodox Marxism, that even Lenin could subscribe to, while in 2015 Social Democracy is hardly distinguishable from liberalism and in some cases even neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
Post 23 Jul 2015, 18:18
Hal Draper 1987
The ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’
in Marx and Engels

Source: Chapter 1 of The ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ from Marx to Lenin, by Hal Draper, Monthly Review Press, 1987. ... ticle2.htm

An analytical survey of the history of ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ from early Roman uses to Plekhanov. Draper represents the views of democratic as opposed to what he terms authoritarian socialism, so he tends to play down the dictatorial aspects of dictatorship. Much of what we might call the Marxist-Leninist vanguard party, he attributes to Babeuf and Blanqui and not to Marx.

In the 19th century people's dictatorship or mob rule was used interchangeably with dictatorship by liberals and conservatives, fearful of universal franchise. Dictatorship was thus embraced as unyielding open rule of the people. Not opposed to democracy but the fulfillment of democracy.

The term tyrant from the classical world also has some of the same connotations. While there were Tyrants representing both the rich and poor, in general Tyrants represented the populist party in the transition of the Ancient Greek city states from Monarchy and Oligarchy to Direct Democracy. Tyrant simply meant one who had not inherited power, and thus was in many was superior to the Monarchy or Aristocracy that had come before. And it cities like Athens and Syracuse at least, tyranny served a transitional purpose of putting the populace in power, and setting the stage for a radical direct democracy.
Post 24 Jul 2015, 00:38
Detailed study into the rise and development of the Chinese 'ultra-left' during the Cultural Revolution which found itself often in highly confrontational opposition with the ruling Chinese Communist Party. ... revolution

Notable study of the Ultra-left in the GPCR, who moved from the fringes of Radical Maoism to embrace visions of Left-Communism and Paris Commune type structures of governance from below. Accused the CPC of Mao, of being made up of Red Capitalists.

The author of the Whither China manifesto Xiaokai Yang later became a democracy dissident and mainstream economist in the West.
Post 28 Jul 2015, 22:11
heiss93 wrote:
The author of the Whither China manifesto Xiaokai Yang later became a democracy dissident and mainstream economist in the West.
"Yang was arrested and sent to prison for 10 years. At one point, Yang learned that he was scheduled to be executed, though, fortunately, this never eventuated."

I should probably remove the "fortunately" part as being in violation of Wikipedia's requirement that all articles be "neutral."
Post 29 Jul 2015, 01:45
he became pretty reactionary later on, with ideas of a "natural optimum hierarchy" and the necessity of a class society ... hy&f=false

The Trotskyists thought that he was going to represent a new breed of revolutionary Left-Communism opposed to the Stalinist regime. Funny how all their would be heroes end up becoming bourgeois neoliberals. ... /intro.htm
Post 29 Jul 2015, 03:14
heiss93 wrote:
The Trotskyists thought that he was going to represent a new breed of revolutionary Left-Communism opposed to the Stalinist regime. Funny how all their would be heroes end up becoming bourgeois neoliberals.
Rudolf Bahro was another example: lots of Trots and "anti-revisionist" Maoists looked up to him simply because he opposed the GDR from a supposedly "Marxist" perspective. Upon entering West Germany he promptly junked his "Marxist" criticisms and, among other things, said "I am green and not red. The socialist concept, in theory and in practice, was tied to industrialism and statism" and "From scientific socialism I have returned to utopian socialism, and politically I have moved from a class-dimensional to a populist orientation."

He was actually asked why he was seemingly so "Marxist" in the GDR but not so in the West, and his reply was basically that in the GDR the dominant means of discourse had to take place via Marxism, whereas in the West this obviously wasn't the case, so in the GDR in order to make his criticisms truly effective he had to claim to be criticizing the GDR from a Marxist perspective. When he went to the West this was no longer necessary, so... he didn't.

Note also Cliff in that article: "With the Kuron and Modzelewski Manifesto for Poland, and this Manifesto for China it is clear that the struggle against Bureaucratic State Capitalism as well as monopoly capitalism is really a world-wide struggle." Both Kuroń and Modzelewski became social-democrats, the former serving in the bourgeois governments of the 90s.
Post 29 Jul 2015, 05:00
At least Rudolf Bahro stayed relatively left-wing, many Eastern European dissident Marxists became openly conservative once the option was open. Leszek Kołakowski would be the most famous example.
Post 29 Jul 2015, 05:30
heiss93 wrote:
At least Rudolf Bahro stayed relatively left-wing, many Eastern European dissident Marxists became openly conservative once the option was open. Leszek Kołakowski would be the most famous example.
Yep, Kołakowski claimed that people were freer in Franco's Spain than in Poland because you could emigrate and because of the high amount of tourists in the former. It's a great example of the question of "freedom for whom?" considering that members of the intelligentsia like Kołakowski would find emigration a far more important "right" than ordinary workers and peasants who would only emigrate if they had no economic prospects left in their own country.
Post 29 Jul 2015, 20:30
heiss93 wrote:
At least Rudolf Bahro stayed relatively left-wing, many Eastern European dissident Marxists became openly conservative once the option was open. Leszek Kołakowski would be the most famous example.

I thought Solidarity and GDR protestors wanted market socialism?
Post 30 Jul 2015, 06:11
Conscript wrote:
I thought Solidarity and GDR protestors wanted market socialism?
Many of the rank-and-file of Solidarity and the GDR protests wanted some idealized form of "socialism" with the consumer abundance of the West and the social guarantees of the East. But the leaderships of these movements were a different matter. Solidarity had a bunch of factions in it, some called for Yugoslav-style "self-management," others called for a "mixed economy" like Sweden, and of course others just wanted good ol' "free market" capitalism. The movement was united through the employment of bourgeois nationalism and religious obscurantism, e.g. one of Solidarity's demands was for restrictions to be placed on abortion and for the Catholic Church to play a much greater role in the country's affairs.

But whatever "socialist" demagogy Solidarity's leaders engaged in, it is undeniable that it was thoroughly funded and supplied by the CIA, Vatican, and AFL-CIO. Lech Walesa visited the UK during the strikes of the mineworkers in 1984-85 and took the opportunity to praise Thatcher and criticize the strikers. And Solidarity justified the mass privatizations and other economic and social upheavals after 1989, like any bourgeois trade union would do in any other country. What little "socialist" rhetoric Solidarity used was abandoned in favor of either conservative, liberal, or social-democratic terminology by the leaders of its respective factions after 1989.

As Enver Hoxha noted in 1981,
«Solidarity», which presents itself as a workers' union, is an out-and-out reactionary movement. Behind it stands the Polish Catholic Church and the Vatican, which run it and lead it.... It is precisely these various reactionary political forces and currents which have the Polish working class in their clutches at present and are manipulating it for their own political ends... against the Polish United Workers' Party, which is split into various factions and groups, pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet, nationalist and chauvinist, reformist and clerical. That party is completely anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary. The policy and ideology it pursues have discredited it in the eyes of the masses....

The present strikes in Poland do not lead to raising the level of the revolutionary movement of the working class, do not serve the political and ideological emancipation, the revolutionary organization of the working people or the enhancement of their revolutionary consciousness. These strikes do not assist the revolution, but help to carry out the counter-revolution within the counter-revolution. Not the Polish revolutionaries, but the representatives of reaction, the friends and allies of the Vatican and world imperialism stand at the head of these strikes. They are throwing the workers into strikes in order to accomplish their own counter-revolutionary aims, on both the internal and external planes. They want to replace one oppressive and exploiting regime with another, no less savage and hostile regime to the Polish workers and people...

Not every strike movement is in the interest of the working class, in every situation and in all conditions. However, when the people and the working class take part in them, there is something positive which you must grasp in order to turn them completely into positive actions in the interest of the people, the working class and the revolution....

The Polish working class, which has outstanding revolutionary traditions, must create from its own ranks a new, genuinely Marxist-Leninist communist party and, after creating it, test it and temper it in the class struggle for the revolution. The time for this has come, it cannot tolerate delay and procrastination.

Only its working class can save Poland from the profound crisis it is in and bring it into the light. Neither Kania nor Walessa, neither the Soviet revisionists nor the American imperialists can do this.

(Hoxha, Selected Works Vol. VI, pp. 134-135, 139-141.)
Post 19 Aug 2015, 02:50
Interview with CPUSA chair from Gawker ... 1723918251

Gawker: And by that do you mean focusing more on coalitions with more mainstream movements on the left, or what?

JB: It entails first of all rooting ourselves in the political and economic realities of today. Our main strategic concept that we’ve been working with since 1980 is the rise of the right—the extreme right—its domination of politics in the US. That all rose with Reagan and the right wing takeover of the Republican party. And that’s been with us since then. We’ve seen it as recently as the last election cycle and everything that’s come out of that, and the domination of state governments by extreme right wing Republicans, and what they’ve been able to do on worker rights, women’s rights, voter suppression, and a whole bunch of different things. There’s a real threat to basic democratic rights as we see it. We were one of the very first organizations to sound the alarm and call for a very broad multi-class united front against the extreme right. And I think that’s been validated. Now it’s a very broadly accepted concept. But the extreme right’s not gonna be defeated without a multi-class movement that involves those sections of Wall Street that don’t go along with the Koch brothers; that also involves the labor movement, communities of color, women’s organizations, youth and students, and all the Democratic movements, immigrant rights, gay and lesbian rights, seniors, you name it. All have to be part of this. Otherwise we won’t be able to advance to any other stages of struggle in this country.
Post 11 Sep 2015, 05:37
I was listening to Schubert - "Unfinished Symphony" in B minor and I was reminded of the GPCR criticism of it as expressing the despair of the petty bourgeoisie in Feudal Austria. I dug up this old 2006 Maoist article that expands on some of those themes. It challenges Bob Avakian's class neutral aesthetic stance that sometimes its just "pretty tulips". ... /01/15/14/
Post 04 Nov 2015, 06:06
2 articles from 1985 from the pro-China League of Revolutionary Struggle. 1985 was a midpoint in the Reforms, unlike the CP-ML's time period under Hua Guofeng, it was clear that Deng Xiaoping was taking the PRC economy in a different direction from Orthodox Planned Socialism. Nonetheless the authors defend the socialist market as being in line with Leninism. It is notable to see a defense of de-centralization, and markets from an American Marxist-Leninist Party. In the hindsight of 2015 you can judge whether China does offer a viable alternative mode of Socialism. Or whether the combined influence of foreign capital and the retrenchment of a New Confucianism represents a retreat from Socialism. ... -rural.htm ... hanges.htm
Post 25 Mar 2016, 16:52
A tribute to a Communist from Sen. John McCain ... share&_r=1
Post 11 Jun 2016, 03:29
Gramsci 1925
Speech to the Italian parliament

Italian Communist Party Leader Gramsci debates Mussolini in the Italian Parliament 1925. Gramsci defends the progressive role of the Freemasons in advancing secular bourgeois democracy against Clerical Feudal Reaction ... speech.htm

What is freemasonry? You have spoken at length on the spiritual significance, the ideological currents which it represents, etc; but all of these are forms of expression which you use only to convince yourselves.

Freemasonry, given the manner in which Italy was united, given the initial weakness of the Italian capitalist bourgeousie, freemasonry was the the only real and effective party which the bourgeouis class had for a long time. It must not be forgotten that little less than twenty years after the entry of the Piedmontese into Rome, parliament was dissolved and the electoral body of about three million was reduced to 800 thousand.

This was an open confession by the bourgeouis of being a very weak minority of the population, if after twenty years of unity it was forced to adopt the most extreme dictatorial measures to maintain power, to crush its class enemies, which were the enemies of the unitary state.

Who were these enemies? They were mainly the Vatican, the Jesuits, and the Honourable Martire must be reminded how, as well as the Jesuits who wear the habit, there exist lay Jesuits, who have no special symbol which indicates their religious order.

In the early years after the foundation of the kingdom the Jesuits stated in a series of articles published in Civiltà cattolica the political programme of the Vatican and of the classes which were represented by the Vatican, that is the old semifedual classes, Bourbon by tendency in the South, or Austrian by tendency in Lombardy-Veneto, numerous social forces which the capitalist bourgeouisie has never managed to contain, even though in the period of the Risorgimento it represented progress, and a revolutionary beginning. The Jesuits of Civiltà cattolica, and thus the Vatican, made the first point of their political programme the sabotage of the unitary state, through parliamentary abstention, the obstruction of the liberal state in all of its activities which could corrupt and destroy the old order; the second point, the creation of a rural reserve army to place against the advance of the proletariat, as since '71 the Jesuits foresaw that on the field of liberal democracy the proletarian movement would be born, which would develop into a revolutionary movement.

The Honourable Martire has today declared that the spiritual unity of the Italian nation, at the expense of freemasonry, has finally been achieved.

Since freemasonry in Italy has represented the ideology and the real organisation of the capitalist bourgeouis class, whoever is against freemasonry is against liberalism, is against the political tradition of the Italian bourgeouisie. The rural classes which were represented in the past by the Vatican, are today mainly represented by fascism; it is logical that fascism has replaced the Vatican and the Jesuits in the historical task, by which the most backward classes of the population bring under their control the class which has been progressive in the development of civilization; this is the significance of the achievement of the spiritual unity of the Italian nation, which would have been a phenomenon of advancement fifty years ago; and today it is instead the largest phenomenon of regression ...
Post 13 Jun 2016, 03:10
I was reading the wiki articles on the National Fronts of the various Socialist States. And I came across this interesting character who attempted Mussolini-type coups in 1923 and 1934. But later supported the anti-Fascist coup of 1944 and remained part of the People's Democratic Bulgarian government until 1969.
Post 16 Jun 2016, 19:26
Interesting dialogue between Lenin and the first People's Democracy in Mongolia. While the ideological concept of People's Democracy was only fully elaborated after WW2, PR Mongolia had many of the traits of a PD, and was considered a PD after WW2.

Lenin in his counsel to the MPRP outlined many of the features that would be associated with PD. He recommended that the MPRP not rename itself a Communist Party, as there was not yet a proletarian in Mongolia. ... ov/05b.htm

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... s+Republic
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]