Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Marx is back

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 31 Jan 2014, 08:26
Quote:
Compared to a hundred years ago, sure, Western workers are better off. Compared to 40-50 years ago, not really. The idea that a working man by himself could provide for his family sounds laughable today; it didn't back then.


Indeed. Just today I read that real wages in Germany haven't risen since 1992.

Quote:
The failure of the USSR was not a matter of Russia's historic underdevelopment, but rather a result of difficulties of building socialism in a world dominated by capitalism, and betrayal from within in a system too rigid to be able to handle such possibilities.


I agree with the latter two points (but you subscribe to the idea of socialism in one country nonetheless, I take it?), but I'd like to point out that the system's rigidity was a direct result of Russia's underdevelopment. Even all-out Stalin apologists (except for the really bad ones who imagine stalinism to have been a beacon of democracy) generally acknowledge that the extreme authoritarianism of the period was made necessary by the fact that they had to work with a population dominated by extreme material and cultural poverty. I don't think you can really separate these two factors. The political system of a country is always dependent on its material base. At the end of the day, the less bread there is, the more violence is needed to distribute it.

Quote:
Don't want to get off track here, but all the things you've mentioned were were a sideshow compared to the Soviets organizational and logistical capacity, combined with what amounted to superior military and technological capabilities and doctrines. By 1942 the 120 million or so USSR faced a European fascist and fascist occupied territory with nearly 500 million people, and several times the potential industrial capacity


I don't understand this. Are you saying that the USSR had superior technology or that the fascists did? That way it sounds like "only because of their superior technology were the Soviets able to beat the fascists' superior technology"

Quote:
How can Greece, for example, fight the economic (and military, if it comes to that) might of the entire EU?


October caused proletarian revolutions all over the globe, there's no reason to assume a revolution in Greece wouldn't have a similar effect at least in the Mediterranean countries. The French have not forgotten their revolutionary traditions. "A repetition of May 1968 is being prepared. But this time it will be on a higher plane, and the Stalinists no longer possess the strength or authority to betray it." (src) Any future revolutionary development in Europe cannot be restricted to the national arena.

Quote:
But this contradiction was to a very large extent overcome in the Soviet example, and the USSR did start out as very much a third world country in almost every sense.


Please give me just one example of a genuinely democratic, nationwide debate that managed to persuade the Soviet leadership to change a decision it had made.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 31 Jan 2014, 14:59
Quote:
Compared to a hundred years ago, sure, Western workers are better off. Compared to 40-50 years ago, not really. The idea that a working man by himself could provide for his family sounds laughable today; it didn't back then.


It's all relative. Wages may have stagnated since the 1970s but people in the developed world are acutely aware that they live in the countries with the highest income bracket for workers. They know that they have it better than in the developing world and this position of privilege is not list on them. Every time they see a charity appeal for Oxfam etc showing how people are suffering in Africa; every time they see a news report about sweatshops in India they are reminded of how they are the most privileged workers in the world.

Quote:
The Chinese peasant communal experiment aside, I must say that I find it hard to believe that the Soviet socialist 'experiment' could have somehow turned out differently had Russia first been a developed industrial capitalist superpower.


As Marx says, industry provides the high levels of social co-operation that a socialist society utilises for its organisation. An educated working class would have been better placed to actually run the Soviet state.

Quote:
In fact, they managed to prove to many nations that they could industrialize, urbanize and educate people just about as well as any capitalist country, and without the benefits of war profits or colonial or neocolonial superprofits accruing to them.


They extracted surplus-value from the Russian people in order to industrialise the country. Although they did make many achievements in industry and education, the poor material foundations the country was built on originally meant the party never trusted the people with actual political and economic power.

Quote:
The failure of the USSR was not a matter of Russia's historic underdevelopment, but rather a result of difficulties of building socialism in a world dominated by capitalism, and betrayal from within in a system too rigid to be able to handle such possibilities.


About one third of the world was under a "socialist" system in the 1970s. Your comments about internal betrayal show that the Soviet people never really held power (thus it was not socialism). Why would they betray themselves? By speaking about individuals "betraying" the USSR (Gorbachev I presume) you are admitting that individual bureaucrats ruled the USSR, not the working class.

Quote:
Don't want to get off track here, but all the things you've mentioned were were a sideshow compared to the Soviets organizational and logistical capacity, combined with what amounted to superior military and technological capabilities and doctrines. By 1942 the 120 million or so USSR faced a European fascist and fascist occupied territory with nearly 500 million people, and several times the potential industrial capacity, together with the most powerful and battle-hardened military machine in the world at the time.


A misleading argument. While the fascists did occupy most of Europe, this proved to be costly rather than beneficial. The Germans had to keep millions of men occupying Europe who could otherwise have been deployed to the Eastern Front. Poor co-ordination on the part of the Germans also meant they suffered from the Russian weather and stretched supply lines.

Quote:
We often here from Russian liberals that 'the people' won the war, but without the organizational capabilities of the leadership, and moreover, without the period of industrialization, the USSR would have stood no chance against the modern, mechanized warfare that had taken the world by storm.


By the end, yes. But at first the Russian military machine was a shambles with Stalin having purged his best generals and ignoring the warnings about Barbarossa. The Russians suffered huge defeats in the first stages of the German invasion in part due to poor logistics and organisation. The fact they had such a vast country to retreat into helped immensely. If the USSR had occurred in Poland instead of Russia then the Germans would have defeated them within a year.

Quote:
This to me seems the consequence of the tremendous defeats of 1989-1991. Without the existence of a socialist superpower, how can small countries how to make or consolidate revolutionary socialist gains? How can Greece, for example, fight the economic (and military, if it comes to that) might of the entire EU?


This is imperialism at work again. Greece looked the most likely country to have a chance at going socialist in the last few years, but EU (German) bailout money "saved" them from collapse. Until we find a way to prevent the imperialists from being able to offer this rescue money in the first place then any future revolutions can be strangled at birth.

Quote:
But this contradiction was to a very large extent overcome in the Soviet example, and the USSR did start out as very much a third world country in almost every sense.


No it wasn't. The Soviet people remained separated from the political process throughout the history of the USSR. It was not a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship of the communist party over the proletariat.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 208
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2009, 19:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 31 Jan 2014, 15:13
What was lacking in USSR was not democracy, it was the workers inability to make use of political power. At the beginning of revolution, the workers was given unlimited political power, but if they do not actively use that power, it will be lost.

An example is that the 20th Party Congress, Stalin was denounced, but there is no workers' voices in the society. In the past, Stalin had enjoyed great popularity, if the workers had actively participated in politics, there must be many great debate raging over society, how could they do not question the Party resolution? It proved the Soviet men put absolute truth in the Party (both good and bad thing). Stalin (or even Lenin) cult of personality is another example, some people revered Stalin leadership as the greatest cause of victory. How ridiculous, it is the workers' power that made victory come true.

In other word, people are too custom with idea of being leaded, or more precisely, being ruled. They can not imagined a society without the "rulers", because that idea is ingrained over thousand years (5000-2000 years). In the next socialist revolution, we must put great emphasis to root out that idea.

In the past thousand years, the reason that made rulers necessary is that managing society is a daunting task, without the ruling class, society could not working optimally (even in Soviet era, managing society is still a hard task, but not hard as before). But now, with the explosive growth of production force and very advanced technology (the greatest one is Informatics), ruling class is not need anymore, they have become the parasite of society.

About third world socialist countries, the reason of failure is lacking material conditions. I only know Vietnam experience, but I guess that China and other countries are same. During socialist era, farming was under collectivization, this was going against farmers interests and they had no incentive for production. The result was food shortage for the cities, and the system reached its limit in 1985, when Gorbachev withdraw all helping from USSR to other countries. After all, you can not build socialism with an empty belly.
"Stalin brought us up — on loyalty to the people, He inspired us to labor and to heroism!" Soviet Anthem 1944.
Let's work hard and do valorous deed!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 31 Jan 2014, 16:39
The workers never had a voice under either Lenin or Stalin.
But you are correct in that the working class does not need to be lead either to socialism or once we have gotten there.
That is the whole point of socialism! No bosses...no workers.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 31 Jan 2014, 16:52
Yami wrote:
The workers never had a voice under either Lenin or Stalin.
But you are correct in that the working class does not need to be lead either to socialism or once we have gotten there.
That is the whole point of socialism! No bosses...no workers.

Err, so are you an extreme Left Communist, a Menshevik, or an anarchist? Socialism doesn't create itself, nor does it magically create work that performs itself without human guidance. You just don't walk into a factory, step on to a machine, and start randomly creating things without training and supervision.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 31 Jan 2014, 19:16
Quote:
What was lacking in USSR was not democracy, it was the workers inability to make use of political power. At the beginning of revolution, the workers was given unlimited political power, but if they do not actively use that power, it will be lost.


What you are describing is a lack of democracy. If workers have no way of making use of political power then they have no political power. The political power they do have remains purely idealised in the minds of those looking upon the Soviet state (or indeed any other "socialist" state).

It must look democratic but we must control everything was how Walter Ulbricht described his vision for the GDR.

Quote:
In other word, people are too custom with idea of being leaded, or more precisely, being ruled. They can not imagined a society without the "rulers", because that idea is ingrained over thousand years (5000-2000 years). In the next socialist revolution, we must put great emphasis to root out that idea.


I agree.

Quote:
Err, so are you an extreme Left Communist, a Menshevik, or an anarchist? Socialism doesn't create itself, nor does it magically create work that performs itself without human guidance. You just don't walk into a factory, step on to a machine, and start randomly creating things without training and supervision.


The role of the communist party should not be to organise society. Its role should be to lead the workers' struggle against capitalism to the point of revolution, smash the old capitalist state, and put in place the foundations whereby workers can actually run the country for themselves. In the USSR this last element was never followed through. Instead the party assumed the position of unconditional leadership of society completely independent of and unaccountable to the workers themselves.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Feb 2014, 01:59
Lenin and Trotsky were never in favor of a one party state.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 01 Feb 2014, 02:54
Mabool wrote:
Lenin and Trotsky were never in favor of a one party state.


Yes they were? Lenin was one who came up with the idea of a 'vanguard party' to lead the masses. He explicitly said that, once the vanguard lead the workers to revolution, the vanguard would become the embodiment of the dictatorship of the proletariat - organised on democratic centralist principles. The idea of democratic centralism is to have differences within the party, rather than rivaling political parties altogether. The USSR was a single-party state under Lenin.

Some quotes:

Lenin wrote:
...the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors.... An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich:... and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the ‘transition’ from capitalism to communism.


Lenin wrote:
Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party.... The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.


Lenin wrote:
The Bolsheviks could not have retained power for two and a half months, let alone two and a half years, without the most rigorous and truly iron discipline in our Party.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Feb 2014, 03:17
No they weren't, the ban of other parties was supposed to be temporary and didn't happen until 1921 (and it only happened because all the other parties engaged in armed resistance against the Bolsheviks)? None of your quotes says anything about how the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a one party state and the idea is frankly ridiculous. It is not the task of the Marxists to dictatorially control the dictatorship of the proletariat, gRed is one hundred percent correct about this. If the workers don't have complete freedom to organize around whatever ideology they like, you can't call them a ruling class. Democratic centralism is how the Marxists organize their party, it is not a blueprint on which to model society. Jeez.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 01 Feb 2014, 03:45
Mabool wrote:
No they weren't, the ban of other parties was supposed to be temporary and didn't happen until 1921 (and it only happened because all the other parties engaged in armed resistance against the Bolsheviks)?


Factions were banned, as well, in 1921. And if this was supposed to be temporary because of the conditions of the Russian Civil War (i.e. uprisings), how come the CPSU still remained the only sole, legal political party in the USSR even until Lenin's dying day?

Mabool wrote:
None of your quotes says anything about how the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a one party state and the idea is frankly ridiculous.


My quotes do not explicitly state that a one-party state must be created, but Lenin explaining how the dictatorship of the proletariat must be the organisation of the vanguard (meaning, the party) of the oppressed (meaning, the working class) as the ruling class is clearly referring to a single-party system.

Mabool wrote:
It is not the task of the Marxists to dictatorially control the dictatorship of the proletariat, gRed is one hundred percent correct about this. If the workers don't have complete freedom to organize around whatever ideology they like, you can't call them a ruling class.


If the ruling class has seized power from the bourgeoisie, as they did in Lenin's Soviet Union, then you most definitely can call them a ruling class.

Mabool wrote:
Democratic centralism is how the Marxists organize their party, it is not a blueprint on which to model society. Jeez.


I did not claim democratic centralism was a model for society. I said it was a model for the vanguard party which allows disagreements within the party but, ultimately, for there to be unity and for these disputes to be settled.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Feb 2014, 04:06
Dude, the "vanguard of the oppressed" is the working class - the leading minority of all the oppressed in Russia. That quote doesn't refer to the party's place in society at all.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 01 Feb 2014, 04:11
I see no reason to believe the 'vanguard of the oppressed' means anything different than the 'vanguard of the working class' - meaning a party.
Last edited by Workers Revolution on 01 Feb 2014, 22:20, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Feb 2014, 04:17
Quote:
The Leninist conception of a 'vanguard' refers to a party, does it not?


No?

Also it wouldn't even make sense to say that the party becomes the ruling class.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Feb 2014, 05:06
No, what we're arguing about is the difference between actual Leninism and Wikipedia articles about Leninism. I assure you that Lenin never used the term "vanguardism". When Lenin says "vanguard", he means "vanguard", i.e. active, leading minority. It is not just a synonym for "party".

Take a look at this quote:

Quote:
We still lacked the support of the class which is the vanguard of the revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... sep/13.htm


"We" here refers to the Bolshevik party. "The class which is the vanguard of the revolution" refers to the working class.

Later in the same article, he says:

Quote:
We have the following of the majority of a class, the vanguard of the revolution, the vanguard of the people, which is capable of carrying the masses with it.


...which completely supports my interpretation of your quote from State and Revolution.


edit: Also if you'd read any Lenin you'd know that when he says "the oppressed", he ALWAYS means the workers AND peasants.

edit 2: oh, and then there's that:

Quote:
The demonstration in a few hours scattered to the winds, like a handful of dust, the empty talk about Bolshevik conspirators and showed with the utmost clarity that the vanguard of the working people of Russia, the industrial proletariat of the capital, and the overwhelming majority of the troops support slogans that our Party has always advocated.


edit 3: While Lenin never speaks out explicitly in favor of a multi party system (or against one), this quote may shed some light on what he envisioned the future to be like:

Quote:
Educated, well-informed, intelligent people, even in such an advanced capitalist country as Germany, are sometimes a hundred times more muddle-headed and hysterical than our backward petty bourgeoisie. In this there is a lesson for Russia in respect of the petty-bourgeois parties and the middle peasants. For a long time we shall have a difficult, double problem. For a long time these parties are bound to take one step forward and two steps back because their economic status compels them to do so, and because their acceptance of socialism is not due to a definite conviction that the bourgeois system is worthless. We cannot expect them to be loyal to socialism, and it would be absurd to rely on their socialist convictions. They will support socialism only when they are convinced that there is no other way out, when the bourgeoisie is finally defeated and smashed.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... 8th/02.htm


If he'd wanted to ban them, he surely would have expressed himself differently!
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2014, 00:40
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 02 Feb 2014, 01:58
gRed Britain wrote:
Revisionism was used because the command economy has its limits and people were sick of ideological terror campaigns being inflicted upon ordinary citizens by omnipotent leaders who were utterly detached from reality.

Revisionism developed in the former socialist countries because contradictions between the social strata were allowed to develop into a counterrevolutionary caste, which would eventually form the nascent bourgeoisie of the early 1990s.

Stalin incorrectly claimed that by 1936 no antagonistic classes existed in the Soviet Union:
Mao Zedong wrote:
As the Soviet Union was the first, and at the time the only, country to build socialism and had no foreign experience to go by, and as Stalin departed from Marxist-Leninist dialectics in his understanding of the laws of class struggle in socialist society, he prematurely declared after agriculture was basically collectivised that there were ‘no longer antagonistic classes’ [1] in the Soviet Union and that it was ‘free of class conflicts’ [2], one-sidedly stressed the internal homogeneity of socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the working class and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism and regarded the possibility of the restoration of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by international imperialism. This was wrong both in theory and in practice.

[1]. Stalin, J. V. (1943, p. 567). On the Draft Constitution of the USSR. Problems of Leninism. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm
[2]. Stalin, J. V. (1943, p. 645). Report to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU (B) on the Work of the Central Committee. Problems of Leninism. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm

Source: Mao, Z. (1965, pp. 428-429). On Khrushchov’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World. The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm


These hidden contradictions were allowed to develop through increasing inequality:
Agim Popa wrote:
The negative experience of the Soviet Union shows that the deviation from the principle of the Paris Commune about paying officials and functionaries the average pay of workers (K. Marx-F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 454), the absolutisation and generalisation of the system of high salaries, which, for a certain time was imposed and justified by the historical circumstances of a limited category of specialists, as well as laying excessive stress on material incentives, while neglecting moral incentives, led to the bourgeois degeneration of a broad stratum of cadres and exerted a powerful influence to make them a social basis for the revisionist course. After the revisionists usurped the state power, they further extended this inequality or "bourgeois right", as Marx and Lenin described it, using it as one of the principal ways for the liquidation of the socialist relations of production and the exploitation of the working people by the new bourgeois class."

Source: Popa, A. (1976). The Relations Between the Cadres and the Masses and the Struggle Against Bureaucracy. Albania Today, 1(5). Retrieved from http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albbeur.htm


Marx states these inequalities are 'inevitable' under the first stage of socialism:
Karl Marx wrote:
"...one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labour in the same time, or can labour for a longer time … Thus with an equal output and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development thereby determined."

Source: Marx, K. (1941, pp. 12-14). Critique of the Gotha Programme. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/.


Vladimir Lenin wrote:
"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called Socialism) "bourgeois right" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois right" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent -- and to that extent alone -- "bourgeois right" disappears. However, it continues to exist as far as its other part is concerned; it continues to exist in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labour among the members of society. The socialist principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat," is already realized; the other socialist principle: "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour," is also already realized. But this is not yet Communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois right," which gives to unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labour, equal amounts of products.

Source: Lenin, V. I. (1970, p. 112). The State and Revolution. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/


Ruined from war, the difficult conditions of socialist construction in the early years of the Soviet Union led Lenin to create inequalities in the form of 'shock' departments to raise productivity. But there is evidence Lenin intended these policies to be temporary:
Vladimir Lenin wrote:
"...precise practical rules are to be drawn up on measures for eliminating inequality (in the conditions of life, size of salaries and so forth) between specialists and executives, on the one hand, and the rank and file, on the other - an inequality that violates democracy, is a source of demoralisation within the Party and lowers the prestige of Communists..."[1]

"...precise practical rules to be drawn up on measures for eliminating the existing inequality (in the conditions of life, size of salaries, and so forth) between specialists and executives, on the one hand, and the rank and file, on the other-an inequality that violates democracy..." (ibid.)

"...Point 2) Strengthening the Socialist foundation: seven million trade union members. Equality in place of shock work."[2]

"...the Council of People’s Commissars decrees: 1) that the salary limit for people’s commissars be fixed at 500 rubles a month where there are no children, and 100 rubles extra for each child; housing to be at the rate of not more than 1 room for each member of the family; 2) that all local Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies be asked to prepare and carry out revolutionary measures to impose special taxes on high-ranking employees; 3) that the Ministry for Finance be instructed to draft a general law concerning this reduction; 4) that the Ministry for Finance and all the respective commissars be instructed to immediately study the estimates of the ministries and cut all excessively high salaries and pensions."[3]

[1]. Lenin, V. I. (1971, p. 213). Draft Resolution on the Immediate Tasks of Party Development. Collected Works, vol. 42. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/sep/25.htm
[2]. Lenin, V. I. (1971, p. 219). Notes on the Immediate Tasks of the Party. Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/19.htm
[3]. Lenin, V. I. (1971, p. 38). The Salaries of High-Ranking Office Employees and Officials. Collected Works, vol. 42. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/18b.htm


These class distinctions will take a long time to overcome, according to Lenin:
Vladimir Lenin wrote:
Clearly, in order to abolish classes completely, it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and the capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is necessary to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish the distinction between town and country, as well as the distinction between manual workers and brain workers. This requires a very long period of time.
Source: Lenin, V. I. (1965, pp. 420-21). A Great Beginning. Collected Works, vol. 29,, pp. 420-421. Retrieved from http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/GB19.html

Mao Zedong wrote:
The fundamental problem with some East European countries is that they have not done a good job of waging class struggle and have left so many counter-revolutionaries at large; nor have they trained their proletariat in class struggle to help them learn how to draw a clear distinction between the people and the enemy, between right and wrong and between materialism and idealism. And now they have to reap what they have sown, they have brought the fire upon their own heads.
Source: Mao, Z. (1977, pp. 332-49). Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Selected Works, vol. 5. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Retrieved from http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/SPS56.html

Enver Hoxha wrote:
“In building up the standard of living, great differences must not be allowed, the officials must not live a great deal better than the workers, and the peasants worse than their allies of the town. This stems particularly from the high salaries of officials. Such a situation creates those elements of the new bourgeoisie which arises from the ranks of the class, the ranks of the Party, which, if these elements are not corrected and purged, becomes dangerous... the trimming must continue, high salaries should be reduced further, so that the raised standard of living of one category of people will not incite the desire for a bourgeois life... thus we must take measures so that this inequality in the system of payment for work will be reduced... otherwise we permit the development of the capitalist element...” (Quoted in Popa, 1976)

Enver Hoxha wrote:
“[We must endow] our people with great managerial experience..., endow them with the spirit of the base so they become fighters determined to eliminate from themselves all traces of intellectualist, bureaucratic and technocratic hangovers. In their place we should bring outstanding working people from the base into the central apparatus”.
(Enver Hoxha, Reports and Speeches, 1970-1971, p. 89.)
— Crìsdean R.

Image

In following the revolutionary road, strive for an even greater victory.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 02 Feb 2014, 15:55
Quote:
Revisionism developed in the former socialist countries because contradictions between the social strata were allowed to develop into a counterrevolutionary caste, which would eventually form the nascent bourgeoisie of the early 1990s.


But why did this strata exist in the first place? It is because the working class were never the ruling class in the first place; the party fulfilled that role. As for revisionism being a purely bourgeois thing - why would Deng do it considering his lengthy revolutionary history? I don't deny the reforms themselves were bourgeois, just the intention behind them.

Yes classes remain under socialism - but in a subjective sense. Objectively everyone is a member of the working classes because private property has been abolished. Subjectively (i.e. in people's minds) however, people can see themselves (or aspire to) any class they want. Thus the state rooting out "class enemies" by force is an endless task because all it takes is for someone to change their opinions in their mind and the state suddenly has a new class enemy. People will be less likely to become subjectively bourgeois if they are actually given a leading role in society as part of the working class. This never happened in any socialist country.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.