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

The case of the USSR

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 07 Apr 2012, 10:09
Of course, we can't take away from the achievements of Socialism in the USSR, but it is always worth bearing in mind that Marxist theory is there, like all theories. to be broken, recast, altered, adapted - it just pains me to hear the argument that revisionism is an awful thing and should never happen, when what works best for the sake of either political expediency or practical necessity, provided the mode of production remains essentially socialist with the benefits of Socialism for all (as in the case of the USSR) - then nothing really matters other than it functions and is there to be studied. Lenin was the among the first revisionists to do something. Revisionism is necessary when understanding theories written a long time ago, theories that have changed quite drastically - reader inference and social milieu and all that.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 987
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 07 Apr 2012, 10:38
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
Lenin was the among the first revisionists to do something.

This is exactly how I feel. If Lenin hadn't been a revisionist, revolution would have never happened in Russia, because Marx said... etc. Which is why I think it's ironic that anti-revisionism is a Leninist current. Of course counter-revolutionary theories should be attacked, but to attack things under the guise of anti-revisionism, ergo deviating from the narrow path of "true Marxism-Leninism" can never be progressive and can only lead to socialist conservatism.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 07 Apr 2012, 10:46
It has to be said though that Engels later wrote that "the focal point of the Revolution is moving to the East", or something like that. He certainly recognized the revolutionary potential and value of Russia towards his later days.

Quote:
If Lenin hadn't been a revisionist, revolution would have never happened in Russia, because Marx said

Some kind of a revolution would have probably happened even without Lenin and the Bolsheviks...

Quote:
Which is why I think it's ironic that anti-revisionism is a Leninist current.

Revisionism is the perversion of revolutionary Marxism.
Rejecting, say, Marx's and Engels' racism is in no way revisionist.
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 07 Apr 2012, 16:29
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
According to Marxism-Leninism you can skip the state of capitalism, of the widespread development and encroachment of self sustaining, accumulating capital into everyday life and go soon after into Socialist construction. So? I don't mean to sound egregious at all, but I am almost daily understanding less and less as to what relevance many region and milieu specific points of ideology really have for us today, if for anything but a chronology of our ideology or historical clarity.
(Course it's possible, but harder than otherwise.)


You can skip the DOTP??? Where did you read that???

Lenin was not a revisionist, he simply adapted the marxist theory to the russian socio - economic conditions of 1917 making a socialist revolution viable in Russia before Germany or England. That is different from being a revisionist. He did not change a single marxist major element, and like Loz said, Engels was already pointing out the revolution to the east.

Revisionism is wrong because generally lead us towards the path of maioism, perestroika, juche, market socialism and so on. The precursors of this ideologic currents also said that we must not look to much to the theory but rather to the reality. They despised the theory too as irrelevant just like you did and you can see the results.

Lenin and Stalin always defended the bourgeois stage before the DOTP until 1917. That year they changed their position and aligned with Trotsky. Result? 4 years later the soviet state was applying NEP. Conclusion: You cannot skip stages and certainly you cannot despise the theory.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 987
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 07 Apr 2012, 16:57
Loz wrote:
Some kind of a revolution would have probably happened even without Lenin and the Bolsheviks...

Yes, but what kind of revolution? This is like saying "some sort of communist theory would've been invented even without Marx".

Loz wrote:
Revisionism is the perversion of revolutionary Marxism.

It seems to me that anti-revisionism has changed from being an actual weapon against bad marxists to mere name-calling for people who don't agree 100% with what Stalin did.

JAM wrote:
Lenin was not a revisionist, he simply adapted the marxist theory to the russian socio - economic conditions of 1917 making a socialist revolution viable in Russia before Germany or England.

And that's not revisionist? The development of capitalism was an imperative for Marx and Engels. Lenin after the October Revolution was trying to build socialism, or state capitalism without a bourgeoisie. That is a main element of Marxism that was altered, isn't it?

JAM wrote:
Revisionism is wrong because generally lead us towards the path of maioism, perestroika, juche, market socialism and so on.

What the hell is it you're trying to prove? That the Great Enlightened Stalin's path is the only way to communism? This is why anti-revisionism is idiotic.

JAM wrote:
That year they changed their position and aligned with Trotsky.

How is Trotsky in any way more revisionist than Lenin and Stalin?
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 07 Apr 2012, 18:01
Quote:
Revisionism is wrong because generally lead us towards the path of Maoism, perestroika, Juche, market socialism and so on.


So basically everything not endorsed by Stalin is "revisionist?" Why?

Quote:
Some kind of a revolution would have probably happened even without Lenin and the Bolsheviks...


As in...? Eventually, the Czar's rule would have collapsed late into WWI. Someone would've had to pick up the pieces, be it Kerensky or the Left SR party.

Its pointless to debate this alternative history scenario. Revolution was almost bound to happen by 1917 anyway.

Quote:
Revisionism is the perversion of revolutionary Marxism.


How so? First of all, what is your view on "orthodox Marxism?"
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 07 Apr 2012, 19:29
Sowjetunion wrote:

So basically everything not endorsed by Stalin is "revisionist?" Why?



It's not endorsed by Stalin, but rather by Marx and Lenin. Stalin was the socialist leader who applied marxism-leninism more rigorously and it's not by chance that he was by far the most successful one. Stalin was not only the most successful socialist leader of all time but he was also one of the most successful leaders of World History. I don't see anyone in History who changed so much a country like Stalin did. From a backward country to a superpower on it's way to put a man in space? Some people don't realize how much Stalin changed Russia. Russia of today is still the Russia Stalin created. That is why despite all the bad propaganda against him he was voted as the greatest russian of all time but a governmental interference prevented him and Lenin from being number one and number two respectively.

He knew the importance of the marxist theory that is why he was so successful. Do I need to compare USSR before Stalin and USSR after Stalin or you know how much it changed?

The one million dollar question is: If with Stalin it worked so well why the others had to do differently? Why Mao opted to do it differently? Why don't we see it as a successful model as it truly was? Why do we continue to believe in western lies like the ones propagated by Conquest and company? Of course he made mistakes, everybody does it. We can look at those mistakes, try to correct them but never deviating from the main course.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 07 Apr 2012, 19:45
Comrade Kaiwen wrote:

And that's not revisionist? The development of capitalism was an imperative for Marx and Engels. Lenin after the October Revolution was trying to build socialism, or state capitalism without a bourgeoisie. That is a main element of Marxism that was altered, isn't it?


You are confusing the Lenin's theory with the position that Lenin took in 1917 aligning himself with Trotsky. Lenin the theoretician knew that a capitalist stage was needed before the DOTP, but Lenin the politician in 1917 wanted to take the power from the provisional government because he believed that the russian people was not capable of supporting the war for much longer, the Kerensky government was tearing apart and the tsarists were on its way to regain the power once again. He felt that a socialist revolution was necessary to meet the people needs at that moment before a new tsarist coup. That is why he altered his position. However, he did not changed any Marxist main element. On the other hand, Trotsky was advocating this in theory since the beginning of the century, and that is why i think he was a revisionist and reality proved he was wrong, like all the other revisionists. USSR still had to go through NEP before the DOTP.

Comrade Kaiwen wrote:
What the hell is it you're trying to prove? That the Great Enlightened Stalin's path is the only way to communism? This is why anti-revisionism is idiotic.


I answered this in my previous post.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 07 Apr 2012, 20:10
Mabool wrote:
Yeah, but it would be completely and entirely different from the Soviet Union. Actually, the Soviet Union would be much more similar to a capitalist state than to any post-revolutionary society that might arise in Europe or North America. So why give a shit about it?


Because, in a way, it's hallowed by the blood of the millions of revolutionary proletarians that died fighting for it? Dismissing the Soviet experience outright feels like spitting on their graves.

Yes, the S.U. strayed quite far from the path of an orthodox Marxist DOTP, partly because of isolation, partly because of the material conditions and partly because their vanguardism eventually degenerated into outright substitutionism and a dictatorship over the workers in which the proletarians themselves had little input. Yes, excesses were committed left and right on the most turbulent eras of Soviet history. Yes, eventually the S.U. failed.

But still, the enormity of their successes, the sacrifices made for it and the fact that they kept the capitalist world shit-scared for near a goddamn century should get the USSR a bit of respect.
Last edited by KlassWar on 08 Apr 2012, 01:04, edited 1 time in total.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 07 Apr 2012, 21:56
Quote:
But still, the enormity of their successes, the sacrifices made for it and the fact that they kept the capitalist world shit-scared for near a goddamn century should get the USSR a bit of respect


You nailed it!

Quote:
Yes, the S.U. strayed quite far from the path of an orthodox Marxist DOTP, partly because of isolation, partly because of the material conditions and partly because their vanguardism eventually degenerated into outright substitutionism and a dictatorship over the workers in which the proletarians themselves had little input.


Concerning the issue of the vanguard, the number one flaw in the Soviet system was a lack of popular democracy. A single-party state system was bound to also, in isolation, take the route of stagnation and ultimately decay(which China only avoided by concessions to the market system).

The proletarian masses had no power; they had zero ability to extend control over their own government, which eventually proved the Soviet state's undoing.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 08 Apr 2012, 22:14
EDIT:

I went on a tangent to respond to the use of the word "revisionism", which popped up in the thread, without realizing there was already a thread about it in Red Square.

I've moved my response there.

viewtopic.php?f=107&t=52068
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.