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

Agitation of the Working Class after the Revolution

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 05 Aug 2012, 20:40
I was recently in a debate regarding Cultural Revolution, which I characterized as Idealistic. However, I came to question if Stalin's Aggravation of the Class Struggle after the Revolution was also Idealistic.

Did Stalin have a Material basis for the policy?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 05 Aug 2012, 21:03
Quote:
Did Stalin have a Material basis for the policy?

Well the class stuggle in the countryside during the collectivization was real, so of course there was a material basis. In 1932-1933 there was almost a civil war in Ukraine as kulaks and their allies gave enourmous resistance.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5146
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 05 Aug 2012, 21:17
Quote:
almost a civil war in Ukraine


Do you have any evidence of this?
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 05 Aug 2012, 22:26
Kulak terrorism is mentioned in pretty much every book on Soviet history i've read and that exact phrase has been used by some historians.

Also there seems to be a whole book on this: Peasant Rebels Under Stalin: Collectivization and the Culture of Peasant Resistance
It can even be read online but i can't copy-paste the text.
Chapter 5 is relevant because of the description of what was going on in the countryside at that time.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 06 Aug 2012, 10:50
Conscript wrote:

Do you have any evidence of this?

"Their [kulak] opposition took the initial form of slaughtering their cattle and horses in preference to having them collectivized. The result was a grievous blow to Soviet agriculture, for most of the cattle and horses were owned by the kulaks. Between 1928 and 1933 the number of horses in the USSR declined from almost 30,000,000 to less than 15,000,000; of horned cattle from 70,000,000 (including 31,000,0000 cows) to 38,000,000 (including 20,000,000 cows); of sheep and goats from 147,000,000 to 50,000,000; and of hogs from 20,000,000 to 12,000,000. Soviet rural economy had not recovered from this staggering loss by 1941.

... Some [kulaks] murdered officials, set the torch to the property of the collectives, and even burned their own crops and seed grain. More refused to sow or reap, perhaps on the assumption that the authorities would make concessions and would in any case feed them.

The aftermath was the ``Ukraine famine'' of 1932--33 .... Lurid accounts, mostly fictional, appeared in the Nazi press in Germany and in the Hearst press in the United States, often illustrated with photographs that turned out to have been taken along the Volga in 1921 .... The ``famine'' was not, in its later stages, a result of food shortage, despite the sharp reduction of seed grain and harvests flowing from special requisitions in the spring of 1932 which were apparently occasioned by fear of war in Japan. Most of the victims were kulaks who had refused to sow their fields or had destroyed their crops.'"

-("Russia since 1917; Four Decades of Soviet Politics")1957
Frederick Schuman

"At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms] or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest .... The catastrophe of 1932 was the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine of 1921--1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop was being gathered ... in many areas, especially in the south, 20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing."

(""Ukraine under Bolshevist rule" Slavonic Review Volume 12, 1933-34")
-Isaac Mazepa
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 29 Aug 2012, 04:20
I think the Leninist tendency to justify every necessarily struggle by saying "it's class struggle!" is a bit short sighted, precisely because it leads to dilemmas such as this.

Is the fight against bureaucracy (as in the cultural revolution) a form of class struggle? No, but that doesn't make it any less necessary.

The "aggravation of class struggle under socialism" is a terrible concept because, as Mao correctly observes, Stalin consistently failed to distinguish between conflicts among the people (not class struggle, when the bourgeoisie has been liquidated) and conflicts between the people and enemies (class struggle).
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Aug 2012, 09:43
In my opinion, the fight against bureaucracy is also part of the class struggle. As for the struggle inside the party. Even if you are not fighting a class, you are still fighting the remnants of a class and bourgeois ideology inside the State and the Party.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 29 Aug 2012, 09:56
A fight against an enemy ideology is not the same thing as fighting the enemy themselves. Class struggle is a fight against a social relation. A fight against an ideology is ... explaining things. This is precisely why you do not punish people for having different opinions. Lenin may have banned factions, but he didn't call Kollontai a bourgeois...
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2012, 17:26
Unperson
Post 29 Aug 2012, 20:26
History judged our very own Fidel Castro with very very high marks. So with Joseph Stalin. So it was either us or them. Assuming we have the correct thinking and history is on our side, how then can you resolve the questions hounding you? The dissidents were really not only outsmarting Stalin in the form of subversive letters. Their actions were tantamount also to subversion. Who "tamed" Nadya Stalin and caused her to commit suicide? It was her dissident classmates! What if your wife was hoodwinked into believing "horrible" stories about your husband and wife that cause them to hurt themselves? It was a conspiracy! And Stalin had no conspiratorial mind then. He was not accustomed to rule. He was about to give everything up when Nadya died. Only his Bolsheviks adviser cajoled him to go on with life. He was not greedy for power. Read how nice he was to the Writers Club. Read how rude they were to Stalin. Canadian law states that "provocation is a valid defense for homicide". Stalin then must sensed something subversive and treasonous. That is the reason why he acted that way!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 Aug 2012, 16:00
Quote:
A fight against an enemy ideology is not the same thing as fighting the enemy themselves. Class struggle is a fight against a social relation. A fight against an ideology is ... explaining things. This is precisely why you do not punish people for having different opinions. Lenin may have banned factions, but he didn't call Kollontai a bourgeois...

I don't think so. The Bolshevik party often punished people for having different opinions. Isn't it what they called a purge? Fighting the enemy and fighting his ideology is one and the same thing. Even if the antagonist contradictions disappeared, it doesn't mean that class struggle disappeared. Classe struggle can only disappear when there is no antagonism and no contradiction.
Kollontai of course wasn't banned. Yet she wasn't given a leading role inside the Party.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.