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

What articles are you reading?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 17 Jun 2016, 03:25
We've had a number of discussions on the nature of People's Democracy on S-E. And most agreed that it is simply a variant form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, comparable to the Soviet Democracy.

But this informative article from Communist Platform of Italy, shows from 1st hand quotes of Communist leaders and theorists, that certain state and party leaders had an idea of PD in the early days, that was neither bourgeois nor proletarian dictatorship. This matches up with the claims of certain historians that the PD were initially meant to be Popular Front governments of the Spanish type, with Communists dominating the security apparatus, but allowing non-Leninist popular front parties to lead in the coalition.

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/icmlp ... taly25.htm

The article is subtitled "A Specific Form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" so obviously that did come to be the dominant interpretation of PD. But leaders as prominent as Gomulka and Varga denied this during the initial stage, as documented in the article.
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 17 Jun 2016, 05:59
I have been reading some Hoxhaist works at various sites. And right now am studying the US reactions to the Sino-Albanian split in the 1970s.

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/n ... tm#albania

I came across this quote

"In fact, Mao Tsetung regarded revolution itself as just an endless process, as a cycle repeated eternally. It goes from victory to defeat to victory, never rising to a higher level but eternally repeating itself. His quotation (Peking Review, No. 21, 1976. p. 9) on the need for revolution 10,000 years from now because junior officials etc., will always feel slighted by big shots is typical."

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/n ... ml-mao.htm

I checked the reference to its source and read the full quotation

https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/ ... 76-21d.htm

“Will there be need for revolution a hundred years from now? Will there still be need for revolution a thousand years from now? There is always need for revolution. There are always sections of the people who feel themselves oppressed; junior officials, students, workers, peasants and soldiers don’t like bigshots oppressing them. That’s why they want revolution. Will contradictions no longer be seen ten thousand years from now? Why not? They will still be seen.”

It is an interesting application of Mao's theories of dialectics, from an official Peking Review publication. Some of Mao's more philosophical musings from the late period come only from western sources like Schram. But it is notable to see here how Mao's theory of contradiction affects his grand political philosophy. He suggests even in a fully developed communist society there will always be eternal class conflict between the higher and lower. 100 years from now, 10,000 years from now.

Also reading W. B. Bland's book that attempts to provide an empirical case for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. I find the format very useful, as it is largely quotations from 1st hand Soviet publications. And the claim is that decentralization and profit-seeking is equivalent to capitalism. I do find somewhat disingenuous his full-hearted acceptance of all bourgeois sources attacking the Brezhnevite USSR. I'm sure if you asked these same sources whether the problems such as independent trade unions or anti-semistism were worse under Stalin, they would say they were. So its seems hypocritical to claim that everything said about the USSR up to 1953 is bourgeois lies but in 1956 these same sources become gospel truth.

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html

I have been interested lately in exploring how exactly the Soviet economy worked on a local level. Both from friendly and hostile sources. And these Hoxhaist sources both western and Albanian provide a useful theoretical-empirical insight into a leftist critique of Brezhnev era planning. From the Hoxhaist perspective these same criticisms apply to Mao.

From the sources I have read, they associate decentralization and localism with market socialism and capitalism. So for example in 1 article even the People's Communes of the Great Leap Forward are derided as market socialist, because they were forms of collectivized but not state property, participating in commodity relations. Collectivized property has a part to play in socialist construction. But much is made of Stalin's refusal to sell tracts to collective farms, and Khrushchev's reversal of this policy as a major step in capitalist restoration.

I've been reading more into Bill Bland's work. And I remember years ago being linked from Revleft onto the theory that the capitalist restoration by anti-Stalinists had already begun in the 1930s. And Bland was probably the source for this theory. Although for me I had thought that this idea almost borders on Trotskyist-Stalinism. In that it accepts that the CPSU has been hopelessly corrupted during the Stalin era, except that Stalin the man, was still fighting the good fight, but largely reduced to powerlessness in both the CPSU and Comintern. But it is the Party not the Man that counts. And so saying Stalin was a good Communist, doesn't take away from the claim that the CPSU of the Stalin era was a capitalist party.

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/comjun01.html

http://ml-review.ca/aml/BLAND/EconProbs.htm
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 18 Jun 2016, 05:44
I've been hunting down this quote for years, and finally came across it again and discovered the source. It is a quote by Engels on the term Social Democracy. By the 1880s, Communist Parties had entirely disappeared from the map and there were only Social Democratic Parties. Including the Social Democratic Party of Germany which Marx and Engels had a personal hand in shaping ideologically. Or even the Bolsheviks were still the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party at the time of October 1917.

In Engels' quote, he makes clear that he doesn't care for the term Social Democratic, and that the term Communist is much more scientifically accurate, but that it will "pass muster" for the time being.

"It will be noticed that I do not call myself a social-democrat in these articles, but a communist. I do this for the reason that the name of social-democrats was given in those days to many who had not written upon their banners the demand for the socialization of all the means of production. By a social-democrat people understood in France a republican democrat, who had genuine, but indefinite, sympathies for the working class men like Ledru-Rollin in 1848, and like the socialist radicals in 1874, who were tainted with Proudhonism. In Germany, the Lasalleans called themselves social democrats. Although the great majority of these gradually recognised the necessity of the socialization of the means of production, nevertheless one of the essential points of their public program remained productive associations with state help. It was, therefore, quite impossible for Marx and myself to choose such an elastic term for the designation of our specific point of view. To-day it is different and this term may pass muster. Nevertheless it will always be ill-fitting for a party whose program is not generically socialistic, but directly communistic, and whose ultimate political aim is to do away with all forms of state, and therefore also with democracy."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/labrio ... s/al04.htm
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Aug 2016, 04:36
Some new Albanian materials

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/#Albania

J.V. Stalin’s Name and Work Are Immortal, 1961. Posted August 8, 2016

Ever Deeper In the Dregs of Anti-Marxism, 1962. Posted August 8, 2016

Whom Do Khrushchev’s Viewpoints and Actions Serve?, 1962. Posted August 8, 2016

The Titoite Clique and the Draft of the New Jugoslav Constitution, 1962. Posted August 8, 2016

The Khrushchev-Tito Revisionist Group Concoct New Plans against the Cause of Socialism, 1963. Posted August 8, 2016

15 Years after the Issue of the Inform Bureau Resolution «On the Situation in the Jugoslav Communist Party», 1963. Posted August 8, 2016

The Moscow Declaration, The Invincible Banner of the War against Imperialism and Revisionism, 1963. Posted August 8, 2016

Slanders and Fabrications Cannot Stand Up To Facts and Documents, 1963. Posted August 8, 2016

For the Militant Unity of the Communist Movement Under the Victorious Banner of Marxism-Leninism, 19630 Posted August 8, 2016
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Aug 2016, 19:11
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S RED SCARE? INSIDE RUSSIA’S RESURGENT COMMUNIST PARTY

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/puti ... 85630.html
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 16 Aug 2016, 21:18
Hey that's an interesting piece heiss, and surprisingly fair (although they don't really mention the reason why everyone hates Nemtsov and Navalny, which is that they're from the same caste that destroyed the country in the 90s). It really is a big wish of mine that the KPRF wins a plurality this fall, and forms a coalition with some of the other left-nationalist and social democratic forces to kick out UR. Don't think it's going to happen though; apathy seems overwhelming at the moment.

http://www.levada.ru/en/2016/08/04/stat ... ections-2/

Also, I've been rereading some of the articles from Ellman and Kontorovich's 'Destruction of the Soviet System' recently.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=sovietempire&path=subst/home/home.html/Destruction-Sovi ... g=UTF8&me=

I have to tell you guys - if you have a detailed enough understanding of the workings of the Soviet system, and its major players - reformers, conservatives, and anti-system radicals, this may be the single greatest book offering rays of sunlight through the complex forest of details that is the Soviet collapse. Basically, it's a damning indictment of the reformers as people who just didn't know what the hell they were doing, which for a planned economic system was simply devastating. A lot has been written about Yeltsin and the various ethnic or social conflicts that emerged in the late 1980s in the USSR, but little has been said of the economy, which as Marxists know is and always will be the base on which the legal and political superstructure rests.

As someone who has been reading English and Russian-language sources on the topic seriously for over a decade, I still haven't found anything as informative as this short book on the subject of the Soviet economy, and doubt that I ever will, since this is basically just a compilation of officials' opinions written in the 90s, when their memories and feelings were still fresh and clear. Perhaps a Russian can complement it someday, going back through all the memoir and newspaper literature written in the 90s by former officials; but otherwise you're not going to get a clearer cross-section of what was going through people's minds at the time.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Aug 2016, 23:57
There have been a number of articles in the western press on the KPRF over the last year, since the KPRF has been doing well in regional and local elections especially in Siberia.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/8/11179332/ru ... nist-party

During the Yeltsin era, Zyuganov came only a hair's breath away from taking power in 1996, and many experts believe that election was rigged against him. The competition between the KPRF and Yeltsin was very real. But then under Putin, the KPRF has largely been described as managed opposition.
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 17 Aug 2016, 01:26
You're absolutely right! They've even admitted on national television repeatedly that the 1996 elections were rigged, with Zyuganov defending himself by saying the country would see another civil war if Yeltsin didn't get his way. He was probably right, given the precedent of what happened in October 1993.

Also, yeah, Putin's populist style has burst a lot of bubbles, not only for the KPRF but for Alexander Lukashenko, who was once dreamed by the left as a successor to Yeltsin with the whole union state project. The problem is that ideologically speaking, Putin seems to see some modernized vision of Stolypin's Russia as the ideal. He's kicked the oligarchs out of politics, but has grown them like mushrooms in the economic sense in the 2000s. Eventually, he seems to think, these economic elites will become patriots, and will stop living in London and commuting to Russia on weekdays. The reality, of course, is that this is not the case, with a few exceptions. Some even fear that the economic elites are planning a coup against the president, biting the hand that feeds so to speak, in an attempt to end this 'nonsensical' confrontation with the West and all the grief (i.e. loss of profits) it's caused them.

All the while, most ordinary people, even the majority of left-oriented ones, are fooled by the fairytale that Putin's constantly waging a heroic fight on their behalf against the oligarchs. Hence my fantasy that the KPRF wins the parliamentary elections and forms the government. That way Putin can focus on foreign policy (where it must be admitted his team has used Russia's limited resources very effectively, and even benefited the global Left in the sense that it's helped to create a multipolar world), while at home the Left and center Left can try to rein in some of the awful excesses of economic liberalism. These excesses, it's worth noting, haven't let up at all despite the talk of Russia's rift with the West, with our Central Bank effectively continuing to serve as a branch of the US Federal Reserve, Russia dutifully executing the will of the IMF and WTO, and our education and health systems, left over from the Soviet technosphere, being subjected to literally the worst possible 'Western style' reform options (including adherence to the Bologna system, and in health care's case, insurance schemes with middleman insurance companies raising costs and looking to deny coverage).
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 22 Aug 2016, 18:14
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 24 Aug 2016, 03:13
The 1872 Republican platform seems to implicitly recognize the labor theory of value

>Eleventh. Among the questions which press for attention is that which concerns the relations of capital and labor, and the Republican party recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full protection and the amplest field for capital, and for labor—the creator of capital—the largest opportunities and a just share of the mutual profits of these two great servants of civilization.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29623
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 27 Aug 2016, 16:20
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 29 Aug 2016, 04:02
Reconstruction interests me as the most truly revolutionary period in US history as far as radically turning the social structure upside down. I'm also interested in the post-history of Reconstruction, where did all that revolutionary energy go after the end? Perhaps the greatest example of a revolutionary reconstructionist who I just learned about is this guy. He was a Confederate soldier during the war, but became a militant supporter of Reconstruction. And after being forced to flee Texas he became an anarchist and Communist and was one of the executed at Haymarket- the inspiration for May Day. And his wife went on to be a founding member of the IWW, living into the 1940s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Parsons

The Communist Party USA published this book about him-

Alan Calmer, Labor Agitator: The Story of Albert R. Parsons. New York: International Publishers, 1937.

And amazingly someone put it online

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... rstoc.html
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Sep 2016, 04:20
Reading some of Blanquis works. Sometimes we get so caught up in dogmatic sectarianism that we don't appreciate contributions from other revolutionary trends. Certainly Marxists have appreciated Blanqui as a great revolutionary leader without endorsing Blanquism. When the USSR took power they put up statues of Blanqui and Lasalle. I remember once I was posting about Babeuf, and someone else praised Blanqui. And being a bit of a dogmatic historicist I played down the contributions of Blanqui. Really based on nothing more than the fact that Babeuf was pre-Marx and Blanqui was post-Marx.

Blanqui is actually an excellent link between the old Jacobin and Babeuf tradition and modern revolutionary communism. He took part in all the major revolutions of 19th century France from 1830 to the Paris Commune.

Its interesting to see his earliest work praising Benjamin Constant. While this is from his days as a student radical from 1830 and might not represent the mature Blanqui, its interesting to see a Leftist take on Constant. Constant was part of the liberal opposition to Napoleon I, but he helped draft the liberalized Napoleonic Constitution of 1815 during the 100 Days. He adapted to the Bourbon Restoration as a period more reactionary than Napoleon's; but at the same time less despotic, and actually preserving more room for liberal opposition. As Blanqui himself says in one of his writings, the bourgeoisie realized that Restoration was better for business than Napoleon. It is a more nuanced take than Napoleon being the French Revolution on horseback, and the Restoration being pure feudal reaction. The take of Soviet historians is somewhat like this, in that they consider Russia's part in the Napoleonic Wars to be partially progressive. And hence the late Napoleonic Wars 1812-4 represented wars of national liberation.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /index.htm
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Sep 2016, 22:03
The former South Korean ambassador to West Germany leads a Religious Confucian Party in North Korea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choe_Deok-sin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondoist_Chongu_Party
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Sep 2016, 15:09
1992 paper by Erwin Marquit on the crisis in the CPUSA

https://web.archive.org/web/20010129052 ... usa.crisis


ORGANIZATIONAL CRISIS OF MARXISM-LENINISM IN THE USA



SOURCES OF THE IDEOLOGICAL CRISIS IN THE CPUSA
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 06 Oct 2016, 22:16
The current CIA Director voted for the Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in 1980

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/ ... nist-vote/
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 07 Dec 2016, 23:32
Using google translate to read Alexander Yakovlev's famous article AGAINST ANTIHISTORICISM

http://left.ru/2005/15/yakovlev132.phtml?print
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 09 Jan 2017, 21:38
1st the Socialist Workers Party was pro-Trump now they are pro-Netanyahu

http://www.themilitant.com/2017/8103/810301.html

Quote:
Kerry’s critique excoriated Tel Aviv for robbing Obama of his “legacy,” ignoring his advice and instructions for what they should do. Like the liberals and those on the petty-bourgeois left who are aghast at U.S. workers who rejected Hillary Clinton and voted for Donald Trump, Obama and his meritocratic brethren find it unfathomable that Netanyahu doesn’t jump to follow their proscriptions for Israeli policy.
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 21 May 2017, 14:14
The economics chapter from Brezhnev Reconsidered is available from the author

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econ ... ev2002.pdf
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 52
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Apr 2017, 04:47
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 May 2017, 22:57
soviet78 wrote:
Also, yeah, Putin's populist style has burst a lot of bubbles, not only for the KPRF but for Alexander Lukashenko, who was once dreamed by the left as a successor to Yeltsin with the whole union state project. The problem is that ideologically speaking, Putin seems to see some modernized vision of Stolypin's Russia as the ideal. He's kicked the oligarchs out of politics, but has grown them like mushrooms in the economic sense in the 2000s. Eventually, he seems to think, these economic elites will become patriots, and will stop living in London and commuting to Russia on weekdays. The reality, of course, is that this is not the case, with a few exceptions. Some even fear that the economic elites are planning a coup against the president, biting the hand that feeds so to speak, in an attempt to end this 'nonsensical' confrontation with the West and all the grief (i.e. loss of profits) it's caused them.


I believe that the West will prevent this from happening. As a dying empire, the West is addicted to war and will give Russia no choice but to resist with all its might. But this is just my own naive opinion.

What prevents the KPRF from developing a "populist style"? Zyuganov?

In theory, the communists are right. But struggle does not begin with theory: It begins with practice. When you put theory before practice, you become a religion!

People need practical methods and solutions, and they need a party that is able to communicate and inspire. Is there such a party in Russia? If not, why not?
☭ The NATO-bloc's $1T/year war racket sells death & destruction, obscenely repackaged as "Freedom & Democracy".

☭ Bright ideals are used to hide hideous crimes.

☭ Real freedom is something to live for, not something to kill for.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.