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

Can Somebody explain 'Socialism in One Country'?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Feb 2011, 12:58
Ideology: Social Democracy
Pioneer
Post 20 Dec 2011, 13:01
Forgive me, but I don't really understand 'Socialism in One Country'? I realise that is quite a general subject, but i'm sure someone can explain it. Thanks in advance.
Image

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."
Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Dec 2011, 13:30
Per my working understanding, the basic premise behind "Socialism in One Country" applies to the unique situation of the USSR in the 1920s; that socialist construction in the then newborn Soviet Union could be successful and could help advance the global move towards communism without first having a socialist revolution in an industrialized country. The idea is attributed to Joseph Stalin who essentially implemented such a policy in the 1930s, but it is certainly not limited to "Stalinism", as it was a practical consideration of all parties within the Bolshevik leadership.

Essentially, following the end of the Russian Civil War, the Soviet Union essentially stood alone as a socialist country, as other attempted socialist revolutions in Germany, Hungary, etc failed. Of course, the Soviet Union was ravaged by war and underdeveloped under tsarist feudalism and proto-capitalism, so the survival of the revolution was in question. Some factions believed that it was necessary to have a industrialized country with the sufficient material and technological base (capital accumulation) to support socialist construction, and the USSR clearly did not have that at the time. On the other hand, those who believed in "Socialism in One Country" contended that socialism could be built in the USSR and was in fact a better use of national resources than stoking revolutions abroad (I know I simplify too much).

The main concern with "Socialism in One Country" is that it would confuse the interests of international communism with those of Soviet national interests, resulting in the Soviet Union aligning itself with bourgeois interests in other countries, which did in fact happen in quite a few cases in the post-WWII era as a matter of realpolitik.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 08 Jan 2012, 19:47
Up to the spring of 1924, no Bolshevik would even think of 'socialism in one country'. Not even Stalin. But after Lenin died there was a power struggle. Stalin rested on the bureaucracy an the wealthy. He didnt want world revolution, he just wanted to be leader of Russia. So he started talking of socialism in one country. The revolution in Germany got cancelled a few months earlier by the Communist Party leaders, but Stalin had been opposed to it in the first place.

He was very un-revolutionary really. When Lenin came back to Russia in 1917, all the Bolshevik leaders grudgingly supported the Provisional (capitalist) Government. They had no plans for socialist revolution. Only Trotsky wanted that, and he was not in the Bolshevik Party. But when Lenin came back he adopted the same view as Trotsky, that Russia needed a workers government, needed the workers to overthrow the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik Central Committe were not at all happy about this but Lenin carried such weight in the end they mostly didnt dare publicly oppose him. Stalin was quiet for a week or so and eventually backed Lenin. Basically the Blsheviks had been Stagist up to then.

After 1924 Stalin went back to Stagism, saying that backward countries needed capitalism before they could have socialism. In doing so he more or less wrote off any chance of world socialism. The agenda for Communist parties was to establish CAPITALISM, by forming alliances with the capitalists.
Soviet cogitations: 726
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 18 Jan 2012, 03:28
Here's a good read by Stalin himself: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /01/18.htm

daft punk wrote:
He was very un-revolutionary really.
This isn't true. For a brief period in between the failure to attain collective security and the Nazi German conquest of France, Stalin and Co. started to believe that a German invasion would get stuck and would result in proletarian revolutions in both France and Germany (instead France folded.) During the late 40's, as Erik Van Ree notes in his book The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, Stalin discussed sending arms to the PCF and the PCI. He also opposed those who argued that imperialist war was no longer inevitable.

Saying that Stalin rested on the "wealthy" is ridiculous. Under Stalin the NEP was ended and kulaks were ended as a class.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 30
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2012, 17:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 19 Jan 2012, 01:04
The "Socialism in one country" was the answer to the idea that no attempt should be made at all to build socialism in the Soviet Union. However, Stalin reiterated many times that the victory of socialism cannot be final and irreversible in any one country until at least the core countries of the world capitalist system become socialist too. Basically it was a machiavellian attempt to lull the imperialists to sleep by removing the expression "world revolution" from the day-to-day ideological vocabulary, but without removing the essence. It was not until Khruschev pursued the "peaceful co-existence of the two systems", declared neutrality during the Sino-Indian war and backed down during the Cuban Crisis that the Soviet Union ceased to be the revolutionary force in the world.
It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 726
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 19 Jan 2012, 19:45
"Basically it was a machiavellian attempt to lull the imperialists to sleep..."

No it wasn't. The imperialist powers continued to strongly distrust the USSR and any movement that had communists in it. See Spain and the Munich Pact (in which the USSR was refused participation to defend Czechoslovakia's side) as the most potent examples. There's also the fact that the Nazi German remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936 had the British Prime Minister and his cabinet fearing that, if the Nazis were forced to cease this action, the morale of the German people and their confidence in the Nazi regime would be badly shaken and that only the German communists would profit. In the Baltics the Soviets had to constantly stress that they had no intention of "communizing" the three countries so long as they adopted a consistently anti-German course which, seeing as how they were reactionary and fascistic states, that was going to be quite hard to accomplish.

Then after WWII there was the fact that the Western Powers were opposed to the reunification of Germany, fearing Communist influence over it. Then there was the formation of NATO. Then there was the Korean War, and attempts to overthrow the Albanian Government in the late 40's and early 50's, etc.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 30
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2012, 17:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Jan 2012, 01:55
Ismail wrote:

No it wasn't.


Let's say it didn't work as fully as Stalin perhaps hoped for. But then there was FDR, who was Uncle Joe's sympathiser, right? And, though it was rarely spoken of during the Cold War by the both sides for obvious reasons, but the US had played quite a significant role in the Soviet industrialization in the 1930s.

Also consider this: despite completely having Trotsky in his hands in the late 1920s, Stalin nevertheless allowed him to emigrate and go around the world for quite a long time, and blabbering about how Stalin was a puppet of the bureaucracy and betrayer of Leninism. In a sense Trotsky was sort of a "Soviet Bin Laden of the 30-s", and Socialism In One Country - a "War on Terror Inversed".
It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 20 Jan 2012, 10:09
Those are some very strange analogies.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 30
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2012, 17:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Jan 2012, 12:06
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Those are some very strange analogies.


Subject:.....................VKP(b), Stalin..............................NeoCons, Bush
Power base:................USSR..........................................USA
Satellites:...................Comintern...................................other groups of transnational oligarchy
Real goal:...................Global Socialism............................Corporate Profit
Phony goal:.................Soc. in 1 Country.........................Global Freedom
Real adversary:............Entire world (imperialists)...............Entire world (nation states)
Phony adversary..........Trotsky - traitor to VKP(b)..............Bin Laden - former CIA agent

Phony goals and adversaries are there to consolidate control over the power base and satellites, while the real goals are at least partially masked.
It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 22 Jan 2012, 13:31
ishmail wrote:
daft punk wrote:
He was very un-revolutionary really.

This isn't true. For a brief period in between the failure to attain collective security and the Nazi German conquest of France, Stalin and Co. started to believe that a German invasion would get stuck and would result in proletarian revolutions in both France and Germany (instead France folded.) During the late 40's, as Erik Van Ree notes in his book The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, Stalin discussed sending arms to the PCF and the PCI. He also opposed those who argued that imperialist war was no longer inevitable.

I'm not sure how his tactic in the war you mention show he was revolutionary.

Stalin opposed the revolution in Spain in 1936-7 for example. In the same year the French CP called off a general strike.

At the end of the war tho Comintern line was that CPs should collaborate with capitalists in all countries except the USSR to establish capitalism.

Even Mao wanted China to be capitalist. Stalin didnt even back Mao, he backed the KMT (capitalist party who murdered communists).

In Eastern Europe Stalinists tried to establish capitalist countries, collaborating with the bourgeois. Or at least that was what Stalin wanted them to do.

In Yugoslavia Tito was pushed left by the masses. The capitalists had collaborated with the Nazis. Tito was forced to nationalise their industries. Stalin was furious and tried to have Tito murdered.

It was the same in every country. They went 'communist' against Stalin's wishes, because capitalism failed. The communist-capitalist coalitions lasted a couple of years and broke down.

In Poland the capitalists hadnt collaborated with the Nazis, but they had been mostly killed.

In most countries the resistance held power to a large extent at the end of fighting, and the resistance was usually mostly led by communists.

Greece was 70% held by communists at the end of the war and 30% by Royalists. Russia was one of the few countries to recognise the self proclaimed royalist government. The communists started fighting the royalists against Stalin's wishes.

The French communists helped maintain French rule over Vietnam. The Viet Minh did a deal with France, only the French government, which included communist ministers, started a war anyway.

Korea was caused by the stupid partition of the country, and America installing a dictator in the south who kept threatening to invade the north. Again the locals hated the capitalists who had collaborated with the Japanese invaders.

Stalin had a deal going with Churchill and he intended to honour it, problem was he failed. That was why the Truman started the cold war and went into military intervention in Greece.

ishmail wrote:
Saying that Stalin rested on the "wealthy" is ridiculous. Under Stalin the NEP was ended and kulaks were ended as a class.


Trotsky:
"In the spring of 1923, at a congress of the party, a representative of the “Left Opposition” – not yet, however, known by that name – demonstrated the divergence of industrial and agricultural prices in the form of an ominous diagram. This phenomenon was then first called “the scissors”, a term which has since become almost international. If the further lagging of industry – said the speaker – continues to open these scissors, then a break between city and country is inevitable.

The peasants made a sharp distinction between the democratic and agrarian revolution which the Bolshevik party had carried through, and its policy directed toward laying the foundations of socialism. The expropriation of the landlords and the state lands brought the peasants upwards of half a billion gold rubles a year. In prices of state products, however, the peasants were paying out a much larger sum. So long as the net result of the two revolutions, democratic and socialistic, bound together by the firm snow of October, reduced itself for the peasantry to a loss of hundreds of millions, a union of the two classes remained dubious.

The scattered character of the peasant economy, inherited from the past, was aggravated by the results of the October Revolution. The number of independent farms rose during the subsequent decade from 16 to 25 million, which naturally strengthened the purely consummatory character of the majority of peasant enterprises. That was one of the causes of the lack of agricultural products.

A small commodity economy inevitably produces exploiters. In proportion as the villages recovered, the differentiation within the peasant mass began to grow. This development fell into the old well-trodden ruts. The growth of the kulak [1] far outstripped the general growth of agriculture. The policy of the government under the slogan “face to the country” was actually a turning of its face to the kulak. Agricultural taxes fell upon the poor far more heavily than upon the well-to-do, who moreover skimmed the cream of the state credits. The surplus grain, chiefly in possession of the upper strata of the village, was used to enslave the poor and for speculative selling to the bourgeois elements of the cities. Bukharin, the theoretician of the ruling faction at that time, tossed to the peasantry his famous slogan, “Get rich!” In the language of theory that was supposed to mean a gradual growing of the kulaks into socialism. In practice it meant the enrichment of the minority at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

Captive to its own policy, the government was compelled to retreat step by step before the demands of a rural petty bourgeoisie. In 1925 the hiring of labor power and the renting of land were legalized for agriculture. The peasantry was becoming polarized between the small capitalist on one side and the hired hand on the other. At the same time, lacking industrial commodities, the state was crowded out of the rural market. Between the kulak and the petty home craftsman there appeared, as though from under the earth, the middleman. The state enterprises themselves, in search of raw material, were more and more compelled to deal with the private trader. The rising tide of capitalism was visible everywhere. Thinking people saw plainly that a revolution in the forms of property does not solve the problem of socialism, but only raises it.

In 1925, when the course toward the kulak was in full swing, Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land. To a question asked at his suggestion by a Soviet journalist: “Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”, Stalin answered: “Yes, and even for 40 years.” The People’s Commissar of Agriculture of Georgia, upon Stalin’s own initiative, introduced the draft of a law denationalizing the land. The aim was to give the farmer confidence in his own future. While this was going on, in the spring of 1926, almost 60 per cent of the grain destined for sale was in the hands of 6 per cent of the peasant proprietors! The state lacked grain not only for foreign trade, but even for domestic needs. The insignificance of exports made it necessary to forego bringing in articles of manufacture, and cut down to the limit the import of machinery and raw materials."



Trotsky and the Left Opposition had been calling for an end to the NEP for years, warning that the kulaks would get more powerful and be a danger. Stalin kicked him out of the country for that. Then he soon realised Trotsky was right. He ended the NEP too late, too fast, and extremely brutally. In the end he killed hundreds of thousands of peasants plus all the old Bolsheviks and socialists.

Trotsky, 1927:

"In view of the obvious departure of the party leadership from the fundamental Bolshevik course in the countryside, their tendency to rely upon the well-off peasant and the kulak; in view of the covering up of this policy by anti-proletarian speeches about “poor man’,sillusions”, “sponging”, and do-nothingism, and about the alleged small value of the poor peasant in the defence of the Soviet Union-in view of these things, it is more than ever necessary to remember the words of our party programme. While unequivocally asserting the decisive importance for us of alliance with the middle peasant, our programme clearly and succinctly states:

In all its work in the country, the Russian Communist Party relies as before upon the proletarian and semi-proletarian forces. It organizes them above all into independent forces, creating party cells in the villages, organizations of the poor, a special type of trade union for the proletarian and semi-proletarian rural elements, etc.; associating them by every possible means with the urban proletariat; and tearing them away from the influence of the rural bourgeoisie and the small-propertied interests."


zulu wrote:
The "Socialism in one country" was the answer to the idea that no attempt should be made at all to build socialism in the Soviet Union. However, Stalin reiterated many times that the victory of socialism cannot be final and irreversible in any one country until at least the core countries of the world capitalist system become socialist too. Basically it was a machiavellian attempt to lull the imperialists to sleep by removing the expression "world revolution" from the day-to-day ideological vocabulary, but without removing the essence. It was not until Khruschev pursued the "peaceful co-existence of the two systems", declared neutrality during the Sino-Indian war and backed down during the Cuban Crisis that the Soviet Union ceased to be the revolutionary force in the world.


Who said no attempt should be made to build socialism? Certainly not Trotsky and the Left Opposition. Maybe one or two on the right. You mean Bukharin. He wanted more of the NEP. Stalin used Bukharin's ideas to attack Trotsky. Later he found out it was a bad idea and used Trotsky's ideas to attack Bukharin!

And Stalin didn't just oppose world revolution in words, he did it in deeds, over and over. In any country you can see how Stalin or Stalinists opposed socialist revolution in their actions.

zulu wrote:
Also consider this: despite completely having Trotsky in his hands in the late 1920s, Stalin nevertheless allowed him to emigrate and go around the world for quite a long time, and blabbering about how Stalin was a puppet of the bureaucracy and betrayer of Leninism. In a sense Trotsky was sort of a "Soviet Bin Laden of the 30-s", and Socialism In One Country - a "War on Terror Inversed".


How generous of Stalin to allow Trotsky a few years in exile before he murdered him, his followers, and their families. To compare Trotsky to a terrorist is very stupid.

Trotsky wrote

"All Marxists in Russia began in the historic fight against terrorism".

Stalin kicked him out and the immediately collectivised, which Trotsky had been advocating.

Stalin implemented a one man dictatorship from Lenin's death culminating in the Show Trials of the 30s. He expelled hundreds of thousands from the Communist Party and shot all those who supported socialism.

One secret police leader said the communists were dropping like files.

Stalin later killed all the killers. Only a few at the top survived.

Trotsky backed the USSR up to his death. But after 1933 he called for the masses to get rid of the bureaucracy and establish real democratic socialism. He said that if that didnt happen and Russia stayed a dictatorship it would end up capitalist, and of course he was proved right by history. 50 years later it was all over. The economy had ground to a halt, weighed down by the bureaucracy.
Soviet cogitations: 726
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 22 Jan 2012, 21:33
daft punk wrote:
I'm not sure how his tactic in the war you mention show he was revolutionary.
Because he believed that proletarian revolution would erupt. Actually Trotsky said similar things, e.g. that in the event of war with the USSR the troops of Nazi Germany would invade and turn commie.

Quote:
Stalin opposed the revolution in Spain in 1936-7 for example. In the same year the French CP called off a general strike.
There was no "Spanish revolution." There was, however, a struggle against fascism which the PCE was in the forefront of leading. The calling off of a general strike by the PCF was, however, a negative event though seen as necessary to avoid alienating liberal bourgeois elements from the Communists, which would have in the view of the PCF brought forth rightist, pro-fascist elements. The PCF miscalculated.

Quote:
At the end of the war tho Comintern line was that CPs should collaborate with capitalists in all countries except the USSR to establish capitalism.
Well first off the Comintern had been dissolved by the end of WWII. Second, this isn't correct. Dimitrov in 1944 for instance criticized the CPUSA's Browder for promoting subservience to the bourgeois state.

Quote:
Even Mao wanted China to be capitalist. Stalin didnt even back Mao, he backed the KMT (capitalist party who murdered communists).
The GMD (aka KMT) started as a bourgeois-democratic party quite closely aligned with the USSR. Chiang Kai-shek led the right-wing faction which massacred communists in 1927. As noted in Stalin's Letters to Molotov, however, Stalin blamed the CCP for allowing this to happen. As he wrote in July 1927 to Molotov (p. 141): "The CCP Central Committee was unable to use the rich period of the bloc with Kuomintang in order to conduct energetic work in openly organizing the revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry, the revolutionary military units, the revolutionizing of the army, the work of setting the soldiers against the generals. The CCP Central Committee has lived off the Kuomintang for a whole year and has had the opportunity of freely working and organizing, yet it did nothing to turn the conglomerate of elements (true, quite militant), incorrectly called a party, into a real party. . . . The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat. But the most intolerable thing about this babbling is that the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony—it kills the initiative of the working masses, undermine the 'unauthorized' actions of the peasant masses, and reduces class warfare in China to a lot of big talk about the 'feudal bourgeoisie'... That is why I now believe the question of the party is the main question of the Chinese revolution."

Quote:
In Eastern Europe Stalinists tried to establish capitalist countries, collaborating with the bourgeois. Or at least that was what Stalin wanted them to do.
No he didn't. The initial view was that the bourgeoisie was so weakened that the communists didn't really need the dictatorship of the proletariat. This view was proven wrong within a short period of time and formally abandoned in 1948.

Quote:
In Yugoslavia Tito was pushed left by the masses.
Really? Is that why Tito didn't want to give Kosovo to Albania? By his own admission he didn't want to alienate Serbs. Doesn't sound like the "masses" were "left." In fact most sources note that he gained in popularity by posturing himself as some sort of defiant nationalist against Stalin after the Soviet-Yugoslav split.

Quote:
Greece was 70% held by communists at the end of the war and 30% by Royalists. Russia was one of the few countries to recognise the self proclaimed royalist government. The communists started fighting the royalists against Stalin's wishes.
Stalin felt that Britain would never allow the Greek communists to achieve victory. As Erik Van Ree notes in The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, however, he clearly wouldn't have minded their victory if it was possible. Even then the Greek CP made various mistakes in its lines and work which weakened its struggle.

Quoting Trotsky about the mid-20's, when the NEP was developing and when ending it would have been premature, does nothing.

Quote:
One secret police leader said the communists were dropping like files.
Name him.

Quote:
He said that if that didnt happen and Russia stayed a dictatorship it would end up capitalist, and of course he was proved right by history.
"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counter-revolutionary coup d’état which would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war."
(L. Trotsky, On the Kirov Assassination, December 1934)
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 30
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2012, 17:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 23 Jan 2012, 18:32
daft punk wrote:
Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land.

And than he went on and collectivized the entire agricultural sector...

daft punk wrote:
And Stalin didn't just oppose world revolution in words, he did it in deeds, over and over.

1929. Socialist countries in the world: USSR.
1953. Socialist countries in the world: USSR (+ Baltic states), PRC, DPRK, DRV, Mongolia, Poland, GDR, Chekhoslovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary.

All against Stalin's intentions. Rrrrright...

Have you heard the latest news? The Red Army won in the Great Patriotic War actually against Stalin's intentions...


daft punk wrote:
To compare Trotsky to a terrorist is very stupid.

I was not comparing Trotsky to a terrorist. I was comparing him to a generally harmless nonsense-spouting guy used as a boogieman for the press and the masses, who, in the end, having outlived his usefulness, got taken out.
It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 23 Jan 2012, 21:49
ishmail wrote:
There was no "Spanish revolution." There was, however, a struggle against fascism which the PCE was in the forefront of leading. The calling off of a general strike by the PCF was, however, a negative event though seen as necessary to avoid alienating liberal bourgeois elements from the Communists, which would have in the view of the PCF brought forth rightist, pro-fascist elements. The PCF miscalculated.

well, the leader of the anarchists Garcia Oliver admitted they could have taken power ’because all the forces were on our side’ but did not do so because, they did not ’believe in doing so’. The workers were organised and armed in militias, until the Stalinists disarmed them. The Stalinists concentrated in crushing the revolution and allowed the fascists into power. They attacked areas held by anarchists and the POUM. George Orwell Orwell commented, "in reality it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain."

The soft left government faced a coup from Franco. The workers rose up and pushed the fascists back. Where they had done this, the workers held power.

Quote:
Felix Morrow, in his book, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Spain 1931-1937, explained how the anti-fascist militia in Catalonia, based on workers’ organisations, conquered the Aragon region in five days from 19 July. "They conquered Aragon as a social liberation army. They formed anti-fascist village committees, expropriated land, harvests, cattle, tools etc, from the landlords and the reactionaries. Then the village committee organised production on its new foundation, usually in the shape of a collective and created a village militia to implement the socialisation and to fight reaction."

In republican Spain the capitalist class did not exist, having fled with the fascists. Beevor describes how in Barcelona the anarchists installed their headquarters in the former premises of the Employers’ Federation. The Ritz was used as ’Gastronomic Unit No 1’, a public canteen for all those in need. He goes on to explain how: "In Barcelona worker committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Vulcano, Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises."
Class collaboration

However, the myth that was perpetuated, in essence, by the leadership of all the major workers parties, and above all by the Communist Party, was that in order to preserve ’unity’ with capitalist forces in the fight against fascism it was necessary to postpone the struggle for socialism to some later date. Beevor accurately states that "the most outspoken champions of private property were not the liberal republicans, as might have been expected, but the Communist Party."

source


ishmail wrote:
Quote:
At the end of the war tho Comintern line was that CPs should collaborate with capitalists in all countries except the USSR to establish capitalism.

Well first off the Comintern had been dissolved by the end of WWII. Second, this isn't correct. Dimitrov in 1944 for instance criticized the CPUSA's Browder for promoting subservience to the bourgeois state.
Yes I know but everyone thinks of the Comintern as opposed to the Cominform. Anyway.

So you just have this one little thing to oppose what I said? For a start it's sort of self contradicting because you mention the CPUSA promiting subservience to the bourgeois.

You mention Dimitrov in Bulgaria -

Quote:
In Bulgaria, the masses rose up in advance of the liberating Soviet army. At the end of 1944, soldiers set up soldiers' soviets, refused to recognise rank, dismissed officers who opposed them, removed local government officials and raised red flags everywhere. The Russians insisted that the removed officers and officials be reinstated and that the soldiers recognise the authority of The Fatherland Front Government being set up by the Russians as a popular front between themselves and Bulgarian bourgeois elements. For its part, the Bulgarian Communist Party solemnly declared that there would be a return to the status quo and no nationalisation. In March 1945, Stalin declared: 'We are building a democratic country based on private property and private initiative

http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalini ... /ch2-1.htm

nice example.

ishmail wrote:
Quote:
Even Mao wanted China to be capitalist. Stalin didnt even back Mao, he backed the KMT (capitalist party who murdered communists).

The GMD (aka KMT) started as a bourgeois-democratic party quite closely aligned with the USSR. Chiang Kai-shek led the right-wing faction which massacred communists in 1927. As noted in Stalin's Letters to Molotov, however, Stalin blamed the CCP for allowing this to happen. As he wrote in July 1927 to Molotov (p. 141): "The CCP Central Committee was unable to use the rich period of the bloc with Kuomintang in order to conduct energetic work in openly organizing the revolution, the proletariat, the peasantry, the revolutionary military units, the revolutionizing of the army, the work of setting the soldiers against the generals. The CCP Central Committee has lived off the Kuomintang for a whole year and has had the opportunity of freely working and organizing, yet it did nothing to turn the conglomerate of elements (true, quite militant), incorrectly called a party, into a real party. . . . The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat. But the most intolerable thing about this babbling is that the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony—it kills the initiative of the working masses, undermine the 'unauthorized' actions of the peasant masses, and reduces class warfare in China to a lot of big talk about the 'feudal bourgeoisie'... That is why I now believe the question of the party is the main question of the Chinese revolution."


I'm not sure what your point is. Are you disputing that Stalin and Mao wanted China to be capitalist? Stalin backed the KMT right up to 1948. Mao went to war with them in 1945 because otherwise the KMT would massacre more communists. Stalin wanted power sharing but Mao knew that wasn't possible. It's all very well saying Stalin blamed the CCP, he would wouldnt he?

ishmail wrote:
Quote:
In Eastern Europe Stalinists tried to establish capitalist countries, collaborating with the bourgeois. Or at least that was what Stalin wanted them to do.

No he didn't. The initial view was that the bourgeoisie was so weakened that the communists didn't really need the dictatorship of the proletariat. This view was proven wrong within a short period of time and formally abandoned in 1948.


No, this is not true, see above re Bulgaria, the policy was Popular Fronts and the building of capitalism. Pick another country or see the link. It's a historical fact that they had Popular Front coalitions with the bourgeois.

ishmail wrote:
Quote:
In Yugoslavia Tito was pushed left by the masses.

Really? Is that why Tito didn't want to give Kosovo to Albania? By his own admission he didn't want to alienate Serbs. Doesn't sound like the "masses" were "left." In fact most sources note that he gained in popularity by posturing himself as some sort of defiant nationalist against Stalin after the Soviet-Yugoslav split.


see the link re Bulgaria. "Tito’s reluctant defiance of Stalin was forced upon him by the People’s Committee movement which had won the overwhelming support of the masses in the fight against fascism."

ishmail wrote:
Quote:
Greece was 70% held by communists at the end of the war and 30% by Royalists. Russia was one of the few countries to recognise the self proclaimed royalist government. The communists started fighting the royalists against Stalin's wishes.

Stalin felt that Britain would never allow the Greek communists to achieve victory. As Erik Van Ree notes in The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, however, he clearly wouldn't have minded their victory if it was possible. Even then the Greek CP made various mistakes in its lines and work which weakened its struggle.

Stalin recognised the Royalist government, he opposed the civli war and even had the leader of the CP removed. He was furious that Tito backed it.


ishmail wrote:
Quoting Trotsky about the mid-20's, when the NEP was developing and when ending it would have been premature, does nothing.

not sure what you are saying or referring to

Quote:
Quote:
One secret police leader said the communists were dropping like files.

Name him.

Filippov, head of the Penza department of the NKVD said it. Postyshev heard him and asked Stalin to have him arrested for it.
source

Image


written by a Russian historian with access to the archives.

ishmail wrote:
Quote:
He said that if that didnt happen and Russia stayed a dictatorship it would end up capitalist, and of course he was proved right by history.

"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counter-revolutionary coup d’état which would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war."
(L. Trotsky, On the Kirov Assassination, December 1934)


Well in 1935 he said

"The inevitable collapse of the Stalinist political regime will lead to the establishment of Soviet democracy only in the event that the removal of Bonapartism comes as the conscious act of the proletarian vanguard. In all other cases, in place of Stalinism there could only come the fascist-capitalist counterrevolution."

Ok capitalist restoration wasnt as bloody as he anticipated. This was for several factors:

Things dragged on a long time, partly because of WW2 and the cold war. In the end Stalinism staggered on til the 1980s. The the rich elite decided to become...the rich elite. Not hard to imagine. After Stalin died in 1953 Khrushchev slagged him down but still kept the same basic thing going. But the economy started to inevitably grind to a halt. Then they had a fiasco in Afghanistan. And the workers in Eastern Europe were restless. In fact the workers initially wanted democratic socialism, which would have removed the privileges of the bureaucratic elite, so it was easier to go over to capitalism voluntarily.

zulu wrote:
daft punk wrote:
Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land.


And than he went on and collectivized the entire agricultural sector...


Yeah, it came as a shock to him in 1928 when the peasants revolted. So he collectivised, just as Trotsky had advocated for the last few years, only in a very brutal way.

zulu wrote:
daft punk wrote:
And Stalin didn't just oppose world revolution in words, he did it in deeds, over and over.


1929. Socialist countries in the world: USSR.
1953. Socialist countries in the world: USSR (+ Baltic states), PRC, DPRK, DRV, Mongolia, Poland, GDR, Chekhoslovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary.

All against Stalin's intentions. Rrrrright...

Have you heard the latest news? The Red Army won in the Great Patriotic War actually against Stalin's intentions...

No country has ever been socialist. See my rely to ishmail re that anyway, have a look at the link on the aftermath of WW2.

Quote:
"Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions. "

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /03/01.htm

Quote:
Mao 1945:

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism. "

"Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... wv3_25.htm
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 29 Jan 2012, 21:06
Quote:
1929. Socialist countries in the world: USSR.
1953. Socialist countries in the world: USSR (+ Baltic states), PRC, DPRK, DRV, Mongolia, Poland, GDR, Chekhoslovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary.

All against Stalin's intentions. Rrrrright...


Ah I may be a bit late on this one...but I don't care, sorry.

Those are my thoughts exactly. I'm SO glad to see someone recognize that.. You always hear these Trotskyists clamoring about how he was against revolution and the spread of Socialism (SOOOO maddening), yet under his leadership the world saw the establishment of various Socialist republics and worker's states established in all those countries listed above by Zulu.

By all means, Stalin isn't someone to be worshipped, no one should be worshipped with the likes of a god because no one can be that "perfect" its just simply not possible. Sure there were some mistakes, such as the Comintern's decision on Spain, which could have led to a Socialist republic, as well as Greece. But I'd say his leadership saw a slew of accomplishments and victories of socialism regardless.

I personally believe Socialism in One Country worked out quite well, as Zula stated, USSR: only Socialist country in 1929, then in 1953, 10 plus socialist countries established. I just don't see how something like that can be ignored and discarded. Of course such was done under Khrushchev, and Stalin's legacy was not respected a bit and his accomplishments were pissed away, all gone by the time of the Anti-communist overthrow by Gorbachev.

Socialism in one Country was a materialist view, and that's why it succeeded. Stalin won over the party with that policy, thankfully, the winds of history did not blow towards Permanent Revolution. There's no telling what our conversation would be like, probably because we wouldn't be able to come to this site "Soviet empire" and converse on such topics.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 31 Jan 2012, 12:02
Well at least you admit 'mistakes' in Spain and Greece.

However you claim all these countries were socialist. If they were, how come they are all toast now?

And if Stalin sabotaged revolutions in Spain and Greece, what makes you think he supported them elsewhere? Stalin didnt want revolutions anywhere. As I already showed above.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5151
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 31 Jan 2012, 13:23
Red army backed coups and subsequent coalition governments overseeing state capitalism and security of moscow's interests passes as socialism these days? I doubt stalin himself considered the eastern bloc to be anything more than a bunch buffer states. In other countries that weren't fortunate enough to be considered worthy of stalin's support the communists were abandoned.

As far as stalin's achievements goes, he was awesome for the USSR. The same can't be said of socialism though.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4415
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 31 Jan 2012, 19:03
Conscript wrote:
Red army backed coups and subsequent coalition governments overseeing state capitalism and security of moscow's interests passes as socialism these days? I doubt stalin himself considered the eastern bloc to be anything more than a bunch buffer states. In other countries that weren't fortunate enough to be considered worthy of stalin's support the communists were abandoned.


1. As you are no doubt aware, the trajectory of Eastern European states from 1944-1947 was unknown, because it was uncertain whether the Grand Alliance would hold together in the aftermath of the defeat of Nazism and Japanese militarism. Up to that point, in both Eastern and Western Europe, the communists had reverted to a Popular Front strategy, cooperating with all sorts of anti-fascist forces and participating in coalition governments. If the rhetoric and events that led to the Cold War were to be avoided, there's no telling what kind of situation might have emerged. For all we know the countries that came to comprise the Eastern Bloc might have been left a series of Finland and Austria-like governments, and some Western European countries might have had Communists presiding over radical Left coalitions. Stalin sought to avoid the Cold War, but given the circumstances that emerged after the war there was little chance of doing so. Hence, in accordance with Kennan's doctrine, to avoid Red Army backed coups would have meant to push the USSR's influence back to its border, followed by territorial revisionism by virtually all of the states bordering the USSR. How would this be in the interests of world socialism?

2. Defining Soviet-style socialism as state capitalism is a highly debatable proposition, and could in itself swallow this whole thread. I suggest we dig up some old threads on the subject (and there are plenty), or perhaps start a new one.

3. Looking at Eastern European socialism as a mere buffer zone for Soviet security interests is insulting both to the real strengths of the Eastern European radical Left in the aftermath of World War 2, and to Soviet politics as well, which had benevolent goals along with its narrow state interests. Stalin's wish to secure the USSR in the postwar period can in fact be seen as a sort of extension of the 'socialism in one country' attitude, conceiving of the Soviet state's survival as critical for the advancement of socialism globally. Taking account of Marxist theory and his conversations with the Western leaders during the war, Stalin genuinely believed into the late 1940s that the great conflict of the future would be between the European imperialist powers and the United States, the latter seeking to dismantle formal colonialism and to open new markets. In this vein, the USSR's goal would have been to prepare to defend itself for another war, this time carried out further to the West, and again constituting a defensive war that started as a capitalist or fascist conflict. On this logic a series of 'buffer states' is certainly understandable.
Last edited by soviet78 on 31 Jan 2012, 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
"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
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 Jan 2012, 19:11
Yes, there has never been any proof whatsoever that the russians needed to be paranoid about western intentions...

Image


Image


Image
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 01 Feb 2012, 05:56
daft punk wrote:
Well at least you admit 'mistakes' in Spain and Greece.

However you claim all these countries were socialist. If they were, how come they are all toast now?

And if Stalin sabotaged revolutions in Spain and Greece, what makes you think he supported them elsewhere? Stalin didnt want revolutions anywhere. As I already showed above.



Yes, you see I "admit mistakes", that Stalin made, and the USSR as a whole because I am not a "Stalinist" like you, as Trot probably think. I just recognize the accomplishments and shortcomings of the entire socialist camp, but I am supportive regardless. I would just prefer to say critical of the Soviet Union and some of the dealings of the Socialist Camp as a whole. Isn't that what being communist is all about? Self Criticism? It's important to look back on these events as learning experiences and to keep these ideas alive. With Trots just shitting all over the legacy of the first ever socialist camp established in the world gets us absolutely nowhere. The establishment of Soviet Union proved to the world that it is possible to establish a socialist state, and its important to learn from that, to keep a materialist point of view. I'd say all you have to do is look at Russia today, with its violence, rising rate of racial violence. You Leftists just like to shit all over it, and it helps absolutely NOTHING.

Gorbachev entered the office as Gensec of CPSU with anti-communist sentiment and imperialist goals. He did NOT want to maintain the communist party the way it is presented in "official" history. You can ultimately blame Gorbachev and his imperialist cohorts for the fall of the USSR, and the Gang of Eight for not acting earlier with something they could have succeeded. Ultimately they needed to connect with the people better, which they didn't, and should have rallied the masses to tell them what was going to happen with their lives had Gorbachev been allowed to stay. They acted too late.

Have a look here.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... orbach.htm
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5151
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 01 Feb 2012, 16:19
soviet78 wrote:
1. As you are no doubt aware, the trajectory of Eastern European states from 1944-1947 was unknown, because it was uncertain whether the Grand Alliance would hold together in the aftermath of the defeat of Nazism and Japanese militarism. Up to that point, in both Eastern and Western Europe, the communists had reverted to a Popular Front strategy, cooperating with all sorts of anti-fascist forces and participating in coalition governments. If the rhetoric and events that led to the Cold War were to be avoided, there's no telling what kind of situation might have emerged. For all we know the countries that came to comprise the Eastern Bloc might have been left a series of Finland and Austria-like governments, and some Western European countries might have had Communists presiding over radical Left coalitions. Stalin sought to avoid the Cold War, but given the circumstances that emerged after the war there was little chance of doing so. Hence, in accordance with Kennan's doctrine, to avoid Red Army backed coups would have meant to push the USSR's influence back to its border, followed by territorial revisionism by virtually all of the states bordering the USSR. How would this be in the interests of world socialism?


I doubt Stalin would have let the small eastern european countrues to go neutral like he tried with germany. They were all small states quite prone to fascism and latching on to whatever imperialist presented them an opportunity, as they did in the interwar period. He certainly didn't demonstrate any intentions to let poland go back to its old interwar self.

I'm glad you don't try to defend these states as socialist, instead just follow the old stalinist logic 'whats good for the USSR is good for world socialism'. However world socialism isn't tied to any national interest, nor should it be, especially the national interests of bureaucrats who had no real plans for socialism. We can see the terrible fruits of it in the 20th century, but some people refuse to learn. Both the USSR and China tried to rule the communists, but they only succeeded in weakening the communists and their own party-state. Their internationalism and the strategies associated were pathetically shallow, conditional, and overflowed with the interests of borderline bourgeois nationalist bureaucrats. Worst of all, they set us back a hundred years.

soviet78 wrote:
2. Defining Soviet-style socialism as state capitalism is a highly debatable proposition, and could in itself swallow this whole thread. I suggest we dig up some old threads on the subject (and there are plenty), or perhaps start a new one.


It's really not. There were all the major hallmarks of capitalism (except individual accumulation of capital), and the only reason it was considered socialist was because Stalin's plans were part of the process of 'socialist primitive accumulation'. His ideas denoted a revisionist, non-existent third way between the capitalist stage and a 'skipped' capitalist stage performed with the assistance of outside socialism in advanced countries. That is, state accumulation of capital and eventual surrendering of bureaucratic power to the proletariat. It was just thinly veiled state capitalism that opened the way for even more liberal influence in 1965, which no one denies was state capitalism.

soviet78 wrote:
3. Looking at Eastern European socialism as a mere buffer zone for Soviet security interests is insulting both to the real strengths of the Eastern European radical Left in the aftermath of World War 2, and to Soviet politics as well, which had benevolent goals along with its narrow state interests. Stalin's wish to secure the USSR in the postwar period can in fact be seen as a sort of extension of the 'socialism in one country' attitude, conceiving of the Soviet state's survival as critical for the advancement of socialism globally. Taking account of Marxist theory and his conversations with the Western leaders during the war, Stalin genuinely believed into the late 1940s that the great conflict of the future would be between the European imperialist powers and the United States, the latter seeking to dismantle formal colonialism and to open new markets. In this vein, the USSR's goal would have been to prepare to defend itself for another war, this time carried out further to the West, and again constituting a defensive war that started as a capitalist or fascist conflict. On this logic a series of 'buffer states' is certainly understandable.


Just don't call it in the interest of socialism. Stalin's contribution to international socialism was sitting on his ass and consolidating power in the USSR while at the same time using outside communists to further secure the national interests of the USSR. Then hope imperialists bring everything down and leave weakened bourgeois states for stalin-aligned communists to seize control of. That is the fruit of 'socialism in one country', a bureaucratic deviation.

So in other words, he continued the same anti-revolutionary practices as before WW2 except this time he already had bourgeois states under communist rule and didn't need to work his crazy comintern policies to achieve it. He was so satisfied with his international position he had no issue with leaving other communists to the jaws of imperialists. All because of a simple belief socialism was 'achieved' (more like decreed) in the USSR and everyone else can drop everything and defend it, or die. At least fascism is much more blatant about its anti-worker ideas.

If stalin genuinely believed the imperialists of his time were going to turn on each other, he was out of his mind. The last major imperialist camp that challenged the dominant circle of liberal empires was crushed in large part by him (after he helped it come to fruition, of course). That left the allies, again, as the sole imperialist great power. They didn't turn on each other during the interwar, where they hoped fascism would crush communism, and they certainly weren't going to after the death of fascism when they had to fight communism themselves. In fact he should have knew something like the Marshall plan was inevitable, if he didn't. Imperialism had way too many interests in the simple preservation of the great capitalist powers to degenerate into empire rivalries in the face of Stalin's subversiveness.

Quote:
With Trots just shitting all over the legacy of the first ever socialist camp established in the world gets us absolutely nowhere.


So do strawmen and defending such a blatant deviation from socialism.

Quote:
You Leftists just like to shit all over it, and it helps absolutely NOTHING.


'Us leftists'? Are you not a leftist?

Your ideas can be summed up as such:
'it's not socialism but since I have a soviet fetish I feel the need to defend everything with a red flag'

Pray tell, if the USSR was a such a beacon for socialism, why didn't the working class defend their rule? Why were they complacent with, even open to, liberal alternatives? If I had to guess, I'd say it's sadly because the market gave them more power over what is produced than the detached state plan (though that's not saying much). That and private capitalism was more appealing to the mass of degenerates that was the bureaucracy than state capitalism, which granted them no individual property rights.

Stalin's rule in the USSR and international practices pretty much set the stage for capitalist restoration. There isn't any denying that. Now it's time to move on as that era is dead and nobody actually wants to rebuild it. Can we recognize Marxism-Leninism as a failure already? It's not even a programmatic question, just a historical one. I'm sure M-L's won't be on the other side of the barricade (most of them anyway, with M-L's like the KKE they just might).
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.