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: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:27
What's your problem with degenerated worker's state? It's a state organized along proletarian lines but where the workers don't exert or have political power. How is that a contradiction of histomat?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:37
Yeah. That's just nothing that's ever happened before, so duh. A state where the workers don't exert or have political power cannot by definition be "organized along proletarian lines", it's a bourgeois state.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:51
That's dumb. The USSR is a clear-cut case of a state organized along proletarian lines but where worker's had very little access to the political power the USSR had been founded on. The early RSFSR's history is full of cases of worker's exerting their political power on various cases. It was through the proletarian bureaucracy, necessitated by the challenges facing these newly liberated workers and peasants, that their political power was obstructed and contained or channeled into the bureaucracy. The descendants of these people wouldn't become bourgeoisie until the early 90's when they seized the means of production for themselves.

A fair question would be how these empowered, although still functionally proletarian, bureaucrats did not constitute a new soviet bourgeoisie. The answer lies in the choices made by the soviet bureaucracy which were overwhelmingly progressive as opposed to the overwhelmingly reactionary character of all concurrently existing bourgeoisie. See this is the power of a worker's state even in degeneration or deformation. Only by completely destroying all vestiges of worker's rule (liberalization) could the bureaucracy actually break through to becoming private owners of society.

Sam Marcy explains the class character of the USSR:
http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samclass/index.htm
Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 22 Feb 2012, 10:10
Loz wrote:
Lapsus calami,change my last sentence to "would not be less frightful" and my point stays the same.
Your pedantry is useless with such incriminating evidence.


Let's just summarise:

Stalinists:

1. German Communists fraternised with fascists in 1919, 1923 and later, under the direction of Radek. Radek later became Stalin's top German adviser. The term National Bolshevism arose in Germany in 1919 as a result of various communist leaders trying to interject communism into the fascist movement. Some of the fascists were quite keen on Bolshevism in the early years.

2. The Stalinists had a pact with the fascists in 1931 which helped the Nazis get into power by discrediting the KPD.

3. Stalinist sectarianism allowed Hitler to take power by splitting the working class

4. Stalin had a pact with Hitler until he invaded

5. Soviet spies warned of Hitler's invasion but were ignored by Stalin, who didn't even want them in the field. As a result, the Nazis nearly reached Moscow, advancing 1200km. Stalin killed the spies' boss and the most famous one was jailed for 10 years rather than getting a heroes welcome when he returned.

6. After the war the Stalinists tried to stop all revolutions.

Marxists:

1. Lenin stressed the need for fraternisation, ie sabotage by propaganda. This had to be done carefully, with a very clear political agenda, ie putting the Bolshevik ideas to the enemy. Putting class against nation. Marx said workers have no countries.

2.Trotsky said German workers should sabotage the German war effort. Workers in America and Britain etc should go to war and fight, but explain that the war is a bourgeois one and agitate for revolution. He said that if the fascists won, all is not lost as this could make revolution even more likely. He said this because many people thought socialist revolution was doomed if the fascists won. He believed revolution was likely either way. It was, but after the war the Stalinists put down all revolutions.

Mabool wrote:
YOU DO NOT TALK TO FASCISTS. YOU KILL FASCISTS.

ffs

"The USSR was not capitalist"
But it wasn't socialist, either, huh?

This talk of "degenerated workers' states" is completely incompatible with any sane interpretation of histomat, but you're not gonna let that bother you, are you?



See above, kill them if you can, explain Marxist views if you can, try to sow ideas of mutiny and so on.

Why is a degenerated workers state incompatible with historical materialism? It's no good just saying it, you have to give reasons. Historical materialism said a workers state could never degenerate when?

Marx said in backward conditions the old crap would resurface. It did, he was right. Trotsky was right. The USSR collapsed back to capitalism as he predicted.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 22 Feb 2012, 16:25
daft, this mean spirited insulting tone of yours needs to cease or you wont be here much longer

Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 16:42
that's quite unfair, the others were just as mean spirited.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5148
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 22 Feb 2012, 17:34
Vaguest card ever
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 19:50
Quote:
Let's just summarise:

Please spare me this stuff you're already mentioned at least ten times in this thread.
All i'm asking you is to confirm (and make yourself clear in regards to whether or not you support that line) that Trotsky,in 1940,wrote that the victiory of Nazi Germany and other fascist forces would not be less frightful to mankind than the victory of anti-fascist forces.

Quote:
1. Lenin stressed the need for fraternisation, ie sabotage by propaganda. This had to be done carefully, with a very clear political agenda, ie putting the Bolshevik ideas to the enemy. Putting class against nation. Marx said workers have no countries.

Certainly,but Lenin wrote that in the context of an imperialist and not an anti-fascist war.Which part do you have trouble understanding?
Anyway,the fact that your Trotskites (not all of them) "fraternized" with German fascists even in mid-1944 is a clear indictment of your (and Trotsky's) disgusting and counterrrevolutionary lines.
French Trotskite press wrote that "they are all the same" on D-Day.

Quote:
See above, kill them if you can, explain Marxist views if you can, try to sow ideas of mutiny and so on.

Yeah.Wonder how come Communists fought actually fought the fascists,and Trotskites,real revolutionaries as they are,"fraternized" with SS butchers.


Your posts are obscene. It's clear that there could be no fraternization with fascist occupiers,sworn enemies of the people.
The Soviets tried,but it yielded no results.Not even in 1945.

The Trotskites were clearly guilty of collaboration with fascism which was a logical result of their counterrevolutionary politics.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 22 Feb 2012, 20:07
Loz wrote:
Your posts are obscene.



Thank you for that generous spirited, non-insulting comment.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 20:32
Quote:
Thank you for that generous spirited, non-insulting comment.

Thank you for defending Nazi collaborators,no,sorry,my mistake,activists who fraternized with fellow workers in uniforms even when the cause of real socialism seemed lost, when the Allies,whose victory would of course not be less frightening to humanity, landed on Normandy.

Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 20:35
BTW,state yourself,be honest for once. Answer this.

Quote:
All i'm asking you is to confirm (and make yourself clear in regards to whether or not you support that line) that Trotsky,in 1940,wrote that the victiory of Nazi Germany and other fascist forces would not be less frightful to mankind than the victory of anti-fascist forces.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 20:56
See jumbling up the order of players gets you a dramatically different picture than what the trots were actually saying. You want to put it as though they were saying nazism and imperialism are inseparably similar (despite the fact that you used a double negative and agreed with Trotsky). It's that the imperialists were not coming to make things better but to entrench themselves against European socialism. History has proven this analysis correct as those same imperialists still maintain bases they won in the race to Berlin.

Trying to contort this basic marxist statement into a pro-fascist rallying call (even though it's still saying the nazis will be worse) is pretty weak loz. There are many grounds on which to legitimately question Trotsky's thinking and actions but this is not one of them. This is exactly the same as trots who make a huge deal out of Molotov-Rippentop (understandably though as Stalin's gutting of the Red Army was one of his dumber mistakes) and try to make some connection to Stalin being a secret fascist. I know that argument would piss you off yet you so readily make the exact same flimsy case against Trotsky. Dude...
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 21:01
Quote:
It's that the imperialists were not coming to make things better but to entrench themselves against European socialism. History has proven this analysis correct as those same imperialists still maintain bases they won in the race to Berlin.

It's not some original thought. But bourgeois democracy > fascism (which we know is the rule of the most reactionary bourgeoisie) and Auschwitzes.

Quote:
Trying to contort this basic marxist statement into a pro-fascist rallying call (even though it's still saying the nazis will be worse) is pretty weak loz.

I'm pretty sure the whole progressive world understood that fascism is the enemy number one.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2012, 21:13
Loz wrote:
It's not some original thought. But bourgeois democracy > fascism (which we know is the rule of the most reactionary bourgeoisie) and Auschwitzes

I don't believe it was intended to be original but was an attempt to remind people why the imperialistseases really there and not to have their minds clouded by the heroic deeds of the imperialist's slaves. This was clearly an important message since the sentimentality regarding world war two still persists in many communist's appraisals of imperialist participation in the campaign against fascism (which, again, they had propped up in the first place).

Loz wrote:
I'm pretty sure the whole progressive world understood that fascism is the enemy number one.

It's hard not to see that your worst enemy is the one that puts your comrades into ovens. However it's important to remember who helped them to capture our comrades in the first place and who later saw an opportunity to stop the growing tide of anti-fascist struggle by ending the war as soon as possible and by stopping it with imperialist hands.

I'll put it this way: the imperialists only fought to break the chains of fascism so they could attach the world to their chains instead.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 22 Feb 2012, 21:34
Loz wrote:
Aren't you ashamed of yourself?


No

Loz wrote:
be honest for once


Lol!

Keep the generous spirited and non-insulting comments coming.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 23 Feb 2012, 00:29
All this Trotsky vs Stalin squabbling has become a really silly now.

None of these dudes were omniscient. Expecting EVERY pronouncement/comment made by them to be correct "FOR ALL TIME" is infantile.

Both of them said some rather regrettable things (usually in the cause of sniping at each other).

One of the merits which Trotsky usually had was his iconoclastic manner. In later times, I think he lost some of this when the "debate" degenerated onto the issue of "who was Lenin's true heir" (as though he was perfect).

Treating his (or Stalin's) statements like biblical scripture is feeble.

Plenty of the time Trotsky got his political analysis right, but DP seems convinced that admitting that Trotsky made a mistake (on this occasion) will undermine the entirety of his political contribution in one fell swoop.

The whole context of any such comment seems to have been forgotten. Trotsky was in difficult territory, between opposing a USSR (which he felt had lost its' way) and the looming threat which faced the world in the form of Fascism.

I think he put his foot in it this time. Big deal.
Forgetaboutitalreardy!
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 23 Feb 2012, 10:30
Trotsky said the USSR must be defended, the German workers should sabotage Germany's war effort, workers in Britain and America should go to war and fight. Which of these do you disagree with?

"The defense of the USSR coincides for us with the preparation of world revolution. " Trotsky 1939

He laid out his priorities, considered all possibilities. And bear in mind a lot of the time he was arguing against other socialists, some of whom were writing off the USSR.
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 17 Mar 2012, 01:21
Socialism in one country was basically a rational decision taken by Stalin in order to preserve what the communist had accomplished in Russia. It wasn't taken because he didn't believed in world revolution which is a premise of marxism, but rather because he perfectly knew that at the time soviets were in no condition to support other revolutions due to the precarious state of USSR's economy and the international political context unfriendly towards the Soviet Union. Contrary to some false claims, he didn't sabotage any communist revolution and he actually supported the republican side during Spanish Civil War. When he finally had the means to support communism outside the USSR he did it as you can see after the WWii with Eastern Europe, China, Korea, etc.

There is a major point which is never brought to this "socialism in one country" vs "world revolution" discussions and it should be since it clearly shows how correctly Stalin was when he took the decision of follow the former option. Many studies (most notably Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"), points out that the reason behind the USSR implosion was the so called overextension of the soviet empire during the latest periods of its existence. I must quote the historian Anatoly Khazanov in this one: "Overextension is a common pitfall of empires." This means that the USSR got involved in much more than it could support it and the end was the fall of the entire structure. Others claim that the USSR involvement in the third world was the base of its erosion. I think this brings some clarity to the subject and clearly turns the debate favorably to Stalin's side. Remember that was Stalin who had the responsibility to run the Soviet Union, so he had to be realistic and not a dreamer.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 17 Mar 2012, 04:05
It's telling that many Trotskyists don't have much of an answer to exactly what else should have been done in 1924 when it was clear that the revolution was not spreading at that moment.

Socialism in one country was a response to practical reality at that moment, not a reversal of marxist theory
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
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Mar 2012, 05:01
Quote:
It's telling that many Trotskyists don't have much of an answer to exactly what else should have been done in 1924 when it was clear that the revolution was not spreading at that moment.

What?!
Have you not read the Platform of the Joint Opposition? It's all written there!
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.