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: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 Feb 2012, 00:15
Stalinism, despite Daft Punk's awful definition, does in fact exist. Marxism-Leninism upholds Stalin universally so they are Stalinists. Well at least as much as B-L's are Trotskyists. Crying about the fact that people label you on the basis of your historical loyalties is as dumb as being called a Marxist for upholding him, and it certainly doesn't stop you from being a Stalinist.

Having historical loyalties is a pretty effed up concept if you ask me though.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2012, 11:55
please delete this accidental post
Last edited by daft punk on 17 Feb 2012, 12:45, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2012, 12:43
Man In Grey wrote:
"Yes, he was very busy killing communists and sabotaging revolutions"

Right. That's arguable, in fact 3 pages worth, so far (you and Loz).


It is a fact which can easily be determined from a bit of research and a bit of logical thought.

Man In Grey wrote:
Trotsky was a narcissist with great oratory skills. Stalin was a great organizer and lead the underground, he served as part of the backbone for the Bolsheviks getting arrested countless times, actually partaking in struggle for over a decade. He lead the Bolsheviks of Georgia and organized various strikes there too, however this is barely recognized in any history book it seems. He's also made nice contributions to Marxism-Leninism with his written works. But you don't believe in that ideology do you, so it doesn't matter. My point is, he was both a teacher and a soldier. He played a much bigger part than you might think.


He played a big part killing communists and sabotaging revolutions. His only contributions were socialism in one country, popular fronts, and two stage theory, all of which were opposed to socialism. Lenin had been a stagist prior to 1917, but there is no excuse to go back to a discredited formula Lenin had junked in April 1917 when he came round to Trotsky's view.

Man In Grey wrote:
The reason why I say leftists have not accomplished anything is because you are too sectarian and not organized or disciplined with any concrete goals. I mean look at the anti-thesis to SIOC, Permanent Revolution. Holding absolutely no material basis. And even at the time there were Revolutions that sparked, but they all failed. Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted less than a year, the German and Italian uprisings in 1918-1919 both failed. According to PR they would had to wait for them to succeed, correct? Thankfully the winds did not blow in such a direction.


oops, you got that all wrong.

let's go back to the start for a quick summary.

1. Marx and Engels said socialism in one country was not gonna happen.

2. They also said the revolution would start in advanced countries.

3. However, they did briefly mention that the world socialist revolution might start in Russia, if it quickly spread to advanced countries.

4. The Bolsheviks seemed unaware of 3. and were stagists. They expected any revolution in Russia to be a bourgeois one.

5. Trotsky really developed this tiny thing Marx and Engels had said. he witnessed the feebleness of capitalism in backward countries, dominated by foreign capital. he alone said revolution could start in Russia, that it must be led by the workers, and the the bourgeois tasks would be carried out by the workers, moving straight on to the socialist tasks.

6. In early 1917 Lenin came round to the idea. He arrived at the same conclusion as Trotsky, though he called for a workers and peasants government.

7. Lenin told the Bolsheviks he wanted to overthrow the Provisional government. The Bolsheviks had been supporting it, Trotsky had been calling for it's overthrow obviously. The Bolshevik CC were not too happy. Some opposed Lenin, inferring that he was now a Trotskyist. Stalin himself said nothing for 10 days. Lenin's huge political weight prevailed.

8. In September, Lenin dropped the peasants bit and adopted Trotsky's formula, a workers government. This was genius because it forced the poor peasants to split from the rich ones and follow the workers. Previously the poor peasants had united with the rich ones against the feudal or semi-feudal landlords.

9. Trotsky then led the revolution.

10. Marxism, not just Trotskyism, says that socialism aint gonna happen in one country, especially a backward one. So obviously it needed to spread. The 1919 revolutions were crushed so things looked a bit grim. The Bolsheviks implemented the NEP as a temporary retreat.

11. The 1923 German revolution, which Stalin opposed, was called off. Trotsky was blocked from going there to organise it.

12. 1924-8 Stalin did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky had called for. he let the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, he allowed the bureaucracy to grow, get more bureaucratic. Everything was going in the wrong direction. Lenin had wanted the NEP to be slowly turned into something as close to socialism as they could. He wanted the rich heavily taxed, state industry developed, young communists trained in administration (as Trotsky had pushed for in 1922), and the poor peasants encouraged into subsidised cooperatives. Stalin did the exact opposite, and used this to get rid of his opposition on thios matter, Trotsky.

13. After Trotsky was gone, all his predictions came true, and Stalin was forced to collectivise, as Trotsky had advocated, only too late, too quickly, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way. This led to millions starving.

14. At this time, 1929, Stalin had just botched the Chinese revolution, by doing the opposite of what Trotsky advocated. But he pretended there was no defeat. This was the Third Period. The Comintern pretended or believed that this period of defeat was a period of revolution. It fitted with several practicalities. It masked Stalin's botching of the Chinese revolution. It masked the fact that Stalin had been forced to adopt the Left Opposition's policies (albeit in a grotesque way). It fitted with the forced collectivisation forced on Stalin by events Trotsky had predicted.

Trotsky compared Stalinism to a singer who sings wedding songs at funerals. The Comintern was proclaiming revolution at a time of defeat. This led to the disastrous sectarian policy of social fascism and the defeat of the German working class in 1933, and the coming to power of the Nazis.

15. Trotsky not only witnessed that, the rise of the Nazis. He had been advising how to stop it. And the Cominterm failed to even acknowledge the mistake or discuss it. They were obviously a dead loss. Trotsky finally broke with the Comintern.

16. Stalin lurched right, back to stagism, to popular fronts, class collaboration. This meant capitalism, not socialism, for all countries outside the USSR. Stalin sabotaged the revolution in Spain while simultaneously purging the socialists in the USSR. The Comintern was ordered to adopt these policies and oppose socialism. They KMT was backed in China, the French general strike called off and so on.

17. After WW2 this policy continued, but the attempts at capitalist economies, with coalition governments of communists and capitalists, all fell apart. This was a vindication of Trotsky's ideas once again. One by one they slid into satellite states. Truman's Marshall Plan and then Cold War obviously pushed things along. The Korean war pushed Mao into collectivisation, as it increased the resistance of the gentry he had naively planned to collaborate with. The Cold War was invented by Truman to finish what Stalin started. Truman was fed up with Stalin's inability to stop revolutions and guarantee capitalism. So America intervened in Greece.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Stalinism, despite Daft Punk's awful definition, does in fact exist. Marxism-Leninism upholds Stalin universally so they are Stalinists. Well at least as much as B-L's are Trotskyists. Crying about the fact that people label you on the basis of your historical loyalties is as dumb as being called a Marxist for upholding him, and it certainly doesn't stop you from being a Stalinist.

Having historical loyalties is a pretty effed up concept if you ask me though.


Why is my definition awful, and what is your so clever one?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Feb 2012, 15:02
Quote:
I've just explained it all in the thread.
Summary
abandon socialism
"socialism" in one country
popular fronts
sabotage revolutions

No,this is not a Marxist analysis of "Stalinism" nor is it even close to a proper characterization of Stalin as a theoretician or a valid description of the relationship(s) between Marxism and "Stalinism".
What you wrote is shit.

It akin to to "summarizing" Marxism as:
build communism
socialism in Germany,France and British Empire
Mexicans are lazy
Bakunin sucks

Try again.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2012, 15:29
No, you are not even trying, so why bother? You cant be arsed to read the key document, Platform of the Opposition.

You criticise Trotsky as if he was the devil, but you have zero knowledge on what he said.

Image


This is the intro:


Quote:

Leon Trotsky
Platform of the Joint Opposition
1927
Chapter 1
Introductory


IN HIS speech at the last party congress he attended, Lenin said:

Here we have lived a year, with the state in our hands, and under the New Economic Policy has it operated our way? No. We don’t like to acknowledge this, but it hasn’t. And how has it operated? The machine isn’t going where we guide it, but where some illegal, or lawless, or God-knows-whence-derived speculators or private capitalistic businessmen, or both together, are guiding it. A machine doesn’t always travel just exactly the way, and it often travels just exactly not the way, that the man imagines who sits at the wheel.

In those words was given the criterion by which we ought to judge the fundamental problems of our politics. In what direction is the machine travelling? The State? The power? Is it travelling in the direction that we, Communists, expressing the interests and will of the workers and the enormous mass of the peasants, desire? Or not in that direction? Or “not exactly” in that direction?

In these years since the death of Lenin, we have more than once tried to bring the attention of the central organs of our party, and afterward the party as a whole, to the fact that, thanks to incorrect leadership, the danger indicated by Lenin has greatly increased. The machine is not going in the direction demanded by the interests of the workers and peasants. On the eve of the new congress we consider it our duty, notwithstanding all the persecution we are suffering, to call the party’s attention with redoubled energy to this fact. For we are sure that the situation can be corrected, and corrected by the party itself.

When Lenin said that the machine often goes where it is directed by forces hostile to us, he called our attention to two facts of supreme importance. First, that there exist in our society these forces hostile to our cause – the kulak, the Nepman, the bureaucrat – availing themselves of our backwardness and our political mistakes, and relying upon the support of international capitalism. Second, the fact that these forces are so strong that they can push our governmental and economic machine in the wrong direction, and ultimately even attempt – at first in a concealed manner – to seize the wheel of the machine.

Lenin’s words laid upon us all the following obligations:

1. To watch vigilantly the growth of these hostile forces – kulak, Nepman, and bureaucrat;
2. To remember that in proportion to the general revival of the country, these forces will strive to unite, introduce their own amendments’ into our plans, exercise an increasing pressure upon our policy, and satisfy their interests through our apparatus;
3. To take all possible measures to weaken the growth, unity, and pressure of these hostile forces, preventing them from creating that actual, although invisible, dual-power system toward which they aspire;
4. To tell candidly the whole truth about these processes to all the toiling masses. In this now consists the fundamental problem as to a “Thermidorian” danger and the struggle against it.


Since Lenin uttered his warning, many things have improved with us, but many also have grown worse. The influence of the state apparatus is growing, but with it also the bureaucratic distortion of the workers’ state. The absolute and relative growth of capitalism in the country and its absolute growth in the cities are beginning to produce a political self-consciousness in the bourgeois elements of our country. These elements are trying to demoralize – not always unsuccessfully – that part of the Communists with whom they come in contact at work and in social intercourse. The slogan given by Stalin at the Fourteenth Party Congress, “Fire to the left!” could not but promote this union of the right elements in the party with the bourgeois Ustrialov elements in the country.

The question, “Who will beat whom?” will be decided in a continuous struggle of classes on all sectors of the economic, political, and cultural fronts – a struggle for a socialist or a capitalist course of development, for a distribution of the national income corresponding to one or the other of these two courses, for a solid political power of the proletariat or a division of this power with the new bourgeoisie. In a country with an overwhelming majority of small and very small peasants, and small proprietors in general, the most important processes of this struggle will frequently go on in a fragmentary and underground manner, only to burst “unexpectedly” to the surface all at once.

The capitalist element finds its primary expression in a class differentiation in the country, and in a multiplication of private traders in the city. The upper levels in the country and the bourgeois elements in the city are interweaving themselves more and more closely with the various links of our state-economic apparatus. And this apparatus not infrequently helps the new bourgeoisie to wrap up in a statistical fog its successful effort to increase its share in the national income.

The trade apparatus – state, co-operative, and private – devours an enormous share of our national income, more than one-tenth of the gross production. Furthermore, private capital, in its capacity as commercial middleman, has handled in recent years considerably more than a fifth of all trade – in absolute figures, more than five milliards a year. Up to now, the general consumer has received more than 50 per cent of the products he needs from the hands of the private capitalists. For the private capitalist this is the fundamental source of profit and accumulation. The disparity (scissors’) between agricultural and industrial prices, between wholesale and retail prices, the rupture between prices in the different branches of agriculture in the different regions and seasons, and finally the difference between domestic and world prices (contraband), are a constant source of private gain.

Private capital is collecting usurious interest on loans and is making money on government bonds.

The role of the private capitalist in industry is also very considerable. Even though it has decreased relatively in the recent period, still it has grown absolutely. Registered private capitalistic industry shows a gross production of 400 millions a year. Small, home, and handicraft industries show more than 1,800 millions. Altogether, the production of the non-state industries constitutes more than a fifth of the whole production of goods, and about 40 per cent of the commodities in the general market. The overwhelming bulk of this industry is bound up one way or another with private capital. The various open or concealed forms of exploitation of the mass of handicraft workers by commercial and home-enterprise capital are an extremely important and, moreover, a growing source of accumulation for the new bourgeoisie.

Taxes, wages, prices, and credit are the chief instruments of distribution of the national income, strengthening certain classes and weakening others.

The agricultural tax in the country is imposed, as a general rule, in an inverse progression: heavily upon the poor, more lightly upon the economically strong and upon the kulaks. According to approximate calculations, 34 per cent of the poor peasant proprietors of the Soviet Union (even omitting provinces with a highly developed class differentiation, such as the Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, and Siberia) receive 18 per cent of the net income. Exactly the same total income, 18 per cent, is received by the highest group, constituting only 7.5 per cent of the proprietors. Yet both these groups pay approximately the same amount, 20 per cenf each of the total tax. It is evident from this that on each individual poor farm the tax lays a much heavier burden than on the kulak, or the “well-to-do’ proprietor in general. Contrary to the fears of the leaders of the Fourteenth Congress, our tax-policy by no means strips’ the kulak. It does not hinder him in the least from concentrating in his hands a continually greater accumulation in money and kind.

The role of the indirect taxes in our budget is growing alarmingly at the expense of the direct. By that alone the tax-burden automatically shifts from the wealthier to the poorer levels. The taxation of the workers in 1925-1926 was twice as high as in the preceding year, while the taxation of the rest of the urban population diminished by 6 per cent. [1] The liquor tax falls, with more and more unbearable heaviness, precisely upon the industrial regions. The growth of income per person for 1926 as compared with 1925 – according to certain approximate calculations – constituted, for the peasants, 19 per cent; for the workers, 26 per cent; for the merchants and the industrialists, 46 per cent. If you divide the “peasants’ into three fundamental groups, it will appear beyond a doubt that the income of the kulak increased incomparably more than that of the worker. The income of the merchants and industrialists, calculated on the basis of the tax data, is undoubtedly represented as less than it is. However, even these somewhat coloured figures clearly testify to a growth of class differences.

The “scissors”, representing the disparity of agricultural and industrial prices, have drawn still farther apart during the last year and a half. The peasant received for his produce not more than one and a quarter times the pre-war price, and he paid for industrial products not less than two and one-fifth times as much as before the war. This over-payment by the peasants, and again predominantly by the lower level of the peasants, constituting in the past year a sum of about a milliard rubles, not only increases the conflict between agriculture and industry, but greatly sharpens the differentiation in the country.

On the disparity between wholesale and retail prices, the state industry loses, and also the consumer, which means that there is a third party who gains. It is the private capitalist who gains, and consequently capitalism.

Real wages in 1927 stand, at the best, at the same level as in the autumn of 1925. Yet it is indubitable that during the two years intervening the country has grown richer, the total national income has increased, the kulak levels in the country have increased their reserves with enormous rapidity, and the accumulations of the private capitalist, the merchant, the speculator have grown by leaps and bounds. It is clear that the share of the working class in the total income of the country has fallen, while the share of other classes has grown. This fact is of supreme importance in appraising our whole situation.

Only a person who believes at the bottom of his heart that our working class and our party are not able to cope with the difficulties and dangers can affirm that a frank indication of these contradictions in our development, and of the growth of these hostile forces, is panic or pessimism. We do not accept this view. It is necessary to see the dangers clearly. We point them out accurately, precisely in order to struggle with them more effectively and to overcome them.

A certain growth of the hostile forces, the kulak, the Nepman, and the bureaucrat, is unavoidable under the New Economic Policy. You cannot destroy these forces by mere administrative order or by simple economic pressure. In introducing the NEP and carrying it through, we ourselves created a certain place for capitalistic relations in our country, and for a considerable time to come we still have to recognize them as inevitable. Lenin merely reminded us of a naked truth which the workers have to know, when he said:

While we continue to be a small peasant country, there is a more solid basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism. That we must remember ... We have not torn out capitalism by the roots, and we have not undermined the foundation and basis of the internal enemy. [2]

The supremely important social fact here indicated by Lenin cannot, as we said, be simply destroyed, but we can overcome it by way of a correct, planned and systematic working-class policy, relying upon the peasant poor and an alliance with the middle peasant. This policy basically consists in an all.round strengthening of all the social positions of the proletariat, in the swiftest possible elevation of the commanding centres of socialism, in closest possible connexion with the preparation and development of the world proletarian revolution.

A correct Leninist policy also includes manoeuvring. In struggling against the forces of capitalism, Lenin often employed a method of partial concession in order to outflank the enemy, temporary retreat in order afterwards to move forward more successfully. Manoeuvring is also necessary now. But in dodging and manoeuvring against an enemy that could not be overthrown by direct attack, Lenin invariably remained upon the line of the proletarian revolution. Under him the party always knew the causes of each manoeuvre, its meaning, its limits, the line beyond which it ought not to go, and the position at which the proletarian advance should begin again. In those days, under Lenin, a retreat was called a retreat – a concession, a concession. Thanks to that, the manoeuvring proletarian army always preserved its unity, its fighting spirit, its clear consciousness of the goal.

In the recent period there has been a decisive departure on the part of leaders from these Leninist ways. The Stalin group is leading the party blindfold. Concealing the forces of the enemy, creating everywhere and in everything an official appearance of success, this group gives the proletariat no prospect – or, what is worse, a wrong prospect. It moves in zigzags, accommodating itself to and ingratiating itself with hostile elements. It weakens and confuses the forces of the proletarian army. It promotes the growth of passivity, distrust of the leadership and lack of confidence in the forces of the revolution. It disguises, with references to Leninist manoeuvring, an unprincipled jumping from one side to the other, always unexpected by the party, incomprehensible to it, weakening its strength. The only result is that the enemy, having gained time, moves forward. The “classical’ examples of this kind of manoeuvre on the part of Stalin, Bukharin and Rykov, are their Chinese policy and their policy with the Anglo-Russian Committee, on the international field, and within the country, their policy towards the kulak. On all these questions, the party and the working class found out the truth, or a part of the truth, only after the heavy consequences of a policy that was false to the bottom had crashed over their heads.

At the end of these two years in which the Stalin group has really determined the policies of the central institutions of our party, we may consider it fully proven that this group has been powerless to prevent:

1. An immoderate growth of those forces which desire to turn the development of our country into capitalistic channels;
2. a weakening of the position of the working class and the poorest peasants against the growing strength of the kulak, the Nepman, and the bureaucrat;
3. a weakening of the general position of the workers’ state in the struggle with world capitalism, a worsening of the international position of the Soviet Union.

The direct guilt of the Stalin group is that instead of telling the party, the working class, and the peasants the whole truth about the situation, it has concealed the facts, minimised the growth of the hostile forces, and shut the mouths of those who demanded the truth and laid it bare.

The concentration of fire to the left, at a time when the whole situation indicates danger on the right, the crudely mechanical suppression of every criticism expressing the legitimate alarm of the proletariat for the fate of the proletarian revolution, the outright connivance in every deviation to the right, the sapping of the influence of the proletarian and old-Bolshevik nucleus of the party – all these things are weakening and disarming the working class at a moment which demands above all activity of the proletariat, vigilance and unity of the party, faithfulness to its real inheritance of Leninism.

The party leaders distort Lenin, improve upon him, explain him, supplement him, according as it is necessary to conceal each successive mistake that they make. Since Lenin’s death a whole series of new theories has been invented, whose meaning is solely this: that they give theoretical justification to the departure of the Stalin group from the course of the international proletarian revolution. The Mensheviks, the Smienaviekhovtsy and finally the capitalistic press see and welcome in the policies and new theories of Stalin-Bukharin-Martynov a movement “forward from Lenin” (Ustrialov), “statesmanlike wisdom”, “realism”, a renunciation of the “utopias” of revolutionary Bolshevism. In the cutting off from party leadership of a number of Bolsheviks – Lenin’s comrades in arms – they see and openly welcome a practical step towards changing the fundamental course of the party.

Meanwhile the elemental processes of the NEP, not restrained and directed by a firm class policy, are preparing further dangers of the same kind.

Twenty-five million small farms constitute the fundamental source of the capitalist tendencies in Russia. The kulak stratum, gradually emerging from this mass, is realizing the process of primitive accumulation of capital, digging a deep mine under the socialist position. The further destiny of this process depends ultimately upon the relation between the growth of the State economy and the private. The falling behind of our industry vastly increases the tempo of class-differentiation among the peasants and the political dangers arising from it.

Lenin wrote:

In the history of other countries the kulaks have more than once restored the power to landlords, Tsars, priests and capitalists. It has been so in all previous European revolutions, where, in consequence of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks have succeeded in reverting from a republic to monarchy, from the rulership of the toiling masses to the omnipotence of the exploiters, the rich, the parasites.

You can reconcile the kulak with the landlord, the Tsar, and the priest easily enough, even though they’ve had a quarrel, but with the working class, never. [3]

Whoever fails to understand this, whoever believes in “the kulak’s growing into socialism’, is good for just one thing – to run the revolution aground.

There exist in this country two mutually exclusive fundamental positions. One, the position of the proletariat building socialism, the other, the position of the bourgeoisie aspiring to switch our development on to capitalist lines.

The camp of the bourgeoisie and those layers of the petty bourgeoisie who trail after it are placing all their hopes upon the private initiative and the personal interest of the commodity producer. This camp is staking its play on the “economically strong’ peasant, aiming to make the co-operatives, industry and our foreign trade serve this peasant’s interest. This camp believes that socialist industry ought not to count upon the state budget, that its development ought not to be rapid enough to injure the interest of accumulation by the farmer capitalist. The struggle for an increased productivity of labour means to the daily consolidating petty bourgeois putting pressure on the muscles and nerves of the workers. The struggle for lower prices means to him a cutting down of the accumulation of the socialist industries in the interest of commercial capital. The struggle with bureaucratism means to him the dissipation of industry, the weakening of the planning centres. It means the pushing into the background of the heavy industries – that is, again, an adjustment in favour of the economically strong peasant, with the near prospect of an abandonment of the monopoly of foreign trade. This is the course of the Ustrialovs. The name of this course is capitalism on the instalment plan. It is a strong tendency in our country, and exercises an influence upon certain circles of our party.

The proletarian course was described by Lenin in the follow-words:

We can consider the victory of socialism over capitalism, and its permanence, guaranteed, only when the proletarian state power, having conclusively suppressed the resistance of the exploiters and assured itself of their complete subjection and its own complete stability and authority, reorganizes the whole of industry on the basis of large-scale collective production and the latest technique (based on electrification of the entire economy). Only this will make possible such a far-reaching technical and social assistance rendered by the cities to the backward and undifferentiated country as will create the material basis for an immense increase of the productiveness of agricultural and rural labour, impelling the small peasants, by the strength of example and their own interest, to pass over to large-scale, collective, mechanized agriculture. [4]

The whole policy of our party ought to be built up upon this principle – budget, taxes, industry, agriculture, domestic and foreign trade, everything. That is the fundamental stand of the Opposition. That’s the road to socialism.

Between those two positions – every day drawing nearer to the first – the Stalinists are tracing a line consisting of short zigzags to the left and deep ones to the right. The Leninist course is a socialist development of the productive forces in course is a development of the productive forces on a capitalist continual struggle with the capitalist element. The Ustrialov course is a development of the productive forces on a capitalist basis by way of a gradual eating away of the conquests of October. The Stalin course leads, in objective reality, to a delaying of the development of the productive forces, to a lowering of the relative weight of the socialist element, and thus prepares for the final victory of the Ustrialov course. The Stalin course is the more dangerous and ruinous, in that it conceals a real deviation under the mask of familiar words and phrases. The completion of our restoration process has brought forward the whole fundamental question of our economic development and thus has undermined the position of Stalin, which is completely inadequate to meet great problems – whether the revolution in China or the reconstruction of basic capital in the Soviet Union.

Notwithstanding the tension of the situation, heightened in the extreme by the crude mistakes of the present leadership, matters can be put right. But it is necessary to change the line of the party leadership, and change it sharply, in the direction indicated by Lenin.




http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... n/ch01.htm
Last edited by daft punk on 17 Feb 2012, 15:37, edited 1 time in total.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Feb 2012, 15:35
You already posted this 10 times. But that's that what i asked you to write nor is it especially relevant to what you're supposed to provide here.
Spare me this drivel and either give a real description of what "Stalinism" is (look at my previous post) or move on with discussions in some other threads.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2012, 15:40
No, you are a hopeless case. You cant even read and understand what I just posted. You havent even read what is in front of your face.

The above is rock solid proof that Stalin was taking the country in a right wing direction, and Trotsky was arguing for Leninist policies. He was also warning of where it would lead and in 1928 he was proved right.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 17 Feb 2012, 15:47
Quote:
No, you are a hopeless case. You cant even read and understand what I just posted. You havent even read what is in front of your face.

Yes,i've read it.But OK,maybe i'm just dumb,could you then be so kind to point out to me the exact paragraph that describes Stalin as a theoretician,the relationship between Marxism and Stalinism and the philosophical origin of "Stalinism"? I mean,it's not like i'm just arbitrarily asking you to do this since you yourself ambitiously set on doing just that (and failed,however i think you can do better)...

Quote:
The above is rock solid proof that Stalin was taking the country in a right wing direction, and Trotsky was arguing for Leninist policies. He was also warning of where it would lead and in 1928 he was proved right.

You have problems problems with basic terms.A polemicist "platform" cannot possibly be "proof" for anything. BTW, i don't take Pravda articles on Trotskyte-Fascism as proof either.
Anyway it's irrelevant to what i asked you to do.Since you've already "summarized" Stalinism so accurately you should be able to do this a little bit better in a second try...
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2012, 18:52
Loz wrote:
"No, you are a hopeless case. You cant even read and understand what I just posted. You havent even read what is in front of your face. "
Yes,i've read it.But OK,maybe i'm just dumb,could you then be so kind to point out to me the exact paragraph that describes Stalin as a theoretician,the relationship between Marxism and Stalinism and the philosophical origin of "Stalinism"? I mean,it's not like i'm just arbitrarily asking you to do this since you yourself ambitiously set on doing just that (and failed,however i think you can do better)...

I never said Stalin was a theoretician. His only theories were SIOC, which actually came from Bukharin, Popular Fronts, and Two Stage Theory, which Lenin ditched in 1917.

The above article shows how Stalin lurched to the right in the period 1924-8, doing the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised, with the repercussions Trotsky predicted historical fact. I dunno if you wanna call it theory, but Stalin thought that allowing the kulaks to get rich was a good idea. His excuse, later, was that not enough grain was produced at the time (1924-7) by collectives. Well we fragging know why that is, Stalin did sod all to encourage poor peasants into collectives.

The point I am trying to prove, and have done, is that Trotsky's policies in the above article are the same as Lenin's.



Loz wrote:
"The above is rock solid proof that Stalin was taking the country in a right wing direction, and Trotsky was arguing for Leninist policies. He was also warning of where it would lead and in 1928 he was proved right."
You have problems problems with basic terms.A polemicist "platform" cannot possibly be "proof" for anything. BTW, i don't take Pravda articles on Trotskyte-Fascism as proof either.
Anyway it's irrelevant to what i asked you to do.Since you've already "summarized" Stalinism so accurately you should be able to do this a little bit better in a second try...



Which bits highlighted in red do you dispute?

Quote:

Leon Trotsky
Platform of the Joint Opposition
1927
Chapter 1
Introductory


IN HIS speech at the last party congress he attended, Lenin said:

Here we have lived a year, with the state in our hands, and under the New Economic Policy has it operated our way? No. We don’t like to acknowledge this, but it hasn’t. And how has it operated? The machine isn’t going where we guide it, but where some illegal, or lawless, or God-knows-whence-derived speculators or private capitalistic businessmen, or both together, are guiding it. A machine doesn’t always travel just exactly the way, and it often travels just exactly not the way, that the man imagines who sits at the wheel.

In those words was given the criterion by which we ought to judge the fundamental problems of our politics. In what direction is the machine travelling? The State? The power? Is it travelling in the direction that we, Communists, expressing the interests and will of the workers and the enormous mass of the peasants, desire? Or not in that direction? Or “not exactly” in that direction?

In these years since the death of Lenin, we have more than once tried to bring the attention of the central organs of our party, and afterward the party as a whole, to the fact that, thanks to incorrect leadership, the danger indicated by Lenin has greatly increased. The machine is not going in the direction demanded by the interests of the workers and peasants. On the eve of the new congress we consider it our duty, notwithstanding all the persecution we are suffering, to call the party’s attention with redoubled energy to this fact. For we are sure that the situation can be corrected, and corrected by the party itself.

When Lenin said that the machine often goes where it is directed by forces hostile to us, he called our attention to two facts of supreme importance. First, that there exist in our society these forces hostile to our cause – the kulak, the Nepman, the bureaucrat – availing themselves of our backwardness and our political mistakes, and relying upon the support of international capitalism. Second, the fact that these forces are so strong that they can push our governmental and economic machine in the wrong direction, and ultimately even attempt – at first in a concealed manner – to seize the wheel of the machine.

Lenin’s words laid upon us all the following obligations:

1. To watch vigilantly the growth of these hostile forces – kulak, Nepman, and bureaucrat;
2. To remember that in proportion to the general revival of the country, these forces will strive to unite, introduce their own amendments’ into our plans, exercise an increasing pressure upon our policy, and satisfy their interests through our apparatus;
3. To take all possible measures to weaken the growth, unity, and pressure of these hostile forces, preventing them from creating that actual, although invisible, dual-power system toward which they aspire;
4. To tell candidly the whole truth about these processes to all the toiling masses. In this now consists the fundamental problem as to a “Thermidorian” danger and the struggle against it.


Since Lenin uttered his warning, many things have improved with us, but many also have grown worse. The influence of the state apparatus is growing, but with it also the bureaucratic distortion of the workers’ state. The absolute and relative growth of capitalism in the country and its absolute growth in the cities are beginning to produce a political self-consciousness in the bourgeois elements of our country. These elements are trying to demoralize – not always unsuccessfully – that part of the Communists with whom they come in contact at work and in social intercourse. The slogan given by Stalin at the Fourteenth Party Congress, “Fire to the left!” could not but promote this union of the right elements in the party with the bourgeois Ustrialov elements in the country.

The question, “Who will beat whom?” will be decided in a continuous struggle of classes on all sectors of the economic, political, and cultural fronts – a struggle for a socialist or a capitalist course of development, for a distribution of the national income corresponding to one or the other of these two courses, for a solid political power of the proletariat or a division of this power with the new bourgeoisie. In a country with an overwhelming majority of small and very small peasants, and small proprietors in general, the most important processes of this struggle will frequently go on in a fragmentary and underground manner, only to burst “unexpectedly” to the surface all at once.

The capitalist element finds its primary expression in a class differentiation in the country, and in a multiplication of private traders in the city. The upper levels in the country and the bourgeois elements in the city are interweaving themselves more and more closely with the various links of our state-economic apparatus. And this apparatus not infrequently helps the new bourgeoisie to wrap up in a statistical fog its successful effort to increase its share in the national income.

The trade apparatus – state, co-operative, and private – devours an enormous share of our national income, more than one-tenth of the gross production. Furthermore, private capital, in its capacity as commercial middleman, has handled in recent years considerably more than a fifth of all trade – in absolute figures, more than five milliards a year. Up to now, the general consumer has received more than 50 per cent of the products he needs from the hands of the private capitalists. For the private capitalist this is the fundamental source of profit and accumulation. The disparity (scissors’) between agricultural and industrial prices, between wholesale and retail prices, the rupture between prices in the different branches of agriculture in the different regions and seasons, and finally the difference between domestic and world prices (contraband), are a constant source of private gain.

Private capital is collecting usurious interest on loans and is making money on government bonds.

The role of the private capitalist in industry is also very considerable. Even though it has decreased relatively in the recent period, still it has grown absolutely. Registered private capitalistic industry shows a gross production of 400 millions a year. Small, home, and handicraft industries show more than 1,800 millions. Altogether, the production of the non-state industries constitutes more than a fifth of the whole production of goods, and about 40 per cent of the commodities in the general market. The overwhelming bulk of this industry is bound up one way or another with private capital. The various open or concealed forms of exploitation of the mass of handicraft workers by commercial and home-enterprise capital are an extremely important and, moreover, a growing source of accumulation for the new bourgeoisie.

Taxes, wages, prices, and credit are the chief instruments of distribution of the national income, strengthening certain classes and weakening others.

The agricultural tax in the country is imposed, as a general rule, in an inverse progression: heavily upon the poor, more lightly upon the economically strong and upon the kulaks. According to approximate calculations, 34 per cent of the poor peasant proprietors of the Soviet Union (even omitting provinces with a highly developed class differentiation, such as the Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, and Siberia) receive 18 per cent of the net income. Exactly the same total income, 18 per cent, is received by the highest group, constituting only 7.5 per cent of the proprietors. Yet both these groups pay approximately the same amount, 20 per cenf each of the total tax. It is evident from this that on each individual poor farm the tax lays a much heavier burden than on the kulak, or the “well-to-do’ proprietor in general. Contrary to the fears of the leaders of the Fourteenth Congress, our tax-policy by no means strips’ the kulak. It does not hinder him in the least from concentrating in his hands a continually greater accumulation in money and kind.

The role of the indirect taxes in our budget is growing alarmingly at the expense of the direct. By that alone the tax-burden automatically shifts from the wealthier to the poorer levels. The taxation of the workers in 1925-1926 was twice as high as in the preceding year, while the taxation of the rest of the urban population diminished by 6 per cent. [1] The liquor tax falls, with more and more unbearable heaviness, precisely upon the industrial regions. The growth of income per person for 1926 as compared with 1925 – according to certain approximate calculations – constituted, for the peasants, 19 per cent; for the workers, 26 per cent; for the merchants and the industrialists, 46 per cent. If you divide the “peasants’ into three fundamental groups, it will appear beyond a doubt that the income of the kulak increased incomparably more than that of the worker. The income of the merchants and industrialists, calculated on the basis of the tax data, is undoubtedly represented as less than it is. However, even these somewhat coloured figures clearly testify to a growth of class differences.

The “scissors”, representing the disparity of agricultural and industrial prices, have drawn still farther apart during the last year and a half. The peasant received for his produce not more than one and a quarter times the pre-war price, and he paid for industrial products not less than two and one-fifth times as much as before the war. This over-payment by the peasants, and again predominantly by the lower level of the peasants, constituting in the past year a sum of about a milliard rubles, not only increases the conflict between agriculture and industry, but greatly sharpens the differentiation in the country.

On the disparity between wholesale and retail prices, the state industry loses, and also the consumer, which means that there is a third party who gains. It is the private capitalist who gains, and consequently capitalism.

Real wages in 1927 stand, at the best, at the same level as in the autumn of 1925. Yet it is indubitable that during the two years intervening the country has grown richer, the total national income has increased, the kulak levels in the country have increased their reserves with enormous rapidity, and the accumulations of the private capitalist, the merchant, the speculator have grown by leaps and bounds. It is clear that the share of the working class in the total income of the country has fallen, while the share of other classes has grown. This fact is of supreme importance in appraising our whole situation.

Only a person who believes at the bottom of his heart that our working class and our party are not able to cope with the difficulties and dangers can affirm that a frank indication of these contradictions in our development, and of the growth of these hostile forces, is panic or pessimism. We do not accept this view. It is necessary to see the dangers clearly. We point them out accurately, precisely in order to struggle with them more effectively and to overcome them.

A certain growth of the hostile forces, the kulak, the Nepman, and the bureaucrat, is unavoidable under the New Economic Policy. You cannot destroy these forces by mere administrative order or by simple economic pressure. In introducing the NEP and carrying it through, we ourselves created a certain place for capitalistic relations in our country, and for a considerable time to come we still have to recognize them as inevitable. Lenin merely reminded us of a naked truth which the workers have to know, when he said:

While we continue to be a small peasant country, there is a more solid basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism. That we must remember ... We have not torn out capitalism by the roots, and we have not undermined the foundation and basis of the internal enemy. [2]

The supremely important social fact here indicated by Lenin cannot, as we said, be simply destroyed, but we can overcome it by way of a correct, planned and systematic working-class policy, relying upon the peasant poor and an alliance with the middle peasant. This policy basically consists in an all.round strengthening of all the social positions of the proletariat, in the swiftest possible elevation of the commanding centres of socialism, in closest possible connexion with the preparation and development of the world proletarian revolution.

A correct Leninist policy also includes manoeuvring. In struggling against the forces of capitalism, Lenin often employed a method of partial concession in order to outflank the enemy, temporary retreat in order afterwards to move forward more successfully. Manoeuvring is also necessary now. But in dodging and manoeuvring against an enemy that could not be overthrown by direct attack, Lenin invariably remained upon the line of the proletarian revolution. Under him the party always knew the causes of each manoeuvre, its meaning, its limits, the line beyond which it ought not to go, and the position at which the proletarian advance should begin again. In those days, under Lenin, a retreat was called a retreat – a concession, a concession. Thanks to that, the manoeuvring proletarian army always preserved its unity, its fighting spirit, its clear consciousness of the goal.

In the recent period there has been a decisive departure on the part of leaders from these Leninist ways. The Stalin group is leading the party blindfold. Concealing the forces of the enemy, creating everywhere and in everything an official appearance of success, this group gives the proletariat no prospect – or, what is worse, a wrong prospect. It moves in zigzags, accommodating itself to and ingratiating itself with hostile elements. It weakens and confuses the forces of the proletarian army. It promotes the growth of passivity, distrust of the leadership and lack of confidence in the forces of the revolution. It disguises, with references to Leninist manoeuvring, an unprincipled jumping from one side to the other, always unexpected by the party, incomprehensible to it, weakening its strength. The only result is that the enemy, having gained time, moves forward. The “classical’ examples of this kind of manoeuvre on the part of Stalin, Bukharin and Rykov, are their Chinese policy and their policy with the Anglo-Russian Committee, on the international field, and within the country, their policy towards the kulak. On all these questions, the party and the working class found out the truth, or a part of the truth, only after the heavy consequences of a policy that was false to the bottom had crashed over their heads.

At the end of these two years in which the Stalin group has really determined the policies of the central institutions of our party, we may consider it fully proven that this group has been powerless to prevent:

1. An immoderate growth of those forces which desire to turn the development of our country into capitalistic channels;
2. a weakening of the position of the working class and the poorest peasants against the growing strength of the kulak, the Nepman, and the bureaucrat;
3. a weakening of the general position of the workers’ state in the struggle with world capitalism, a worsening of the international position of the Soviet Union.


The direct guilt of the Stalin group is that instead of telling the party, the working class, and the peasants the whole truth about the situation, it has concealed the facts, minimised the growth of the hostile forces, and shut the mouths of those who demanded the truth and laid it bare.

The concentration of fire to the left, at a time when the whole situation indicates danger on the right, the crudely mechanical suppression of every criticism expressing the legitimate alarm of the proletariat for the fate of the proletarian revolution, the outright connivance in every deviation to the right, the sapping of the influence of the proletarian and old-Bolshevik nucleus of the party – all these things are weakening and disarming the working class at a moment which demands above all activity of the proletariat, vigilance and unity of the party, faithfulness to its real inheritance of Leninism.

The party leaders distort Lenin, improve upon him, explain him, supplement him, according as it is necessary to conceal each successive mistake that they make. Since Lenin’s death a whole series of new theories has been invented, whose meaning is solely this: that they give theoretical justification to the departure of the Stalin group from the course of the international proletarian revolution. The Mensheviks, the Smienaviekhovtsy and finally the capitalistic press see and welcome in the policies and new theories of Stalin-Bukharin-Martynov a movement “forward from Lenin” (Ustrialov), “statesmanlike wisdom”, “realism”, a renunciation of the “utopias” of revolutionary Bolshevism. In the cutting off from party leadership of a number of Bolsheviks – Lenin’s comrades in arms – they see and openly welcome a practical step towards changing the fundamental course of the party.

Meanwhile the elemental processes of the NEP, not restrained and directed by a firm class policy, are preparing further dangers of the same kind.

Twenty-five million small farms constitute the fundamental source of the capitalist tendencies in Russia. The kulak stratum, gradually emerging from this mass, is realizing the process of primitive accumulation of capital, digging a deep mine under the socialist position. The further destiny of this process depends ultimately upon the relation between the growth of the State economy and the private. The falling behind of our industry vastly increases the tempo of class-differentiation among the peasants and the political dangers arising from it.

Lenin wrote:

In the history of other countries the kulaks have more than once restored the power to landlords, Tsars, priests and capitalists. It has been so in all previous European revolutions, where, in consequence of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks have succeeded in reverting from a republic to monarchy, from the rulership of the toiling masses to the omnipotence of the exploiters, the rich, the parasites.

You can reconcile the kulak with the landlord, the Tsar, and the priest easily enough, even though they’ve had a quarrel, but with the working class, never. [3]

Whoever fails to understand this, whoever believes in “the kulak’s growing into socialism’, is good for just one thing – to run the revolution aground.

There exist in this country two mutually exclusive fundamental positions. One, the position of the proletariat building socialism, the other, the position of the bourgeoisie aspiring to switch our development on to capitalist lines.

The camp of the bourgeoisie and those layers of the petty bourgeoisie who trail after it are placing all their hopes upon the private initiative and the personal interest of the commodity producer. This camp is staking its play on the “economically strong’ peasant, aiming to make the co-operatives, industry and our foreign trade serve this peasant’s interest. This camp believes that socialist industry ought not to count upon the state budget, that its development ought not to be rapid enough to injure the interest of accumulation by the farmer capitalist. The struggle for an increased productivity of labour means to the daily consolidating petty bourgeois putting pressure on the muscles and nerves of the workers. The struggle for lower prices means to him a cutting down of the accumulation of the socialist industries in the interest of commercial capital. The struggle with bureaucratism means to him the dissipation of industry, the weakening of the planning centres. It means the pushing into the background of the heavy industries – that is, again, an adjustment in favour of the economically strong peasant, with the near prospect of an abandonment of the monopoly of foreign trade. This is the course of the Ustrialovs. The name of this course is capitalism on the instalment plan. It is a strong tendency in our country, and exercises an influence upon certain circles of our party.

The proletarian course was described by Lenin in the follow-words:

We can consider the victory of socialism over capitalism, and its permanence, guaranteed, only when the proletarian state power, having conclusively suppressed the resistance of the exploiters and assured itself of their complete subjection and its own complete stability and authority, reorganizes the whole of industry on the basis of large-scale collective production and the latest technique (based on electrification of the entire economy). Only this will make possible such a far-reaching technical and social assistance rendered by the cities to the backward and undifferentiated country as will create the material basis for an immense increase of the productiveness of agricultural and rural labour, impelling the small peasants, by the strength of example and their own interest, to pass over to large-scale, collective, mechanized agriculture. [4]

The whole policy of our party ought to be built up upon this principle – budget, taxes, industry, agriculture, domestic and foreign trade, everything. That is the fundamental stand of the Opposition. That’s the road to socialism.

Between those two positions – every day drawing nearer to the first – the Stalinists are tracing a line consisting of short zigzags to the left and deep ones to the right. The Leninist course is a socialist development of the productive forces in course is a development of the productive forces on a capitalist continual struggle with the capitalist element. The Ustrialov course is a development of the productive forces on a capitalist basis by way of a gradual eating away of the conquests of October. The Stalin course leads, in objective reality, to a delaying of the development of the productive forces, to a lowering of the relative weight of the socialist element, and thus prepares for the final victory of the Ustrialov course. The Stalin course is the more dangerous and ruinous, in that it conceals a real deviation under the mask of familiar words and phrases. The completion of our restoration process has brought forward the whole fundamental question of our economic development and thus has undermined the position of Stalin, which is completely inadequate to meet great problems – whether the revolution in China or the reconstruction of basic capital in the Soviet Union.

Notwithstanding the tension of the situation, heightened in the extreme by the crude mistakes of the present leadership, matters can be put right. But it is necessary to change the line of the party leadership, and change it sharply, in the direction indicated by Lenin.


Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 18 Feb 2012, 19:54
Sorry mate,but you still haven't properly defined what Stalinism actually is.
You seem to be repeating the same thing over and over again like a broken record.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 18 Feb 2012, 21:00
Stalinism is anti-socialism pretending to be socialism. Most Stalinists genuinely believe the lies, so they think they are on the side of socialism, but after 1928 and especially the mid 30s, Stalinism was definitely anti-socialist. It was a political revolution against socialism which began unconsciously in 1924 and became fully conscious over the next decade. Like a serial killer who convinces himself he is benefiting society by killing a prostitute, Stalin and the people around him may possibly have convinced themselves they were doing some good, but essentially it was just a survival game for the regime. Genuine democratic socialism would have meant the end of their power and privilege.

So these 3 theories were invented to mask the counter-revolution

Socialism in one country - give up on world revolution
Popular Fronts - collaborate with capitalists
Two Stages - capitalism now, socialism one day decades down the line.

However the theories never worked in practice for long.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4411
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 18 Feb 2012, 22:35
daft punk wrote:
Like a serial killer who convinces himself he is benefiting society by killing a prostitute, Stalin and the people around him may possibly have convinced themselves they were doing some good, but essentially it was just a survival game for the regime.


So Trotskyists, SRs, army Bonapartes, fascists and saboteurs are political prostitutes now?


daft punk wrote:
Socialism in one country - give up on world revolution


Plus rebuilding the country after a world war, a civil war, and famine, but those aren't so important.

daft punk wrote:
Popular Fronts - collaborate with capitalists


Social democrats and Western progressives to be precise, and collaboration against fascism to be more so...

daft punk wrote:
Two Stages - capitalism now, socialism one day decades down the line.


You may criticize Khrushchev and Brezhnev to an extent for this, but Stalin? In 1953 how many countries allied to the Soviet Union were socialist?
"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
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 Feb 2012, 09:31
Quote:
Social democrats and Western progressives to be precise, and collaboration against fascism to be more so...

It should come to no surprise to us that our dear Trotskite so vehemently opposes this.
Indeed,Trotskites prefer collaboration with fascism ( or,to be more precise, poor workers in uniforms deceived by the fascists )...


Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 19 Feb 2012, 11:44
soviet78 wrote:
"Like a serial killer who convinces himself he is benefiting society by killing a prostitute, Stalin and the people around him may possibly have convinced themselves they were doing some good, but essentially it was just a survival game for the regime. "


So Trotskyists, SRs, army Bonapartes, fascists and saboteurs are political prostitutes now?


No

soviet78 wrote:
"Socialism in one country - give up on world revolution"

Plus rebuilding the country after a world war, a civil war, and famine, but those aren't so important.

Of course they were, and Lenin and Trotsky spelled out how to do it, see the above intro to Platform of the Opposition.

soviet78 wrote:
"Popular Fronts - collaborate with capitalists"

Social democrats and Western progressives to be precise, and collaboration against fascism to be more so...


After WW2 the fascists had been defeated but Stalin's policy remained the same
And crushing the Spanish revolution didnt stop the fascists taking power.

soviet78 wrote:
"Two Stages - capitalism now, socialism one day decades down the line."

You may criticize Khrushchev and Brezhnev to an extent for this, but Stalin? In 1953 how many countries allied to the Soviet Union were socialist?


None. Stalin's policy had been to deliver capitalism in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam etc. His plan failed. Read this

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

and read On Coalition by Mao. Mao spelled out in 1945 that he wanted several decades of capitalism. Even that wasnt good enough for Stalin who backed the communist-murdering Chiang Kai-shek.

Loz wrote:
"Social democrats and Western progressives to be precise, and collaboration against fascism to be more so...
"
It should come to no surprise to us that our dear Trotskite so vehemently opposes this.
Indeed,Trotskites prefer collaboration with fascism ( or,to be more precise, poor workers in uniforms deceived by the fascists )...



What is this garbage supposed to mean? You mentioned something before about Trotskyite-Fasiscts. Stop bandying about meaningless phrases.

The only people who had alliances with the fascists were the Stalinists.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 Feb 2012, 12:31
Mate,it's well known that Trotskites (search this site for more information about their activities in France for example) collaborated with fascists.
Trotsky's "workers in uniforms" is also a good example.
Also,no,the Mol.-Rib. Pact of non-aggression was no "alliance", even the most schizophrenically anti-Soviet historians don't call it like that.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 Feb 2012, 14:47
Quote:
Stalinism is anti-socialism pretending to be socialism. Most Stalinists genuinely believe the lies, so they think they are on the side of socialism, but after 1928 and especially the mid 30s, Stalinism was definitely anti-socialist. It was a political revolution against socialism which began unconsciously in 1924 and became fully conscious over the next decade. Like a serial killer who convinces himself he is benefiting society by killing a prostitute, Stalin and the people around him may possibly have convinced themselves they were doing some good, but essentially it was just a survival game for the regime. Genuine democratic socialism would have meant the end of their power and privilege.

So these 3 theories were invented to mask the counter-revolution

Socialism in one country - give up on world revolution
Popular Fronts - collaborate with capitalists
Two Stages - capitalism now, socialism one day decades down the line.


No my dear friend.This is still not a proper definition of Stalinism,much less its theoretical origin and basis.
The "Popular Front" is not a theory but a tactic,i don't know what your "two stages" is supposed to mean in this context and SiOC doesn't have anything to do with giving up on the world revolution,on the contrary.
Therefore,your "definition" of Stalinism is,at best,inadequate and,i'd say,absurd. It's nonsense. Even the one on Wikipedia,FFS,is a hundred times more appropriate.
But why bother with a "follower" of a man who wanted to ride to Moscow on German tanks anyway...
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 19 Feb 2012, 17:55
Loz wrote:
Mate,it's well known that Trotskites (search this site for more information about their activities in France for example) collaborated with fascists.

Support or retract
Loz wrote:
Trotsky's "workers in uniforms" is also a good example.

Trotsky led the Russia revolution. He did it by winning over the soldiers in Petrograd to the Bolshevik position. It is not and example of collaborating with fascists it is an example of the only time Marxists have ever led a revolution with the intention of attempting socialism.

Loz wrote:
Also,no,the Mol.-Rib. Pact of non-aggression was no "alliance", even the most schizophrenically anti-Soviet historians don't call it like that.

I wasnt talking about that I was talking about the Red Referendum (or red plebiscite) in 1931, the alliance of the KDP and the Nazis. Trotsky said it would go don in revolutionary history as what not to do. The KPD also had some brief alliances with fascists earlier than that as well.

Loz wrote:
"Stalinism is anti-socialism pretending to be socialism. Most Stalinists genuinely believe the lies, so they think they are on the side of socialism, but after 1928 and especially the mid 30s, Stalinism was definitely anti-socialist. It was a political revolution against socialism which began unconsciously in 1924 and became fully conscious over the next decade. Like a serial killer who convinces himself he is benefiting society by killing a prostitute, Stalin and the people around him may possibly have convinced themselves they were doing some good, but essentially it was just a survival game for the regime. Genuine democratic socialism would have meant the end of their power and privilege.

So these 3 theories were invented to mask the counter-revolution

Socialism in one country - give up on world revolution
Popular Fronts - collaborate with capitalists
Two Stages - capitalism now, socialism one day decades down the line."

No my dear friend.This is still not a proper definition of Stalinism,much less its theoretical origin and basis.
The "Popular Front" is not a theory but a tactic,i don't know what your "two stages" is supposed to mean in this context and SiOC doesn't have anything to do with giving up on the world revolution,on the contrary.
Therefore,your "definition" of Stalinism is,at best,inadequate and,i'd say,absurd. It's nonsense. Even the one on Wikipedia,FFS,is a hundred times more appropriate.
But why bother with a "follower" of a man who wanted to ride to Moscow on German tanks anyway...

No idea what you are talking about. Who wanted to ride on German tanks?

Give me your definition of Stalinism then. The main thing is he gave up on socialism and in the end worked against it.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 20 Feb 2012, 03:59
No problems my friend,here's one article from your own SWP:
Quote:
The following piece, an extended review of two French works on the history of Trotskyism in that country during the war, was written in 1981 by Ian Birchall of the Socialist Workers Party for his Party’s theoretical quarterly International Socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/do ... ance01.htm

You can find more examples of Trotskite colalboration with fascism by searching this site...

Quote:
Trotsky sharply rejected any notion of taking sides in the war:

By his victories and bestialities, Hitler provokes naturally the sharp hatred of workers the world over. But between this legitimate hatred of workers and the helping of his weaker but less reactionary enemies is an unbridgeable gulf. The victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind than that of Hitler and Mussolini. Bourgeois democracy cannot be saved. By helping their bourgeoisie against foreign Fascism, the workers would only accelerate the victory of Fascism in their own country. The task posed by history is not to support one part of the imperialist system against another but to make an end of the system as a whole. [6]

Mate,if this isn't objectively siding with fascism i don't know what is.

Quote:
One practical question on which the French Trotskyists were able to do limited but significant work was fraternisation with occupying Germany soldiers. They were not, of course, the only people to do so. In terms of sheer quantity the PCF distributed far more propaganda aimed at German troops. But what they produced fell within the normal framework of military propaganda aimed at demoralising enemy forces. It was within the framework of these analyses that the French Trotskyists had to face the practical question of how to relate to the growing Resistance movement. The harsh conditions imposed by the occupiers, and the imposition of forced labour and deportation, drove thousands upon thousands of people into active opposition. From 1941 onwards the movement was dominated by two tendencies, Gaullism and the French Communist Party (PCF), and the latter often outdid the former in terms of crude nationalism; their slogan was ‘chacun son boche’ (let everyone kill a Hun).



Quote:
For the POI, on the other hand, the question of the German Revolution was central to their perspective; German workers in uniform were to be perceived, not as an object of a military tactic, but as part of the subject of revolutionary change.

La Verité reported, perhaps over optimistically, on instances of discontent and mutiny in the German ranks. A paper aimed at German soldiers, Arbeiter und Soldat (Worker and Soldier), was produced by a young German Trotskyist, Paul Widelin, and distributed in Paris and especially in Brest. [20]

Such work is a testimony to the courage and dedication of those involved, but its actual effectiveness seems to have been limited. However, the political line which led to this work ensured that the Trotskyists clearly demarcated themselves from the political line of the PCF, which supported and organised acts of individual violence against members of the occupying forces.





Quote:
I wasnt talking about that I was talking about the Red Referendum (or red plebiscite) in 1931, the alliance of the KDP and the Nazis.

How was that an "alliance"?

Quote:
No idea what you are talking about. Who wanted to ride on German tanks?

Mr. Bronshtein.
From his:"On the future of Hitler's armies":
Quote:
Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . .

"The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered
peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the
toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at
resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more
and more open and bold. . . .

"The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants,
will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the
vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The
necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers'
and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation,
infecting them with a revolutionary spirit." --1940


More on this:
Quote:
"In the Russian Bulletin of the Opposition (82-3), February-April,
1940, the following long paragraph appeared in place of the opening two
sentences of the Sunday Express version: '...I consider the main source
of danger to the USSR in the present international situation to be
Stalin and the oligarchy headed by him. An open struggle against them,
in the view of world public opinion, is inseparably connected for me
with the defense of the USSR.
"

(Writings of Leon Trotsky: 1939-1940
(NY: Merit Publishers), p. 124)

Calling for a civil war in 1940,nice.

Quote:
Give me your definition of Stalinism then. The main thing is he gave up on socialism and in the end worked against it.

Hey,it's not me who so boisterously swings the above-mentioned term all around. I,unlike you,don't recognize "Stalinism" as an ideology.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 20 Feb 2012, 10:56
Loz wrote:
No problems my friend,here's one article from your own SWP:

I am not in the SWP

Quote:
The following piece, an extended review of two French works on the history of Trotskyism in that country during the war, was written in 1981 by Ian Birchall of the Socialist Workers Party for his Party’s theoretical quarterly International Socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/do ... ance01.htm

I cant see anything here about collaboration

Loz wrote:
You can find more examples of Trotskite colalboration with fascism by searching this site...

No, you provide it or retract

Quote:
Trotsky sharply rejected any notion of taking sides in the war:

"By his victories and bestialities, Hitler provokes naturally the sharp hatred of workers the world over. But between this legitimate hatred of workers and the helping of his weaker but less reactionary enemies is an unbridgeable gulf. The victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind than that of Hitler and Mussolini. Bourgeois democracy cannot be saved. By helping their bourgeoisie against foreign Fascism, the workers would only accelerate the victory of Fascism in their own country. The task posed by history is not to support one part of the imperialist system against another but to make an end of the system as a whole. [6]"
Mate,if this isn't objectively siding with fascism i don't know what is.

You never read stuff in context do you? Trotsky follows that by saying that workers should be provided with proper training before going to battle! Does that sound like collaboration? He rejects pacifism and tells workers to go to war. What he is trying to do is point out that the war is caused by the bourgeois in the west as well as by the Nazis themselves. He is calling for revolution. He is pointing out that the ordinary German soldier is just a worker forced to go to war by the ruling class, same as for an English one, and their interests are class interests. I think this is similar to what Lenin said in WW1.




Quote:
One practical question on which the French Trotskyists were able to do limited but significant work was fraternisation with occupying Germany soldiers. They were not, of course, the only people to do so. In terms of sheer quantity the PCF distributed far more propaganda aimed at German troops. But what they produced fell within the normal framework of military propaganda aimed at demoralising enemy forces. It was within the framework of these analyses that the French Trotskyists had to face the practical question of how to relate to the growing Resistance movement. The harsh conditions imposed by the occupiers, and the imposition of forced labour and deportation, drove thousands upon thousands of people into active opposition. From 1941 onwards the movement was dominated by two tendencies, Gaullism and the French Communist Party (PCF), and the latter often outdid the former in terms of crude nationalism; their slogan was ‘chacun son boche’ (let everyone kill a Hun).



What is your point in pasting this? Fraternisation is not collaboration, it is the exact opposite, it is a form of sabotage, to mentally prise German soldiers away from crap they have been told. To sow the idea of mutiny, to explain the class nature of their position, the need for socialism, to tell them they are being conned. The Red Army did it with British forces in the Russian civil war. In some cases it worked and the British troops stopped shooting them.




Quote:
For the POI, on the other hand, the question of the German Revolution was central to their perspective; German workers in uniform were to be perceived, not as an object of a military tactic, but as part of the subject of revolutionary change.

La Verité reported, perhaps over optimistically, on instances of discontent and mutiny in the German ranks. A paper aimed at German soldiers, Arbeiter und Soldat (Worker and Soldier), was produced by a young German Trotskyist, Paul Widelin, and distributed in Paris and especially in Brest. [20]

Such work is a testimony to the courage and dedication of those involved, but its actual effectiveness seems to have been limited. However, the political line which led to this work ensured that the Trotskyists clearly demarcated themselves from the political line of the PCF, which supported and organised acts of individual violence against members of the occupying forces.


see above





Quote:
"I wasnt talking about that I was talking about the Red Referendum (or red plebiscite) in 1931, the alliance of the KDP and the Nazis. "
How was that an "alliance"?


Trotsky:
"Is it true, however, that Thälmann entered a united front with Hitler? The Communist bureaucracy called the referendum of Thälmann “red,” in contrast to the black or brown plebiscite of Hitler. That the matter is concerned with two mortally hostile parties is naturally beyond doubt, and all the falsehoods of the Social Democracy will not compel the workers to forget it. But a fact remains a fact: in a certain campaign, the Stalinist bureaucracy involved the revolutionary workers in a united front with the National Socialists against the Social Democracy. If one could designate his party adherence on the ballots, then the referendum would at least have the justification (in the given instance, absolutely insufficient politically) that it would have permitted a count of its forces and by that itself, separate them from the forces of fascism. But German “democracy” did not trouble in its time to provide for participants in referendums the right to designate their parties. All the voters are fused into one inseparable mass which, on a definite question, gives one and the same answer. Within the limits of this question, the united front with the fascists is an indubitable fact.

Thus, between midnight and dawn everything appeared to be turned on its head."






Quote:
"No idea what you are talking about. Who wanted to ride on German tanks? "
From his:"On the future of Hitler's armies":
Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . .

"The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered
peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the
toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at
resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more
and more open and bold. . . .

"The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants,
will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the
vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The
necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers'
and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation,
infecting them with a revolutionary spirit." --1940


Why dont you just completely misinterpret everything he wrote? Saying that the Nazis would have a hard job occupying is not saying he wanted them to win, he is saying what might happen if they won, or if they occupied territories for long, and he was right, in most occupied territories there was a resistance.


Loz wrote:
More on this:
"In the Russian Bulletin of the Opposition (82-3), February-April,
1940, the following long paragraph appeared in place of the opening two
sentences of the Sunday Express version: '...I consider the main source
of danger to the USSR in the present international situation to be
Stalin and the oligarchy headed by him. An open struggle against them,
in the view of world public opinion, is inseparably connected for me
with the defense of the USSR.
"

(Writings of Leon Trotsky: 1939-1940
(NY: Merit Publishers), p. 124)

Calling for a civil war in 1940,nice.


Well, at the time Stalin was ignoring the advice of Soviet spies in Germany and had a pact with Hitler.


Loz wrote:
"Give me your definition of Stalinism then. The main thing is he gave up on socialism and in the end worked against it."
Hey,it's not me who so boisterously swings the above-mentioned term all around. I,unlike you,don't recognize "Stalinism" as an ideology.


Unlike Trotskyism and Marxism, Stalinism was an ideology.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4032
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Oct 2006, 23:10
Politburo
Post 20 Feb 2012, 12:46
less of an ideology. more of a phantom.
i'm not exactly sure what you mean by ideology, though.
something rigid? something false? something hated?
seems strange for an ideology to be invented and defined by someone to whom it does not belong.
even moreso for this person to define their own ideology as a non-ideology for the study of and opposition to the imagined ideology.
can you see the strangeness?
you are studying an idea which you've invented/imagined. and yet you claim that your study of this idea does not itself constitute the studying of ideas (ideo- + -logy).
and you may be right, ..but only insofar as the ideology you are studying does not really exist.

lern yer werds, k?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.