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

How do you Stop Revisionism?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2012, 19:45
The old system of simply trusting the election process isn't working, as Alia took Albania in a Revisionist path no matter how much anti-Revisionist Propaganda Hoxha spread.

Is Technocracy the only solution?

Or perhaps the dissolution of the party, and the full Dictatorship of the Proletariat? And perhaps a formation of a new Vanguard, which will insure that development happens according to material conditions and not liberal intervention?
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2012, 20:21
I'd like to add that as long as free-market capitalism continues to exist alongside socialist societies of any variety(be they similar to the USSR or the Paris Commune), then achieving communism would be and was an impossible task.

Engels wrote in relation to the question "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?" in The Principle Of Communism:

Quote:
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others...

...It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.


The revolution that began in Russia in 1917 failed to end up anywhere else. Bourgeois society continued as it always had, and once trade was reestablished with Soviet Russia, it acted as if the revolution was merely an annoyance.

Even after Stalin's Red Army swooped into Eastern Europe and propped up people's republics there, bourgeois society was in no way threatened by immediate destruction at the hands of the Red Army or by social revolution.

The 1950's in America brought economic prosperity, at least for some, and the U.S.-led Marshall Plan rebuilt the shattered west European capitalist states. Little had changed following Stalin's death inside the bourgeois camp, and ultimately this made reverting back to free-market capitalism from a form of rigid, state-capitalism incredibly appealing to revisionists inside the communist parties.

Concerning democracy in relation to the bourgeois camp, Lenin wrote in Democracy” and Dictatorship:

Quote:
The bourgeoisie are compelled to be hypocritical and to describe as "popular government", democracy in general, or pure democracy, the ( bourgeois ) democratic republic which is, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the working people.


President Kennedy famously comes to mind as someone who rigidly opposed "totalitarian communism," and who championed "democracy"(in the narrowest sense of the word)in the liberal-capitalist sense.

The bourgeoisie were keen to promote budding "democracies" in eastern Europe in 1989, when hypocritically they failed to support democracy in Chile, Guatemala, Egypt, and other Cold War-era nations key to their "Great Game" against the Soviet Union prior to '89's revolutions.

In reality, as Greece has shown us, even the most "socialist"(properly known as social-democracy to the well-informed) capitalist government must bow to the markets and harvest all of the labor power from it's people when in crisis(see: the riot police raid on the Steel Factory in Greece)

As for fighting revisionism, the communist movement wouldn't have had to "fight" revisionism if world revolution had succeeded in the first place.

And besides, there really isn't a correct way to fight revisionism. In a communist party or movement, naturally there will be those who advocate reformist politics, even if the situation is ripe for revolution, or for continuing the revolution.

I hope I answered your question, comrade, or at the very least provided for further discussion on the topic.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2012, 23:24
It's all about materialism. If you can demonstrate that socialism is materially better than capitalism for the vast majority of the people then you shouldn't have much of a problem. The regimes in the former USSR/Eastern Bloc etc could never demonstrate this because the industrialised west was always materially better. Better quality houses, better access to consumer goods, etc. The parties which turned to revisionism did so because they realised that capitalism provided material benefits to everybody which strict Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism did not. The anti-revisionists in countries like Albania and North Korea tried to shield their people from these developments through ideology and isolationism. These of course have been doomed to failure. Albania ended up collapsing and North Korea is impoverished.

I think countries can only demonstrate the material benefits of socialism if they are at a level of production similar to that of the west. They need to put an emphasis on consumer goods. Otherwise, what's the point of socialism if the people are materially worse off than in a capitalist country? Freedom from exploitation doesn't mean much when the exploited people have a materially better life than you. I think part of the reason why this was the situation in the former USSR etc is because they entered the revolution as backwards and undeveloped countries. Thus the main stress was always on heavy industry so they could build the infrastructure for industrialisation. When the arms race with the west set in this cemented the position of heavy industry at the forefront of the economy whilst consumer industry was relegated to secondary importance.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 25 Jul 2012, 10:17
I agree with both of you.

Quote:
Better quality houses, better access to consumer goods, etc. The parties which turned to revisionism did so because they realised that capitalism provided material benefits to everybody which strict Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism did not.

Capitalism, in many respects, offers more material benefits as their populations, at least in developed countries, are treated like a labor aristocracy, which is achieved by Imperialism. The Soviet Union, likewise, had to reform and adopt Imperialism after Stalin died, which, according to the 1986 HDI, the Soviet Union was the 26th best country to live in; and standard of living wasn't much different than that of the USA.

The SU should have stuck with National Liberation, and not Imperialism, to quash Western Standard of Living, as Imperialism is the basis of Liberal Capitalism.


"Crispien went on to speak of high wages. The position in Germany, he
said, is that the workers are quite well off compared with the workers
in Russia or in general, in the East of Europe. A revolution, as he sees
it, can be made only if it does not worsen the workers' conditions 'too
much'. Is it permissible, in a Communist Party, to speak in a tone like
this, I ask? This is the language of counter-revolution. . .The workers'
victory cannot be achieved without sacrifices, without a temporary
deterioration of their conditions. We must tell the workers the very
opposite of what Crispien has said. If, in desiring to prepare the
workers for the dictatorship[of the Proletariat], one tells them that their conditions will
not be worsened 'too much', one is losing sight of the main thing, namely,
that it was by helping their 'own' bourgeoisie to conquer and strangle
the whole world by imperialist methods, with the aim of thereby ensuring
better pay for themselves, that the labor aristocracy developed. If
the German workers now want to work for the revolution they must make
sacrifices, and not be afraid to do so."
-Lenin
"To tell the workers in the handful of rich countries where life is
easier, thanks to imperialist pillage, that they must be afraid of 'too
great' impoverishment, is counter-revolutionary. It is the reverse that
they should be told. The labour aristocracy that is afraid of sacrifices,
afraid of 'too great' impoverishment during the revolutionary struggle,
cannot belong to the Party. Otherwise, the dictatorship[of the Proletariat] is impossible,
especially in West-European countries."
-Lenin

Quote:
The anti-revisionists in countries like Albania and North Korea tried to shield their people from these developments through ideology and isolationism.

North Korea became revisionist in 1977 as they adopted Juche, although Hoxha always considered them part of the Revisionist camp.

Stalin and Mao also never regarded Kim Il-Sung as an ally nor a Marxist-Leninist. They even regarded him as someone that could be a treat to the Chinese.

They also allied themselves with Yugoslavia.


"'Another problem is how to treat 'wicked capitalists,' as Rev. Mun Ik Hwan expresses the term,' Kim Il Sung continued. 'I think that depends on how we view them. Capitalists should not be considered 'wicked' because they exploit others; the point is whether they sell out the interests of their country or nation. Those who earn for the nation are laudable; those with money should donate money for the sake of their country. That would decrease the number of wicked capitalists!' ...

Kim Il Sung said that this is the kind of communism being built in Korea, adding: 'There is no purpose in going a long way to make enemies in large numbers. We are going to make as few people our enemies as possible. We insist that a person not be subjugated to others and must refrain from doing things that are harmful to the nation; then everyone can be our friend.'"
-Kim Il-Sung in 1994
(Won Tai Sohn. Kim Il Sung and Korea's Struggle. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. 2003. pp. 199-200.)
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 25 Jul 2012, 11:47
The soviet bureaucracy, that cumbersome upper-crust of party members, wielded imperialism through the vast Soviet military no doubt to win their "Great Game" against U.S. imperialism. Two imperialist powers competing for the spoils from a vicious Cold War.

One defect with the general makeup of the U.S.S.R. was that minority national soviet republics within the larger federal socialist republic, chiefly Georgia, the Ukraine, etc. could in no way determine their own national destiny.

The Russian Empire had once been known as a "prison house of nationalities." For a brief time following the October Revolution, that prison house had been smashed into tiny bits, and whole national peoples were set free from their individual cells inside a greater Russia.

During the civil war many of those new nations, many of whom either cooperated with German or Entente imperialism, ended up once more into the Russian sphere of influence and ultimately merged into one union.

Lenin wrote in The Question of Nationalities, or "Autonomisation":

Quote:
...It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?


Quote:
...But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it...


Quote:
...It is quite natural that in such circumstances the "freedom to secede from the union" by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper...


As Lenin said in the excerpts above, minority nationalities had no real freedom to secede from the USSR and decide their own destiny, let alone any freedom at all for themselves IMHO.

The same can be said for the east European people's republics. For better or for worse, when the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian people's rose up, Red Army forces were quickly sent into to quell the uprisings.

A (big) nation was oppressing a (small) nation in both cases.

I think this is one of the main reason for the failure of the 20th century communist movement to "win another world;" The red camp was just as unequal when it came to minority nationalities as the white, imperialist camp.

I think that freedom on a socialist basis can only be won if-and-when all forms of national oppression ends.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 Jul 2012, 23:45
Quote:
The Soviet Union, likewise, had to reform and adopt Imperialism after Stalin died, which, according to the 1986 HDI, the Soviet Union was the 26th best country to live in; and standard of living wasn't much different than that of the USA.


I doubt queueing for basic consumer goods was much fun.

Quote:
The SU should have stuck with National Liberation, and not Imperialism, to quash Western Standard of Living, as Imperialism is the basis of Liberal Capitalism.


Could you expand on that? I don't quite know what you mean by national liberation (as in within the USSR or outside it?) or how it would improve living standards.

As for those Lenin quotes, yes of course things get worse during the revolution. I expect even the Syrian rebels at the moment realise that Syria today is materially worse than before they started rebelling. But once the (proletarian) revolution ia over, the government should move quickly to ensure a rise in living standards as quickly as possible. Otherwise, people (who are greedy and selfish) won't care about ideological preaching. Just as the bourgeoisie won't want to freely give away their material benefits, neither will the proletariat want to give away theirs (at least, not for long).




Quote:
I think that freedom on a socialist basis can only be won if-and-when all forms of national oppression ends.


To do that we need to abolish the concept of nation itself. It is only a tool used to manipulate people after all.
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 26 Jul 2012, 00:52
Quote:
The Soviet Union should have stuck with National Liberation...


IMHO I don't believe that the USSR had really ever stuck with national-liberation to begin with, a fact that even Lenin acknowledged in a passage I had quoted in my above post.

Prior to and slightly after Lenin's death, there was the possibility of national-liberation becoming a fact-Lenin was greatly interested in the "Georgian Question" just before his death, but a chance for ending Russian dominance over the other Soviet republics effectively ended with Stalin's eventual rise to power.

By 1924 it was nearly impossible to end nation-states however, which would have ensured national-oppression ended for good. The revolutionary wave that shook Europe and the world was long-since gone, and without a successful world revolution the nascent Soviet state would have to play by the counter-revolutionaries' rules. the Soviet Union was alone.

Quote:
The Soviet Union, likewise, had to reform and adopt Imperialism after Stalin died...


I'd go further and say that the Soviet Union by the time of Stalin's death was already imperialist, especially the years just after the end of WWII.

Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were all just 'names' in what effectively amounted to a greater Soviet Union, a Greater Russia. National oppression's reach extended from the original Soviet republics all the way into eastern Europe.

Lenin's words regarding the right for non-Russian Soviet republics to secede from Russia being just words printed on a useless scrap of paper were prophetic in that regard-even more so with the crushing of the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian rebellions against Soviet[greater Russian] rule.

Furthermore, the USSR didn't have to "reform" for any reason other then to benefit it's own imperialist aims(if we are to assume that it was already imperialist during Stalin's rule). By 1953 it was craving a much larger piece of the world pie-and no doubt would go on to set up client states in Africa and even invade Afghanistan, etc.

The Soviet state was socialist in name only by the time of Stalin's death.

Quote:
...of course things get worse during the revolution...


The new Soviet government found itself in a position post-revolution dealing with an unruly population of workers and peasants, who ironically by 1918 had began to revolt against Soviet power.

Lest their conditions improve and stability returns, the people tend to reject a new post-revolutionary government, no matter how progressive or radical it may be.

In contrast, China after the communist revolution in 1949 managed to not only bring stability back to a war-torn China, but to also benefit the poor peasants and to even offer a glimpse into a socialist future-hence why the post-1949 years just after the revolution were relatively peaceful.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 26 Jul 2012, 12:50
Sowjetunion wrote:
I think that freedom on a socialist basis can only be won if-and-when all forms of national oppression ends.

In a War Communist-type policy, a strong Vanguard nation, namely Russia, has to represent the Socialist movement for the world. Once the conditions are proper, then a weaker grip can be taken in regards to client states.

Stalin's Socialism in One Country, although ironically named, isn't too far from War Communism. It simply calls for defending the Revolutions in countries that have a mass workers' uprising once the SU achieves Socialism.

"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"

Quote:
Could you expand on that? I don't quite know what you mean by national liberation

Western Europe and North America were profiting from exploiting the 3rd world, thus the USSR had an obligation to liberate these nations and embargo those who were being exploited- which would in-turn end the labor aristocracy in those countries and raise class consciousness.

Of course the Revisionists turned their back on the exploited, and simply became their own empire. The burden was lumped on Mao's back.

Quote:
I'd go further and say that the Soviet Union by the time of Stalin's death was already imperialist, especially the years just after the end of WWII.

Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were all just 'names' in what effectively amounted to a greater Soviet Union, a Greater Russia. National oppression's reach extended from the original Soviet republics all the way into eastern Europe.

The Warsaw pact was formed by Khrushchev, not Stalin. Besides, several of those nations ended up having better living standards than Russia.

When the USSR was formed, thanks to Stalin and Molotov, it was supposed to be tangent to Lenin's and Trotsky's Russian Exceptionalism. The Soviet states were Federalized, and each Republic was allowed to shape politics in Moscow-relative to their size.

Jerome Davis even pointed out that, during his visit to East Europe after the WWII, he noticed that people were still hanging portraits if the old monarchy, and whatnot, while the only thing that was banned were images of Fascists. He also noted that portraits of Stalin, and other Soviet leadership, were limited only to Soviet government buildings.

Quote:
In contrast, China after the communist revolution in 1949 managed to not only bring stability back to a war-torn China, but to also benefit the poor peasants and to even offer a glimpse into a socialist future-hence why the post-1949 years just after the revolution were relatively peaceful.

Mao was wrong. Stalin said it best. The Peasants, who made up roughly 2/3 of Russia's population, were close allies of the Proletariat, but nothing more.

In a more developed Socialist system, the Peasants must be subject to the brutal Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and have to defect from their social class or face the consequences.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 Jul 2012, 23:34
Quote:
Western Europe and North America were profiting from exploiting the 3rd world, thus the USSR had an obligation to liberate these nations and embargo those who were being exploited- which would in-turn end the labor aristocracy in those countries and raise class consciousness.


Trouble is, that never really worked. Look at Francafrique. These are countries ruled by a bourgeoisie that 50 years ago fought for independence from France. Now this bourgeoisie are best friends with France and French capital is still able to exploit them, even without direct rule. Trying to build socialism in African countries has always failed as well. They just lack the infrastructure and proletariat to do it at this stage. The only option would have been massive technical and capital injections by the USSR and I doubt single-handedly bankrolling the industrialisation of Africa so as to protect it from imperialism would have been a particularly viable policy for the Kremlin.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 27 Jul 2012, 07:31
gRed Britain wrote:
Trouble is, that never really worked. Look at Francafrique. These are countries ruled by a bourgeoisie that 50 years ago fought for independence from France. Now this bourgeoisie are best friends with France and French capital is still able to exploit them, even without direct rule. Trying to build socialism in African countries has always failed as well. They just lack the infrastructure and proletariat to do it at this stage. The only option would have been massive technical and capital injections by the USSR and I doubt single-handedly bankrolling the industrialisation of Africa so as to protect it from imperialism would have been a particularly viable policy for the Kremlin.

You are right, and the only real option for the Soviet Union was to become a benevolent Imperial power which would gradually destroy the markets of the world.

Building Socialism in Africa will require Stalinist policies that will gradually develop it through State Capitalism.
There also has to be a Greater African state, otherwise development would be too slow paced.
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 27 Jul 2012, 14:28
Quote:
Building Socialism in Africa will require Stalinist policies that will gradually develop it through State Capitalism.


I disagree. Suggesting that Stalinist policies are the only road to full-blown socialism on the eventual path to communism in Africa sounds a bit extreme to me, at least.

according to an interesting online magazine I discovered called the New Internationalist:

Quote:
"...Co-operatives provide over 100 million jobs-20 per cent more than multinationals."


Furthermore Argentina possesses over 200 "recovered" industries alone-not counting the rest of South America.

source: "Can co-operatives crowd out capitalism" by: Wayne Ellwood

Obviously these attempts at cooperatives are operating from within the capitalist system. Until capitalism is overthrown their full-power cannot be utilized.

However, they are a far-cry from state-enforced collectivization, a policy which I disagree with completely.

I believe that collectivization eliminates an entire big point of socialism, that society should cooperate together to create a more egalitarian society. If people are forced to farm or work in a factory just because the state says so, then what's the point? People should decide on their own initiative how to best help equalize society under socialism.

Quote:
They just lack the infrastructure and proletariat to do it at this stage.


Maybe so, but if African societies shifted away from the blind logic of capitalist accumulation, then so much could be done to make a real turn towards effectively building socialism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3799
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 27 Jul 2012, 14:42
Quote:
Furthermore Argentina possesses over 200 "recovered" industries alone-not counting the rest of South America.

Not only the "recovered" industries, but the largest plan to lower unemployment (it's called "Argentina trabaja"/ Argentina works) forces those wanting to receive the plan to join a cooperative. So the unemployed join or create a cooperative and then they get request from the government: building houses, cleaning streets, laying down pipes for water supplies, etc.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 01 Aug 2012, 00:01
Quote:
You are right, and the only real option for the Soviet Union was to become a benevolent Imperial power which would gradually destroy the markets of the world.


This makes no sense, as Imperialism is Capitalism. One cannot have Imperialism without exploitation and neo-colonialism, which the U.S.S.R. never did.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 02 Aug 2012, 07:28
Misuzu wrote:

This makes no sense, as Imperialism is Capitalism. One cannot have Imperialism without exploitation and neo-colonialism, which the U.S.S.R. never did.

I'm using the term Imperialism in the context of a strong country that controls the politics of other countries, not so much the economy. Those under the Soviet sphere of influence, as long as they were European, enjoyed standards of living that were relatively equal to that of Russia, if not better.

As for Central Asia, SE Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, that wasn't the case, and the fruits of their labor went directly to satisfy the labor aristocracies of Russia and Eastern Europe(obviously not to-the-extent that existed in Western Europe and the USA).
I'm sad to say that such things were prevalent under Stalin as well.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 24 Aug 2012, 23:32
Quote:
One cannot have Imperialism without exploitation and neo-colonialism, which the U.S.S.R. never did.


That is a solid statement. Politics is always driven economic questions (base and superstructure~), so "controlling the politics of other countries, not so much the economy" doesn't make much sense to me. Why would the USSR have exerted such tight control over the Warsaw Pact countries, given that there was no economic-exploitative interest that could have motivated such domination? The common depiction of WarPac governments as "puppets of Moscow" is refuted by people like Tito, Hoxha, Ceausescu and Honecker, all of whom defied Moscow towards the end of their career and were more or less successful in doing so. The USSR certainly didn't "punish" or replace them as you'd expect from a "puppet master".
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 May 2013, 16:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 26 May 2013, 16:15
Revisionism is going to happen in any regime whether you like it or not. Look at Brezhnev-era USSR, the only way revisionism was prevented was the rigid nomenklatura list stopped any new members of government to take office. By the time Brezhnev died, the average age of a government official was 69, and at the end of the day this lack of frsh thinking is detrimental to the success of the communist system.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Jun 2013, 20:44
Quote:
How do you Stop Revisionism?

Revisionism is historically the introduction of capitalist methods and economics in the socialist economy that led to a new type of bourgoisie or rulling class against the will and the interest of the working people.

But revisionism can be anything that smashes the socialist and communist principle of the authority of the working class towards non-class, and self-administrated society.

Revisionism can only be imposed from above and with force, because the working class and the working people in general, instinctively,one could say, are turning against all type of exploiters and oppressive rulers. Hence the only measure against revisionism is a massive, really democratic, and powerful popular movement, that will fight at any time, against, revisionists, exploiters, rotten beurocrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 May 2014, 01:42
Quote:
Revisionism is historically the introduction of capitalist methods and economics in the socialist economy that led to a new type of bourgoisie or rulling class against the will and the interest of the working people.


Yes, I completely agree. This is how revisionism was carried out in the Soviet Union under Gorbachev and Yeltson. They dismantled the Socialist Institutions one by one (The General Secretary of the CPSU, the Supreme Soviet, Gosplan, the Republics, the CPSU, finally ending with the USSR itself) and replaced them with Revisionist/Capitalist/Social Democrat insitutions (President of the USSR/Russia, Congress of People's Deputies, Independant Capitalist nations, Independant candidates and bourgeois Parties.) It's easy to see who the rulling class of Russia is now (Corporations/Capitalist Class+Putin's United Russia Party).

Quote:
Revisionism can only be imposed from above and with force, because the working class and the working people in general, instinctively,one could say, are turning against all type of exploiters and oppressive rulers. Hence the only measure against revisionism is a massive, really democratic, and powerful popular movement, that will fight at any time, against, revisionists, exploiters, rotten beurocrats.

I couldn't agree with you more. Revisionism only ever came from above ( Gorbachev becoming the General Secretary of the CPSU ect) while Socialism only ever came from the people and the will of the working class (Russian Revolution of 1917, Chinese Civil War of 1949 ect). Class struggle continues even under Socialism. Socialism is not the final victory, Socialism is the offensive the Working class takes. Socialism is realized when the Working class is winning but having not yet won class warfare. Final Victory is only possible with Stateless Communism and that is only possible after decades possibly a century of class conflict under Socialism. Stateless Communism is only possible once every single reactionary bourgeois imperialist nation is crushed.

How do you stop Revisionism? Education and Empowerment. Make the opressed masses of the working class understand this. Propaganda? Yes! When the truth is radical, to be moderate is to lie! Have the people engaged in Direct Soviet Democracy, worker self manegment this revolutionary atmosphere was largely lost with by Brezhnev's time if not much earlier (it declined somewhat during Stalin's time although not significantly, still more in Khrushchev's time and was completely destroyed by Brezhnev).

The United States was able to successfully indoctrinate all it's people into thinking Socialism and Marxism-Leninism is an authoritarian, totalitarian dictatorship where everybody is poor and it's against human nature. Imagine if this was instead harnessed to tell people the truth about Socialism and Marxism-Leninism. Encourage dissent in order to throw out counter-revolutionary and reactionary elements of the Party and State structure. If you had done this then even if Gorbachev had made it to the position of General Secretary of the CPSU (which is still possible, revisionists can lie untill they are in a position of power and then show their true colors) the people would realize the counter-revolutionary, reactionary and outright revisionist-capitalist actions Gorbachev was taking. By 1987 people would have realized what he was trying to do and he would have been removed from the Party for treason on the grounds of betraying the founding principals of Marxism-Leninism.

It amazes me that Boris Yeltson and Gorbachev would be allowed to reach the Politburo, let alone dissolve the USSR!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 20 May 2014, 15:08
Absolute rubbish, the revisionism you talk about was the working class realising that the regimes were not socialist and not run in their interests. It is an insult to the workers that lived under these regimes to say that they could not work this out on their own and revisionism was imposed by force!
Don’t you get it? No matter how repressive the regime, how many people you murder, how many walls you build, books you censor, lies you tell and gulags you build, in the end it will be for nothing. These regimes cannot survive for more than 70 years + without imploding.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 May 2014, 15:57
Quote:
Absolute rubbish, the revisionism you talk about was the working class realising that the regimes were not socialist and not run in their interests.

Because Yeltson certainly was the interest of the Working class. You've got to be kidding me! Yeltson and Gorbachev are two of the most unpopular and hated figures in Russia because they broke up the Soviet Union. There are some legitimat criticisms of the Soviet Union to be made but it was certainly by and large in the interests of the working class (atleast untill 1985). Socialism is what took the people of Russia from the bone grinding poverty of a backwards post WW1 psuedo-feudal agricultural nature into a fully modernized, industrialized nation. It acheived full litteracy, full employment, universal healthcare, eliminated homelessness and starvation. It rebuilt itself after WW1, the Russian Civil War,WW2, and constant threats from Imperialist nations during the Cold War.

So yes the Soviet Union was Socialist. It was the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of a Vanguard Party.


Quote:
It is an insult to the workers that lived under these regimes to say that they could not work this out on their own and revisionism was imposed by force!
Don’t you get it? No matter how repressive the regime, how many people you murder,

The number of people executed by the Soviet Union range in the hundreds of thousands if not tens of thousands. They did not execute millions as Anti-Communists claim. Also the USSR was constantly under threat from outside invasion and there was sufficient reason to be worried about foreighn subsersives. The Nazis overthrew several governments during the 1930s, was openly bashing the USSR and they realized there were people working in their interests. The same thing during the russian civil war when foreign powers tried to reestablish the Czar. The stakes got even higher with Nuclear weapons added to the mix in the cold war. At times officials realized there were excesses and they had wrongly convicted somebody and they eliminated the sentence. Fewer people were executed by the USSR than the anti-communists in Indonesia who killed 500,000-3 million (a country with 100 million people while the USSR had 230+ million).

Quote:
how many walls you build,

The Berlin Wall was built to prevent brain drain. People kept leaving East Germany to get to the richer West Germany. West Germany had to pay very little war repramands, it was richer to begin with and wasn't as damaged as East Germany was. West Germany had most of the land, industry, resources and labor. Hence even if there was Capitalism in East Germany there wouldn't have been a higher standard of living and it would probabley be alot less. Even if there was Capitalism in East Germany they would still need to build the wall to prevent massive emigration that hurting the East German people and their economy. By the 1980s they were very lenient with allowing people to emigrate or visit the west but it still did require certain restrictions.
Quote:
books you censor,

This is a legit criticism of the USSR. It was being resolved in the 1950s and 1960s by Khrushchev before Brezhnev and Market Reformer Alexei Kosygin took over and put a end to the thriving atmosphere of free expression that signified the Khrushchev thaw. This was something Gorbachev did do right. But you don't have to destroy the country and the principals on which it stands to lighten up on censorship.
Quote:
lies you tell

What lies? Now I just don't know what you're talking about! Honestly what lies? How about the lies of Capitalism! How about the lies that there is no class-struggle or contradiction within capitalism. What about the lies that stalin killed 20, 60, 100 million people or whatever number they're peddling now. What about the lie that Socialism is a totalitarian dictatorship and that the USSR was the authoritarian regime. You are just repeating the propaganda and lies the US has espoused since atleast the 1950s (if not since 1917).
Quote:
and gulags you build,


The Gulags were significantly reduced following Stalin's death and completely eliminated in 1960. The sentences were usually 5 years and no longer than 10 years. The maximum working week was 84 hours which is long compared to the average Soviet citizens work day of 7 hours but less than the 100 hour workweek suffered by Children in the industrial revolution (great going capitalism!).
Quote:
These regimes cannot survive for more than 70 years + without imploding.

All the Socialist Nations on the planet collasped at the same time (late 1980s early 1990s) because Revisionists such as Gorbachev and Yeltson got in power into the Soviet Union and further allowed Revisionist to take over other Socialist Nations. Revisionism was imposed from above! The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was collasped from above in August 1991. The Soviet Union was collasped from above in December 1991. The Planned Economy was collasped from above in the late 1980s. I've already explained this again and again.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.