Development in the USSR

And Trotsky's "plan" was a hard-on for 1000 years of War Communism - but academics and liberals in the 70s were quite taken by this raving, war-obsessed loon.
I kinda side with KW on this, either people on the left are hardline tankies, stupid "Trots" or boy-genius Trotskyists who would probably be best joining the ICC or something , never forget our global labour heritage and the vestiges of labour that are some of the few manifestations of democracy still worth fighting for.
Welcome to the forum!

NEP couldn't develop the means of production beyond the pre-war levels,that is,it couldn't have significantly modernized the USSR.
Even Bukharin admitted that after the first Five Year Plan.

I don't care, the NEP would have developed an actual proletariat. And if I hear a word about Hitler now I'm going to go insane.

Do you know any article dealing with that topic?
Also,is it true that Bukharin himself later renounced the NEP? Can't find much sources on this...

Quote:

Even Bukharin admitted that after the first Five Year Plan.

Quote:

Also,is it true that Bukharin himself later renounced the NEP?

Dude... this is not cool behavior, you know that, right? If you make a claim, you should be able to substantiate it before you make it, so you don't have to end up in the situation of having to ask me whether you were right with the argument you tried to use against me. It's a bit self-defeating.

Quote:

Do you know any article dealing with that topic?

The stuff Lenin wrote during the time is pretty awesome.

Also,

Quote:

NEP couldn't develop the means of production beyond the pre-war levels,that is,it couldn't have significantly modernized the USSR.

what do you even base this on? Capitalism has developed the means of production far beyond the level of the Stalin period, in case you haven't noticed...

I mean the Stalinist accumulation went much, much faster than the capitalist version, that has to be admitted, and if it had managed to actually overtake capitalism, that would have been wonderful, but as we've seen, Gosplan collapsed under its own weight instead.

Quote:

Dude...

this is not cool behavior, you know that, right? If you make a claim, you should be able to substantiate it before you make it, so you don't have to end up in the situation of having to ask me whether you were right with the argument you tried to use against me. It's a bit self-defeating.

I've read this in one relatively credible book.
It says that Bukharin (and others like Rikov) publicly renounced his old ideas and gave support to Stalin and the Five Year Plan on the 17th Congress of SKP(b).
Unfortunately i haven't been able to find his speech text in English (or Russian)-nothing on Marxist.org,so i can't prove this.
Some more quotes about this:
Бухарин публично покаялся и пообещал решительно бороться «против всех уклонов от генеральной линии партии и, прежде всего, против правого уклона.
"Bukharin publicly promised (on that Congress) to lead a decisive struggle against all deviations from the general party line,and above everything,against the rightist deviation."

Fine. I mean it's not like anybody in the party had freedom of speech in 1934, so I don't see why this matters.

Quote:

what do you even base this on?

Facts? By 1928. the Soviet Union barely surpassed the pre-War production levels.And 40-50% of people were still illiterate.
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/go ... s/ch05.htm

Quote:

Capitalism has developed the means of production far beyond the level of the Stalin period, in case you haven't noticed...

Wouldn't you agree that in 1953. the Soviet Union was not that far off behind the USA anyway,and that it was catching up with the world's world economy at an astonishing pace,just as Stalin said in his famous "to catch up and overtake" parole?

Quote:

I mean the Stalinist accumulation went much, much faster than the capitalist version, that has to be admitted, and if it had managed to actually overtake capitalism, that would have been wonderful, but as we've seen, Gosplan collapsed under its own weight instead.

When exactly did it collapse? In what year?

Quote:

Fine. I mean it's not like anybody in the party had freedom of speech in 1934, so I don't see why this matters.

Don't exclude the possibility that Bukharin may have been sincere,that he really changed his mind after having witnessed the successes of the first Pyatiletka.

Quote:

Facts? By 1928. the Soviet Union barely surpassed the pre-War production levels.And 40-50% of people were still illiterate.

The fact that capitalism takes longer to achieve something than a planned economy does does not mean that capitalism is unable to achieve it.

Protip: The US economy was doing better than Gosplan even before Gorbachev started to sabotage it.

Quote:

Wouldn't you agree that in 1953. the Soviet Union was not that far off behind the USA anyway,and that it was catching up with the world's world economy at an astonishing pace,just as Stalin said in his famous "to catch up and overtake" parole?

Yes, defnitely. In the 60s, the distance was even smaller and the USSR was on the verge of becoming a fully modernized consumer society. It might even have reached the material basis for socialism.

But it didn't happen. And I'm pretty sure that even the most evil "revisionists" didn't sabotage the Soviet development on purpose.

Quote:

When exactly did it collapse? In what year?

lol? A process that takes place over several decades doesn't happen in a single year. Also in the end it didn't collapse but was abolished as you very well know, but even that only happened because it had been failing for decades.

Quote:

Don't exclude the possibility that Bukharin may have been sincere,that he really changed his mind after having witnessed the successes of the first Pyatiletka.

Maybe. I really don't care though.

Quote:

The fact that capitalism takes longer to achieve something than a planned economy does does not mean that capitalism is unable to achieve it.

But you can't have capitalism and communists on power existing for a long time...that's why the NEP was supposed to be short-lasting.

Quote:

The US economy was doing better than Gosplan even before Gorbachev started to sabotage it.

Not until the USA started rearming again before the WW2.See poster at the end of the post.
And it's also worth mentioning that the War did wonders for the US economy but destroyed one third of the Soviet one.

Quote:

And I'm pretty sure that even the most evil "revisionists" didn't sabotage the Soviet development on purpose.

Gorbachov did.

Quote:

lso in the end it didn't collapse but was abolished as you very well know, but even that only happened because it had been failing for decades.

It had definitely slowed down by the 70s,but falling for decades?

Trotskyists tend to be infantile because instead of moving the left-wing movement further, they prefer to spend time denouncing various socialist countries and engage in sectarian strife. A lot of these Trotskyists become social-democrats, or even worse, neo-conservatives.

Honestly, Trotsky would've pursued the same policies as Stalin, except for 'Socialism in One Country', which would have been replaced by 'Permanent Revolution'. Trotsky crushed Kronstadt, FFS and proves that he isn't some anarcho-hippie.