[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ]

# /marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart
Name Email Select/drop/paste files here (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.) * = required field [▶ Show post options & limits]Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed (replaces files and can be used instead) Do not bump(you can also write sage in the email field)Spoiler images(this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdfMax filesize is 16 MB.Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1d80622b86f1fd6⋯.jpg (117.65 KB, 382x338, 191:169, Lenin reading.jpg)

No.4702

If you have a question about Soviet history or about specific policies enacted in the USSR, feel free to ask them here.

No.4716

What could you tell about the Great Purge? What do you think about Getty's book?

No.4717

What were the reasons for the Ukrainian famine? How bad was it really?

No.4718

If socialism means means of production for all and erase capitalist way of production... Why in USSR were wages and wage system? Isn't that capitalism?

No.4731

File: 3526d2e3389df46⋯.jpg (240.71 KB, 546x696, 91:116, Lenin globe.jpg)

>>4716

I think Getty's book is good, and I'd also recommend Thurston's "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia."

Basically, the USSR in the 1930s was justifiably concerned about the rise of fascism everywhere around it, and the efforts of Britain and France to get Hitler to march eastward. Based on this, and based on a combination of real and half-baked conspiracies against the Soviet state, a whole lot of people ended up being unjustifiably arrested and executed. Stalin, as Furr notes, bears personal responsibility for a great many of these deaths. Yagoda and Yezhov also bear much responsibility.

>What were the reasons for the Ukrainian famine? How bad was it really?

It was bad, otherwise it wouldn't have been a famine. As for the reasons, it was a combination of administrative bungling, kulak sabotage, peasants being influenced by aforementioned kulaks and thus purposefully botching the harvest in many areas, and climatic conditions. Davies and Wheatcroft in "Years of Hunger," Tottle in "Fraud, Famine and Fascism" along with the works of Tauger are all important reads on this subject.

>If socialism means means of production for all and erase capitalist way of production... Why in USSR were wages and wage system? Isn't that capitalism?

No. Check out my replies in this thread where I debate a bit with a left-communist about wages and such: http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196275-USSR-after-Stalin?p=2877611

No.4732

>>4702

>What could you tell about the Great Purge?

product of rivalry between party groups

one side loses, gets rekt

it's up to debate if Yezhov was a rabid dog

personally, I don't care about victims in the upper party ranks, as long as winning group supports the same policies as I am

>What were the reasons for the Ukrainian famine?

sloppy collectivization, bad weather, local authorities reporting false information like little kids afraid to tell mom about bad grades until it's too late I'm talking about you Kosior

>Why in USSR were wages and wage system?

because of the division of labour and limited resources

society can distribute any good which is in limited supply by two ways

1. rationing

2. market

in the case of SU, rationing ruled in the capital and intermediate goods production sphere

market ruled in the end consumer goods sphere

consumer market demands wage relations

to each according to his labour was not just a propaganda slogan

it was justification of wage

No.4735

>>4731

>Yagoda and Yezhov also bear much responsibility.

Do you have something on Ezhovschina?

No.4738

File: c52e77b74ba866a⋯.jpg (258.78 KB, 527x764, 527:764, Vigilance is our weapon 19….jpg)

>>4735

The aforementioned Getty and Thurston books.

No.4780

Was Katyn thing done by nazis or soviets?

No.4783

File: 4d342e7a14f2c17⋯.jpg (604.26 KB, 1200x859, 1200:859, Long live Soviet Polish fr….jpg)

>>4780

There is evidence the Nazis did it, but the evidence put forth as to Soviet involvement (documents signed by Beria, Stalin and others) definitely proves their involvement unless one claims said documents are forgeries.

Grover Furr argues that the Soviets and Nazis both shot Polish officers in Katyn, at different times and at different locations.

Regardless, it's worth pointing out the following:

"Millions of Poles were killed in German death camps throughout the war, and with considerably less sustained outcry from the London government. Indeed, only that very month the Germans were annihilating some 50000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion, and far less was heard from London on this matter. Katyn was an infinitely more sensitive issue because the men killed there, as Polish underground leader Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski described them, 'had been the elite of the Polish nation . . .,' that is to say, the friends and family of the exiles in London. Whoever destroyed the officers at Katyn had taken a step towards implementing a social revolution in Poland, and on the basis of class solidarity, the London Poles felt one officer was worth many Jews or peasants."

(Kolko, Gabriel. The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943–1945. New York: Random House. 1968. p. 105.)

Post last edited at

No.4786

>>4780

>>4783

> evidence put forth as to Soviet involvement (documents signed by Beria, Stalin and others) definitely proves their involvement unless one claims said documents are forgeries.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong.

Evidence being "put forth" implies that experts got access to the original documents. That is not the case.

IIRC, Kremlin had been refusing to present originals since October of 1992 - when the first claims of documents existence had been made by Yeltsin during anti-CPSU show trial (banning of Communist Party in Russia), and didn't allow access to experts since.

There are Polish copies made in the 1992 (apparently, in 2008 it was found out that copies got lost - Poland needed to present evidence for some EU investigation and was unable to do so), and digital scans made by Russians in 2010. Neither could be used as actual evidence. In fact, inconsistencies in digital scans fuelled accusations of forgery (Molokov report).

Unfortunately, until Kremlin allows experts to assess documents (Kremlin politicians are not authoritative source, if there is any doubt), there is no actual evidence to support either side.

No.4787

/marx/, what is your thought on the concrete works of communists nowadays?

I am not a Hoxhaist, though.

No.4788

File: d2e374174375fd3⋯.jpg (43.59 KB, 480x459, 160:153, Gorky and Lenin.jpg)

>>4787

What do you mean by "concrete works of communists nowadays"?

No.4793

>>4788

i.e. What is to be done?

No.4799

File: b248b9f547fad2e⋯.jpg (109.9 KB, 510x332, 255:166, 1285572373.jpg)

>>4793

Study Marxism-Leninism, go among workers and participate in their struggles, establish a communist group in your area or get in touch with a nearby party.

No.4813

Which one was the immigration policy in USSR?

No.4815

File: ef9693ab360afe1⋯.jpg (91.12 KB, 800x600, 4:3, (KGrHqRHJCIFH86l kJPBSF1I….JPG) >>4813 I don't actually know. There's a Soviet book from 1979 called "Citizenship of the USSR" that talks about the subject in detail though, but it isn't online. No.4837 File: 118b11a9b34fc64⋯.png (566.86 KB, 500x649, 500:649, 1458433814289.png) What was the nature of the Kronstadt rebellion? A White attempt at destablising the revolution? Petty-bourgeois peasant uprising? Authentic (but misguided?) working-class revolt? No.4838 File: 059b7b2f00ac44e⋯.jpg (54.99 KB, 807x542, 807:542, Lenin Lenin Lenin.jpg) >>4837 The Bolshevik assessment was the correct one: legitimate grievances by peasant sailors led to a mutiny in which White elements had a predominant role. Both the demands of the mutineers and their own paper show that they essentially reflected the petty-bourgeois grief of the small peasants. I'll quote from the latter's thirteenth issue: >The entire laboring peasantry was counted with the kulaks, declared an enemy of the people. The enterprising Communists occupied themselves with destruction, and took to setting up Soviet farms, the estates of a new land owner, the state. That is what the peasantry received under Bolshevik socialism instead of free labor with liberated land. The mutineers were against collective or state farming and against the requisitioning of grain. They wanted "freedom" for the peasantry to do as it wished with its land. That's why the mutiny gave impetus to the establishment of NEP. Here's a brief Soviet account: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Kronstadt+Anti-Soviet+Rebellion+of+1921 No.4852 >>4837 > What was the nature of the Kronstadt rebellion? Petit-Bourgeois and counter-Revolutionary. > A White attempt at destablising the revolution? Petty-bourgeois peasant uprising? Authentic (but misguided?) working-class revolt? Well, you can't say it was an uprising of Proletariat, since it was soldiers that participated in Kronstadt uprising, not workers. And even those soldiers were primarily former peasants - as is seen in their demands (it was peasant grievances that were addressed there, not worker). I.e. uprising had Petit-Bourgeois character. Involvement of Whites (commanders rebel forces, attempts to supply Kronstadt from Finland, and subsequent retreat of rebels to Finland - not to mention extensive support in foreign press) as well as demands to allow Menshevik propaganda betrays counter-revolutionary intent. Some even mentioned that rebels intended to abolish Paris Commune holiday (March 18 was official holiday) and supposedly did this in their last newspaper, but I didn't confirm this yet. As for "authenticity", I can say only: there weren't many democratic procedures followed. In fact, there was so much manipulation I can't even say if majority supported uprising. There certainly was a very loud minority, but it's hard to say if it managed to convert the whole of Kronstadt. There was no sophisticated discussion that resulted in conscious decision to rebel - at least not for the absolute majority of involved. For example, arrests of Kronstadt Bolsheviks were not decided on by population, but were enacted by minority and justified by supposed encirclement of Kronstadt by Bolshevik forces that were going to arrest everyone - on the eve of March 2. IRL Bolsheviks will recognize situation as an uprising two day later (March 4) and force will be used on March 7 (artillery fire; soldiers - next day). I would say, the primary causes were bad conditions in Kronstadt (cold weather; not enough food, fuel, clothes) and extensive anti-Bolshevik propaganda (amplified by lack of pro-Bolshevik propaganda). >>4838 >That's why the mutiny gave impetus to the establishment of NEP. It's the other way, I think. 10th Congress (which will decide on NEP - tax in kind) begun on March 8 - less than a week after Kronstadt begun (Bolsheviks properly noticed it only during March 3; it was a "disturbance" before that). It's unlikely everything was decided within such a short period of time. Bolsheviks (Lenin) clearly intended to suggest NEP with or without Kronstadt. It makes more sense if it was coming Congress (and coming NEP) that were forcing rebels to act (Kronstadt rebellion would've been unjustifiable after 10th Congress). It would also explain why uprising begun too early - once the ice thawed (happened a few days after rebellion was suppressed - March 20-25) Kronstadt would've been unconquerable. No.4853 File: 30807c7ef6a6398⋯.jpg (134.5 KB, 627x699, 209:233, Leninnnnn.jpg) >>4852 Yeah I wasn't suggesting that the NEP began as a response to Kronstadt (which is a common claim made by anti-communists), just that it made it obvious to everyone that NEP was necessary. Once NEP was enacted, there were no more "Kronstadts" since the peasants were pretty much satisfied. Also you can find the newspaper of the mutineers here: http://www.marxistsfr.org/history/ussr/events/kronstadt/izvestia/index.htm I think a lot of it shows the basically peasant character of the mutiny. Post last edited at No.4855 File: 72ab5fc7eec3f6b⋯.jpg (76.41 KB, 720x1129, 720:1129, Mao_sonofafarmero.jpg) Can you repost some of the stuff you had up in the Stalin thread before the board got wiped on Stalin's opinion of Mao and the PRC? No.4856 File: 12fdbc0556f2db1⋯.jpg (117.84 KB, 700x454, 350:227, Molotov 1970.jpg) >>4855 Pretty sure that's lost, but I'll quote the two main things I recall. First, Averell Harriman (US ambassador to the USSR) reported on June 22, 1944: "The Chinese Communists [according to Stalin] are not real Communists, they are ‘margarine’ Communists. Nevertheless they are real patriots and want to fight the Japs." Second, Molotov's recollections in the 1970s: >He was a clever man, a peasant leader, a kind of Chinese Pugachev. He was far from a Marxist, of course—he confessed to me that he had never read Marx’s Das Kapital. >Only heroes could read Das Kapital. When I was in Mongolia talking with the Chinese ambassador—he was nice to me—I said, “You want to create a metals industry quickly, but the measures you have planned—backyard blast furnaces—are improbable and won’t work.” I criticized the Chinese, and our people reproved me later. But it was such obvious stupidity!... Backyard blast furnaces to produce worthless metals—nonsense. (Molotov Remembers, p. 114.) No.4857 >>4856 You don't have to read x-y-z books to be a Marxist, Molotov was being a bit pedantic. It's more likely that the USSR had agreed with the CPC to maintain this 'stance' to dissuade any suspicion over Soviet influence in China, especially during a sensible period of war. No.4858 >>4857 >You don't have to read x-y-z books to be a Marxist In fact, you have to. Long live to Molotov. No.4883 >>4853 >Also you can find the newspaper of the mutineers here: http://www.marxistsfr.org/history/ussr/events/kronstadt/izvestia/index.htm The last issue (#15, March 17) I was referring to isn't there. No.5017 This might be a bit general but what could have been done differently to preserve the USSR? (Anything other than purging such and such counter-revolutionary) No.5019 >>5017 > preserve Despite the potential dangers of memefication, I must say you are being undialectical. Nothing stays the same. Ever. Preserving USSR (or any other state) in stasis was impossible. You should be asking: what could have been done differently to keep USSR advancing forward? And - yes. It is extremely general question that begs some oversimplified (and, therefore, thoroughly incorrect) answer. If you really want one, I'd say that it's the reforms in the Party that would've raised education levels of new (post-WWII) generation of Communists. Or additional restrictions put on new members. No.5021 File: 3c58f4edd93ff78⋯.jpg (114.93 KB, 834x541, 834:541, Marx Engels.jpg) >>5017 Keeran and Kenny in "Socialism Betrayed," as well as Bahman Azad in "Heroic Struggle, Bitter Defeat" point out that Andropov's reforms offered the best prospects for the continued existence of the USSR. When Gorbachev originally came to power he acted as if he was merely going to continue Andropov's course. Instead he rapidly departed from it. You can find the first book online here: http://bookzz.org/book/1246151/ea7f45 (I own the second book and I can't put it online) No.5022 >>5021 Exactly how hard is to make a dropbox or megadrive account and make these "copyright" books available? No one ever bothers about, especially if the file name is something vague. No.5037 File: 7d7ec7a5d668774⋯.jpg (94.9 KB, 599x900, 599:900, Gorky.jpg) >>4813 Hey, a guy I know scanned that Soviet book on citizenship I mentioned, which might help answer your questions: https://archive.org/details/CitizenshipUSSR No.5079 Is The Gulag Archipelago an acceptable historical document? Are the contents of it truth, fiction, or embellished? What are Solzhenitsyn's biases? I heard once that he was a nazi sympathizer. This can't possibly be true, is it? No.5081 File: 20ba48cae27ce1c⋯.jpg (108.33 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, mugabe.jpg) >>5079 To quote "Solzhenitsyn at Harvard" by Ronald Berman: >Solzhenitsyn has no belief in what he called at Harvard "the way of western pluralistic democracy." People lived for centuries without democracy, he wrote in 1973, "and were not always worse off." Russia under authoritarian rule [i.e., Tsarism] "did not experience episodes of self-destruction like those of the 20th century, and for 10 centuries millions of our peasant forebears died feeling that their lives had not been too unbearable." Roy Medvedev, no friend of the CPSU, noted that Solzhenitsyn "proposed founding an authoritarian, theocratic state in the USSR and transferring the whole Russian population to uninhabited territories in northeast Siberia, there to begin a new life without cities, big industries, railroads, automobiles, and democracy." He was a literal reactionary, condemning the modern world. He also argued that the US lost the Vietnam War because it didn't try hard enough and was an anti-Semite, so yeah. As far as his book goes, there are a number of articles that argue against it presenting the typical experience, one of which ("Was the Gulag an Archipelago? De-Convoyed Prisoners and Porous Borders in the Camps of Western Siberia") I can send you. No.5084 >>5081 If you've got a minute I would love to read that, thank you. Love this board. No.5086 File: 660e5b24c9286a8⋯.png (4.16 KB, 150x90, 5:3, East German flag.png) >>5084 Give me your email, either by posting on here or registering on my forum (eregime.org) and sending me a private message there. Also, another good read is Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds" which has some info on gulags: http://bookzz.org/book/981420/378c5d On Solzhenitsyn in particular, there's an amusing remark by Denver Walker: >I've never felt that dissident was a particularly apt title for a man given a jail sentence for criticising orders and inciting disaffection in wartime (an offence for which he could have been shot in the British Army), spending most of it in a special prison with more than tolerable conditions, having his cancer cured along the way and being released before the end of his sentence—and then doing nothing but complain. That's no dissident, that's a whinger. (That quote comes from his "Quite Right, Mr. Trotsky!" which is pretty funny and a good intro to Trotskyism: https://archive.org/details/QuiteRightMrTrotsky) No.5119 I would like to know how much actual workers control there was in the USSR under Stalin (but I wouldn't mind perspectives on before or after Stalin) in terms of commitees in factories or cooperatives in general. Sources would be helpful. Thank you! No.5120 File: 58794212de182a6⋯.jpg (269.18 KB, 640x710, 64:71, WZ Foster.jpg) >>5119 For the 1920s-40s: https://archive.org/details/ManAndPlanInSovietEconomy The Webbs' "Soviet Communism" has plenty of detail about the role of workers in society in the early-mid 30s. Give me your email (either post it here on privately message me it on eregime.org) and I'll send it your way. Also, to quote William Z. Foster, American Trade Unionism, 1947, pp. 323-325: >In the U.S.S.R. the basic wage negotiations [for the whole of Soviet industry] are carried on between the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the leading state economic authorities. . . The allocation of the whole nation's income is taken as the basis of the negotiations. In determining the total amount to be set as wages for the workers as a whole, the needs of the government for administration expenses, for national defense, expansion of industry, education, social insurance, and other necessary expenditures have also to be provided for. The draft plan thus arrived at is then sent out to the masses for discussion, after which it is reconsidered for necessary changes. This equitable, democratic and scientific adjustment of the wage question is quite impossible in any capitalist country. >After the basic wage rates have thus been established, generally and for the respective industries, the individual unions, through their national and local committees, enter into negotiation with the representatives of the various industries and factories in order to work out detailed wage and other conditions for their specific situations. These national and local agreements, besides adjusting time and piece rates, the matters of vacations, overtime, etc., also deal with a host of other questions, many of which are quite beyond the scope of American and British trade union agreements. . . . >The extent to which the workers' interests are conserved under these agreements may be indicated by the fact that the body having the last word in their interpretation and application is the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions itself. And pp. 330-331: >The vast social insurance system of the U.S.S.R. has, since 1933, been under the direct administration of the trade unions. In any capitalist country the exploiters would be frantic at a proposal to turn over even their scanty social insurance systems to the management of the trade unions. . . The All-Union Council of Trade Unions manages the funds generally, the various national trade unions take care of insurance matters in their respective industries, and the actual distribution of benefits to the workers is handled by the local factory committees. For this purpose each factory committee has a broad social insurance council, elected by direct vote of the workers. These factory insurance councils decide upon the amount of compensation in each case, and they also check to see that the state enterprises keep their assessments paid up. . . >In 1934 the government abolished the existing national department of labor and turned its functions over to the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. . . [who] have the power to issue regulations having the binding force of law, and for whose infraction careless or bureaucratic factory managers may be punished. To supervise the country's great labor protective service the trade union movement has its own system of factory inspectors. No.5122 >>5081 Natalya Reshetovskaya, a Russian chemist who twice married the dissident writer Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, and questioned the famous account he gave of Stalin's prison camps in The Gulag Archipelago, died in Moscow on May 28. She was 84. In her 1974 memoir, Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Bobbs-Merrill), she wrote that she was perplexed that the West had accepted The Gulag Archipelago as the solemn, ultimate truth, saying its significance had been overestimated and wrongly appraised. Pointing out that the book's subtitle is An Experiment in Literary Investigation, she said that her husband did not regard the work as historical research, or scientific research. She contended that it was, rather, a collection of camp folklore, containing raw material which her husband was planning to use in his future productions. No.5134 What is the Soviet record on the environment? A lot of the most polluted places on the planet are in the former Soviet Union (eg. Chernobyl/Pripyat, Sumqayit, Norilsk, Dzerzhinsk, et al.) I have a hard time believing that the leadership of the SU didn't care about environmental concerns, especially because I know several other ML countries limited production of polluting goods due to environmental concerns (eg. GDR didn't produce a large amount of cars in part because they wanted to limit the car's environmental impact). No.5136 File: 3ed74714e3b9a8b⋯.jpg (287.7 KB, 1114x800, 557:400, kim il sung kids.jpg) >>5134 I haven't studied the environmental policies of the USSR, but here are two books defending the Soviet record: * https://archive.org/details/CitiesWithoutCrisis (chapter 9) No.5175 Some background info: I am a communist myself. However, I have a hard time defending Stalin and the like. Why do you defend Grover Furr? He isn't even a historian. Almost all historians disagree with Furr's findings. What do you thunk about the RationalWiki page of Stalin Apologia? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stalin_apologetics I disagree with the piece about the Molotov Ribbentrop pact by the way. No.5177 File: fcb5c51acc12de2⋯.jpg (596.25 KB, 750x1031, 750:1031, __alastor_and_shana_shakug….jpg) >What do you thunk about the RationalWiki page of Stalin Apologia? I'm not Ismail, but I don't consider anybody who believes in Horseshoe Theory to be a reliable source on anything relating to Marxism-Leninism. No.5178 >>5177 I agree with you on the horseshoe theory, but I think that the article has some pretty good points nevertheless. No.5179 File: 9a4614cb7f1ba11⋯.jpg (915.9 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, kim jong il firecrackers.jpg) >>5175 >Why do you defend Grover Furr? I don't. I think he's written stuff that's of interest, but one can still take issue with his conclusions. E.g. https://mltoday.com/khrushchev-lied-but-what-is-the-truth The RationalWiki article is silly and anti-communist. I do think there are people (Furr included) who deny practically any bad things Stalin did, just like you have Maoists who treat the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward as great events which no Chinese person would ever possibly have a reason to consider disastrous. But that's different from the anti-communist "analyses" of Stalin and Mao which have nothing to do with Marxism. No.5213 >>5175 >I have a hard time defending Stalin and the like and you should, only hoxhaist revisionists defend the purges and the cult of the personality No.5221 >>5175 RationalWiki in general has a hard-on for shit-talking any Marxist theory, they are liberals No.5244 Where lies the basis for socialism in one country in Lenin's writings? No.5246 File: 219eb54d10d9634⋯.jpg (95.09 KB, 960x670, 96:67, Leninnnnnn.jpg) >>5244 There's two main texts which Stalin cited in 1924 and which Soviet authors generally referred to ever since. First he cited Lenin in 1915: >"Uneven economic and political development," says Lenin, "is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." For "the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." And one of Lenin's last works, "On Co-operation" in 1923: >"As a matter of fact, state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc. — is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building." No.5247 >>5246 Permanent revolution of Trotski is marxist and socialism in one country isn't. That's what people say. Is it right? Why not? Thanks. No.5248 File: c76943464bea692⋯.jpg (41.19 KB, 468x631, 468:631, lenin cat.jpg) >>5247 The Great Soviet Encyclopedia article does a good job explaining "permanent revolution" as Marx and Engels conceived it (which nobody had any problem with), and "permanent revolution" as Trotsky conceived it: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/permanent+revolution No.5249 How many revolutions were before Great October and how were done? No.5250 File: 4e75be728f9d09b⋯.png (232.06 KB, 244x371, 244:371, 100th anniversary Paris Co….png) >>5249 The Paris Commune (which Marx and Engels regarded as the first example of a dictatorship of the proletariat): http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Paris+Commune+of+1871 The Russian Revolution of 1905-07: https://archive.org/details/TheBolshevikPartyAndTheDemocraticRevolution No.5402 Hi Ismail, I would like to ask you if you have History of the civil war in the U. S. S. R. (both volumes). No.5406 File: 461f2881bbdb906⋯.jpg (63.38 KB, 500x346, 250:173, Lenin-with-Sverdlov-and-Dz….jpg) No.5410 File: 8991d446edc1a9b⋯.jpg (15.71 KB, 230x298, 115:149, 28.jpg) >>5406 Amazing. Stalin bless you! One question: That first volume you link here is different from the second one in terms of edition. First volume of the edition of the second one is the same as that one you linked here? No.5418 File: 3f9fa2ea2e04358⋯.jpg (60.17 KB, 310x367, 310:367, Najibullah praying.jpg) >>5410 I don't get what you mean. As the first volume notes: "This book is a translation of the Russian edition 1936." I'm sure there was a revised edition of the first volume (in Russian) at a later date, since this 1936 edition mentions Blücher and other Civil War veterans who were soon to be executed during the Great Purges. I don't know if that second edition was ever translated into English though. I just know it isn't online. No.5421 >>5418 Ok. Do you have Walter Laqueur's Communism and Nationalism in the Middle East? No.5425 File: fa54d6bba1192cb⋯.jpg (46.82 KB, 468x286, 18:11, Najib yaay.jpg) No.5428 File: 9f8f65622f44075⋯.jpg (31.75 KB, 600x337, 600:337, C4T6c8GXAAEIIvs.jpg) >>5425 Thanks! No.5517 Hello. I'm trying to remember a name of a party/parties or group/s created by zarist police as a 'honey pot'/'honey pots' for communists before October Revolution. It's not otzovists but maybe similar. Let's see if somebody can help me. No.5521 File: 06e8eb8993f44bc⋯.jpg (52.92 KB, 400x621, 400:621, ce6c0b463c99e1f5d7e46a3c0f….jpg) >>5517 You're thinking of Zubatov, the founder of "police socialism." He set up labor unions and terrorist groups which were staffed with informers, but these backfired. A famous example was a priest named Gapon leading the procession of workers in 1905 which called on the Tsar to address their grievances as they held portraits of him and extolled his supposed greatness. Gapon was a police agent and the procession was supposed to boost support for Tsarism. Instead the Tsar had the workers shot and Gapon narrowly escaped with his life. A lot of informers, exposed to socialist propaganda for the first time (as part of police training to be good informers), became actual socialists. I'll quote from a 1957 article: >"Police Socialism" was designed to perpetuate Tsarism by manipulating rather than destroying the working-class movement, but its effect was to increase the process of internal disruption and decay within the Tsarist system. The police were inhibited in dealing with subversion, for how could they tell whether a particularly outspoken rebel was not in reality a police agent? And how could they be sure that their agents were not double-crossing them? Indeed the evidence suggests that some police agents were themselves far from certain where their real loyalties lay. Politics had become a conspiracy, an adventure, almost a game. No.5633 Do you think the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers and Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians were right to suppress works of even pro-Bolshevik artists like Mayakovsky? Do you have any specific information about Nikolai Roslavets being a counter-revolutionary, Trotskyist etc. No.5634 File: 28decd473c47006⋯.jpg (85.62 KB, 598x900, 299:450, a-mural-of-lenin.jpg) >>5633 >Do you think the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers and Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians were right to suppress works of even pro-Bolshevik artists like Mayakovsky? No. These supporters of "proletkult" were criticized by Lenin. >Do you have any specific information about Nikolai Roslavets being a counter-revolutionary, Trotskyist etc. No. No.5790 I've read about the way the USSR government was structured at least in theory and how some supporters say it's something like a form of mass representative democracy. But how do you respond to the claims that most democratic functions in these states were in fact fraudulent in various ways, either through manipulation of the votes, or the real possibility of reprisal for voting against the ruling party, leading to 80% to 100% wins in every case. are these bourgeois lies? based it truth but not a total invalidation of the system? or true but actually just how dictatorship of the proletariat works? No.5791 File: a99941f8d5ebfff⋯.jpg (90 KB, 500x482, 250:241, Glory to the Soviet Consti….jpg) >>5790 The "mass representative" character came from the efforts to enlist the population in active participation through unpaid, voluntary work in the soviets, trade unions, and organs of people's control. There's three books I've scanned that discuss these things: * https://archive.org/details/WorkingVersusTalkingDemocracy (on the Soviet government and elections) * https://archive.org/details/USSRUSATradeUnionsCompared (on trade unions) * https://archive.org/details/PeoplesControlInSocialistSociety (on the people's control committees) As far as elections went, what usually happened was that the CPSU would put forward a candidate it figured was going to meet with the approval of the voters. The pre-election meeting saw little reason to reject the candidate (although blatantly unpopular ones, especially at the local level, did get rejected.) There was often difficulty in making pre-election meetings lively since people felt the choice of a candidate was already made for them, and in turn CPSU officials involved in the election process generally weren't idiots and made sure to nominate people who wouldn't face objections from the meeting. No.5807 is NEP a contradiction with marxism? and leninism? No.5808 File: 09adc15f7190346⋯.jpg (242.44 KB, 714x1024, 357:512, Lenin NEP Russia will beco….jpg) >>5807 No. The NEP was implemented under Lenin, so it would be rather strange to call it contradictory to Leninism. The purpose of the NEP was to rehabilitate an economy ruined by World War I and the Civil War, and to restore "normal" relations between the urban and rural areas of the country (since during the Civil War a lot of grain was confiscated at gunpoint to prevent famine in the cities, and peasants were starting revolts demanding an end to the forced requisitioning of grain.) Lenin pointed out that the "commanding heights" of the economy (heavy industry, the banks, and transport) remained under the control of the proletarian state, so the concessions given to capitalist elements would not endanger the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin envisioned the NEP as a temporary policy, which is why he said that "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." You can find Lenin's writings on NEP and other aspects of state-capitalism here: https://archive.org/details/OnStateCapitalismDuringTheTransitionToSocialism By 1928 the economy had been stabilized, which allowed for the construction of socialism to be carried out. This meant the end of the NEP and of the policy of state-capitalism. No.5809 >>5808 so stalin just followed what Lenin said and build in that NEP's path? other thing, but wasnt there capitalism? why did they need to build it up again and didnt go directly to socialism? No.5810 >>5808 do you remember that text of Lenin where he was saying that is important to get cadre techniques and so on and it's not incompatible with marxism, because it was needed to learn how to manage with industry, production, and so on and not doing that was a leftist attitude? No.5811 Hey Ismail, Do you remember where Lenin wrote about that communists must act first in their own country, helping others with propaganda and material aids? Can't find it and used to have it. Lenin emphasizes very much in that text the question of concentrating on the revolution of the own country, not exporting it with a Bonapartist attitude, etc. No.5812 No.5813 File: 00b5998d4a8541f⋯.jpg (434.48 KB, 1513x982, 1513:982, Leninnn.jpg) >>5809 >other thing, but wasnt there capitalism? why did they need to build it up again and didnt go directly to socialism? Because the Soviet economy was not in a position to "go directly to socialism." Industrial enterprises were wrecked, production was significantly below that of 1913, huge swathes of the peasantry saw the proletarian state as a "lesser evil" against counter-revolution (which threatened to restore the landowners' control over the countryside) rather than an actual ally of the peasants. Furthermore, as Lenin pointed out, there were five different kinds of economic systems operating in Soviet Russia as of 1921. The socialist sector was very weak, whereas small commodity production predominated. By pursuing state-capitalism, the proletarian government would oversee rapid economic recovery and tie small commodity production to the national economy, thus preparing the way for socialist construction. As Lenin noted, "Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution." That's why he upheld Germany as a model of state-capitalism, and called for studying its system of well-organized monopolies and government intervention. >>5810 There were numerous occasions where Lenin said this. Here's one: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm >For socialism is not a figment of the imagination, but the assimilation and application by the proletarian vanguard, which has seized power, of what has been created by the trusts. We, the party of the proletariat, have no other way of acquiring the ability to organise large-scale production on trust lines, as trusts are organised, except by acquiring it from first-class capitalist experts. . . . >The best workers in Russia have realised this. They have begun to learn from the capitalist organisers, the managing engineers and the technicians. They have begun to learn steadily and cautiously with easy things, gradually passing on to the more difficult things. If things are going more slowly in the iron and steel and engineering industries, it is because they present greater difficulties. But the textile and tobacco workers and tanners are not afraid of “state capitalism” or of “learning from the organisers of the trusts”, as the declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia are. These workers in the central leading institutions like Chief Leather Committee and Central Textile Committee take their place by the side of the capitalists, learn from them, establish trusts, establish “state capitalism”, which under Soviet power represents the threshold of socialism, the condition of its firm victory. >>5811 https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ >There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception. >>5812 I used to, a long time ago. It's interesting, although Richard Pipes' purpose in compiling the documents is to portray Lenin in a bad light, since he's an anti-communist. If I can obtain that PDF, I'll let you know. No.5814 >>5813 Thank you comrade. No.5835 Unrelated but what program do you use to scan books, Ismail. No.5836 File: 2373cdb60ba1db4⋯.jpg (31.33 KB, 439x700, 439:700, Lenin.jpg) >>5835 I just use my printer's scanner (Canon MG8220) and then put the scanned images into a program called PDF24, setting the output at medium quality because otherwise the file size is absurd. No.5837 YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. No.5929 Do you know what Mikhail Frunze's political views were? Or what his theory consisted of? Wikipedia says something about them being "creative and almost unorthodox". I can't find anything else in English. And do you know of any other Soviet military person's reading about. Or some recommend books? No.5931 File: e7bf75a3f47e76f⋯.png (93.43 KB, 250x379, 250:379, Frunze.png) >>5929 Frunze was a Leninist, that is why he was picked to take over from Trotsky's position as head of the Revolutionary Military Council. Here's his article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia that mentions his theories on combat: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Frunze%2c+Mikhail+Vasilevich As for military-related stuff, with the exception of a book I scanned (https://archive.org/details/ASafeguardOfPeace) I could only mention a few bourgeois works. Post last edited at No.5949 What was the reason behind the socially conservative laws (e.g. recriminalisation of homosexuality) enacted under Stalin? Was it just a matter of personal preference of the people in power? No.5950 File: 6ff4a19d8112fbd⋯.jpg (36.21 KB, 439x649, 439:649, Kollontai.jpg) >>5949 The immediate reason was based on the conflation of homosexuals with homosexual pedophiles in NKVD reports. See: http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php The restrictions on abortion could be considered consistent with original Bolshevik intentions: "A matter which has raised considerable doubts in the minds of many protagonists of sex-equality in this country is the law, passed in 1936, making abortion illegal except in cases where it is justified by consideration for a woman's health or the danger of hereditary disease. This change in the law has been treated as an attack on sex-equality. It is of the greatest importance in this connection, to refer back to the text of the original law which legalised abortion in Soviet Russia in 1921. It is important to note that in this law not a word was said about sex-equality, and the right to have an abortion was never put forward as a fundamental right of the Soviet woman. On the contrary, abortion was treated as a social evil, but an evil which was likely to be less harmful when practised legally than when carried out under conditions of secrecy. Here is part of the text of the original law permitting abortion: 'During the past decades the number of women resorting to artificial discontinuation of pregnancy has grown both in the West and in this country. The legislation of all countries combats this evil by punishing the woman who chooses to have an abortion and the doctor who performs it. Without leading to favourable results, this method of combating abortion has driven the operation underground and made the woman a victim of mercenary and often ignorant quacks who make a profession of secret operations. As a result, up to 50 per cent of such women are infected in the course of the operation, and up to 4 per cent of them die. 'The Workers' and Peasants' Government is conscious of this serious evil to the community. It combats this evil by propaganda against abortions among working women. By working for Socialism, and by introducing the protection of maternity and infancy on an extensive scale, it feels assured of achieving the gradual disappearance of this evil. But as moral survivals of the past and the difficult economic conditions of the present still compel many women to resort to this operation. . .' it is allowed in State hospitals. The essential feature of this law is that it was based on 'difficult economic conditions,' and was of a temporary nature. The right to abortion was never introduced as one of the rights of Soviet women, to be enjoyed in all circumstances. It was considered an 'evil,' and was introduced as a makeshift to combat the serious mortality rate from illegal abortions carried out under unsatisfactory conditions. There is evidence that, at the present time, owing to the increased knowledge of contraceptives on the one hand and the growing sense of economic security on the other, women will not now practise abortion in this way, and that therefore the permissive law is no longer necessary in the interests of health. Abortion in Soviet legislation has always been regarded primarily as a question of health, not of equality. Since thousands of women have been neglecting the use of contraceptives because they could obtain an abortion, the legality of the less satisfactory method of discontinuing pregnancy has actually to some extent prevented more satisfactory methods from being used of avoiding pregnancy altogether." (Sloan, Pat. Soviet Democracy. London: Victor Gollancz. 1937. pp. 125-126.) Alexandra Kollontai, interviewed in 1936: >One cannot compare the conditions under which women in the Soviet Union live and work with the conditions in other countries. As long as the state in the Soviet Union was not able to provide complete, broad and effective assistance for motherhood, and as long as economic prosperity for the broad masses of the population in the Soviet Union was not assured, abortions in the Soviet Union were permitted by law. >In no other country are there such guarantees as those in the Soviet Union that make motherhood easier for women. As long as women or men live under the pressure of unemployment, as long as the level of wages is not sufficient for a family, as long as housing conditions are unfavourable, and as long as the state does not make motherhood easier for every woman in various ways and does not provide social services for mother and child, it is clear that the women [of other countries] must stand up for free abortions. The arguments for restricting abortion weren't really couched in moral terms (e.g. nothing about "right to life"), but in terms of increasing the population. Abortion was legalized again in 1955, since it was considered erroneous to have prohibited it. No.5951 >>5950 Thanks for your quick reply. >The arguments for restricting abortion weren't really couched in moral terms (e.g. nothing about "right to life"), but in terms of increasing the population. Were there any ideological arguments against abortion or was it exclusively such practical considerations? >Abortion was legalized again in 1955, since it was considered erroneous to have prohibited it. What exactly led to this change in policy? Come to think of it, I'm curious what motivated the Khrushchev thaw in general, not just in regards to laws on abortion or homosexuality. Was it just the international situation allowing for less strict laws? Was it Khrushchev trying to distance himself from Stalin and creating a distinct political profile of his own? Subsequently, why were most of the political freedoms granted under Khrushchev repealed under Brezhnev? No.5952 File: 6e604e9fbb00719⋯.jpg (121.04 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, Brezhnev.jpg) >>5951 >Were there any ideological arguments against abortion or was it exclusively such practical considerations? An article by Lenin was invoked: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm But besides that, the arguments were basically "Soviet women don't need abortions anymore" and population growth. >What exactly led to this change in policy? To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: >The number of abortions in the country in 1937 as compared with 1935 fell by a factor of more than three, but in subsequent years the number of abortions began to rise again, mainly as a result of nonhospital abortions, which accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the total. Taking into account the higher cultural level of the population, the relatively high birthrate, and the natural growth of the population, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR published a decree on November 23, 1955, entitled “On the annulment of the prohibition against abortions” which allowed women to make their own conscious choice on the question of parenthood. Changes in economic policy began as early as 1953 under Malenkov, and over the next two years there was an increased emphasis on peaceful coexistence in the USSR's foreign policy. The impetus for reform preceded Khrushchev. It was based on two things: 1. The triumphalism of the Stalin era was masking real problems with the economy (especially agriculture); 2. Soviet foreign policy in Stalin's last years seemed to be increasingly isolating it from the rest of the world. Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" was largely a political move to discredit his opponents. He gradually began to be guilty of the same things he accused Stalin of, e.g. triumphalism (he claimed the USSR would reach communism by 1980) and undermining collective leadership. He ended up alienating his colleagues with his harebrained schemes, hence his removal from power. Do you have anything specific in mind when you say "political freedoms" repealed under Brezhnev? There was the view that Khrushchev's "de-Stalinization" went too far, but besides taking a firmer position on dissidents I can't really think of what "political freedoms" were undone. Brezhnev reaffirmed the correctness of the decisions of the 20th Party Congress on personality cults being bad, more democracy being good, peaceful coexistence being good, etc. No.5953 >>5952 >Do you have anything specific in mind when you say "political freedoms" repealed under Brezhnev? From what I understand, censorship of the arts made a comeback under Brezhnev and ideological pressure on intellectuals was increased compared to the Khrushchev years. No.5954 File: ad09cf404ea8069⋯.jpg (48.95 KB, 920x537, 920:537, Brezhnevvv.jpg) >>5953 That falls under the "firmer position on dissidents" that I mentioned. Khrushchev's policy was excessively lenient. It led to people like Solzhenitsyn (who later revealed himself as a rabid reactionary) being praised. Chapter eight of the following work deals with the issue of dissidents under Brezhnev: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion Post last edited at No.6132 Do you have some material on how the Soviet economy worked, from a socialist perspective? I'm especially interested in the late Stain-era, from 1945 to Krushchevs reforms. No.6134 File: b7823d93824fbe9⋯.jpg (24.56 KB, 256x300, 64:75, Sorokin.jpg) >>6132 https://archive.org/details/DobbSovEconDev https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying https://archive.org/details/PlanningUSSRSorokin These should be useful. There's also a 63-page interview International Publishers put out in 1961 with A.I. Mikoyan titled simply "How the Soviet Economy Works," but it isn't online yet. It will be in a few months. No.6135 Who committed the Katyn massacre? Germans or Soviets? No.6136 File: 6e7ff8d1cdb4ef6⋯.jpeg (10.73 KB, 294x400, 147:200, Kaganovich.jpeg) >>6135 Probably the Soviets, from all available evidence, e.g. >According to Kaganovich's testimony, they had essentially sentenced to execution Polish criminals who had been involved in the mass extermination of captured Russian Red Guards 1920-1921, and employees of Polish punishment bodies who had compromised themselves with crimes committed against the USSR and the Polish working class during the 1920s and 1930s. Apart from them they had also executed criminals among the Polish POWs who had committed serious general crimes on Soviet territory after their internment in September-October 1939 – gang rapes, criminal assaults, murders and so on (L. M. Kaganovich said literally: " …the fuckers, the bandits and the murderers …"). Also, "Millions of Poles were killed in German death camps throughout the war, and with considerably less sustained outcry from the [Polish 'government-in-exile' at London]. Indeed, only that very month the Germans were annihilating some 50000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion, and far less was heard from London on this matter. Katyn was an infinitely more sensitive issue because the men killed there, as Polish underground leader Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski described them, 'had been the elite of the Polish nation . . .,' that is to say, the friends and family of the exiles in London. Whoever destroyed the officers at Katyn had taken a step towards implementing a social revolution in Poland, and on the basis of class solidarity, the London Poles felt one officer was worth many Jews or peasants." (Kolko, Gabriel. The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943–1945. New York: Random House. 1968. p. 105.) No.6144 How is the invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia reconcilable with the right of nations to self-determination? No.6145 Can you recommend me a book on the Russian civil war? I barely know anything about it. No.6147 File: 88909439f75f530⋯.jpg (59.46 KB, 650x518, 325:259, Vasily Chapayev.jpg) >>6144 As Lenin noted, "The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete casts, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected." For instance, during the Russian Civil War capitalists and feudalists called for the "independence" of the Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc. from Soviet rule, in which case these states would fall under German or British imperialism. "Self-determination" was, for them, simply a way to overthrow proletarian rule, not a democratic demand representing the interests of the nation. The interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia not only defended socialism in those countries from the threat of capitalist restoration (without modifying their independent statehood), but also defended socialism in neighboring countries. It was the latter reason that was predominant, since to permit a capitalist Hungary or capitalist Czechoslovakia would have gravely weakened the military value of the Warsaw Pact on one hand and led to similar movements for restoration in neighboring states. >>6145 Here are two sources: No.6148 >>6147 Isn't this a stance more similar to Luxemburg's who didn't accept a general right of nations to self-determination but wanted to support only progressive national liberation movements? No.6150 File: db7438c21d879cb⋯.jpg (18.21 KB, 354x450, 59:75, LENINNNNNNN.jpg) >>6148 No, since that wasn't actually Luxemburg's view. She opposed national liberation altogether, arguing that in the era of imperialism such talk would only divide the proletariat. Lenin repeatedly criticized her on this point, e.g. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm To speak of a "progressive national liberation movement" is redundant. All such movements are by their very nature progressive in their opposition to imperialism and consolidation of territory and culture. What the counter-revolutionaries were doing in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 was not national liberation, it was capitalist restoration and appeals for assistance from the imperialist countries. The Ukrainian, Georgian, Kazakh, etc. workers and peasants proclaimed the self-determination of their nations, and exercised this right by joining the USSR. The counter-revolutionaries calling for "independence" and the overturning of soviet power were not struggling for national liberation, they were fighting on behalf of imperialism to destroy soviet power. A while back I scanned a whole book of Lenin writings on self-determination, which you should find of use: https://archive.org/details/LeninNationalLiberationSocialEmancipation No.6151 >>6150 >that wasn't actually Luxemburg's view But it was. She claims it was also Marx' and Engels'. >[T]he creators of scientific socialism sharply criticized the Swiss uprising as a reactionary event, while they supported fervently the Hungarian uprising in 1848. In both cases they were guided not by the formula of “the right of nations to self-determination,” which obviously was much more applicable to the Swiss than to the Magyars, but only by a realistic analysis of the movements from a historical and political standpoint. The uprising of the fragmented peasant cantons, with their regionalism against the centralist power of the Hapsburgs, was, in the eyes of Engels, a sign of historical reaction, just as the absolutism of the princely power, moving toward centralism, was at that time an element of historical progress. >If we find in the history of modern societies “national” movements, and struggles for “national interests,” these are usually class movements of the ruling strata of the bourgeoisie, which can in any given case represent the interest of the other strata of the population only insofar as under the form of “national interests” it defends progressive forms of historical development [emphasis mine], and insofar as the working class has not yet distinguished itself from the mass of the “nation” (led by the bourgeoisie) into an independent, enlightened political class. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch01.htm No.6152 File: 6296ee2b6e95a63⋯.jpg (90.99 KB, 468x688, 117:172, friedrich-engels-4.jpg) >>6151 In 1915 she wrote, "In the epoch (era) of this unbridled imperialism, there can be no more national wars. National interests serve only as an instrument of deception, to deliver the masses of the toiling people into the service of their mortal enemy, imperialism." She claimed that national struggles were justifiable in an earlier period, before the advent of imperialism, hence her citing of Marx and Engels supporting the Hungarians in 1848. She held that once the proletariat "distinguishes itself from the mass of the 'nation' (led by the bourgeoisie) into an independent, enlightened political class" national liberation is no longer a legitimate aim. Lenin held that not only was the right of nations to self-determination still valid in the imperialist era, but it assumed even greater importance in the struggle against capitalism, and that the working-class party of an oppressed nation ought to treat the struggle for national liberation as part of the struggle for socialism. So yes, Luxemburg denied the right of nations to self-determination, e.g. declaring of Ukrainian national sentiment that it was "the ridiculous pose of a few university professors and students" and that the Ukraine "never formed a nation or a government, was without any national culture" and therefore the Bolsheviks were to blame for "artificially" creating a Ukrainian state. As for the views of Marx and Engels, here's the latter in a February 7, 1882 letter (in Marx and Engels Collected Works Vol. 46, pp. 191-193): "Now it is historically impossible for a great people to discuss this or that internal question in any way seriously so long as national independence is lacking. . . Generally speaking an international movement of the proletariat is possible only as between independent nations. . . international co-operation is possible only among equals, and even a primus inter pares at most for immediate action. . . Every Polish peasant and workman who rouses himself out of his stupor to participate in the common interest is confronted first of all with the fact of national subjugation; that is the first obstacle he encounters everywhere. Its removal is the prime requirement for any free and healthy development. Polish socialists who fail to put the liberation of the country at the forefront of their programme remind me of those German socialists who were reluctant to demand the immediate repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law and freedom of association, assembly and the press. To be able to fight, you must first have a terrain, light, air and elbow-room. Otherwise you never get further than chit-chat. Whether, in this connection, a restoration of Poland is possible before the next revolution is of no significance. It is in no way our business to restrain the efforts of the Poles to attain living conditions essential to their further development, or to persuade them that, from the international standpoint, national independence is a very secondary matter when it is in fact the basis of all international co-operation. . . . Hence I am of the opinion that two nations in Europe are not only entitled but duty-bound to be national before they are international—Ireland and Poland. For the best way they can be international is by being well and truly national. That's what the Poles have understood in every crisis and proved on every revolutionary battleground. Deprive them of the prospect of restoring Poland, or persuade them that before long a new Poland will automatically fall into their laps, and their interest in the European revolution will be at an end." Post last edited at No.6153 >>6152 >In the epoch (era) of this unbridled imperialism, there can be no more national wars. I see. This sounds like a wrong call indeed. But >Ukraine "never formed a nation or a government, was without any national culture" and therefore the Bolsheviks were to blame for "artificially" creating a Ukrainian state. seems right to me. No.6154 File: 1d9470ba82deea7⋯.jpg (134.43 KB, 1300x464, 325:116, Soviet postage stamp Taras….jpg) >>6153 >seems right to me. I don't see how. National consciousness in the Ukraine existed since the 19th century, if not earlier. Ukrainians had a common territory, language (that was prohibited by the Tsarist authorities), etc. No.6163 Was the USSR imperialist in their relations with the DDR? No.6164 >>6163 Follow up to that is was the DDR a colony of the USSR? No.6165 File: 039cae8b05931da⋯.jpg (44.75 KB, 650x400, 13:8, Ulbricht.jpg) >>6163 No. >>6164 Nope. In the 1950s-60s Ulbricht regularly annoyed the Soviets by accusing them of not giving his country enough economic assistance. Building the Berlin Wall was Ulbricht's initiative as well. Both he and Gomułka (leader of Poland) undermined efforts by the USSR to improve relations with West Germany during those same decades due to the GDR fearing that its legitimacy would be compromised by normal relations between the Soviets and West Germans, and Poland fearing that the USSR would allow West Germany to continue pursuing claims to Polish territory. Ulbricht's successor, Honecker, prohibited Soviet publications in the GDR in the late 80s (as Castro also did in Cuba), accusing them of slandering socialism. He also refused to enact East German equivalents to Glasnost and Perestroika. All Gorbachev could do was refer to him as an "asshole." At no point was the USSR imperialist in its relations with the Warsaw Pact states. In fact it would have been exceedingly difficult for that to be the case, since a precondition for a state to be imperialist is for it to be capitalist. To quote Harry Haywood, "History demonstrates that, overall, Soviet foreign policy has been basically defensive and non-aggressive. This fact does not mean that everything the Soviet Union does is correct or that it cannot make serious mistakes or pursue wrong lines. For example, its relations with China and other socialist countries have been marked at times by chauvinism and hegemonism. But these problems do not make the Soviet Union a social imperialist power. Without a monopoly capitalist class and without capitalist relations of production there is no fundamental and compelling logic in the Soviet economy that creates a need to export capital and exploit other countries through trade. As a result it also has no colonies and no empire to sustain." No.6166 >>6165 What about the question of war reparations. No.6167 What are good arguments and examples refuting the idea that regulation can reign in the "excess" of capitalism? No.6168 >>6165 I'd also be interested in an answer to >>6166. I mean, it could be argued that the reparations were justified from a moral perspective, but one can not deny that the deliberate de-industrialization, brain drain of scientists and huge amount of continued war reparations were the main reasons for the GDR to fall economically behind West Germany. I'd like to add to this the article of this guy: https://eastsidemarxism.wordpress.com/east-germany-page/ No.6169 File: 7b2ec10cb2e48b5⋯.jpg (19.24 KB, 360x500, 18:25, honecker.jpg) >>6166 The reparations the USSR obtained from eastern Germany didn't come close to making up for the damage done to the Soviet economy during the Great Patriotic. In addition, they were ended in 1954 and the economic history of the GDR demonstrates quite clearly that it had no problems industrializing in the 1950s-60s with Soviet assistance. The reparations policy the USSR followed was the exact opposite of imperialism. There was no exporting of capital and foreign monopolies obtaining control over industry in eastern Germany, as occurred in the western zones. >>6167 I've yet to see a "regulated" capitalist economy that has abolished exploitation, unemployment, the "business cycle" of booms and busts (with their consequent recessions and depressions), and which has put an end to imperialism. The "socialist" policies of the Labour government in Britain after WWII did not touch the capitalist class or alter the country's imperialist foreign policy. The bourgeoisie resorts to "regulating" capitalism in response to class struggle. Afterward, once this struggle ebbs, the bourgeoisie chips away at such regulations with the goal of repealing them altogether. Post last edited at No.6170 There was a lot of talk about social fascism and Dimitrov in the other thread about Tito. I'm wondering what MLs say to the claim of some Marxists that a united front with bourgeois forces against fascism is bound to fail, since historically those liberal forces have always chosen to rather hand over power to the fascists than to give up their private property rights. The proposed alternative is generally a "united front from the bottom", a united front of all proletarian forces against all bourgeois ones, fascist and liberal alike. No.6173 File: 6484ebb4a178439⋯.jpg (52.17 KB, 684x548, 171:137, CDU congress in East Germa….jpg) >>6170 As I pointed out in the Tito thread, the "united front from below" can be effective in certain circumstances, but in the conditions of Germany it wasn't. Historical experience in Spain in 1936-1939 has shown that the working-class movement benefited from the Popular Front. The Communist Party became the leading force in Spanish society, which is why anti-communists complained that Socialists like Negrín were "Communist puppets," that the Republic was "Communist-controlled," that the army was in the hands of the Communists, etc. This would not have been the case if the policy of the Popular Front had merely been to tail the bourgeoisie. Similarly during WWII anti-fascist fronts with bourgeois, peasant, and social-democratic parties were successful, and in particular countries some of these parties continued to exist, recognizing the leading role of the Communists in rebuilding and leading society on socialist lines. No.6175 >>6173 >the "united front from below" can be effective in certain circumstances, but in the conditions of Germany it wasn't. The SPD was staunchly anti-communist since the inception of the Weimar Republic. Even if the KPD had been willing to ally with them in a united anti-fascist front, when given the choice, the SPD would have ultimately sided with Hitler like they did with the Reichskorps in 1918/19. >The Communist Party became the leading force in Spanish society The United Front government, to which the PCE and other proletarian forces pledged unconditional support, consisted exclusively of members of liberal parties, first under Azaña, then under Quiroga. The latter actively fought any effort to arm the workers of Spain and even offered Emilio Mola, who would later lead the July Rebellion, a spot in the next government. >Similarly during WWII anti-fascist fronts with bourgeois, peasant, and social-democratic parties were successful, and in particular countries some of these parties continued to exist, recognizing the leading role of the Communists in rebuilding and leading society on socialist lines. Could you name examples? No.6177 File: ce64d8ea7597e32⋯.jpg (117.31 KB, 960x498, 160:83, RCCK.jpg) >>6175 I'm not denying the anti-communism of the SPD leadership, it indeed deserves the bulk of the blame for the rise of Hitler. But the Comintern and, by extension, the KPD outright renouncing a united front of communist and socialist/social-democratic parties in favor of the "united front from below" was wrong. This was acknowledged by both Soviet and East German Communists in subsequent decades. And yes, the Spanish liberals adopted a vacillating position. Nobody denies that. But the PCE was still able to play a leading role in the anti-fascist resistance by uniting all the forces fighting against fascism, and isolating and removing those figures who wanted to capitulate to fascism. The Fifth Regiment, for example, was led by the PCE and became the nucleus of the Republican war effort. The youth movements of the PCE and PSOE had been unified, and there were talks to unite both parties as well (just as occurred in some countries in Eastern and Europe after WWII.) >Could you name examples? I could actually name every single country in Eastern and Central Europe, plus China, Korea and Vietnam. In all those countries the Communists made efforts to work with other parties so long as they genuinely fought against the occupiers. The GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, China, Vietnam (until 1988) and DPRK all had/have multiple parties. So for instance, the image next to my post is a meeting of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang, one of the "democratic parties" (the CPC's designation for them) that have existed since the People's Republic came into being. No.6179 >>6177 >I could actually name every single country in Eastern and Central Europe, plus China, Korea and Vietnam. In all those countries the Communists made efforts to work with other parties so long as they genuinely fought against the occupiers. In none of these countries the common enemy was (domestic) fascism, which the bourgeois parts of the united front could end up supporting. No.6180 File: b826df5442067a7⋯.jpg (57.81 KB, 340x256, 85:64, Dimitrov.jpg) >>6179 China's democratic parties allied with the CPC against the Kuomintang in 1945-49, after the Japanese were defeated. Furthermore the countries that the fascists occupied had quisling administrations in which many landowners and capitalists took part, and even in Spain the PCE considered it was fighting a war of national independence against Italian and German invaders in addition to the domestic fascist rebellion. The important thing is for communist parties to maintain their independence within anti-fascist fronts. As I said, in Spain those elements of the Popular Front who wanted to capitulate were opposed by the PCE and other genuinely anti-fascist forces. Numerous bourgeois historians have pointed out that had the Republic triumphed, it would have proceeded on a road similar to the People's Democracies that arose in Eastern Europe and Asia after WWII. The anti-fascist fronts in Eastern and Central Europe held out during the struggle against the occupiers, and even carried on over into the postwar situation where the task was no longer unity against fascism, but unity in order to build socialism. Those right-wing forces within the non-communist parties who came out against socialism and (among social-democrats) against the unity of the workers' movement and creation of a single workers' party were successfully fought against by both the communists and the left-wings of these parties. Post last edited at No.6271 Can you tell me what the hell was the winter war about? I understand something about Leningrad being threatened but it seemed like a pointless move.. going to war over a border, considering that finnish military power was minimal. No.6273 File: bf962ebb1c5d6e3⋯.jpg (68.74 KB, 269x324, 269:324, kuusinen.jpg) >>6271 Finland's government was anti-communist and increasingly pro-German. The Soviets wanted to secure Leningrad in the event of the Nazi invasion they saw as inevitable. The Soviets dispatched negotiators for the temporary leasing of some Finnish territories to satiate the security concerns of the USSR. Their fear wasn't of the Finnish military (the Winter War began with the assumption that its army would be defeated easily enough), but of the Nazis attacking Leningrad through Finland. The Finnish negotiators themselves found the terms acceptable, but the anti-communist government did not. The Soviets responded by revising the terms to be more favorable to the Finns, but yet again the government said no. Here are two books I've scanned that deal with the subject: * https://archive.org/details/MustTheWarSpread (chapters 5 and 6) * https://archive.org/details/TheBalticRiddle (chapter 8) And another book, which I didn't scan but which is also of use: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284501 As Molotov declared at the end of the Winter War: "the Soviet Union, having smashed the Finnish army and having every opportunity of occupying the whole of Finland, did not do so and did not demand any indemnities for its expenditures in the war, as any other power would have done, but confined its desires to the minimum and displayed magnanimity toward Finland. What is the basic idea of the Peace Treaty? It is that it properly insures the security of Leningrad and of Murmansk and the Murmansk Railway." Finland during WWII allied with the Nazis and under the joint leadership of Mannerheim (who, as the first book notes, massacred Reds during the Finnish Civil War) and a Prime Minister who referred to Hitler as a "leader of genius." It sought to annex Karelia and treated the population there like ass, which should have spelled the end of the whole "innocent Finland desiring to live in peace against the scary expansionist Russians" narrative. Post last edited at No.6304 A common criticism I've always heard is, why were strikes illegal in the USSR? And what about trade unions? No.6307 File: 8436573640370ae⋯.jpg (336.44 KB, 1024x736, 32:23, Soviet trade union poster.jpg) >>6304 To my knowledge there was no law actually banning strikes, but the common response was "the workers have no reason to strike against themselves." For example, to quote Sidney and Beatrice Webb in their book "Soviet Communism," 1948, page 130: >Any further increase in [workers'] wages, beyond that accompanied by an equivalent increase in production, could no longer be taken from the income of a private profit-maker. It now involved a definite encroachment on the amounts to be set aside for the social services and for the desired multiplication of factories and increase of machinery, development of electrification and so on, which, to the whole community of workers, were, in the long run, as necessary as their wages. Despite this, trade unions in the USSR and other socialist countries had many more rights and powers than those in capitalist countries. Here are a few examples in regard to wages, insurance and protection: >>5120 Here's a handy booklet that goes into more detail: https://archive.org/details/USSRUSATradeUnionsCompared Post last edited at No.6339 What are your thoughts on liberal/bourgeois Soviet historians? Are there any you recommend and which ones should be avoided? No.6352 File: debd412c04e2599⋯.jpg (32.58 KB, 392x392, 1:1, 11206033_752874478156973_1….jpg) What do you think about Andrey Andreyevich Andreyev? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Andreyev_(politician) That guy was completely eliminated and forgotten, maybe because of "Stalinist" (as happened with almost all guys from Stalin era). No.6360 File: d8d3ddb16911e8d⋯.jpg (85.11 KB, 889x767, 889:767, Andreyev.JPG) >>6339 >What are your thoughts on liberal/bourgeois Soviet historians? Depends on the historian in question. There are those capable of writing objective histories, and those who are blatantly anti-communist. Alec Nove, Lynne Viola and J. Arch Getty are examples of objective authors. Leonard Schapiro would be an example of a blatantly anti-communist historian. >>6352 It was actually under Stalin that he came under criticism. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia notes that "In 1953 he became a member of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Since July 1962 he has been an adviser to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He has been awarded four Orders of Lenin and also medals." He wasn't forgotten after 1953. No.6361 Why did money exist in the USSR? Were there any attempts at introducing a system of labour vouchers or the likes? No.6362 File: 765aca407608a0b⋯.jpg (4.07 KB, 150x200, 3:4, Mikhail Kalinin.jpg) >>6361 You can find a detailed explanation in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia's article on money (just scroll down a bit on the following page): http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/money To my knowledge the closest Soviet society came to using labor-vouchers was during War Communism when money was mostly useless due to inflation and everything was rationed, but that was obviously a temporary expedient. Post last edited at No.6382 What did Kalinin actually do in the USSR? No.6383 File: 4b1f3e6b74d4183⋯.jpg (32.76 KB, 640x426, 320:213, Kalinin.jpg) >>6382 Visited places to check on how well they were doing, answered letters from the population and foreign governments, wrote stuff, and served as a sort of personal link between the workers' state and the peasantry due to his peasant background. He was also an important Bolshevik militant before 1917. See the GSE article on him: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Kalinin%2c+Mikhail+Ivanovich No.6398 Do you have any idea where I can find the book "Population of the USSR 1922-1991" by Evgeny Andreev? I see it regularly quoted on wikipedia and many books, so I'm thinking there must be a pdf somewhere online. No.6400 File: 3ba59faae9dee93⋯.jpg (98.12 KB, 600x876, 50:73, Soviet space poster.jpg) >>6398 "Population of the USSR 1922-1991" appears to be the translated title of a Russian-language book which, as far as I know, was never translated into English. No.6403 I'm sorry if this is a bit too much but can you recommend me some reads about: 1) How the entire soviet government worked and its structure 2) WWII from the Soviet military point of view 3) Soviet foreign policy under Lenin and Stalin 4) Some sort of general overview of the USSR since Stalin's death until its dissolution 5) The Cold War from the soviet point of view No.6404 File: e02a6529b760e31⋯.jpg (169.07 KB, 1350x889, 1350:889, 1981 Soviet Party Congress….JPG) >>6403 1. 2. https://archive.org/details/ASafeguardOfPeace (this is a history of the Soviet Army; there's a specific, 400-page history of the Great Patriotic War the Soviets published in English in 1974 but I haven't obtained it yet) 4. Up to 1980: https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism Afterward: http://b-ok.org/book/1246151/ea7f45 5. See #3. No.6405 >>6404 Thanks! No.6417 Do you know anything regarding the whole "returning soldiers were imprisoned and branded traitors" type of bourgeois history re: Red Army. No.6418 File: 56536c8b8824ba7⋯.jpg (117.05 KB, 874x619, 874:619, Soviet poster Red Army wil….jpg) >>6417 No, can you provide an example of that claim? No.6427 >>6418 That's just it: that Red Army soldiers returning home after the war were arrested and put into camps for a few months until they were allowed to go back home, and that there was a lot of issues because of what was promised to veterans they were unable to deliver, etc. No.6446 Militarily speaking, what was Stalin's role during WWII? Was he a good commander? It seems to me like Stalin committed some huge strategical mistakes early in the war and eventually learned from them. Also, can you recommend me something on WWII soviet tanks and eastern front tank warfare? No.6447 File: df13c67a5040323⋯.jpg (196.28 KB, 500x338, 250:169, Komsomol member be a Hero ….jpg) >>6446 I'm not good on military matters. For what it's worth, under Brezhnev Stalin was presented as a good military leader. Not perfect, but as you said willing to learn from mistakes. Zhukov in his memoirs also assesses Stalin positively as a military leader. The best accounts of Stalin's wartime activities are, as far as I know, Ian Grey's "Stalin: Man of History" and Geoffrey Robert's "Stalin's Wars." I physically own both and can type up any excerpts on whatever Stalin-in-WWII-related subject you'd like me to address. No.6480 File: d48e2d623c2b702⋯.jpg (50.27 KB, 521x700, 521:700, generalissimus.jpg) >>6446 >Militarily speaking, what was Stalin's role during WWII? Stalin's Charges during the War: 1. President of the GKO (State Defense Committee). The organ created on June 30, 1941 after the initial failures, the maximum responsible for all failures and victories - military, political, administrative, economic 2. Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army. Military and administrative charges. 3. People's Commissar of Defense (or Minister of Defense in other words). Military and administrative charges. 4. Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (in other words, goverment's head). Political, administrative and economic charges. 5. Secretary General of the VKP(b) Central Committee (VKP(b). Political, administrative and economic charges. >Was he a good commander? Yes. Bad commanders do not win wars (or so said "Uncle Hitler"). With Stalin Russia reached its maximum power of the whole history of Russia, having dominion and significant influence in 2/3 parts of the planet. >It seems to me like Stalin committed some huge strategical mistakes early in the war and eventually learned from them. Stalin didn't comit huge strategical mistakes. If the fault of the initial failures corresponds to 100% to Stalin, then the final victories also correspond to Stalin to 100%. Have you heard anything about a thing that is the called General Staff? The USSR was not prepared for the war because it had no resources, the program of rearmament was to be completed in 1943. But apart from the rearmament is the level of preparation of the troop, this is the logistics, are the strategies, operational art and tactics , the order of battle... there the USSR of 1941 was inferior to Germany. Because Germany: 1. had very high level of preparation of officers and non-commissioned officers and that was achieved before WW2 and 2. had the practice of conquering all of Europe. Finland, Mongolia and Poland for the USSR were small police operations compared to the other. >Also, can you recommend me something on WWII soviet tanks and eastern front tank warfare? http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.es/ No.6481 File: bf37c296a2aaf8c⋯.jpg (1.28 MB, 1762x2416, 881:1208, stalin_banner.jpg) >>6480 >Secretary General of the VKP(b) Central Committee (VKP(b) VKP(b) is the name of CPSU. No.6482 >>6447 >can type up any excerpts on whatever Stalin-in-WWII-related subject you'd like me to address. I'm not actually sure, I was just interested in what Stalin did during wartime, what things did he decide and how much of a role he have in strategic planning and operations and the huge victories during the war, etc. No.6483 >>6480 Thanks, that's good to know >Stalin didn't comit huge strategical mistakes. If the fault of the initial failures corresponds to 100% to Stalin, then the final victories also correspond to Stalin to 100%. Yeah I said that mostly because of: 1) The battle of Kiev. Was it really the biggest disaster the red army ever suffered? And why did it happen? I was under the impression that Stalin's orders contributed to such a massive encirclement 2) I've read a few times that in 1942 Stalin was expecting the Wehrmacht to lead the attack through central Russia and not the south like they did. No.6527 Where did the rumors about Stalin being poisoned/assassinated came from? No.6543 Is there a book on Soviet gulags that isn't blatantly anti-communist? I'm interested in how gulag camps were run, and how did they compare to western prisons. No.6544 File: f345b7b9a3061ae⋯.jpg (23.19 KB, 265x350, 53:70, Sudoplatov.jpg) >>6543 http://b-ok.org/book/777082/ae389c It's the most objective analysis I'm aware of. Being from the Hoover Institution it has no love for socialism, but it does point out the gulag system was on its way out even before Stalin died. There's also an article titled "Was the Gulag an Archipelago? De-Convoyed Prisoners and Porous Borders in the Camps of Western Siberia" that I could send you. Either post your email on here, or register on my forum (eregime.org) and send me a private message. I go by the same username on there as on here. >>6527 There's no single source. Post last edited at No.6548 Why would you call the USSR socialist when they still had commodity production? Isn't socialism incompatible with commodity production according to Marx? No.6549 File: 64afa135b2b11dd⋯.jpg (385.58 KB, 1000x688, 125:86, Soviet poster.jpg) >>6548 No. To quote what I wrote elsewhere, >As Marx noted in his critique of the Gotha programme, the worker under socialism "receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form." >The law of value did not determine production in the USSR, whereas it very clearly does in capitalist countries. Consequently production in the USSR was based on creating use-values rather than producing for exchange. Prices existed both for accounting purposes and to regulate consumption. No.6561 Toughts on why did Soviet Union had such high abortion rates? I was very surprised when I learned about it and saw the statistics. My all grandparents had very many brothers and sisters. No.6562 File: fe0c99de3d9dbb8⋯.jpg (125.02 KB, 400x580, 20:29, Soviet poster.jpg) >>6561 Many women felt they couldn't support a child (or more than a certain amount of children), hence abortion. Pretty simple. No.6563 >>6562 Why did Soviets fail to provide good conditions for women to give birth and raise their kids? No.6564 File: c888c338a990092⋯.jpg (124.75 KB, 538x428, 269:214, USSR mothers medal.jpg) >>6563 Because the USSR was rapidly industrializing throughout the 1930s, which forced workers to consume less in order to achieve planned targets and meet the defense needs of the country. Conditions for women workers seeking to drop children off at crèches and whatnot did improve, but many women still opted to abort. That's why the government restricted abortion and began giving out awards and material incentives to mothers who had lots of children. No.6565 >>6564 In that sense I have always had a doubt, why did not power a prophylactic industry? Condoms and that. No.6567 File: ab1bf224a8a40c6⋯.jpg (174.51 KB, 648x468, 18:13, Anti AIDS poster USSR 1990.jpg) >>6565 Soviet condoms were apparently unreliable and the state preferred a high birth rate in any case, so producing lots of condoms wasn't a priority. It wasn't until the late 80s, when AIDS started spreading, that the government realized the need to produce condoms on a truly mass scale. No.6569 >>6567 Things were that bad already in the 80's? How did AIDS came to Soviet Union? Drugs? No.6570 File: d6c0514d4718de7⋯.jpg (181.93 KB, 650x1025, 26:41, Soviet poster addicts need….jpg) >>6569 The first official Soviet death from AIDS was in 1988, a female prostitute whose clients included men from Africa. David Lane, Soviet Society under Perestroika, 1992, pp. 355-356: >Unlike in the West, AIDS is a negligible health risk: in 1987 there were only 22 people diagnosed as carriers, and in 1988 only four Soviet citizens suffered from it compared with 40,000 in the United States (in addition there were 83 carriers in 1988). . . Public discussion of AIDS led to exaggerated fears about its incidence in the USSR, and “Speed” as it is known in the USSR, has become something of a moral panic. >It is likely that many carriers are undetected and Western specialists suspect that the true figure is much higher. Following public concern, sixteen million people were tested for the AIDS virus in 1988–89. Until 1988 there had only been three deaths officially registered as AIDS related. In 1989 the Minister of Health reported that there were 142 active AIDS cases, and 271 HIV-infected citizens. Many more cases have been caused by the use of infected needles, but incidence in unlikely to reach the levels attained in the West because intravenous drug users are not very common. Homosexuality is a criminal offense, punishable by up to five years in prison. This has the effect of keeping down the level of homosexual behavior by marginalizing a “gay” lifestyle. Post last edited at No.6572 I have couple of questions related to some of the greatest Soviet Achievments How did Soviets raised literacy from 10 percent to 99? How did Soviets raised life expectancy from 30 to 65? Stalin oversaw greatest rising of life expectancy in history. HOW? How did Soviets managed to triple GDP in quick time? How did Soviets electrified? How did Soviets industrialize? No.6573 File: 8ab4a142cb651c7⋯.png (25.79 KB, 756x508, 189:127, Graph_of_Soviet_National_I….png) What are your thoughts on pic related? I keep seeing people post this to discredit the Soviet Union. I remember reading somewhere that Khanin got refuted but I can't find it. No.6574 File: e5af4e64604576e⋯.jpg (78.97 KB, 540x442, 270:221, Leninnnnnn.jpg) >>6572 I can't really sum up such general questions (except to mention that the Soviets employed central planning in regard to industrialization and before that electrification.) Here are useful resources: On education (including literacy): http://b-ok.org/book/957236/d96401 On health: On industrialization: >>6573 Here's a good read on the Soviet economy: https://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/ No.6575 >>4783 those documents were forged. the communist party of greece inspected the pictures of the documents presented by yeltsin, and claimed that the document lacked the proper seals it would have needed. No.6577 File: d1cd014b6325011⋯.jpg (102.53 KB, 450x338, 225:169, NKVD.jpg) >>6575 That means the KKE claims the documents were forged. http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1991/Report-Soviet-Officer-Details-Killing-of-Polish-Officers-at-Kalinin/id-6a816cca5426a0bc0e9e1e76e76deabf >LONDON (AP) _ A former Soviet secret police commander has admitted his role in the murder of more than 6,000 Polish officers in World War II, according to a newspaper report published on Sunday. >The Observer newspaper said Vladimir Tokaryev, 89, made a videotaped statement describing how the NKVD police agency, the precursor of the KGB, killed 6,925 polish officers in April 1940. . . >Soprunenko told of receiving an order from the Politburo, signed by Josef Stalin, ordering the executions, Bethell said. Prosecutors say Tokaryev and Soprunenko are the only men still living who so far have been identified as having a case to answer. . . . >Bethell characterized Soprunenko as being evasive and shifty in his statement, showing little regret for his role. Even Furr acknowledges that the Soviets had at least a hand in the executions, and quotes both Molotov and Kaganovich saying as such: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/truthaboutkatyn.html >The conversation about the Katyn issue, during which L. M. Kaganovich for the first time announced the information of the exact amount of citizens from former Poland that had really been executed on Soviet territory between November 1939 and July 1941, took place on November 6, 1985 in Moscow in L. M. Kaganovich's apartment. . . >During the conversation on November 6, 1985, L. M. Kaganovich said that during the spring of 1940 the Soviet leadership was forced to make a very difficult decision to execute 3 196 criminals among those who were citizens of former Poland, but L. M. Kaganovich said that it was absolutely necessary in the then prevailing political situation. According to Kaganovich's testimony, they had essentially sentenced to execution Polish criminals who had been involved in the mass extermination of captured Russian Red Guards 1920-1921, and employees of Polish punishment bodies who had compromised themselves with crimes committed against the USSR and the Polish working class during the 1920s and 1930s. Apart from them they had also executed criminals among the Polish POWs who had committed serious general crimes on Soviet territory after their internment in September-October 1939 – gang rapes, criminal assaults, murders and so on (L. M. Kaganovich said literally: " …the fuckers, the bandits and the murderers …"). >Apart from Kaganovich, the former chairman of the Peoples Council of Commissars V. M. Molotov in a telephone conversation in 1986 estimated that the amount of executed citizens of former Poland 1939-1941 amounted to "about 3 000 people". No.6578 >>6577 speculative garbage, based on testimonies of old senile men that were most likely coerced. the whole katyn lie stems on goebbels' propaganda. i'd link you an article full of citations to goebbels' personal diary where he clearly admits the bodies were buried by nazis, with nazi bullets inside the graves but it's in greek and it would take me hours to translate it at a good standard the majority of the bodies found were also jewish, this has been confirmed by the cia. as for the document yeltsin presented, there were several things that made it an obvious forgery. first of all, the day the beria document was sent has the exact same date as the politburo decision. this never happened, there were always at least 5-6 days between an admission of a suggestion and its discussion. secondly, the politburo document bore the signatured of kalinin and kaganovich, despite both not being present in the politburo meeting that occured on march 1940. thirdly, the politburo never issued these kinds of decisions, this usually occured by the high court of the ussr. Lastly, all the documents present were copies and not the original ones. i'll link the article and you can check the sources of if you want http://www.rizospastis.gr/story.do?id=5601479 No.6588 >>6574 Can I have summarisations please? I need information, to share with normies. No.6602 File: eec69d1f64cd114⋯.jpg (245.38 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Greatness!.jpg) How to make Russia Soviet again? No.6603 File: 6a8af7cb49c73dc⋯.jpg (450.56 KB, 950x751, 950:751, Referendum 1991.jpg) >>6602 That'll be up to the communists of Russia and the other former parts of the USSR. >>6588 In summary, the USSR achieved all these things by being glorious. As I said I really can't summarize. No.6604 >>6603 >That'll be up to the communists of Russia and the other former parts of the USSR. Any tips? The story is that in Russia there is this Guy Vyacheslav Maltsev that is planing to do Revolution in Russia in 2017-11-05 and his movement is gaining momentum, however there are people there that I don't trust, arrogant folks, who say a lot of unclear things, for example that after revolution new economic policy symbiosis of direct democracy and informative world. Any tips how to mobilize communists and make the inevitable revolution a communist one? No.6605 File: e4ec9d2897dea96⋯.jpg (306.55 KB, 800x534, 400:267, 1st Red Cavalry.jpg) >>6604 > that is planing to do Revolution in Russia in 2017-11-05 Revolutions require revolutionary situations, which as Lenin noted are independent of the will of individuals and even entire classes. >Any tips how to mobilize communists and make the inevitable revolution a communist one? Simply do as the Bolsheviks did: explain Marxism to the people, and participate in and lead their disputes and struggles (e.g. help organize trade unions, defend tenants, expose corruption, etc.) Here's a book that does a decent job explaining all the work the Bolsheviks were doing before 1917 (as well as after the October Revolution): https://archive.org/details/AShortHistoryOfTheCPSU No.6606 >>6605 >Revolutions require revolutionary situations. Actually Maltsev who has read Lenin has talked about how he is glad about war in Ukraine and Syria and sanctions, and events related to platon and other miss-events in Russia that they will help the cause .>Simply do as the Bolsheviks did: Do You think doing this online counts as revolutionary activity? No.6607 File: 4a1883b726e96ba⋯.jpg (382.21 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Soviet poster Vietnam.jpg) >>6606 >Do You think doing this online counts as revolutionary activity? It isn't a substitute for real-life activities. For example, I've scanned many books: https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiou I'm sure people find these helpful, but just reading a lot of books doesn't bring the workers any closer to Marxism or ensure the leading role of communists in any revolutionary situation. As Marx put it, theory "becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." No.6608 >>6607 This poster reminds me of one thing, You will not believe in. In russia there is a rising movement of liberal intelligentsia.I remember one time hearing member of that intelligentsia calling Soviet Union an evil empire becouse direct-quote Soviet Union invaded Vietnam and attack numerous African countries . Of course there are people who believe that evil Soviets invaded inocent Poland, either ignoring or being ignorant of the fact that Soviets were attacked by Nazi allied Japan in 1938 and J.Stalin offered alliance to Poland, France and UK in 1938. There are many brainlets in Russia today. I am sad for the country. I want revolution that would take care of the people, but also support revolutionary countries like Cuba, Vietnam and Venezuela. No.6611 >>6595 > No, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Why do you think I'm a social-democrat? Not him, but this is evident by your acceptance of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Deng as Marxists. While you do not support Maoist/Hoxhaist Revisionism that judges USSR to be State Capitalist after 1950s (it is a fact that economy remained predominantly Socialist until the qualitative shift of Perestroika in 1980s), you do not see how the Soviet politicians turned reactionary after 1950s. Both your inability too see a direct attack on Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Khrushchev-Brezhnev attempts to step away from Socialist mode of production, as well as opportunistic willingness to judge Stalin without much of a supporting evidence - not to mention a wholly un-Marxist voluntaristism (reliance on personalities, rather than historical processes) that treats Stalin as the crucial factor of Soviet development - cannot be understood as anything but signs of SocDem ideology. >>6598 > I think China is socialist Is this opinion based on China no longer relying on Capitalist mode of production, or on Dictatorship of the Proletariat being in power in China? >>6604 > The story is that in Russia there is this Guy Vyacheslav Maltsev that is planing to do Revolution in Russia in 2017-11-05 This is bullshit. Maltsev is not Left in any meaning of the term, his "movement" has no organization, nor coherent program. I'm not even going to touch his rabid nationalism - it is wholly irrelevant in the context: he can't seize power in Russia. No.6612 >>6611 This is bullshit. Maltsev is not Left in any meaning of the term, his "movement" has no organization, nor coherent program. I'm not even going to touch his rabid nationalism - it is wholly irrelevant in the context: he can't seize power in Russia. So you don't think that Maltsev will win in revolution, because his movement lacks organisation? What about his sayings that people in modern world can use internet and gadgets to self-organise? I am not Maltsev fan, that is why I came here asking how to mobilize Russian communists and seize the power for communism. There is this guy-Станислав Котельников., he has a show on Maltsevs channel. He is very arrogant and very annoying person. He was asked couple of times in a row (different days) to make couple of short videos in which he would make short manifestos and information why putin is bad etc. and he refused. He told people to make that themselves and most importantly say why putin is bad and direct democracy is good. I just wish Russia had legit leftist movements. No.6613 >>6612 > So you don't think that Maltsev will win in revolution, because his movement lacks organisation? 1) I don't think he attempts anything that resembles a coup 2) I don't think there is a movement as such 3) I don't think his declared intentions should be referred to as anything but a coup. Revolution implies change in mode of production (at least, qualitatively different political power). > What about his sayings that people in modern world can use internet and gadgets to self-organise? They can. But internet is not a substitution for actual political movement - as Egypt should've demonstrated. > how to mobilize Russian communists and seize the power for communism. I'd advise you to start learning how to differentiate Communists from non-Communists before mobilizing anyone. Otherwise it'll be no different from Podemos or SYRIZA. No.6614 File: 949c852fc4ff591⋯.jpg (73.43 KB, 346x470, 173:235, Brezhnev 26th Congress CPS….jpg) >>6611 >Both your inability too see a direct attack on Dictatorship of the Proletariat When did this happen? The Soviets argued after 1961 that, with the abolition of exploiting classes in the USSR, the dictatorship of the proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission and had given way to a state of the whole people. This state continued to place the working-class in a leading role and continued to carry out similar functions as the dictatorship of the proletariat. You'd have to explain how the DOTP can be justified in a society where the exploitation of man by man has ended. Even Stalin argued that the DOTP had pretty much lost its major purpose of existing by 1936, according to Molotov. >Khrushchev-Brezhnev attempts to step away from Socialist mode of production Like what? >as well as opportunistic willingness to judge Stalin without much of a supporting evidence Like what? >not to mention a wholly un-Marxist voluntaristism (reliance on personalities, rather than historical processes) that treats Stalin as the crucial factor of Soviet development Except that's the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, or what the Soviets argued. They pointed out that no matter what negative things Stalin did, these could not alter the fact that socialism was built in the USSR, for he was only an individual. >Is this opinion based on China no longer relying on Capitalist mode of production, or on Dictatorship of the Proletariat being in power in China? Both. Socialism was built in the 1950s. It remains the dominant mode of production in China. Post last edited at No.6615 >>6613 >I'd advise you to start learning how to differentiate Communists from non-Communists before mobilizing anyone. Otherwise it'll be no different from Podemos or SYRIZA. I can, and I don't understand why are you so angry? I have never said that Maltsev is Communist or that I support him, I have only said that he is planning to do a revolution and that his movement is gaining momentum, He has growing number of subscriptions, he has officers and semi-politicians appearing on his show, he is appearing in demonstrations and meeting etc. No.6616 >>6613 >I'd advise you to start learning how to differentiate Communists from non-Communists before mobilizing anyone. Otherwise it'll be no different from Podemos or SYRIZA. Any tips how to turn wannabe revolutionaries into communists and make revolution successful and communist one? I honestly think about just mailing and calling all the Russian communists parties from KPRF to Communists of Russia as well as contacting Left Front. No.6789 Any thoughts on the October revolution centenary + What is the best book about it? No.6790 File: 65aa94700ce0bec⋯.jpg (301.47 KB, 1250x779, 1250:779, Lenin October Revolution.jpg) >>6789 Well, as far as the United States is concerned, things appear to be looking rather good: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/millennials-think-socialism-would-create-great-safe-space-study-finds.html >Nearly 45 percent of millennials polled said that they would prefer to live in a socialist country compared to the 42 percent who said they preferred a capitalist one. Another 7 percent said that the preferred living in a communist country above all. Obviously the understanding of "socialism" shared by that 45% can mean anything (e.g. that public health care magically turns countries "socialist"), but the fact so many are willing to identify with that label, not to mention clearly growing acceptance of Marxism-Leninism among the younger generation, is good. The best eyewitness account of the October Revolution is invariably "Ten Days That Shook the World" by John Reed. The best introductory account, I think, is Christopher Hill's "Lenin and the Russian Revolution" (which also discusses Lenin's life, theories, and the first few years of Soviet power): https://archive.org/details/lininandtherussi035179mbp As for detailed treatments, the first volume of "The Bolshevik Revolution" by E.H. Carr is informative. Then there's the official Soviet history: https://archive.org/details/TheGreatOctoberSocialistRevolution No.6806 >>6614 >When did this happen? The Soviets argued after 1961 that, with the abolition of exploiting classes in the USSR, the dictatorship of the proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission and had given way to a state of the whole people. Then why was there no political liberalization? If the DotP was no longer needed, why was there still no freedom of association? When you are constantly afraid of capitalist roaders, black markets and private entrepreneurs you can hardly have anything else but a DotP. If the socialist mode of production was established beyond the DotP there would be no regression back into capitalism, the same way it would have been impossible for capitalism to regress back into feudalism once it was firmly established as the dominant mode of production. No.6807 File: 7285f890d51021a⋯.jpg (44.3 KB, 500x600, 5:6, Soviet punks.jpg) >>6806 >Then why was there no political liberalization? I don't think anyone denies that Soviet society was clearly more relaxed in the 1960s-80s than it was in the 1930s-50s in terms of culture, the legal system, etc. >why was there still no freedom of association? Citizens participated in unpaid, voluntary work within the soviets, trade union, people's control committees, comrades' courts, etc. on a far wider scale than in any capitalist country, and these activities increased significantly after 1956. If by "freedom of association" you mean different parties, there was no reason for said parties to exist. There were no antagonistic classes in Soviet society after the construction of socialism, and the remaining classes and strata identified in general with the CPSU. Where the latter wasn't the case in other countries, other parties existed, as I've explained here: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/199889-My-explanation-of-the-multi-party-system-in-China-the-DPRK-the-GDR-etc >When you are constantly afraid of capitalist roaders That would be China under Mao, not the USSR, GDR, Cuba, etc. after 1956 (although it should be reasonably obvious that the Soviets and friends underrated the danger of the ideological influence of the underground economy and the fact that counter-revolutionary elements could brew within the CPSU itself, e.g. Alexander Yakovlev and Boris Yeltsin.) >If the socialist mode of production was established beyond the DotP there would be no regression back into capitalism To quote from _The Myth of Capitalism Reborn_: >If the Confederacy had defeated the North, what would have been the consequences? Marx believed that the whole economic development (with the emerging industrial capitalism and the powerful Northern bourgeoisie) of the U.S. would be reversed for a long period to come. He further felt this would arrest historical development on a world scale. Was it, for this reason, impossible that the Confederacy would win? Engels believed that they were certain to win. Marx disagreed. He felt that the industrial might of the Union forces made it more likely that the North would win. Upon such evidence we feel justified in asserting that the notion that historical progress is never reversed in a thesis that has no basis is the Marxist understanding of historical development. Capitalism was the dominant mode of production in the US in 1860, even with the existence of slavery. Yet slaveowners could defeat the industrial bourgeoisie. There is also a big difference in that capitalism develops "naturally" within feudalism, whereas capitalism only creates the prerequisites for the *construction* of socialism. The working-class has to consciously construct said society, whereas the only real task of the bourgeoisie is to overthrow the feudal nobility which places intolerable limitations on the existing capitalist economy. That's why Marx and Engels argued that, whatever the political reverses of the bourgeoisie in England and France, the nobility couldn't put the capitalist genie back in the bottle. By contrast, socialism emerges (in Marx's words) "in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." If you deprive the working-class of political power in a country that has built socialism, I see no reason why the socialist economy can't be undone. To quote again from _The Myth of Capitalism Reborn_ (which was written a decade before capitalist restoration in the USSR), >if [enterprise managers] had gotten freedom to sell and trade in the means of production, if they had gotten freedom to retain the profits of enterprises for their own use, if they had gotten the unlimited right to hire and fire workers to increase these profits, if they had gotten the right to change their production to satisfy demands from a competitive process, then we could say that the capitalist elements had indeed gotten in a strong position. But then, the effects would be there for all of us to see. Dismantling socialism came at great cost to living standards and economic productivity, but actually carrying it out isn't a puzzle: simply do what was mentioned above alongside mass privatizations, breaking up collective farms, enshrining the right to own land (as well as buying and selling it), and so on. By contrast, a monarch enamored with feudalism is screwed, since "undoing" capitalism requires a Pol Pot-esque destruction of the productive forces and trade. Post last edited at No.6845 How's Isaac Deutscher's Stalin biography? No.6846 File: d3e84669cc8d3c9⋯.jpg (115.01 KB, 1165x832, 1165:832, Stalin civil war.jpg) >>6845 Taken by itself, it's negative and clearly influenced by Trotskyism. Where Deutscher differed is that, while accepting Trotsky's views of Stalin as an idiot, opportunist, etc., he viewed him as a historically progressive figure, a Soviet Cromwell, rather than accepting Trotsky's view of a "degenerated workers' state." Deutscher viewed Stalin as an aberration caused by Russia's underdeveloped economy, and that subsequent Soviet leaders could overcome "Stalinism," whereas Trots obviously didn't and felt Stalin was the frontman of the "bureaucracy" that could only be overthrown by force. It isn't a terrible read, and ironically it came under fire by anti-communists for being "too positive," but I'd recommend "Stalin: Man of History" by Ian Grey, "Stalin: Man and Ruler" by Robert McNeal (which is online: http://b-ok.org/book/2670087/ce8254), "Stalin: The Man and His Era" by Ulam, and "Stalin: Revolutionary in an Era of War" by Kevin McDermott as better reads. Note also Marxist-Leninist critiques of Deutscher's biography; * https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-aGF4MVZmeTNsQ3c/view (the article "Stalin: A Novel Biography" by Andrew Rothstein) No.6848 >>6846 Thank you. 2 things: >"Stalin: Man of History" by Ian Grey Is this available anywhere? I couldn't find it on libgen. And what do you think about Eugene Lyons's Stalin biography? No.6849 File: 3b9f06f13f97430⋯.jpg (86.89 KB, 536x800, 67:100, Stalin 1932.jpg) >>6848 I could scan Grey's biography and send it to you. Lyons was originally sympathetic to the USSR, but then became a notorious anti-communist, the kind who alleged that "Reds" infiltrated American institutions and had legions of "dupes" among liberals to do their bidding. The biography reflects his anti-communist phase. There's not much reason to read it when there's more detailed and more objective biographies available, even among anti-communists. No.6852 >>6849 >I could scan Grey's biography and send it to you. I'd appreciate that, but could you upload it to Libgen? No.6853 File: 01da11445a2edf9⋯.jpg (213.27 KB, 1067x486, 1067:486, Stalin Lenin Kalinin.jpg) >>6852 If I am able to upload stuff publicly, I put it on archive.org Grey's book doesn't allow for that, so I'd send it directly to you. Just give me your email (you can either post it here, or send me a private message on eregime.org) No.6875 >>6853 I just registered on your forum No.6905 File: 560a3820ee7f5a6⋯.jpg (19.04 KB, 300x410, 30:41, Stalin bio.jpg) >>6875 I've now sent it to you. No.6940 >>6574 The texts on health are pretty old, anything more recent? No.6941 File: 0cb9f39f6bfc5c8⋯.png (207.46 KB, 545x363, 545:363, Solzhenitsyn Soviet Health….png) File: 661a3c94bd69a7f⋯.png (166.28 KB, 565x515, 113:103, Soviet Health Comparative.png) File: bd3b8791f215133⋯.png (59.54 KB, 541x180, 541:180, Hedrick Smith Soviet Healt….png) File: 9442dba6541efeb⋯.png (86.58 KB, 542x177, 542:177, Problems of Soviet Healthc….png) No.6942 >>6941 That book's from 1979, for the record. No.6943 File: ec39ea5a1ec6eac⋯.jpg (91.26 KB, 697x1500, 697:1500, Cities Without Crisis.jpg) >>6940 There's chapters 7 and 8 of the following work (which cover the 1960s-70s): https://archive.org/details/CitiesWithoutCrisis While I haven't read this, I've heard it's a detailed, objective account: https://archive.org/details/insiderussianmed00knau Also apparently worth reading (but it isn't online, nor do I own it) is "The Organization of Soviet Medical Care" by Michael Ryan, published in 1978. Post last edited at No.7041 >>6614 > When did this happen? > The Soviets argued after 1961 that, with the abolition of exploiting classes in the USSR, the dictatorship of the proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission and had given way to a state of the whole people. Do you not see this as an attack on Proletariat? Aren't specialists in charge of factories a class of Petit-Bourgeoisie? Do they not possess skills (that serve as Means of Production) that separate them from the general public? Are they not - inherently, due to those skills - predisposed to rest Isn't abolition of separation between general public and experts a necessity for truly classless society? Didn't Stalin argue exactly about this in his last works - when he deemed polytechnological education an absolute necessity for Communism? Also, Soviets did not argue. Khrushchev and his cronies did. Soviets had an uprising in Tbilisi in 1956 with demands to remove Khrushchev - which got suppressed by tanks. > This state continued to place the working-class in a leading role and continued to carry out similar functions as the dictatorship of the proletariat. And how exactly did it do this? By splitting control over economy in bits that were given to locals to be governed and managed separately from the rest of the nation? Is it not exactly the opposite of the "common plan" Communists had been arguing for since 19th century? > You'd have to explain how the DOTP can be justified in a society where the exploitation of man by man has ended. Exploitation is a consequence of Capitalist mode of production, while the role of DotP is to safeguard political dominance of the Proletariat - so that Proletariat (via DotP) can defend Socialist mode of production. Abolishing exploitation simply means that DotP started functioning properly. Explain to me, please, how does it follow from this that DotP needs to be shut down immediately after the first sign of its success? > Even Stalin argued that the DOTP had pretty much lost its major purpose of existing by 1936, according to Molotov. > according to Molotov. According to Chuev, according to Molotov, according to Stalin. Even as an appeal to authority this has a shaky basis: second-hand opinion of not-Stalin isn't worth much. As an argument this does not even produce "blip" on a radar. No.7042 File: a722c5bb7d2b810⋯.jpg (34.22 KB, 530x276, 265:138, Stalin Voroshilov Mikoyan ….jpg) >>7041 >Aren't specialists in charge of factories a class of Petit-Bourgeoisie? No. They are part of the intelligentsia, which is a stratum of society, not a class. Managers do not own the means of production nor have the ability to hire or fire workers; the petty-bourgeois does. >Isn't abolition of separation between general public and experts a necessity for truly classless society? Yes. The Soviets argued ever since the mid-1930s that the exploiting classes had been abolished in the USSR, what remained were the workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia (which was not a class.) >Also, Soviets did not argue. Khrushchev and his cronies did. That's an idiotic remark. You might as well make the argument that "Stalin and his cronies" were responsible for the Soviet position on anything from 1928-1953. Also, Mikoyan and Suslov (to give two examples) were long regarded as "Stalin's cronies" before being associated with Khrushchev. A few authors even claim that Stalin was preparing Suslov as his potential successor rather than Malenkov. The position that the dictatorship of the proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission was embodied in the Party Programme of the CPSU which was adopted in 1961 and not changed until 1986. It was clearly a situation where "the Soviets argued," not the personal view of Khrushchev or "his cronies." >Soviets had an uprising in Tbilisi in 1956 with demands to remove Khrushchev - which got suppressed by tanks. As one work points out, "According to witnesses and participants in the protests, what actually happened was that the initial pro-Stalin demonstrations that occurred not only in the Georgian capital but also in Sukhumi, Gori and Batumi, rapidly developed into nationalist protests. By 9 March, when troops were sent into Tbilisi to quell the disturbances, demonstrators were no longer concerned about Stalin, but the question of Georgian self-determination and civil liberties. Some apparently openly called for Georgian independence, while others attempted to transmit appeals to the outside world." (Nahaylo and Swoboda, Soviet Disunion, 1990, p. 120.) Sounds like a situation similar to Hungary in 1956: whatever "communist" content the initial unrest may have contained, it was promptly taken over by counter-revolutionaries seeking the downfall of socialism. That's when the tanks were sent in. >By splitting control over economy in bits that were given to locals to be governed and managed separately from the rest of the nation? Even if you want to characterize Khrushchev's economic policies in that manner, they were highly unpopular and promptly reversed once he was removed. >Explain to me, please, how does it follow from this that DotP needs to be shut down immediately after the first sign of its success? The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to suppress the exploiting classes. Lenin himself said to Fernando de los Ríos in 1920 that the proletarian dictatorship would last "perhaps forty or fifty years." >According to Chuev, according to Molotov, according to Stalin. You'd need a motivation for Molotov to lie about this one single point, unless you consider all of Molotov's memories unreliable. Maoists have regularly complained that the formulations used by the Soviets in the 1930s made talk of the DOTP pretty much meaningless. Post last edited at No.7046 >>7042 >Yes. The Soviets argued ever since the mid-1930s that the exploiting classes had been abolished in the USSR, what remained were the workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia (which was not a class.) That never meant that class struggle was gone. >Maoists have regularly complained that the formulations used by the Soviets in the 1930s made talk of the DOTP pretty much meaningless And they are wrong. No.7047 >>7042 >>Aren't specialists in charge of factories a class of Petit-Bourgeoisie? > No. They are part of the intelligentsia, which is a stratum of society, not a class. I am talking in the context of economic role - while you switch the context to the occupation, and then triumphantly proclaim that occupation does not determine economic role. Well, duh. But is that what I'm talking about? Am I not talking about the economic role of the nigh-irreplaceable specialists? Are they Proletariat - which is defined by being easily replaceable? Also, fixing: >> Do they not possess skills (that serve as Means of Production) that separate them from the general public? Are they not - inherently, due to those skills - predisposed to resist DotP? > Managers do not own the means of production I am not talking about ownership of factories. See above. > nor have the ability to hire or fire workers; the petty-bourgeois does. Would you mind giving me your definition of Petit-Bourgeoisie? Because it seems to me that you make no distinction between Capitalists and Petit-Bourgeoisie. This was the same problem that I saw on r/communism (more like r/pseudo-communism), by the way. Most were trying to define them as Capitalists. >>Isn't abolition of separation between general public and experts a necessity for truly classless society? >Yes. The Soviets argued ever since the mid-1930s that the exploiting classes had been abolished in the USSR, what remained were the workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia (which was not a class.) Again: the question is the economic role, not the occupation. Neither workers, nor peasants - if defined by occupation - are inherently Proletariat. >>Also, Soviets did not argue. Khrushchev and his cronies did. > That's an idiotic remark. You might as well make the argument that "Stalin and his cronies" were responsible for the Soviet position on anything from 1928-1953. It is idiotic to suggest that USSR was a uniform entity. Stalin's faction obviously spearheaded reforms of 1930s. And those reforms were obviously done with the full support of the general public and benefited general public - which is why reforms of 1930s could be described as Soviet. On the other hand, Khrushchev-Brezhnev liberalization did not have much of a support and did not benefit general public. They represented interests of the nascent crypto-Technocratic movement that was inherently opposed to the Soviets, and - in the end - succeeded at destroying Soviets. Why should we lump those two processes together and pretend that both were equally Soviet? Maybe we should also consider Nazis to be representatives of German people? > Also, Mikoyan and Suslov (to give two examples) were long regarded as "Stalin's cronies" before being associated with Khrushchev. A few authors even claim that Stalin was preparing Suslov as his potential successor rather than Malenkov. I don't bow to authority figures, so you can put them back into closet. Either provide proper argumentation - or point where the argumentation is (which is what authority figures are for: being a collection of arguments - they do not replace actual arguments). > The position that the dictatorship of the proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission was embodied in the Party Programme of the CPSU which was adopted in 1961 and not changed until 1986. Yes. Which is one of the reasons why it is Khrushchev-Brezhnev Reaction, not Khrushchev alone. No.7048 >>7042 >>7047 >> Soviets had an uprising in Tbilisi in 1956 with demands to remove Khrushchev - which got suppressed by tanks. > As one work points out, .... (Nahaylo and Swoboda, Soviet Disunion, 1990, p. 120.) Given the amount of bullshit propaganda that was going on at the time (which was immensely anti-Soviet and pro-nationalist), I cannot treat this as a reliable source. Especially, in light of other sources never describing situation in nationalist terms: the intent was not to secede from USSR, but to stop obeying Khrushchev-led Moscow to replace Khrushchev with Molotov. Suspiciously enough, "appeals to outside wordld" were limited to demands from Chinese representative (general Zhu De - who was in Tbilisi at the time) to state his of support Stalin's policies. To speak plainly: you are quoting ultra-nationalist pamphlet filled with anti-Soviet propaganda. > Sounds like a situation similar to Hungary in 1956 Yes, background is similar: Hungary was never fully Socialist and had an immense Fascist baggage, while Georgia was Socialist for decade and had not such pro-Fascist support. How the protests begun is also the same: Georgian protests started with the vigil to protect Stalin's statue from being demolished (which persisted until the night on March 9-10), while Hungarian begun with demolition of Stalin's statue. And how can we forget all the similarities of the protests unfolding? Murders of Communists in Budapest are no different from demonstrations that proclaimed Stalin and Beria as great Communists. > whatever "communist" content the initial unrest may have contained, it was promptly taken over by counter-revolutionaries seeking the downfall of socialism. That's when the tanks were sent in. Bullshit. Demands as of March 8 were completely and utterly pro-Stalinist. The next day demonstrations throughout the city were dedicated to mourning Stalin. The fighting begun during the late evening of March 9, when the crowds attempted to seize broadcasting station (Dom Svyazi) to send telegram to Molotov, but were resisted with gunfire by the soldiers that were sent to protect it. Tanks entered the city within hours after that (shortly after midnight). >> By splitting control over economy in bits that were given to locals to be governed and managed separately from the rest of the nation? > Even if you want to characterize Khrushchev's economic policies in that manner, they were highly unpopular and promptly reversed once he was removed. Promptly reversed? After Khrushchev got removed, there was Kosygin-Liberman reform - which, I'm sure, you will describe as "highly unpopular" and will say that it was aslo "promptly reversed". Except, we'll be in the 1970s by this point and I'll have some more reforms - which will also get promptly reversed - this time by Gorbachev, whose reforms will also (!) get promptly reversed (though, this time with the whole of Soviet Union). We can proceed with "hugely unpopular" reforms of Yeltsin and others, but I sincirely hope, you already noticed the pattern of "prompt reversals". On a less sarcastic note: no, there is a difference between reversal and further development of liberalization (that surpasses previous levels). >>Explain to me, please, how does it follow from this that DotP needs to be shut down immediately after the first sign of its success? > The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to suppress the exploiting classes No. It exists to facilitate transition to Communism. Second-stage Communism, to be precise. >>According to Chuev, according to Molotov, according to Stalin. > You'd need a motivation for Molotov to lie about this one single point, unless you consider all of Molotov's memories unreliable. I don't care about motivation nor who lied or misundertood or falsified something. Facts do not depend on someone's opinion. > Maoists have regularly complained that the formulations used by the Soviets in the 1930s made talk of the DOTP pretty much meaningless. Quotes, please. No.7062 What is your explanation for the Kosgyn Reforms, which supposedly reintroduced the profit motive into the Soviet economy? No.7063 File: 0f92794bec69fb5⋯.jpg (19.57 KB, 350x350, 1:1, 0f92794bec69fb507439dabdba….jpg) No.7065 >>4702 Recommend a comprehensive book to read on the history of the soviet union, and I promise I will read it. It has to be a history book though, not a historical text. No.7066 File: 69bd37c7e3722aa⋯.png (575.89 KB, 758x600, 379:300, Mikoyan Castro.png) >>7046 >That never meant that class struggle was gone. In terms of within society itself, there were no antagonistic classes to struggle against. To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "Despite the assertion of left sectarian elements on the inevitability of the class struggle under socialism right up until the victory of communism, the relations between all social groups of socialist society (workers, cooperating peasantry, and intelligentsia) are relations of friendly cooperation. However, the battlefront of the class struggle against the external capitalist world still remains. In socialist society, it is also still necessary to struggle against remnants of capitalism in the consciousness and behavior of people and against the ideological legacy of the old world." The GSE article also notes that, "As the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia revealed, the enemies of socialism are bearing in mind the lessons of the class struggle and may attempt to attain their goals by means of the decomposition of socialism from within, making extensive use of revisionist elements for these purposes (the 'quiet counterrevolution')." >>7047 >I am talking in the context of economic role And so I am. Specialists in enterprises do not have ownership of the means of production. They are not a class. You will find nothing in the writings of Marx, Engels or Lenin (or Stalin, for that matter) that describes managers or specialists as a class. >Are they Proletariat - which is defined by being easily replaceable? The intelligentsia very largely came from the ranks of the working-class. As Stalin said, "the working class must create its own industrial and technical intelligentsia, one that is capable of upholding the interests of the working class in production as the interests of the ruling class. No ruling class has managed without its own intelligentsia." (Works Vol. 13, 1954, p. 69.) There was no shortage of those with a specialist education in the 1950s-70s USSR. >Do they not possess skills (that serve as Means of Production) Skills do not serve as "means of production." >Are they not - inherently, due to those skills - predisposed to resist DotP? No, they aren't. That sort of logic leads one into calling for a "class struggle" against teachers, doctors, and other elements of the population with a certain type of education. It is possible for individual members of the working-class intelligentsia to move away from the workers ideologically due to material conditions (e.g. isolation from workers through their own residences, very high salaries, and whatnot), but the working-class intelligentsia is not inherently at odds with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Szymanski in his "Is the Red Flag Flying?" notes that the intelligentsia in the USSR (managers, specialists, etc.) were much more connected to the working-class compared to bourgeois specialists in the capitalist countries. It wouldn't be unusual for, say, a highly-paid scientist could be married to an autoworker and live in a working-class district. >Would you mind giving me your definition of Petit-Bourgeoisie? As Lenin very simply defined it in a pamphlet addressed to Russian peasants, "A big bourgeois is the owner of big property. A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property." Marx wrote in the Manifesto that the petty-bourgeois class is "fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen." This obviously has nothing to do with possessing particular skills. It has to do with ownership of the means of production. >Neither workers, nor peasants - if defined by occupation - are inherently Proletariat. As Molotov pointed out in 1936, "the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word." In other words, there was no class which the workers were obliged to sell their labor-power to. No.7067 File: c5bfd05458d754c⋯.png (286.47 KB, 597x460, 597:460, Mikoyan Che.png) >On the other hand, Khrushchev-Brezhnev liberalization did not have much of a support and did not benefit general public. Any book on the USSR will point out that living standards increased significantly during the 1950s-70s as a result of the supposed "liberalization" measures undertaken by the CPSU. To this day Brezhnev comes out on top in Russian polls asking what period of the USSR was the best to have actually lived in (Stalin comes out on top in terms of his qualities as a leader.) Also, equating the "heroic" period of the USSR (1930s, when the Soviet people accepted major sacrifices to their living standards in order to build socialism and prepare for defense against external invasion) with the relatively "tame" years of the 1950s-70s is silly. The important thing is that there was no significant opposition to the reforms enacted in the 1950s-70s. The best you can cite are a nationalist demonstration in Georgia that was purely concerned with Stalin as an individual, and a demonstration by workers over an inept price rise by Khrushchev. Neither of those are representative of the Soviet people as a whole, any more than the Kronstadt mutiny was a "revolt by the people against Bolshevik regime" or whatever. >Why should we lump those two processes together and pretend that both were equally Soviet? Because Soviet society continued to be guided by Marxism-Leninism, and the economy continued to operate on the basis of what was laid down in the 1930s. Your next remark, comparing the 1950s-80s CPSU to the Nazis, just shows how ridiculous "anti-revisionists" are. >and - in the end - succeeded at destroying Soviets. That's bullshit and you know it. Gorbachev's policies were what destroyed the USSR. He was he who denounced the supposed "era of stagnation" under Brezhnev, and who attacked the economic foundations of socialism in the USSR as "Stalinism." Gorby had to rid the CPSU of innumerable "conservatives" associated with the Brezhnev and Khrushchev years in order to enact his policies. >Either provide proper argumentation Argumentation for what? That Mikoyan was associated with Stalin for forty years? That isn't under dispute. That's just a fact. >I cannot treat this as a reliable source. I will have a better source in a week or two, an article from 2009 relying on material from the Georgian KGB. There's other modern, more objective sources that point out the Georgian demonstrators were upholding Stalin as a "national" symbol, not a communist one, and denounced Russians. See page 78 onward of the following work: https://books.google.com/books?id=MH_4CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&dq=March+Georgia+stalin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3rdCE-_rXAhUD64MKHWYgDtUQ6wEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=March%20Georgia%20stalin&f=false >Hungary was never fully Socialist and had an immense Fascist baggage Socialism was built in Hungary, not in 1956 but at a later date. You know very well there was a supposedly "communist" element to the Hungarian counter-revolution, characterized by the counter-revolutionaries working in some areas through "workers' councils." That is what I was referring to. >Promptly reversed? Yes. Read any book on the Soviet economy or on Khrushchev, it was one of the factors that led to his downfall. >After Khrushchev got removed, there was Kosygin-Liberman reform - which, I'm sure, you will describe as "highly unpopular" and will say that it was aslo "promptly reversed". The reforms were in fact reversed in the early 70s, as Szymanski points out. They were not unpopular, nor did they signify a weakening of socialism. Khrushchev's economic reforms were so unpopular that members of the Politburo were still damning them twenty years after they were reversed: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111231 >Quotes, please. http://marx2mao.com/Other/ODP77NB.html >>7062 The reforms were intended to increase productivity and reduce wastage. Szymanski discusses them on pages 38-40: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying >>7065 https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism Post last edited at No.7069 >>7066 > And so I am. Specialists in enterprises do not have ownership of the means of production. Except you are still arguing with a strawman. But lets postpone this question, until we will hammer out Petit-Bourgeoisie. > (Works Vol. 13, 1954, p. 69.) You failed to demonstrate how the quote is relevant to anything. > There was no shortage of those with a specialist education in the 1950s-70s USSR. Which means what? Are you even trying to argue some point here? >>Do they not possess skills (that serve as Means of Production) > Skills do not serve as "means of production." AH! Finally, an actual reply. Can you explain why? You need to invest labour to acquire them and they allow you to produce - either at all, or more efficiently. So what is the difference? Please note, I'm not talking about MoP in the context of Capitalist mode of production, but MoP in general. >>Are they not - inherently, due to those skills - predisposed to resist DotP? > No, they aren't. That sort of logic leads one into calling for a "class struggle" against teachers, doctors, and other elements of the population with a certain type of education. Again, you fail to present an actual argument. In addition you even started accusing me of some nonsense - without any basis, mind you. > working-class intelligentsia is not inherently at odds with the dictatorship of the proletariat. You did not define what "working-class intelligentsia" should mean. > Szymanski in his "Is the Red Flag Flying?" notes ... Please, do not pretend that I am an utter moron. If Capitalist marries a Proletarian - does it somehow abolish Capitalism? Does it somehow change their economic roles? No, it does not. You are still producing white noise. >>Would you mind giving me your definition of Petit-Bourgeoisie? > As Lenin very simply defined it in a pamphlet addressed to Russian peasants, "A big bourgeois is the owner of big property. A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property." That does not explain anything. It doesn't even clarify if property is private or personal. > Marx wrote in the Manifesto Anyone can quote Manifesto. Can you give your own definition? Like I asked? To demonstrate that you actually understand the meaning of the term? > This obviously has nothing to do with possessing particular skills. It has to do with ownership of the means of production. Strawmanning again. At no point did I claim that skills alone define Petit-Bourgeoisie, or that every member of Petit-Bourgeoisie has to possess skills. Are you capable of honest argumentation? >>Neither workers, nor peasants - if defined by occupation - are inherently Proletariat. > As Molotov pointed out in 1936, Okay, I don't even care anymore. 1) Please, explain why skills can't function as MoP. 2) Give definition of Petit-Bourgeoisie in your own words. No.7070 >>7066 >In terms of within society itself, there were no antagonistic classes to struggle against. You do know that Lenin said against Bujarin argued that antagonism and contradiction isn't the same, right? That contradictions subsist under socialism while antagonism not, right? You also know that Lenin and Stalin talked about intensification of class struggle under socialism and not only refering to "external factors", right? I also hope you know that Stalin in 1953 warned on antimarxist idea of "extinction of the class struggle", right? I suppose you remember those words of Stalin in which said that the successes do not lead to the extinction of the fight but to its intensification, right? >To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia The assertion of oportunists and right deviationists, this said by Stalin, on the extintion of class struggle under socialism is an antimarxist theory. Also you see what says there: >In socialist society, it is also still necessary to struggle against remnants of capitalism in the consciousness and behavior of people and against the ideological legacy of the old world." GSE doesn't help you here. No.7071 File: 3631628b51942b1⋯.png (203.29 KB, 523x819, 523:819, ClipboardImage.png) >The Soviets argued ever since the mid-1930s that. . . "The Soviets". No.7076 File: f069ffa14584cc7⋯.jpg (99.84 KB, 500x543, 500:543, It is Brezhnev.jpg) >>7069 >You failed to demonstrate how the quote is relevant to anything. Stalin clearly did not regard the intelligentsia as a separate class. He pointed out that all ruling classes have had the need to create their own intelligentsia. >Can you explain why? You need to invest labour to acquire them and they allow you to produce - either at all, or more efficiently. So what is the difference? You can't have ownership over skills like you can means of production. It's like saying education is means of production. You won't find anything in the writings of Marx, Engels or Lenin describing "skills" as part of the means of production. >You did not define what "working-class intelligentsia" should mean. Again, your problem is with Lenin, as well as Stalin, not with me. Both men spoke of the intelligentsia as a strata of society. The bourgeois intelligentsia was raised to serve the capitalist system from the ranks of the bourgeoisie. The working-class intelligentsia was raised to serve socialism from the ranks of the working-class. The idea that intellectuals, technocrats, or whatever you want to call them constitute a "new class" is a revisionist distortion of Marxism. >If Capitalist marries a Proletarian - does it somehow abolish Capitalism? Does it somehow change their economic roles? No, but we're not talking about classes, we're talking about the intelligentsia. Szymanski's point is that there is no basis for claiming it is a "new class," not only due to economic reasons (it obviously doesn't own property, etc.), but also because from a sociological perspective it clearly fell short of the definition of a class. >That does not explain anything. It doesn't even clarify if property is private or personal. It's your fault if you can't rise beyond the level of early 20th century peasants whom Lenin was addressing his text to. In the context of his work (and in the context of me pointing out the petty-bourgeoisie own their own means of production), he was clearly describing private property. It wouldn't make sense for Lenin to talk of "big property" and "small property" in regards to personal property anyway, as if the bourgeoisie owns giant toothbrushes. >Can you give your own definition? I prefer to give the Marxist definition, because we're discussing Marxism. To give the Marxist definition requires quoting either Marx, Engels, Lenin, or other recognized authorities on Marxism. "My own" definition means nothing. >>7070 >You do know that Lenin said against Bujarin argued that antagonism and contradiction isn't the same, right? Yes, and that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to put down the exploiting classes, just like the point of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is to put down opposing classes (proletariat, feudal nobility.) The existence of non-antagonistic contradictions in socialist society is something else. As for Stalin, the CPSU pointed out after 1956 that his claims that the class struggle would intensify under socialism were unfounded. His argument was used to justify the Yezhovschina, and in 1953 it was probably going to be used to justify the arrest and execution of such "traitors" as Molotov and Kaganovich (whom Stalin distrusted.) >GSE doesn't help you here. It does. Struggling "against remnants of capitalism in the consciousness and behavior of people" does not require the dictatorship of the proletariat. >>7071 Again, the Soviets argued ever since the mid-1930s that exploiting classes had been abolished in the USSR. Your quote doesn't contradict that. Post last edited at No.7078 >>7076 Try to be honest. You said >>7042 >The Soviets argued ever since the mid-1930s that the exploiting classes had been abolished in the USSR, what remained were the workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia (which was not a class.) I pointed out in case there were doubts >That never meant that class struggle was gone. So your narrow understanding of contradictions led you to misunderstand what I pointed out, that's why you tried to argue against what I said saying (again): >>7066 >In terms of within society itself, there were no antagonistic classes to struggle against. >To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "Despite the assertion of left sectarian elements on the inevitability of the class struggle under socialism right up until the victory of communism. . We got that: 1) You tried to pass the abolition of exploiting classes (antagonism) for the abolition of class struggle. 2) You try to defend that by quoting GSE and, through its words, state that "the assertion on the inevitability of the class struggle under socialism. . ." is made by "left sectarian elements". 3) Pure eristic. As I showed, what you hold is against what Lenin and Stalin said. Marx said: >The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm As Lenin said, antagonism is one form of contradiction, a special kind of contradiction, that "antagonism and contradiction are by no means one and the same thing. When socialism comes, the former will disappear but the latter will remain". Antagonism and contradiction aren't the same. Class struggle isn't only because of antagonism, as a form of contradiction, but for contradictions under socialism too. Lenin and Stalin said that class struggle will be under socialism and also will intensificate. Contradictions in socialits society are *non-antagonistic*. Just don't try to fool me. No.7079 >>7076 > I prefer to give the Marxist definition, because we're discussing Marxism. To give the Marxist definition requires quoting either Marx, Engels, Lenin, or other recognized authorities on Marxism. "My own" definition means nothing. If you love quotes so much: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/x01.htm > Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement, which is absolutely essential for giving a scientific foundation to policy. > “Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action,”[10] Marx and Engels always said, rightly ridiculing the mere memorising and repetition of “formulas”, that at best are capable only of marking out general tasks, which are necessarily modifiable by the concrete economic and political conditions of each particular period of the historical process. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1920/04/23.htm > There are two groups of Marxists. Both work under the flag of Marxism and consider themselves "genuinely" Marxist. Nevertheless, they are by no means identical. More, a veritable gulf divides them, for their methods of work are diametrically opposed to each other. > The first group usually confines itself to an outward acceptance, to a ceremonial avowal of Marxism. Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of Marxism, being unable or unwilling to put it into practice, it converts the living, revolutionary principles of Marxism into lifeless, meaningless formulas. It does not base its activities on experience, on what practical work teaches, but on quotations from Marx. > ... > The second group, on the contrary, attaches prime importance not to the outward acceptance of Marxism, but to its realization, its application in practice. What this group chiefly concentrates its attention on is determining the ways and means of realizing Marxism that best answer the situation, and changing these ways and means as the situation changes. It does not derive its directions and instructions from historical analogies and parallels, but from a study of surrounding conditions. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch02.htm > Instead of an integral revolutionary theory, there were contradictory theoretical postulates and fragments of theory, which were divorced from the actual revolutionary struggle of the masses and had been turned into threadbare dogmas. For the sake of appearances, Marx's theory was mentioned, of course, but only to rob it of its living, revolutionary spirit. > ... > Instead of the party being trained and taught correct revolutionary tactics on the basis of its own mistakes, there was a studied evasion of vexed questions, which were glossed over and veiled. For the sake of appearances, of course, there was no objection to talking about vexed questions, but only in order to wind up with some sort of "elastic" resolution. > ... > This is why Lenin said that "revolutionary theory is not a dogma," that it "assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement" ("Left-Wing" Communism3); for theory must serve practice, for "theory must answer the questions raised by practice" (What the "Friends of the People" Are 4), for it must be tested by practical results. I say, Marxism is no dogma. I say Marxist definition relies on Marxist understanding - not quotes. Do you have Molotov's quote that "proves" me wrong? No.7080 >>7076 >Yes, and that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. Everything that Lenin and Stalin said and I put here throw to the ground what you hold, but "that's irrelevant to what we're talking about". >The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to put down the exploiting classes The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to put down the exploiting classes that don't disappear by a having a DotP. You understand that those crushed elements wait any time to go out, that they boycott the industry, that they collaborate with espionage, etc, right? Did you read what Lenin and Stalin said about that and *intensification* of class struggle under socialism? I repeat: i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f c l a s s s t r u g g l e u n d e r s o c i a l i s m. >The existence of non-antagonistic contradictions in socialist society is something else. Wohoo. Man, enough. Try to be honest. >As for Stalin, the CPSU pointed out after 1956 that his claims that the class struggle would intensify under socialism were unfounded. His argument was used to justify the Yezhovschina, and in 1953 it was probably going to be used to justify the arrest and execution of such "traitors" as Molotov and Kaganovich (whom Stalin distrusted.) That's why we got in 1991 what we got. You just went to full revisionism from full hoxhaism. Let's see how much time you need to focus and not go from one extreme to the other. No.7081 >>7080 >The point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to put down the exploiting classes that don't disappear by a having a DotP. I mean: by "just having a DotP". If class struggle under socialism intensifies, it's quite obvious that DotP is needed because of proletarian repression of those elements. No.7082 >>7080 > You just went to full revisionism from full hoxhaism. Yeah. This transition kinda surprised me. On one hand, claiming that USSR was no longer Socialist after 1950s is provably wrong, but switching to the antistalinist position that everything was perfect is not what I had expected. I'm blaming lack of systematic approach to Marxism. People concentrate on Capitalists and Proletariat, but forget about Petit-Bourgeois - and how they fit into Capitalist mode of production. Consequently, people jump from one extreme to another, when it comes to USSR. No.7083 >>7082 >Yeah. This transition kinda surprised me. I think it's kinda normal if somebody comes from one extreme. >but switching to the antistalinist position that everything was perfect is not what I had expected. Me neither. No.7085 File: baa28cae4c69448⋯.jpg (16.49 KB, 236x351, 236:351, Molotov and Gromyko.jpg) >>7078 >Stalin said that class struggle will be under socialism and also will intensificate. Contradictions in socialits society are *non-antagonistic*. And yet there's no evidence that class struggle intensifies under socialism. It certainly didn't "intensify" in the mid-late 30s when Stalin spoke and when a whole bunch of loyal cadres of the CPSU were arrested and executed, or when Mao took Stalin's argument and used it for his own purposes to "expose the capitalist roaders" in the CPC, virtually all of whom were loyal cadres like Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. If you can find one quote where Lenin claims that class struggle intensifies under socialism, feel free. >>7079 >If you love quotes so much: All you're doing is proving that your argument as to the intelligentsia being petty-bourgeois is not grounded in Marxism. >Do you have Molotov's quote that "proves" me wrong? Concerning what? >>7080 >You understand that those crushed elements wait any time to go out, that they boycott the industry, that they collaborate with espionage, etc, right? Yes, and they are counter-revolutionary individuals. They are not classes. Gorbachev was not a kulak, Alexander Yakovlev was not a nobleman, Boris Yeltsin was not a Nepman. This Maoist idea that a "new bourgeoisie" arises out of a communist party, which is what the whole "intelligentsia = petty-bourgeois" logic leads to, is clearly contrary to Marxism. >That's why we got in 1991 what we got. No, simply saying "class struggle intensifies under socialism" does not magically prevent revisionism from becoming ascendant. It should be fairly obvious, looking at the examples of Stalin, Mao and Hoxha, that their practice of "class struggle" by blindly swinging at potential bad guys is not an effective means of preserving socialism. It does not prevent Gorbachev, Jiang Qing, Sali Berisha or similar figures from emerging. That's why so many "anti-revisionist" analyses of "what went wrong" become ridiculous "Stalin/Mao/Hoxha should have had this person shot, or maybe this person, or maybe these persons." Even if one accepts the view that Khrushchev secretly conspired to restore capitalism (which isn't borne out by the evidence), the Great Purges were what allowed his ascendancy in the first place. Just like the "capitalist roaders" Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping took power after Mao's death, and Hoxha's handpicked successor Ramiz Alia oversaw the restoration of capitalism in Albania. Post last edited at No.7086 >>7085 > >If you love quotes so much: > All you're doing is proving that your argument as to the intelligentsia being petty-bourgeois is not grounded in Marxism. The quotes were about your approach to Marxism being nothing but rote repetition without attempting to understand it. The quotes were about real Marxism never being based upon dogmas. The quotes were justifying my request to you to explain the economic role of Petit-Bourgeoisie in your own words and to answer why skills cannot be treated as MoP without hiding behind "Marx did not mention them". The intent of quotes was obvious from the part of your post that I was answering to. Give an answer: why are you refusing to pay attention to classics themselves arguing against your understanding of Marxism as repetition of quotes? No.7087 >>7085 > Yes, and they are counter-revolutionary individuals. They are not classes. Gorbachev was not a kulak, Alexander Yakovlev was not a nobleman, Boris Yeltsin was not a Nepman. This Maoist idea that a "new bourgeoisie" arises out of a communist party, which is what the whole "intelligentsia = petty-bourgeois" logic leads to, is clearly contrary to Marxism. And stop strawmanning, will you? No.7088 File: 8458088c34813a7⋯.jpg (13.69 KB, 300x168, 25:14, hoxher.jpg) >>7085 >No, simply saying "class struggle intensifies under socialism" does not magically prevent revisionism from becoming ascendant. >It should be fairly obvious, looking at the examples of Stalin, Mao and Hoxha, that their practice of "class struggle" by blindly swinging at potential bad guys is not an effective means of preserving socialism. >That's why so many "anti-revisionist" analyses of "what went wrong" become ridiculous "Stalin/Mao/Hoxha should have had this person shot, or maybe this person, or maybe these persons." I agree with the idea that class struggle continues and intensifies under socialism but these are good points. People who say the solution to revisionism and key to preserving socialism is more purges, executions and terror (by some poowerful anti-revisionist leader) are completely out of their minds. The purges in the USSR were insane and they still didn't stop revisionism. No.7089 >>7088 > The purges in the USSR were insane No, they weren't. Ismail is simply parroting anti-Stalinist clique. First and foremost, "purges" had been going on since the beginning. Secondly, purges meant worker control (oversight over managers). With managers being fired, if collective did not trust them (often managers would get arrested for embezzling/sabotage - but that was decided by actual state agencies, not workers). Situation in 1937 - as general public thought - meant arrests, not executions (as it is perceived today) and did not experience any particular atmosphere of terror (as it is claimed today). Thirdly, the situation in 1937/38 - the one that usually gets called "purges" by the Anglophones - was in no way initiated nor supported by Stalin. Initiative belonged to another faction, and the evidence of massive counter-revolutionary networks was supplied by people not affiliated with Stalin's faction. By the end of 1937 "Stalinist" faction was attempting to put stop on it, with Stalin himself publicly demanding to cease this nonsense and arrest anyone who perpetuates fearmongering and abuses extra-judicial rights by January 1938. The whole mess is better described in terms of 9/11 (only Soviets were faced with multiple cases of terrorism). I.e. a situation, when state security (Yezhov faction) attempts power grab. Only in Soviet Union state security ended up being investigated itself - which led to Soviet equivalent of "Patriot's Act" being revoked and persons responsible either being shot or sent to prison. No.7090 File: a29da1bb19c4487⋯.jpg (147.16 KB, 665x1024, 665:1024, Bela Kun.jpg) >>7086 >The quotes were about your approach to Marxism being nothing but rote repetition without attempting to understand it. Your idea that managers and specialists are a "new class," a new petty-bourgeoisie within socialism, is simply at variance with Marxism. There's nothing to "understand" about this supposed role of the intelligentsia under socialism, it's as anti-Marxist as people who claim the vanguard party represents a "new elite" or that the USSR was actually "feudal" because of [insert silly reasons here]. >The quotes were justifying my request to you to explain the economic role of Petit-Bourgeoisie in your own words and to answer why skills cannot be treated as MoP without hiding behind "Marx did not mention them". I already explained that you cannot take ownership of skills. You can't "seize the skillful means of production" or whatever. >>7089 >"purges" had been going on since the beginning. According to J. Arch Getty, at least 236,000 executions were carried out by the central leadership, i.e. Stalin and friends. Hundreds of thousands more were executed by local decisionmakers. Equating this with the term "purge" as used by Lenin is asinine. Lenin called for regularly purging the party in the sense of checking up on the behavior and practical work of Communists, with expulsions for those who failed to live up to the exacting demands membership was supposed to entail. That has nothing to do with the NKVD carrying out arbitrary arrests, tortures, and executions with the goal of finding giant counter-revolutionary conspiracies. >Secondly, purges meant worker control (oversight over managers). The purges happened to coincide with moves to further strengthen Soviet democracy, exemplified by the 1936 Constitution and calls for secret balloting in elections to party offices. But to act as if the purges were a great display of "worker control" is silly. It's like Maoists who claim the Cultural Revolution was a wonderful exercise in participatory democracy. >was in no way initiated nor supported by Stalin This is just wrong, as any objective bourgeois scholar (such as the aforementioned Getty) could tell you. The "Yezhov faction" you mention wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Stalin's consent. Yezhov was made a candidate member of the Politburo, Stalin sent letters congratulating him on carrying out mass arrests, and even sent him instructions like "beat, beat!" in regards to prisoners. Stalin didn't need to be an omnipresent being in order to bear ultimate responsibility for the Yezhovschina, and when the mass arrests and executions finally did end it wasn't until after Stalin's death that mass rehabilitations of unjustly executed communists such as Knorin, Enukidze, Rudzutak, Mezhlauk, Piatnitsky, Bubnov, Postyshev, Kosior, Krestinsky, and innumerable others was finally undertaken. The purges also undermined foreign communists as well, e.g. the execution of Béla Kun and numerous other Hungarian communists who lived in the USSR, or the repression against Polish communists which was so severe that the party itself was declared a den of spies and dissolved. Just because anti-communists distort the Yezhovschina for their own ends (e.g. that many millions died, or that Stalin wanted "total power," or that it proved "revolutions eat their children," etc.) does not take away from the fact that it was a disastrous period and that Stalin bore the greatest responsibility for it. No.7092 >>7090 > Your idea that managers and specialists are a "new class," Stop lying. There is no such idea. > There's nothing to "understand" about this supposed role of the intelligentsia under socialism, Stop lying. I was not talking about the whole of "intelligentsia". > I already explained that you cannot take ownership of skills. You did not. Nor did you explain what Petit-Bourgeoisie is. Instead you tried to hide behind quotes and pretend that trying to understand them is anti-Marxist. > You can't "seize the skillful means of production" or whatever. Yes. Will you make some sort of argument? > According to J. Arch Getty, Who is a rabid anti-Stalinist. > at least 236,000 executions were carried out by the central leadership, i.e. Stalin and friends. Bullshit. > Equating this with the term "purge" as used by Lenin is asinine. That's how it was equated in Soviet Union. > Lenin called for regularly purging the party in the sense of checking up on the behavior and practical work of Communists, with expulsions for those who failed to live up to the exacting demands membership was supposed to entail. Purges were not limited to party members. As I've said: each and every working collective had a regular meeting with collective discussing if they should keep or replace managers. > That has nothing to do with the NKVD carrying out arbitrary arrests, tortures, and executions with the goal of finding giant counter-revolutionary conspiracies. Arrests were based on reports by general population. IIRC there was something like 4 million reports. Also, your description of 1937/38 would not be out of place in Goebbels speeches. > This is just wrong, as any objective bourgeois scholar (such as the aforementioned Getty) could tell you. > objective > bourgeois How soon will you go full-on Heil Hitler? > The "Yezhov faction" you mention wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Stalin's consent. Because Stalin was omniscient and almighty. This is not even funny. Would you mind proving that you've read and understood Marx? No.7096 File: deb7c9d760ecf7e⋯.jpg (86.35 KB, 533x768, 533:768, Jan Rudzutak.jpg) >>7092 >Stop lying. There is no such idea. Claiming that the intelligentsia that emerged during the construction of socialism is petty-bourgeois is, in fact, tantamount to arguing that a "new class" emerged. >Stop lying. I was not talking about the whole of "intelligentsia". You're still talking about a segment of the intelligentsia. >You did not. I did. >Will you make some sort of argument? Once again, I did. >Who is a rabid anti-Stalinist. Getty is recognized as one of the most objective bourgeois historians on the USSR. He's been accused of being a "Stalinist apologist" by more anti-communist authors. He relies heavily on the Soviet archives. >Bullshit. No less a figure than Grover Furr considers Getty's numbers fair, but I guess even Furr isn't "Stalinist" enough for you. >That's how it was equated in Soviet Union. In 1936-1938, presumably. Certainly not after Stalin died, when the term was kept to its Lenin-era usage. >Purges were not limited to party members. As I've said: each and every working collective had a regular meeting with collective discussing if they should keep or replace managers. Yes, and again all this is completely different from the Yezhovschina. Don't conflate the two. >Arrests were based on reports by general population. IIRC there was something like 4 million reports. I don't see how that's relevant. Robert Thurston and other authors have pointed out how in both the Yezhovschina and Cultural Revolution citizens would take advantage of the hysteria to get "revenge" on people who committed adulterous affairs, or who got a promotion instead of them, and other petty reasons. Nor were "reports by [the] general population" the sole reason. Torture, as you probably know, was still another important means. >Also, your description of 1937/38 would not be out of place in Goebbels speeches. I don't think Göbbels expressed concern over the deaths of communists. >How soon will you go full-on Heil Hitler? So are you saying that literally no bourgeois author is capable of writing objective historical accounts? Because that certainly hasn't been the view of Marxists since... ever. Not even in the Stalin-era USSR were bourgeois works entirely discounted merely because their authors were not Marxists. >Because Stalin was omniscient and almighty. No, because Stalin supported Yezhov. That's why he did not vote against him becoming a candidate member of the Politburo. It's why Stalin could write the following: "To Ezhov. Very good! Dig up and clean out, henceforth too, this Polish espionage filth. Eliminate it in the interests of the Soviet Union." Yezhov deserved what was coming to him, but to act as if Stalin had no responsibility for Yezhov's crimes is asinine. No.7099 >>7096 > Claiming that the intelligentsia that emerged during the construction of socialism is petty-bourgeois is, in fact, tantamount to arguing that a "new class" emerged. I never claimed that it was the whole of intelligentsia. I never claimed that any class "emerged" - it was always there, since before the Revolution. But you still refuse to explain what was the Petit-Bourgeoisie - or admit that you don't understand Marxism, so its impossible for me to discuss anything. > You're still talking about a segment of the intelligentsia. So you admit that you are perfectly aware that it is not the intelligentsia I am talking about - despite repeatedly trying to strawman me as such. > Getty is recognized as one of the most objective bourgeois historians on the USSR. He's been accused of being a "Stalinist apologist" by more anti-communist authors. Lo and behold: Fascists do not think he is sufficiently Right-wing! This is a sure sign of him being completely unbiased. > He relies heavily on the Soviet archives. Cheap sophistry. You are quoting his interpretation - it this interpretation that should be supported by evidence, but it's not. It is irrelevant if he does use actual evidence to support other statements. > In 1936-1938, presumably. Certainly not after Stalin died, when the term was kept to its Lenin-era usage. Which is, again, irrelevant. I was talking about contemporaries. > Yes, and again all this is completely different from the Yezhovschina. Don't conflate the two. Except there is no reason not to. > I don't see how that's relevant. Of course you don't. > So are you saying that literally no bourgeois author is capable of writing objective historical accounts? Constant cheap strawmanning. I don't agree to recognize some crypto-Fascist wanker as an expert on Soviet Union. If you intend to prove something, use actual arguments - which is what Marxists do. You are only trying to hide behind some authority that is "widely recognized" - now the authority in question is not even the one recognized by Communists. No! Niw Bourgeois anti-Communists are an authority one should BELIEVE IN. >>Because Stalin was omniscient and almighty. > No, because Stalin supported Yezhov. Stop lying. You are literally basing everything on Stalin being omniscient (he had to know everything about Yezhov) and almighty (it was Stalin's decision alone who would be doing what). No.7100 File: 0445f4cf8151065⋯.jpg (31.83 KB, 217x288, 217:288, Nikolai Shvernik of the Sh….jpg) >>7099 >I never claimed that it was the whole of intelligentsia. It doesn't matter, the intelligentsia is a stratum, it isn't a class. The intelligentsia exists to serve a specific class, not to act as a class in its own right. >I never claimed that any class "emerged" - it was always there, since before the Revolution. That makes your argument even dumber. Most members of the socialist intelligentsia that emerged in the 1930s had either been workers or peasants in 1917. A great many of the bourgeois intelligentsia that arose during the Tsarist period had either fled after the revolution or otherwise refused to work for socialism. >But you still refuse to explain what was the Petit-Bourgeoisie I gave definitions from Marx and Lenin. You then proceeded to ridicule Lenin's words and ignored Marx's. You then accuse me of "not understanding Marxism." >So you admit that you are perfectly aware that it is not the intelligentsia I am talking about - despite repeatedly trying to strawman me as such. No, you *are* talking about the intelligentsia. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a "section" of the intelligentsia. It's like fascists who sharply differentiate between the "good" bourgeoisie (those supposedly commit to "productive" activities) and the "bad" bourgeoisie (those involved in the financial sector, e.g. banking.) To Marxists they both belong to the same exploiting class. Likewise, whether someone is an engineer, professor, author, writer, or whatever, they're still members of the intelligentsia, a stratum of society. >Lo and behold: Fascists do not think he is sufficiently Right-wing! This is a sure sign of him being completely unbiased. No historian is "completely unbiased." As a Marxist you would know this. What matters is the quality of Getty's research. If you dispute the numbers he gives as "bullshit," where is your counter-evidence? >You are quoting his interpretation - it this interpretation that should be supported by evidence, but it's not. It is irrelevant if he does use actual evidence to support other statements. So again, I ask you, if his "interpretation" is not supported by evidence, what is your counter-evidence? I have access to Getty's article, and I will quote from it: "Based on the sources now available (which are probably incomplete) we can say that with Order No. 447 plus subsequent known limit increases, Moscow gave permission to shoot about 236,000 victims. We are fairly certain that some 386,798 persons were actually shot, leaving 151,716 people shot without currently documented central sanction either from the NKVD or the Politburo." This is the footnote he provides: "Calculated from Politburo protocols (special folders): RGASPI, f. 17, op. 162, dd. 21-23; TsA FSB, collection of documents; Kokurin and Petrov, GULAG, 97-104; Samosudov, Bol'shoi terror, 160-61, 241; Nikolai Il'kevich, 'Rasstreliany v Viaz'me: Novoe o M.N. Goretskom,' Krai Smolenskii 1-2 (1994): 129-44; Shearer, 'Crime and Social Disorder,' 139-41; Moskovskie novosti, 21 June 1992; Izvestiia, 3 April 1996; and Khlevniuk, 'Les mechanismes,' 204-6." I'll wait for your counter-evidence. >Which is, again, irrelevant. I was talking about contemporaries. No you weren't, you claimed "that's how it was equated in the Soviet Union" and before that wrote "'purges' had been going on since the beginning." No one equated purges with mass arrests and executions, even during 1936-38 the checking of party cards and whatnot was formally separate from what else went on during those years. >Except there is no reason not to. I don't recall anything analogous to the Yezhovschina under Lenin, or under Stalin's successors, or even under Stalin himself except for the years 1936-38 (technically "Yezhovschina" is actually 1937-38, but still.) So it would indeed seem to be silly to conflate the "normal" usage of the word "purge" with the Great Purges or Great Terror or Yezhovschina or whatever you want to call it. >I don't agree to recognize some crypto-Fascist wanker as an expert on Soviet Union. What makes Getty a "crypto-Fascist wanker"? He apparently used to belong to the Progressive Labor Party (the same party Furr is connected with) and according to someone I know who attended classes of his and talked to him, he supports Swedish "socialism." He's a social-democrat, not Alexander Solzhenitsyn or even notorious right-wingers like Richard Pipes or Robert Conquest. No.7101 File: fedc012a60900f4⋯.jpg (105.46 KB, 341x400, 341:400, Vladimir Semichastny also ….jpg) >You are only trying to hide behind some authority that is "widely recognized" If an anti-communist quoted from a "widely recognized" bourgeois author on the supposed evilness of Lenin or whomever else, I'm readily able to counter their arguments. Getty is indeed a widely recognized authority on the Yezhovschina. I didn't merely invoke his name, I gave his numbers. It's also pretty ironic that you praise the mass repressions of 1936-38 as a great demonstration of "worker control" against corrupt managers and party bosses and whatnot, when the guy who pioneered that interpretation was none other than the famed "crypto-fascist," J. Arch Getty, in his book "Origins of the Great Purges." >You are literally basing everything on Stalin being omniscient (he had to know everything about Yezhov) and almighty (it was Stalin's decision alone who would be doing what). So Stalin wasn't aware that hundreds of thousands of people were being shot, a great many of them having held leading positions in all spheres of public life? The many letters Stalin's office received from wives and other relatives protesting the innocence of those accused were kept from Stalin by some counter-revolutionary somewhere? How could Stalin *not* be aware of the fact Yezhov was carrying out mass repressions? We have his own handwriting calling on Yezhov and other NKVD officials to torture prisoners. And as I already said earlier, it wasn't until after Stalin's death that mass rehabilitations were carried out (over 300,000 by the first half of 1956.) And it was Stalin himself who suggested, on behalf of the Politburo, adding Yezhov to that body as a candidate member. The only other person to be made a candidate member at this time was Khrushchev, again suggested by Stalin on behalf of the Politburo. Would you mind telling me who belonged to the "Yezhov faction" in the Politburo and how they would be able to override any objection on the part of Stalin to appointing Yezhov? That, of course, requires us to pretend that Stalin actually opposed Yezhov's ascendancy rather than having clearly supported it. No.7102 >>7100 >>But you still refuse to explain what was the Petit-Bourgeoisie > I gave definitions from Marx and Lenin. First and foremost, I asked you to explain in your own words - a standard check of comprehension of material. This applies to both math and physics, history and literature. You attempted to weasel out of this, by claiming that sacred doctrine of Marxism is absolute and any rephrasing is a blasphemy upon the holy Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I had to point out that actual Marxists had a very different point of view, but you did not respond in any coherent way to this. > You then proceeded to ridicule Lenin's words and ignored Marx's. I'm reasonably certain you are neither Lenin, nor Marx. Feel free to argue otherwise. > You then accuse me of "not understanding Marxism." Yes. And you keep reinforcing this accusation again and again. Right now you are trying to peddle non-Marxist analysis of Marxist practice - because Bourgeois recognize and support it. > No, you *are* talking about the intelligentsia. It's like trying to argue with RadFem, who refuse to accept the fact that male gender is not a defining feature of Capitalists: but they *are* predominantly male! > It's like fascists who sharply differentiate between the "good" bourgeoisie (those supposedly commit to "productive" activities) and the "bad" bourgeoisie (those involved in the financial sector, e.g. banking.) To Marxists they both belong to the same exploiting class. Except we are talking about Petit-Bourgeoisie. Or do you consider Petit-Bourgeois to be exploiting class? I expect dogmatic repetition of some quote that is not relevant to anything, by the way. There is no way you'll give an actual answer, is there? > Likewise, whether someone is an engineer, professor, author, writer, or whatever, they're still members of the intelligentsia, a stratum of society. "Stratum of society" - defined by occupation - does not define one's class (economic role). And yet you keep trying to use this as a proof of belonging to Proletariat. Which is a class. > No historian is "completely unbiased." As a Marxist you would know this. Exactly. But you refuse to recognize this for some reason. > What matters is the quality of Getty's research. No. What matters is what and how he is researching. His method and approach - which influence his conclusions and interpretations. > If you dispute the numbers he gives as "bullshit," What I'm disputing is his analysis (interpretation of events) - it is not Marxist. We can take his numbers (if he supports them with sources to archives), but any interpretation of those numbers is useless for Communists (not for you, evidently). He is not using class-based approach, and real Marxist would need to make his own conclusions and re-interpret Getty's book. Note that you are not even trying to look at the events from class position. It is pure cult of personality: Stalin this and Stalin that; Yezhov this and Yezhov that. Where is the class analysis? It's the first step that any Marxist would take. But wait. You can't differentiate between classes, can you? It's all Proletariat, because Chuev said, Molotov said, Stalin said so. A fitting quote: > People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. No.7103 >>7100 > Moscow gave permission to shoot about 236,000 victims. FFS, Moscow gave permission to locals to decide if this was necessary. Stop inventing things. No.7104 >>7100 > >Which is, again, irrelevant. I was talking about contemporaries. > No you weren't, you claimed "that's how it was equated in the Soviet Union" and before that wrote "'purges' had been going on since the beginning." Yes. Contemporaries - people who lived in 1920s and 1930s in USSR. > No one equated purges with mass arrests and executions, even during 1936-38 the checking of party cards and whatnot was formally separate from what else went on during those years. I repeat AGAIN: purges were not limited to party members. Do you even read my posts? > Purges were not limited to party members. As I've said: each and every working collective had a regular meeting with collective discussing if they should keep or replace managers. And 1937/38 are literally called "Big Purges" - because that's how population perceived them and how they were executed. I don't really know how (or why) are you trying to prove that there was no link. > I don't recall anything analogous to the Yezhovschina under Lenin > or even under Stalin himself except for the years 1936-38 (technically "Yezhovschina" is actually 1937-38, but still.) Purges. In the original meaning. Worker control? RabKrIn? Does any of this ring a bell? > or under Stalin's successors Well, after Stalin those things went down and ceased happening. Which is a sign of deterioration of DotP, btw. > What makes Getty a "crypto-Fascist wanker"? Anti-Communism. >>7101 > It's also pretty ironic that you praise the mass repressions of 1936-38 as a great demonstration of "worker control" against corrupt managers and party bosses and whatnot, when the guy who pioneered that interpretation was none other than the famed "crypto-fascist," J. Arch Getty, in his book "Origins of the Great Purges." > pioneered Well, shucks. I guess, during the 1930s nobody wrote anything. No.7105 File: c79767e3ebd89f2⋯.jpg (238.55 KB, 1213x889, 1213:889, .jpg) >>7101 > So Stalin wasn't aware that hundreds of thousands of people were being shot Resolution of 1938, January 18 shows that Central Committee was somewhat aware and was trying to resist it. You'll have to either admit that Stalin was resisting it as well, or this was going on against his will. Also, I've found a good link for you to read: http://www.stalinsociety.org/2016/03/31/the-real-stalin-series-part-thirteen-party-purges/ Though, it somewhat schizophrenically limits purges to the Party, while admitting that any manager could face it. > And as I already said earlier, it wasn't until after Stalin's death that mass rehabilitations were carried out (over 300,000 by the first half of 1956.) Bullshit. First rehabilitations begun in 1938 - initiated by Beria. And those rehabilitations begun with those who were still alive (IIRC ~40 thousand coming executions were stopped by Beria, until cases could be re-assessed - and most of those people were freed). > And it was Stalin himself who suggested, on behalf of the Politburo, adding Yezhov to that body as a candidate member. The only other person to be made a candidate member at this time was Khrushchev, again suggested by Stalin on behalf of the Politburo. I'm sorry, are you trying to make some joke here? Also, membership in Politburo provided people with no real power, and Yezhov had been running state security for 1.5 years before becoming a candidate. Frankly, I don't see any "ascendancy" here. Any sufficiently important executive would been invited to keep the Party informed of the situation. > Would you mind telling me who belonged to the "Yezhov faction" in the Politburo and how they would be able to override any objection on the part of Stalin to appointing Yezhov? So let me get this straight: since Stalin OBVIOUSLY could look into the future (1938), he clearly knew everything about Yezhov in 1936. And this is why he PERSONALLY appointed Yezhov, by forcing the rest of Politburo to make him their representative and suggest Yezhov on behalf of Politburo to Central Committee, and then force Central Committee to approve of Yezhov. And this is how Stalin is provably complicit in any and all crimes of Yezhov? Simultaneously not being omniscient and omnipotent, of course. No.7106 File: 7207384045c50c2⋯.jpg (26.49 KB, 521x245, 521:245, .jpg) No.7107 >>7105 Good post. I appreciate your effort and I want to congratulate you for your time. For my part I am already tired of strawman, hiding behind quotes and authorities, also of cynicism. No.7108 File: cc153f055b2690c⋯.jpg (123.61 KB, 646x904, 323:452, Stanislav Kosior.jpg) >>7102 >I asked you to explain in your own words And yet again, the subject is Marxism. The leading authorities on this subject are not me, but Marx, Engels and Lenin. If we are discussing Marxist concepts, we ought to look toward Marxist authors. Either demonstrate why Marx, Engels and Lenin are wrong, or stop whining about how none of your talk about the intelligentsia being "petty-bourgeois" can be discerned in the writings of any Marxist authors. >Except we are talking about Petit-Bourgeoisie. No, we're talking about the intelligentsia, and you're trying to weasel out by saying your words don't apply to "all" the intelligentsia, only certain parts. >Or do you consider Petit-Bourgeois to be exploiting class? If a petty-bourgeoisie purchases the labor-power of proletarians and extracts surplus-value then yes, that is exploitation. The petty-bourgeois isn't "inherently" an exploiting class though, considering that it also encompasses those who run their own business with only themselves as the "employee." >"Stratum of society" - defined by occupation - does not define one's class (economic role). And yet you keep trying to use this as a proof of belonging to Proletariat. Which is a class. As a Marxist, I'm using relationship to the means of production as my criteria, not occupation. Managers and specialists in Soviet enterprises did not own them nor hire labor. There is no basis for calling them "petty-bourgeois." It's that simple. That's is why Marxist authors consider them a strata of society rather than a class. >But you refuse to recognize this for some reason. I never claimed Getty was "completely unbiased." I said he was objective, which is true. >What matters is what and how he is researching. His method and approach - which influence his conclusions and interpretations. That would work if we were reviewing an entire article or book by him, rather than a specific claim. >What I'm disputing is his analysis (interpretation of events) So did over 200,000 people get shot with the approval of Moscow, yes or no? Oh wait, here's your answer: >FFS, Moscow gave permission to locals to decide if this was necessary. Stop inventing things. In other words Moscow gave permission to execute some 200,000 persons, a huge number. Furthermore, as Getty notes in the same article, Order No. 447 (which was the creation of Stalin and Yezhov) made it so "the most important decision was left outside central control and in local hands: who would live and who would die, reversing the rules of the preceding years, when the Politburo had approved all death sentences. Now, local troikas composed of party and police officials had the right to execute 'in expedited fashion,' and only had to report to NKVD chief Ezhov every two weeks on the quantity and characteristics of those arrested and sentenced. Central attempts to meaningfully monitor the situation were bound to fail. Stalin must have known that, in the climate of rising hysteria about enemies, the limty in Order No. 447 would likely be taken as targets by the locals. . . The Politburo approved many (but not all) [increases in the 'limit'] despite its earlier conservatism on local requests. Clearly, Stalin was not a reluctant terrorist and did not seek to reduce the terror, but rather to monitor local conduct of the campaign and reserve to himself the right to decide its parameters. . . Local party leaders often wrote directly to Stalin asking for augmented limits, bypassing Ezhov and the established procedure altogether. We have notes in Stalin's hand approving increases of limits for Krasnoiarsk, Bashkiria, Smolensk, and Engel's which do not appear in the Politburo records." >It is pure cult of personality: Stalin this and Stalin that; Yezhov this and Yezhov that. Where is the class analysis? This is laughable coming from someone desperately trying to absolve Stalin from clear complicity in Yezhov's wrongdoings. As for class analysis, as far as anyone can see, the overwhelming number of those arrested and shot during 1936-38 were communists and other builders of Soviet society. That was the conclusion of the CPSU at its 20th Congress and just about every other fraternal party concurred with it, and the only way you can explain this is because an individual and his associates (i.e. "Khrushchev and his cronies") somehow got his way above the CPSU and Soviet government. No.7109 File: 9459db0413cd672⋯.jpg (334.56 KB, 815x1000, 163:200, Pavel Postyshev.jpg) >Yes. Contemporaries - people who lived in 1920s and 1930s in USSR. Okay, let's consult no less a contemporary source than the Short Course history of the CPSU(B), edited by Stalin himself. It states as follows: "Of enormous importance in this period was the purge of the Party ranks from adventitious and alien elements, begun in 1933, and especially the careful verification of the records of Party members and the exchange of old Party cards for new ones undertaken after the foul murder of S. M. Kirov." This is a "proper" purge, purging as the term was used by Lenin. Carrying out mass arrests and executions is something else entirely. That kind of "purge" is not described in the Short Course. >I repeat AGAIN: purges were not limited to party members. Do you even read my posts? And I also repeat again, purges are not synonymous with the Yezhovschina. >And 1937/38 are literally called "Big Purges" - because that's how population perceived them and how they were executed. I don't really know how (or why) are you trying to prove that there was no link. There is no link to the understanding of the term used by the CPSU, as laid down by Lenin and other early Bolshevik sources, which is what we're discussing. >Purges. In the original meaning. Worker control? RabKrIn? Does any of this ring a bell? I'm quite aware of Rabkrin and workers' control. It was the Soviet "revisionists" who revived it in the form of people's control committees after Stalin died. At no point was Rabkrin or any other organ of control responsible for carrying out executions (or arrests, for that matter.) >Well, after Stalin those things went down and ceased happening. Which is a sign of deterioration of DotP, btw. So we're back at what I wrote earlier in this thread: "so many 'anti-revisionist' analyses of 'what went wrong' become ridiculous 'Stalin/Mao/Hoxha should have had this person shot, or maybe this person, or maybe these persons.'" I'm sure if Khrushchev or Brezhnev were able to carry out arbitrary arrests and executions of "enemies," socialism would not have benefited in any way. >Anti-Communism. Getty is not a red-baiter, unlike the aforementioned Conquest, Pipes, Solzhenitsyn, etc., so his anti-communism is clearly of a different caliber than such folks, let alone Hitler. >Well, shucks. I guess, during the 1930s nobody wrote anything. If there's any author in the 1930s who wrote that the mass arrests and executions were intimately linked to workers' democracy, I'd be very interested in reading said works. Again, as I wrote earlier, there *was* an expansion of democracy as a result of the 1936 Constitution, secret ballot elections in the party, etc., but none of this was connected to the Yezhovschina, and in fact exactly half of the Presidium of the Congress of Soviets that adopted the 1936 Constitution (15 out of 30) was executed within the next two years. >Resolution of 1938, January 18 shows that Central Committee was somewhat aware and was trying to resist it. No, the Central Committee criticized excesses (which were blamed on local authorities.) Arbitrary actions by the security forces continued, e.g. "At the end of January 1938 the Politburo issued a directive raising the quota on arrests, so as to authorize 57,200 more victims to be rounded up by the NKVD. . . All cases were to be dealt with and closed within two months." (Amy Night, Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant, p. 85.) The CC resolution indeed marked the beginning of the end of the purges, but by that point damage had already been done throughout 1937. Post last edited at No.7110 File: c9cdd5572320697⋯.jpg (28.88 KB, 520x443, 520:443, AL Strong.jpg) >Bullshit. First rehabilitations begun in 1938 - initiated by Beria. They still pale in comparison to the far more numerous rehabilitations carried out after 1953. In addition, pretty much all of those rehabilitated in 1938-40 were prisoners, rather than those already executed (as that would presumably reflect badly on the government that allowed so many innocent people to die for bullshit reasons.) >I'm sorry, are you trying to make some joke here? No, Stalin literally spoke to a session of the Politburo putting forward the candidacy of Yezhov on its behalf. >Also, membership in Politburo provided people with no real power That's just wrong. The Politburo was central to the affairs of the CPSU(B) during this period, and had life and death power; the quote from Amy Night's book I gave above is just one of innumerable examples. To give a different example of its influence, it was in the Politburo in January 1936 that Stalin proposed a new Soviet constitution and a government commission to make it possible. >Frankly, I don't see any "ascendancy" here. Yezhov in 1937-38 was turned into a major figure. Stalin himself in a December 1937 speech referred to "our leading comrades, Kalinin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, Yezhov and many other responsible comrades." The Short Course, published in 1938, describing the year 1917: "The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party sent its representatives to the Donetz Basin, the Urals, Helsingfors, Kronstadt, the South-Western Front and other places to organize the uprising. Comrades Voroshilov, Molotov, Dzerzhinsky, Ordjonihdze, Kirov, Kaganovich, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Yaroslavsky and others were specially assigned by the Party to direct the uprising in the provinces. Comrade Zhdanov carried on the work among the armed forces in Shadrinsk, in the Urals. Comrade Yezhov made preparations for an uprising of the soldiers on the Western Front, in Byelorussia." As you can see, Yezhov is placed in the same paragraph as Dzerzhinsky, Frunze and Kirov (among others.) That isn't coincidental. His stature in Soviet life clearly ballooned during the years 1936-38. Meanwhile, to my question of who belonged to the "Yezhov Faction" inside the Politburo, you reply with: >So let me get this straight In other words, there were none. >since Stalin OBVIOUSLY could look into the future (1938), he clearly knew everything about Yezhov in 1936. Yezhov was made a candidate member in October 1937 as the Yezhovschina was already underway. Politburo member Rudzutak had already been arrested in May that year. Stalin couldn't have been oblivious to the role Yezhov was playing, which is why he was writing letters praising his conduct. >And this is how Stalin is provably complicit in any and all crimes of Yezhov? Simultaneously not being omniscient and omnipotent, of course. No, we know Stalin is complicit because of the evidence I've given earlier of him instructing Yezhov to continue mass repressions and of writing stuff like "beat, beat" on lists of prisoners sent from Yezhov and back to him. You haven't addressed these or the many other examples I could give. Yezhov himself, in his final speech, admitted to having been tortured into making confessions, and concluded as follows: "I request that Stalin be informed that I have never in my life deceived the party politically, a fact known to thousands of persons who know my honesty and modesty. I request that Stalin be informed that everything that has happened with me is simply the confluence of circumstances and the possibility cannot be excluded that enemies whom I have overlooked may have had a hand in this too. Tell Stalin that I shall die with his name on my lips." As for the excerpt from a 1941 book by Anna Louise Strong, she herself was arrested in 1949 as an "American spy" during a new round of arrests and executions of notable functionaries like Mikhail Borodin (who back in 1936-38 defended the mass repressions in conversations with Strong) and Solomon Lozovsky. In pages 66-71 of her 1956 book "The Stalin Era" (as well as in her private correspondence years before then, when Stalin was still alive) she acknowledged that many innocent people were being arrested and executed, and writes as follows: >The conclusion must be, I think, what the Russians have drawn, that no man should be deified as Stalin was. It is true that this act went “through channels," that even the great madness of 1937 was approved by resolution of the Central Committee. But it was approved witliout the test of a courageous opposition; all who thus approved, with Stalin, bear the blame. Nowhere in the world is justice sure or perfect. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and justice, not only under capitalism, but even more under socialism. The value of the Khrushchev speech is not only that it was followed by the curbing of the power of the political police by law, but that it awakened horror among the Soviet people. This active horror of an informed people against injustice is the only sure safeguard. . . . >Howard K. Smith commented: "Had Russia not liquidated a few thousand bureaucrats and officers, there is little doubt that the Red Army would have collapsed in two months." This was the judgement of others; I do not entirely share it. Strong wasn't the only one. Marshal Zhukov (who, despite having reason for personal animus against Stalin after the war, still portrayed him objectively in his memoirs) praised Tukhachevsky and other generals who had to wait until after Stalin's death to be posthumously rehabilitated. No officer took seriously the idea that he and the rest of those executed were traitors, or that the repressions in the army helped the war effort in Finland or during the Great Patriotic War. >>7107 >also of cynicism. What cynicism, exactly? Stalin himself must have displayed loads of cynicism at the time, willing to accept the sacrifice of so many innocent lives as "enemies of the people" under the belief that defense against real enemies (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, fascistic Poland, etc.) would be best served by said sacrifices. Post last edited at No.7113 >>6905 I came across a paperback copy of that book recently and bought it. I'll be reading it soon, if it needs to be scanned or something I could work that out. No.7114 Ismail do you no longer like Stalin then? No.7119 File: a25c7fc26418bb1⋯.jpg (57.11 KB, 600x399, 200:133, Stalin XVI 1930.jpg) >>7113 I scanned it myself recently, so there's no need for you to scan it. >>7114 I think the CPSU's assessment of Stalin made after his death was basically sound: he was a revolutionary who defended Marxism-Leninism, presided over the construction of socialism, and led the Soviet people in the war against fascism. But he also concentrated immense power in his hands (as Lenin himself had warned), carried out unjustified repressions against loyal communists, and held some incorrect theoretical views that were turned into unquestionable dogma while he was alive. You can find the post-1956 Soviet view of Stalin in the following two sources: All this is separate from Khrushchev's "Secret Speech," which wasn't even published in the USSR until the Gorbachev period and which contains multiple hypocritical and misleading claims. But it's worth noting that even Khrushchev never went so far as to claim that Stalin was a "counter-revolutionary," "buried the revolution," represented a "bureaucratic caste" that lorded over the workers, etc., as Trotskyists and other anti-Soviet folks did. To quote from Khrushchev's speech: >We must affirm that the Party fought a serious fight against the Trotskyites, rightists and bourgeois nationalists, and that it disarmed ideologically all the enemies of Leninism. This ideological fight was carried on successfully, as a result of which the Party became strengthened and tempered. Here Stalin played a positive role. . . . >This question is complicated by the fact that all this which we have just discussed [i.e. the mass repressions] was done during Stalin’s life under his leadership and with his concurrence; here Stalin was convinced that this was necessary for the defense of the interests of the working classes against the plotting of enemies and against the attack of the imperialist camp. >He saw this from the position of the interest of the working class, of the interest of the laboring people, of the interest of the victory of socialism and communism. We cannot say that these were the deeds of a giddy despot. He considered that this should be done in the interest of the Party, of the working masses, in the name of the defense of the revolution’s gains. In this lies the whole tragedy! In the 1960s-early 80s Stalin's role was increasingly placed into proper perspective, e.g. under Khrushchev Stalin was portrayed as little more than an idiot in military affairs, whereas under Brezhnev this was corrected. The July 1984 Politburo meeting I posted earlier in the thread shows how its members criticized Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" and wanted to ensure that a truly objective approach to Stalin was achieved: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111231 Under Gorbachev this positive process was reversed entirely. Gorby declared that what had been built in the 1930s was not socialism but "Stalinism," and that the USSR had been suffering under an "administrative-command economy" ever since. The Soviet press followed Gorbachev in portraying Stalin as some sort of supervillain. All this was used to justify attacks on Marxism-Leninism. It had nothing to do with presenting a balanced appraisal of one of the most important communists of the 20th century. So I still "like" Stalin, in the sense that he was a communist who promoted the construction of socialism. I simply recognize that he also had serious shortcomings. I also "like" Mao, Hoxha, Tito, Ceaușescu, etc. while still criticizing stuff they did that I consider wrongheaded. To quote Al Szymanski: >The lesson to be learned from the experience with Stalin’s infallibility and the idolization of the Soviet Union in the period 1930’s-1953 was neither that the critiques of Stalin were right and that the USSR and its foreign policies were betrayals of socialism, nor that they were perfect and the model for all other parties to follow. The real lesson is that the world Marxist-Leninist movement can not fall into the Trotskyist error of idealization and romantization, and its corollary of bitter denunciation when reality can not meet the ideals, and that the world movement can not have a single Church and Pope which knows what everyone must do and to which we look to as the model. Peking can not replace Moscow, nor should Moscow be transformed from Rome to anti-Rome. The experience should have taught us the necessity to think for ourselves, to place the interests of no state above a revolutionary policy, to understand the need for revolutionary patience, and to appreciate the curves in the road to revolution and the necessity of supporting, but not tailing, all progressive struggles and socialist regimes. Post last edited at No.7120 How did the USSR treat: >Gambling >Law enforcement >Taxes >Social welfare and; >What was the most corrupt SSR? No.7122 >>7119 How come you like Ceaușescu? Every single policy I read from him seemed to have been a massive failure, and then in his later years the embarrassing attempt to establish a leader cult by trying to copy Kim Il-Sung, the IMF issue, etc. No.7123 File: abef3c7ed320f46⋯.png (9.71 KB, 1200x600, 2:1, Uzbek SSR flag.png) >>7120 Under Khrushchev there was talk of abolishing taxes entirely as part of the whole "we're going to reach communism by 1980" utopianism. Taxes themselves were low; the only really significant one was the turnover tax on goods, which was meant to regulate consumption. Alex Nove's economic history of the USSR is a good read as far as bourgeois accounts go: http://b-ok.org/book/2039288/9b6902 As for gambling, it was illegal, although you could purchase lottery tickets from the government and you could also bet on horse races. Pages 156-164 of the following work talk about Soviet law enforcement as of the 1960s: https://archive.org/details/RussiaReExamined Can you elaborate what you mean by social welfare? The Central Asian SSRs seem to have been the most corrupt, e.g. as Keeran and Kenny note in their book Socialism Betrayed, "In [Brezhnev-era] Uzbekistan, for example, the Party leader had fourteen relatives working in the Party apparat, and bribery, arbitrariness, injustice, and 'heinous violations of the law' reportedly ran rampant." They later give another example of Uzbek corruption, wherein its authorities "'boldly and deftly padded' the size of the cotton crop to harvest billions of rubles. In the process 'thousands were bought off,' including Brezhnev’s son-in-law." >>7122 I put "like" in quotes for that reason. I recognize he was a communist and Romania under him was still socialist, but as a leader he was incompetent and an opportunist. He's probably the worst communist leader outside of revisionists like Gorbachev and Dubček and outside of the unique case of Pol Pot. No.7131 >>7119 >But he also concentrated immense power in his hands (as Lenin himself had warned), carried out unjustified repressions against loyal communists, and held some incorrect theoretical views that were turned into unquestionable dogma while he was alive. I take it you'd have done a much better job in his place. No.7135 >>7119 Serious question: >But he also concentrated immense power in his hands (as Lenin himself had warned) Do you think his thought process was "Muahahaha *rubs hands slyly*, how can I get as much personal power as possible" or was it more like "a strong centralized government is the only way to preserve socialism in the face of capitalist encirclement and internal sabotage" >carried out unjustified repressions against loyal communists Do you think his thought process was, "Hehehe, how can I kill my political opponents as quickly and efficiently as possible" or was it more like "our country is under serious threat, many of these former Mensheviks and Trotskyists cannot be trusted and must be dealt with" >and held some incorrect theoretical views that were turned into unquestionable dogma while he was alive. Can you elaborate? Which specific theoretical views of his were incorrect? No.7136 File: 01eda610ff817ef⋯.jpg (78.47 KB, 614x424, 307:212, Vyshinsky.jpg) >>7131 >I take it you'd have done a much better job in his place. >"a strong centralized government is the only way to preserve socialism in the face of capitalist encirclement and internal sabotage" We already have the example of Lenin, who practiced collective leadership at a time when Soviet Russia was being invaded by over a dozen countries, was in the throes of civil war, endured famine, the Kronstadt mutiny, and the attempts of organized factions inside the party to divert it from its course. Equating one man centralizing power in his hands with "centralized government" is asinine. Government when Lenin was alive *was* centralized, as it continued to be up to the Gorby period. That has nothing to do with whether collective leadership was undermined under Stalin. And you are putting words in my mouth as to Stalin's intentions. I already quoted Khrushchev whom I'm sure you'd agree with on this point: "Stalin was convinced that this was necessary for the defense of the interests of the working classes against the plotting of enemies and against the attack of the imperialist camp." Your argument also doesn't make much sense when we remember that collective leadership was undermined even further after the Great Patriotic War, with no real justification available. >or was it more like "our country is under serious threat, many of these former Mensheviks and Trotskyists cannot be trusted and must be dealt with" That was part of Stalin's thought process, yes. But keep in mind that many of those who were subject to arrest and execution had never been either Mensheviks or Trotskyists. In fact, quite a few had distinguished themselves not only by a very long record of service to the Bolshevik cause, but also by active struggle against Trotskyism, whereas Vyshinsky (who presided over the Moscow Trials) was not only a former Menshevik, but under Kerensky he signed a warrant for Lenin's arrest. Does this mean Vyshinsky was in fact a crypto-Menshevik who hated Lenin till the end of his days? No, but clearly there wasn't much consistency if Vyshinsky could have his past ignored while others would end up dead for lesser involvements. >Can you elaborate? Which specific theoretical views of his were incorrect? The main one was that the class struggle intensifies under socialism. To quote from the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1960, pp. 512-513: >Stalin rightly stressed the necessity of strengthening the Soviet State in every possible way, of keeping a watchful eye on the intrigues of enemies and, above all, on the machinations of the hostile capitalist encirclement. This held true in the conditions of victorious Socialism as well. It was likewise necessary to be on guard against certain elements from among the routed opposition groups of the Trotskyists, Zinovievites, Right-wingers and nationalists who (especially the Trotskyists) more than once deceived the Party in the course of their struggle against it, violated Soviet legality, and were often in league with counter-revolutionary elements. For this reason the State security organs were compelled to take the necessary measures against them. >On the other hand in 1937, when Socialism was already victorious in the U.S.S.R., Stalin advanced the erroneous thesis that the class struggle in the country would intensify as the Soviet State grew stronger. The class struggle in the Soviet country was at its sharpest stage in the period when the question "Who will beat whom?" was being decided, when the foundations of Socialism were being laid. But after Socialism had won, after the exploiting classes had been eliminated and moral and political unity had been established in Soviet society, the thesis of the inevitable sharpening of the class struggle was an erroneous one. In practice it served as a justification for mass repressions against the Party's ideological enemies who had already been routed politically. Many honest Communists and non-Party people, not guilty of any offence, also became victims of these repressions. There were other views of his that were considered incorrect (e.g. his understanding of the law of value, and his views on linguistics) but overall the CPSU still judged him, after 1956, as having been a Marxist-Leninist and having been more right than wrong. Post last edited at No.7137 >>7136 >There were other views of his that were considered incorrect (e.g. his understanding of the law of value Could you elaborate on this? No.7138 >>7136 >We already have the example of Lenin, who practiced collective leadership at a time when Soviet Russia Stalin "practiced collective leadership" too. No.7139 File: 2449d7df58e9be6⋯.jpg (64 KB, 666x800, 333:400, Eugene Varga.jpg) >>7137 Here's an example from Richard Kosolapov's "Socialism: Questions of Theory," 1980, p. 147: >While [Stalin] noted correctly that a) 'there is no system of hired labour' in our country and 'labour power is no longer a commodity', he still assumed that b) 'consumer products essential to cover the outlay of labour power in the process of production are produced and realised in our country as commodities subject to the law of value'. The latter passage may lead to the conclusion that labour power restored through the consumption of the said products is also subject to the law of value, which is obviously contrary to the first passage and to the actual state of affairs. The first chapter ("Marxism and the Problem of the Basic Economic Law of Capitalism") of the following work also contains a critique of Stalin's conception of both economic laws and dialectics, by the major Soviet economist Eugen Varga: https://archive.org/details/PoliticoEconomicProblemsOfCapitalism >>7138 The fact you put "collective leadership" in quotation marks suggests that no, he did not. As I wrote to you elsewhere: >It took 13 years for a party congress to be called between 1939 and 1952 (they were supposed to meet every three years.) Obviously the Great Patriotic War intervened, but that still left five years afterward. In addition, meetings of the Central Committee became infrequent (only six were held in the last sixteen years of Stalin's life, even though it was supposed to meet every four months according to the 18th Congress.) Stalin conducted much of his work through informal groupings of associates rather than through the Politburo, thus making it difficult to ensure accountability. >This situation was rectified after 1953. For example, Soviet ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, wrote in his memoirs how Brezhnev had less power than US Presidents, since Brezhnev had to first convince his colleagues in the Politburo before undertaking virtually any action. No.7141 >>7139 >The fact you put "collective leadership" in quotation marks suggests that no, he did not. The fact I put "collective leadership" in quotations marks suggests that must be defined what you understand by that in order to not hide behind your own meanings. What you try to say by "collective leadership" with Lenin must be applied according to history to Stalin too. >As I wrote to you elsewhere: Do you know how many times Stalin tried to resignate from his charges? >It took 13 years for a party congress to be called between 1939 and 1952 It is called WWII. >but that still left five years afterward Wow. >Stalin conducted much of his work through informal groupings of associates rather than through the Politburo, thus making it difficult to ensure accountability. Informal groupings of associates rather than throught the Politburo? That's not serious. >This situation was rectified after 1953. That's why as Nikita did with Stalin, he was removed by Brezhnev by same ways. >wrote in his memoirs how Brezhnev had less power than US Presidents. All compared only through SU but then... US Presidents. Can't even perceive your tricks again. >since Brezhnev had to first convince his colleagues in the Politburo before undertaking virtually any action Same as Stalin. No.7143 File: 0d9e023963248e8⋯.jpg (922.4 KB, 1300x962, 50:37, leonid_brezhnev_tass_62801….jpg) >>7141 >Do you know how many times Stalin tried to resignate from his charges? How is this relevant? >It is called WWII. A period of five years elapsed even after the war ended, as I said. Your best response to this is to sarcastically remark "wow." >Informal groupings of associates rather than throught the Politburo? That's not serious. Of course it's serious. Decisions supposed to be undertaken by the Politburo and confirmed by the Central Committee are instead taken by a few persons independently of the Politburo and CC. That's a basic violation of the norms of inner-party democracy. >That's why as Nikita did with Stalin, he was removed by Brezhnev by same ways. I don't even understand what you're saying there. Khrushchev was removed peacefully, via the decision of the appropriate Party bodies. Such a situation wouldn't have been possible under Stalin, just as it wasn't possible under Mao, Hoxha, Ceaușescu, etc. >Same as Stalin. Give me an example of Stalin proposing something to his Politburo colleagues and it being overruled. >All compared only through SU but then... US Presidents. It indicates the differences between Stalin (who concentrated immense power in his hands, more akin to modern American Presidents) and the CPSU under Brezhnev, where collective leadership was practiced. No.7146 Ismail is slowly making me become a Brezhnevite, little by little. No.7147 >>7143 I hope you realize it's literally the easiest thing in the world to criticize historical figures in hindsight. Do you think you'd have done a better job in his place? I'm fairly confident that if I was leading the Soviet Union, I would fuck up way worse and probably lose the war. No.7150 >>7146 > Ismail is slowly making me become a Brezhnevite, little by little. How? He effectively admitted to being a cargo-cultist of Marxism - not a real Marxist. Not only that, he perpetuates anti-Communist propaganda and does argue in good faith. No.7151 >>7150 > does not argue in good faith No.7163 File: d26045bd9f81417⋯.jpg (63.62 KB, 1023x575, 1023:575, Andropov addressing Politb….jpg) >>7147 >I hope you realize it's literally the easiest thing in the world to criticize historical figures in hindsight. The point is to learn from negative experiences, and that is exactly what the CPSU did. Stalin was able to concentrate power in his hands and did so to the detriment of the CPSU's own democratic norms. Khrushchev later tried doing the same thing but was able to be removed by his colleagues. Gorbachev also tried to concentrate power in his hands. He could only do this by going "beyond" the CPSU and setting up his own independent authority via new institutions (such as creating the position of President of the USSR.) Bourgeois analysts who regarded the CPSU as an "oligarchy" or "dictatorship" nonetheless recognized a restoration of Lenin-era practices in the party, e.g. T.H. Rigby wrote in 1972 that "one can identify an overall trend away from the arbitrary, structurally indeterminate pattern of decision-making characteristic of Stalin's system of personal rule. . . plac[ing] a premium on formal structures and regular procedures, thus promoting a reinstitutionalization of the supreme executive bodies of Party and State, in particular the Politburo." Anyway, to demonstrate that the Politburo's role was needlessly diminished in Stalin's last years in favor of informal and unaccountable groups, I will quote from the article "Stalin's Cabinet: The Politburo and Decision Making in the Post-War Years" by Yoram Gorlizki: >It was some months after the war, and the formal dissolution of the State Defence Committee (GKO) on 4 September 1945, when the Politburo began to resume peacetime operations. Formally the Politburo continued in much the same vein as it had left off before the war, with a virtually identical membership and a similarly modest workload. At its meeting of 29 December 1945 the Politburo resolved to meet every other Tuesday for a short time, from 8 pm to 9 pm. . . . Meetings of the Politburo, however, tailed off following the session of 3 October 1946; over the rest of Stalin's reign there were only two further formal, enlarged sessions of the Politburo, on 13 December 1947 and 17 June 1949. The official Politburo in fact came to be overshadowed by the regular conferences of a narrow 'ruling group' which met routinely in Stalin's office. The composition of this circle. . . differed markedly from that of the formal Politburo. Excluded from [it] were those Politburo members who had either fallen foul of Stalin or who were cut off from the ruling circle for reasons of location or ill-health. For some time Stalin's suspicions had fallen on Voroshilov, Andreev, and, to a lesser extent, Kaganovich, all of whom were, despite their formal membership of the Politburo, not privy to the proceedings of the ruling group in the aftermath of the war. . . most resolutions issued in the name of the Politburo in the Stalin years were determined by this group. . . . >A succession of leaders, including Malenkov, Beria, Voznesensky and Bulganin, gained admission to the group many months before their formal accession as full members of the Politburo. Stalin hence unilaterally elevated colleagues without having to go through the tedious formality of having them 'elected' as full members of the Politburo by the Central Committee. Stalin could also expel members from his group with unseemly ease. There was no justification for treating the Politburo in this way. Even during the Civil War such behavior was not present. Post last edited at No.7191 Do you have any idea where I can find a pdf of Konstantin Rokossovsky's memoir? It's called A Soldier's Duty No.7192 File: d6068f834037c47⋯.jpg (1.12 MB, 2511x3130, 2511:3130, Rokossovsky.jpg) >>7191 It's not online, and it costs hundreds of dollars to buy a copy. I'd have it obtained and scanned if that weren't the case. It's available online in Russian, but presumably that isn't much help. Is there a specific event you'd like to know about connected to Rokossovsky? Or just "I want to read memoirs of k00l Soviet military d00ds." No.7193 >>7192 >Is there a specific event you'd like to know about connected to Rokossovsky? Or just "I want to read memoirs of k00l Soviet military d00ds." Both I guess, was interested in reading about his trial and the reasons for it, and Rokossovsky's command during the civil war and WWII prior to becoming a marshall No.7194 File: 23193994fdc755d⋯.jpg (35.55 KB, 400x527, 400:527, Rokossovsky Time magazine.jpg) >>7193 >was interested in reading about his trial and the reasons for it According to a Russian person I know, the Soviet-era edition of his memoirs begins in 1940, when he was recuperating from imprisonment and torture (which isn't actually mentioned in the book.) The post-Soviet edition of his memoirs does apparently talk about the mass arrests and executions in the army, and his early life. Soviet sources basically never talked about the Yezhovschina except to say "there was lots of unjust repressions." Even the names of Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria were omitted from history books as much as possible (e.g. you can't find articles on them in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, just like the GSE lacks articles on figures like Trotsky and Zinoviev.) No.7206 What are your thoughts on Soviet-Yugoslav relations? No.7207 File: 55140c2d62a4584⋯.jpg (265.07 KB, 450x453, 150:151, Tito and Brezhnev hunting.jpg) >>7206 From 1945-48 relations were, publicly, very good; Yugoslavia had the reputation of being the most pro-Soviet out of all the People's Democracies. In private though Tito did have nationalist inclinations, while the Yugoslavs resented Soviet personnel who they felt were giving them a bad deal on economic matters, e.g. as Khrushchev wanted Albania to do ten years later, the Soviets wanted Yugoslavia to focus on agriculture and slow down industrial growth. Relations ended up breaking down as the Soviets denounced Tito as a "fascist" who was feverishly working to restore capitalism, while Tito said Stalin's nationalities policy would "make Hitler envious" and that the Soviet Union was practicing "state capitalism." The USSR pressured Yugoslavia to change its domestic and foreign policies like the USSR would pressure China and Albania under Khrushchev. Lots of "Cominformists" (i.e. pro-Soviet folks) were persecuted in Yugoslavia, while the Soviets had the other People's Democracies launch repression against "Titoists" (most of whom were imagined like Rajk, Kádár and Gomułka.) The US opportunistically claimed it would help Yugoslavia against so-called "Soviet imperialism," which Tito readily accepted (although he refused certain requests, like being asked to join NATO.) This led to Yugoslav Communists adopting silly right-wing lines, like Tito declaring that the New Deal was a means by which the US could transition to socialism. It also marked the start of Yugoslavia's dependence on Western banks and financial institutions that played such an important role in the country's demise. When Stalin died the Soviets decided to normalize relations, and in 1955 apologized and acknowledged that Yugoslavia was a socialist country and Tito a communist revolutionary. Disagreements still existed (e.g. the CPSU criticized the League of Communists of Yugoslavia for holding revisionist views, and the LCY referred to the CPSU as practicing "bureaucratic socialism"), but the Soviets no longer pressured Yugoslavia. The onus on limits to the improvement in relations after 1955 was mainly on Yugoslavia, just like after Khrushchev was ousted the onus was on China and Albania for failing to improve their relations with the USSR. Yugoslavia constantly harbored the concern that the Soviets wanted to invade them, with the Warsaw Pact intervened in Czechoslovakia and the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan being "evidence." The Soviets continuously insisted that they had no intention of sending troops into Yugoslavia, but Tito didn't believe them. He never trusted the USSR after his experiences with Stalin, similar to how Mao and Hoxha totally rejected Brezhnev's overtures to normalize relations. Post last edited at No.7208 >>7207 Thanks for the response. Very informative board you have here, it's making me reconsider a lot of my positions (I used to think Yugoslavia had the right idea trying to remain neutral, but I know it's not so simple anymore). Keep on educating the kids. Also, can you recommend some analyses of Yugoslavia by foreign socialists, specifically its economic policies? I've been getting my hands on as much local literature from the period as I can find, but I haven't read anything from the Soviets and such. No.7209 File: ccad00dcb24b39e⋯.jpg (280.72 KB, 670x452, 335:226, Yugo.jpg) >>7208 Chapters 6 and 7 of the following work discuss the Yugoslav economy: https://archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland I'm not aware of any English-language Soviet work on how the economy operated, but if you have questions about it feel free. The problem with Yugoslav "neutrality" is that, like Ceaușescu's "independent" foreign policy and the anti-Soviet foreign policies of China and Albania, it generally did more harm than good, since to be seen as "neutral" or "non-aligned" by the West meant pissing off the Soviets in some way. No.7217 Is it true that Stalin deported tens of thousands of Romanians to Siberia into labor camps? Recently had an argument with a Romanian who hated communism and I've never heard about this before. No.7218 File: f322a6fa104cd9b⋯.jpg (835.64 KB, 1149x791, 1149:791, Moldavian SSR stamp.jpg) >>7217 According to Romanian chauvinists, the diabolical Bolsheviks created a fake country called Moldavia, inhabited by the equally fake nation known as Moldavians. So when that person speaks of "Romanians" being deported, keep that in mind. 133,138 Germans were removed from the Moldavian SSR by June 1941, and tens of thousands of other inhabitants were subject to deportation in the rest of the USSR, including the gulags, due to their class position or other unsavory backgrounds (such as having been involved in the Romanian army or police.) I don't know how many of those could be considered Moldavian and how many could be considered Romanian, although I'm sure the Soviet government had no love for Romanian chauvinists (who had occupied Bessarabia in 1918 and crushed soviet power there.) Post last edited at No.7219 >>7218 That is very interesting for the National Question. I have some questions for you: 1. Was "fake nation" as Romanian chauvinists said? 2. Which criteria led Bolsheviks to "create" Moldavian nation? 3. Could you provide sources from "Bolshevik side" and "Romanian chauvunist side" to compare both arguments? All of that will be very helpful for me. Months ago I was with 2 girls, one from Romania and the other from Moldavia. Both said that they speak same language and so on. No.7221 File: edbac94658c465a⋯.jpg (846.82 KB, 816x1200, 17:25, Soviet poster Moldavian SS….jpg) >>7219 >Was "fake nation" as Romanian chauvinists said? No. >Which criteria led Bolsheviks to "create" Moldavian nation? They didn't "create" it, they simply argued it already existed, and that the Romanian government (which occupied the region in 1918) oppressed its inhabitants and tried to stifle any Moldavian national sentiment. To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: >There were two stages in the ethnogenesis of the Moldavians: the formation of the Eastern Romanic ethnic community, the Vlachs, and the evolution of the Moldavian nationality. The Vlachs developed out of Thracian tribes inhabiting the northern Balkan Peninsula and the foothills of the Carpathians. These Thracian tribes were romanized in the first centuries A.D., and from the sixth century they came under the influence of the Slavs and other ethnic groups. In the course of ethnic development the Moldavian nationality emerged as a distinct group out of the Vlach population in the Eastern Carpathians; Slavic tribes, mainly South and East Slavs, were partly assimilated by the Moldavians. >In the first half of the 14th century a Moldavian feudal state emerged, later encompassing territory east of the Prut, and the formation of the Moldavian nationality was completed within the state. From the 16th through the 19th century Moldavia was ruled by the Turks. In their struggle for national independence the Moldavian people frequently turned to Russia for aid. In the early 19th century the part of Moldavia that lay between the Prut and Dnestr rivers (Bessarabia) was liberated from Turkish rule and incorporated into Russia. Capitalist relations developed in Bessarabia, and a national intelligentsia appeared. In the early 20th century an independent Moldavian nation arose. Bessarabia was forcibly taken from Soviet Russia by bourgeois-landlord Rumania in 1918. The Moldavian ASSR was created in 1924 within the Ukrainian SSR out of the left-bank regions of the Dnestr populated by Moldavians. In 1940, Bessarabia was returned to the USSR. The Moldavian SSR was created out of the Moldavian ASSR and the greater part of Bessarabia. >Could you provide sources from "Bolshevik side" and "Romanian chauvunist side" to compare both arguments? There is a book that does exactly that, called "The Bessarabian Question in Communist Historiography." Romanian historians in the 1960s began arguing (as their pre-1945 nationalist predecessors did) that Moldavians were Romanians, and criticized the Soviets for having "unjustly occupied" Bessarabia in 1940.) The book is about Soviet and socialist-era Romanian historiography on the subject, and also provides a historical overview of the region. Since you have an account on eregime.org, you can just send me your email in a private message and I'll send you a PDF of it. No.7222 >>7221 >They didn't "create" it, they simply argued it already existed Yeah. I said "create" using your own words that I understood in that meaning. >To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: Very interesting. Now arises another question. I know that, according to some soviets I "relate to", there are different types of human communities according to different "historical stages" (depending on division of labour, mode of production and so on). So from the beginning till now, in a general sense, were "tribes, demos, nationalities and nations". The two that are interesting in the question that I want to make to you are the last ones: nationalities and nations. Nationalities correspond to feudalism and nations to capitalism. Before bourgeois revolutions and 19th century there weren't nations, as Stalin said, but that doesn't mean that "there was nothing". That can be seen in GSE text you put that I appreciate. So we could say that Moldavians were a nationality, an oppressed one, that had national sentiments and wanted to be a nation (which can end into a different national State, independent one, from Romanians). So the question is, you have something on nationalities in Spain? As far as I know and I defend, self-determination applies to nations and also to solve national question in countries where there are nationalities with national movements which claim on independent national State. No.7228 File: c3c7baf5fbcd23d⋯.jpg (219.2 KB, 1041x728, 1041:728, Jose Diaz.jpg) >>7222 >you have something on nationalities in Spain? I do not. No.7230 >>7047 >>>Aren't specialists in charge of factories a class of Petit-Bourgeoisie? >>No. They are part of the intelligentsia, which is a stratum of society, not a class. >I am talking in the context of economic role - while you switch the context to the occupation, and then triumphantly proclaim that occupation does not determine economic role. Ismail is correct. The way you use the terms proletariat and petit-bourgeois is not how Marx and Engels used them, nor have I seen your usage in later Marxist writers, even speaking of a big tent of a broadly Marxist/Marxian tradition. A skilled worker who doesn't own means of production and has no power to hire and fire is still a worker, not a petit-bourgeois. Somebody who owns a small business and has a few employees is petit-bourgeois, whether he is a particularly skilled fellow or not. >Proletariat - which is defined by being easily replaceable If we take "easily replaceable" as the essence of what it means to be proletarian, my landlord fits the definition. When she dies, her useless children will take the rent money from me instead of her; I might as well not know about her death, as it will make no practical difference (the different types of service of maintenance work and repair are done by a completely different set of people, who know much more about what it takes to maintain the plumbing etc of a house than she does, yet have much lower income than her). No.7231 How bad was the economic and infrastructural damage in the Soviet republics when WWII ended? Which areas were affected the most? No.7232 File: 770013669f6644a⋯.jpg (147.79 KB, 500x781, 500:781, Constitution Byelorussian ….jpg) >>7231 As one source notes, "Belarus suffered the worst devastation of any country during the war in terms of a percentage of its population. Over a quarter of its population, 2,290,000 people, died during the conflict." As for economic and infrastructural damage, check out pages 44-49 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/ManAndPlanInSovietEconomy No.7233 >>7230 > Ismail is correct. Ismail is outside of correct/incorrect paradigm. He refuses to engage in honest discourse and avoids stating his own opinion. Consequently, he doesn't exist for any intent or purpose that are relevant to the discussion - even if he pretends otherwise. > A skilled worker who doesn't own means of production False. If you read my posts, you'd have noticed that the question is about education/skills functioning as MoP. Consequently, my interpretation of the class hinges on the fact of them possessing MoP. > Somebody who ... has a few employees is petit-bourgeois False. This is not the definition of Petit-Bourgeois. Petit-Bourgeois is not a "small-time Capitalist". The act of hiring workers is explicitly part of Capitalist mode of production - which makes described role (at least, partially) Capitalist. > whether he is a particularly skilled fellow or not. Skills have nothing to do with anything. Read the damn posts. > If we take "easily replaceable" as the essence of what it means to be proletarian I never suggested doing that. No.7234 >>7233 You appear to have made up your personal meanings of terms in your head, and since pretty much nobody else follows these definitions, you then "find" time and again that they "fail" to make sound arguments. It is a standard tactic of pro-capitalist shills to talk about developing your skill as developing your human capital. Talking like that works for porky because it muddies the water when Marxists (and class-struggle anarchists) try to make class distinctions as clear as possible, and it muddies the water when it comes to the question what is to be done. Land can be expropriated. Machines can be expropriated. The former owners might flee the country or kill themselves, neither prevents the expropriation. Knowledge is a different beast altogether: It's hard to impossible to get it out of somebody against their will, and if they are willing, knowledge doesn't move like a machine that has to be removed from place to be installed somewhere else, the knowledge does not disappear from my head as I share it with you, and you can share it with others and so on. Everything I said here is banal and true. It makes sense to make a conceptual separation, so that knowledge is not lumped together with physical means of production, unless your goal is to muddy the water. No.7235 >>7234 < posts an "assessment" that can be applied to practically any point It's like I didn't see this bullshit used over and over again against any and all points. IIRC, in only one thread on /pol/ I got accused no less than three times of this. Also note: just like Ismail you've been unable to explain what Petit-Bourgeoisie is. > when Marxists (and class-struggle anarchists) try to make class distinctions as clear as possible Defining only two classes does not make any "clear" distinctions. This means that the third class remains undefined - invisible and unpredictable. > Knowledge is a different beast altogether: It's hard to impossible to get it out of somebody against their will, and if they are willing, knowledge doesn't move like a machine that has to be removed from place to be installed somewhere else, the knowledge does not disappear from my head as I share it with you, and you can share it with others and so on. < since we can't treat them like Capitalists, they must be Proletariat! Adorable. If Capitalists prove too strong to overthrow, will you declare them Proletariat as well? > Everything I said here is banal and true. Did or did not Marx define Petit-Bourgeois as separate from Capitalists? Did or did not subsequent Marxists (both Lenin and Stalin) also separate it? The answer is obvious: yes. And yet you are still 100% certain that you are dealing something no different from Capitalists, not Petit-Bourgeoisie. You persist in your delusion even after I explicitly pointed this mistake out. Everything you said only demonstrates your stupidity. > It makes sense to make a conceptual separation, so that knowledge is not lumped together with physical means of production, unless your goal is to muddy the water. It makes sense to stop wasting time on larpers who either didn't read, or didn't understand Marx - otherwise you'd presented real arguments. No.7236 !!uLSSnt0y8Q wrote: >>7233 >>If we take "easily replaceable" as the essence of what it means to be proletarian >I never suggested doing that. !!uLSSnt0y8Q also wrote: >>7047 >Proletariat - which is defined by being easily replaceable No.7237 It's a very interesting debate. I think you all should start from the beginning: 1. Which is the criteria that enable us to determine different classes? 2. By that criteria, how many are at the moment? With that I think it is possible to centre the debate and define what is each class (Capitalists, Landlords, Petit-Bourgeois and so on). No.7240 >>7237 > It's a very interesting debate. I think you all should start from the beginning: Who are "all"? Ismail openly refuses to do it, while the other anon (given his preponderance to strawmanning) similarly lacks any interest in having an actual conversation. It would make more sense to have a discussion of /leftypol/ (or reddit), since some people might actually be interested in the discussion there. > With that I think it is possible to centre the debate and define what is each class (Capitalists, Landlords, Petit-Bourgeois and so on). > Landlords In the context of Capitalist mode of production there are only three classes. No.7244 >>7240 >Who are "all"? Ismail, you and all that are involved in the debate. In this case, I try to get your point but fail at it. I think you are right in many cases (most of them) when argue with Ismail, but on this I do not believe that. I really don't think that after Stalin's death USSR was capitalist and there were different classes (and that does not mean that there weren't contradictions and class struggle as Lenin and Stalin defended). I'm a hard-line stalinist and I do think that after Stalin's death, Nikita fucked up several, several things that changed Soviet economy as it was in key things. But at the same time I think that USSR remained socialist because I think there is not "1 single cannonized mode of socialism", and that doesn't led me to think that "Tito was socialist and USSR was wrong and then fixed that position on them" (as Ismail defends). The only way to be clear at this debate is to define marxist criteria, concepts and that; that's only possible answering in a very clear way these two questions: >1. Which is the criteria that enable us to determine different classes? >2. By that criteria, how many are at the moment? >In the context of Capitalist mode of production there are only three classes. As far as I know, Spain is under capitalist mode of production and still are landlords (specially in southern Spain). No.7245 >>7244 > after Stalin's death USSR was capitalist It became Capitalist during Perestroika, not in 50s, obviously. > USSR remained socialist That is correct. > because I think there is not "1 single cannonized mode of socialism" I'm not sure I understand. USSR remained Socialist according to the basic definition: it retained Socialist mode of production - Planned economy (albeit increasingly defective). > The only way to be clear at this debate is to define marxist criteria, concepts and that; that's only possible answering in a very clear way these two questions: >>1. Which is the criteria that enable us to determine different classes? By their roles in production. >>2. By that criteria, how many are at the moment? Wrong question. There is no "at the moment". There is only "how many roles are there in the context of Capitalist mode of production". >>In the context of Capitalist mode of production there are only three classes. > As far as I know, Spain is under capitalist mode of production Mode of production is but a process people engage in, there could be multiple different processes happening simultaneously. For example, Lenin differentiated no less that 5 (five) different modes of production in Soviet Russia (in 1918, IIRC): subsistence farming, small commodity production, Capitalist, State Capitalist, and Socialist. > and still are landlords (specially in southern Spain). While rentier cannot fill the entirety of Capitalist role (no wage labour), functions of Capitalist can be distributed among multiple individuals: some provide property relations, while others handle wage labour. Take, for example, modern corporations. Directorate cannot extract surplus value since it has no leverage over workers: no MoP are owned by those individuals (or in insufficient quantity), which is why property relations are provided by the rentier - shareholders. Neither shareholders, nor directors fill the role of Capitalist alone: shareholders do not acquire wage labour directly (unless one goes full retard and pretends that board of directors must be Proletariat), while directorate does not own the Capital. Only jointly do they act as a Capitalist. In this way it is perfectly possible for landlords to function as Capitalists within Capitalist mode of production (which does not preclude landlords from functioning in some other mode of production). No.7258 >>7245 >It became Capitalist during Perestroika, not in 50s, obviously. I agree then. >I'm not sure I understand. USSR remained Socialist according to the basic definition: it retained Socialist mode of production - Planned economy (albeit increasingly defective). What I tried to say is that despite of Nikita's destruction, USSR remained socialist. >Wrong question. There is no "at the moment". There is only "how many roles are there in the context of Capitalist mode of production". With "at the moment" was saying the same but, yeah, you are correct. >In this way it is perfectly possible for landlords to function as Capitalists within Capitalist mode of production (which does not preclude landlords from functioning in some other mode of production). Could be but there are landlords in Spain which are who receive the money from EU. Also there are landlords in Spain that simply don't use their lands in a productive way. It is a big problem from decades, that's why workers in Andalucía have been fighting so long to take landlords properties to work them. No.7259 >>7245 >Mode of production is but a process people engage in, there could be multiple different processes happening simultaneously. I agree. It is important that you mark "a process". It may seem silly, but that differentiates you from vulgar materialists. >For example, Lenin differentiated no less that 5 (five) different modes of production in Soviet Russia (in 1918, IIRC): subsistence farming, small commodity production, Capitalist, State Capitalist, and Socialist. What's Petit-Bourgeois then for you? No.7261 >>7258 > Could be but there are landlords in Spain which are who receive the money from EU. Also there are landlords in Spain that simply don't use their lands in a productive way. It is a big problem from decades, that's why workers in Andalucía have been fighting so long to take landlords properties to work them. And what is the implied argument here? >>7259 > What's Petit-Bourgeois then for you? Someone who is not engaged in Capitalist mode of production. Neither exploited, nor exploiter. I.e. the role of economically independent producer; the one who owns his MoP and sells produced commodities (not labour-force) directly; the one who participates in "simple commodity production"; the "unproductive labourer" in the context of Capitalist mode of production (as Marx referred to them in Theories of Surplus Value). The big question here if their labour can be part of social production, but not part of Capitalist mode of production. I.e. if Petit-Bourgeois specialists sell service (commodity) rather than labour-force, and how to see the difference between them and Proletariat. I resort to education/skills/talent being treated as MoP - which is (in my opinion) absolutely reasonable approach. However, before we can have a discussion on this (and all that it entails - including Technocratic revisionism) an understanding of what Petit-Bourgeois are needs to exist. The idea that they are simply small-time Capitalists is not only wrong, but renders the whole question meaningless, since it implies that Petit-Bourgeois do not actually produce any socially-useful labour. No.7263 >>7261 >And what is the implied argument here? That landlords can still exist under capitalism, something you denied. >Someone who is not engaged in Capitalist mode of production. Neither exploited, nor exploiter. I.e. the role of economically independent producer; the one who owns his MoP and sells produced commodities (not labour-force) directly; the one who participates in "simple commodity production"; the "unproductive labourer" in the context of Capitalist mode of production (as Marx referred to them in Theories of Surplus Value). Could you provide some Marx's texts on that before we start the debate? No.7264 >>7263 > That landlords can still exist under capitalism, something you denied. Yes. You had proven me wrong. After we had demonstrated that there is only one all-encompassing mode of production that permeates all spheres of human activity, existence of landlords in Spain proves that they exist in Capitalist mode of production as a separate role, different from that of Capitalist. > Could you provide some Marx's texts on that before we start the debate? Debate requires participants. In the absence of any alternatives, I win by default. This debate is over. No.7265 >>7264 >Debate requires participants. In the absence of any alternatives, I win by default. This debate is over. Forget about "winning". No.7266 >>7265 > Forget about "winning". Okay. You win then. No.7267 >>7266 Man, what I'm trying to say is that forget about that kiddie attitude. I'm here to learn and debate with other comrades, nothing else. I asked you for sources that support your statement. No.7269 >>7261 >how to see the difference between them (Petit-Bourgeois) and Proletariat. I resort to education/skills/talent being treated as MoP - which is (in my opinion) absolutely reasonable approach. Two objections: 1. Education/skills/talent is something fused with people, unlike what people normally refer to as means of production. By mixing the usual meaning of MoP with that, the term MoP doesn't apply anymore exclusively to what is alienable. To speak of it in that way is not advisable if you want to give people the impression that socialism is practical. 2. Proletariat being uneducated by definition looks like a typical liberal move (similar to how they talk about blue collar and white collar): it comes across as condescending and with that rhetoric you end up justifying economic inequality, even if unintentionally. >an understanding of what Petit-Bourgeois are needs to exist. The idea that they are simply small-time Capitalists is not only wrong... You talk here as if everybody were pointing at the same ox and arguing over verifiable aspects of that ox like the weight. But a definition is something that is chosen, and some other people's definition is never wrong because of whatever other definition you have in your head. (It can be wrong if it has a paradoxical quality to it; and it, or rather a relation it is a part of, can be wrong if there arises a contradiction in a network of definitions.) >...but renders the whole question meaningless, since it implies that Petit-Bourgeois do not actually produce any socially-useful labour. That doesn't follow, since a small-business owner may spend some time performing tasks that his employees also do. No.7270 >>7267 > I'm here to learn and debate with other comrades, nothing else. So am I. Note the absence of "constantly spoonfeeding basic concepts to other people". While I might do it in a limited manner, I am uniquely unmotivated to do only this. If I'll want to write an article on the topic, I'll write the article. >>7269 > 1. Education/skills/talent is something fused with people, unlike what people normally refer to as means of production. Unorthodox approach is already admitted by me (and is the reason of trying to find someone to talk things through), but is not grounds for rejecting it. > By mixing the usual meaning of MoP with that, the term MoP doesn't apply anymore exclusively to what is alienable. I'd like to clarify: 1) Are you saying that all Means of Production have to be alienable? 2) Are you saying that education - as MoP - cannot be alienated? > To speak of it in that way is not advisable if you want to give people the impression that socialism is practical. Please, elaborate. > 2. Proletariat being uneducated by definition looks like a typical liberal move (similar to how they talk about blue collar and white collar): it comes across as condescending and Pretending that there is no problem never solved anything. There is a reason why next step towards Communism (from post-WWII USSR) included mandatory polytechnic education. > with that rhetoric you end up justifying economic inequality, even if unintentionally. Please, clarify what economic inequality you are talking about. > some other people's definition is never wrong because of whatever other definition you have in your head. Post-modernism is a degeneration of reasoning. There is only one correct definition - the one that is relevant to the discussed problem ("Truth is always concrete" Lenin). You can have thousand meanings of one word, but only one meaning can be used in one context - and this makes other meanings wrong in the context that is being discussed. I.e. if you do not like the term "Petit-Bourgeois" you may demand to change it to some other (explaining what term fits best and why), but don't attempt to deny me the right to express my thoughts in a verbal manner. Alternatively, you might want to refuse discussing things in a specific context. > >...but renders the whole question meaningless, since it implies that Petit-Bourgeois do not actually produce any socially-useful labour. > That doesn't follow, since a small-business owner may spend some time performing tasks that his employees also do. Marxism 101: any class is but a role people engage in. Specific individuals can act in multiple roles. No.7271 >>7270 >Note the absence of "constantly spoonfeeding basic concepts to other people". >Unorthodox approach is already admitted by me You have to spoonfeed people basic concepts that are obvious to you because you are using different definitions of these basic concepts. Here and elsewhere you regularly have the same type of misunderstanding with many different people, and each time you conclude that it must be them who use the wrong definitions, mysteriously they tend to be wrong in the same pattern, despite ranging from ML to anarchist, so they end up being able to communicate with each other, and they overwhelmingly have the same opinion about how you argue. No.7272 >>7270 >So am I. Note the absence of "constantly spoonfeeding basic concepts to other people". And what's the problem with that? I think that it is basic in any type of discussion to clarify the concepts that are used in order to not to give rise to ambiguities. Can't see anything bad on it. So, could you provide Marx's texts on your concepts? No.7273 >>7270 >There is a reason why next step towards Communism (from post-WWII USSR) included mandatory polytechnic education. That's not true. Polytechnic education was one of many points to reach communism and to phase out mercantilism in socialism to make way for a directly social production. No.7274 >>7271 > You have to spoonfeed people basic concepts that are obvious to you because you are using different definitions of these basic concepts. This presupposes that those people actually have definitions of concepts which are different from mine - as was the case with subjective/objective use-value - and, consequently, can present them. Which means there is (however minuscule) possibility of improvement of knowledge for me. That is not the case here. Both Ismail and Skvortsov-Stepanov were refusing to explain what Petit-Bourgeoisie means for them. I.e. either they don't know even the basic concepts (and will have to be spoonfed for the foreseeable future), or aren't interested in honest discussion. Either case means that I'm going to waste dozens of hours and will not get anything in return. No.7275 >>7274 >Both Ismail and Skvortsov-Stepanov were refusing to explain what Petit-Bourgeoisie means for them. The fuck are you talking about. 1) I wasn't in your debate. 2) I just introduced myself later when it was dead trying to understand both positions. 3) When you explained a little bit your position, I said that I agree with you. Stop acting like a victim. No.7276 >>7270 Alienable as in Smith. Objects have an existence separate from their owner, so expropriation in this context has a straightforward meaning, but how does one expropriate skills. Land can expropriated even if the landlord tries everything he can to stop that. If the landlord flees or commits suicide, the land is still there. Non-compliance is a much bigger problem when the issue is copying knowledge from inside the unwilling person's head. Therefore, if you want people to believe in expropriation of the MoP as a practical possibility, it makes sense to leave skills out of what is under the umbrella of the term MoP. >any class is but a role people engage in. Specific individuals can act in multiple roles. If a detective has the role of investigating a murder, and that same person happens to be the murderer, do you think how the roles of murderer and detective are assigned is somehow irrelevant to how the investigation turns out? No.7277 >>7276 >> 1) Are you saying that all Means of Production have to be alienable? > ... if you want people to believe in expropriation of the MoP as a practical possibility, it makes sense to leave skills out of what is under the umbrella of the term MoP. I'm sorry, but it looks like you are saying Marxism should not concern itself with the way how society actually behaves, instead it should present a pleasant description of economy that makes Revolution look easy. Is this what you meant? I would really hate to guess wrong about things like this. >> 2) Are you saying that education - as MoP - cannot be alienated? >Alienable as in Smith. Objects have an existence separate from their owner, so expropriation in this context has a straightforward meaning, but how does one expropriate skills. Before we get into the expropriation of skills, we need to clarify if they can - or cannot - be alienated. It seems that you are of an opinion that skills cannot be alienated. But - again - I am not sure if that is what you think. Can you answer this question? >>>> The idea that they [Petit-Bourgeois] are simply small-time Capitalists is not only wrong, but renders the whole question meaningless, since it implies that Petit-Bourgeois do not actually produce any socially-useful labour. >>> That doesn't follow, since a small-business owner may spend some time performing tasks that his employees also do. >> Marxism 101: any class is but a role people engage in. Specific individuals can act in multiple roles. > If a detective has the role of investigating a murder ... I'm sorry, but what exactly should your example mean? You pointed out that Petit-Bourgeois can both simultaneously work themselves and hire wage labourers. And then you said that one of those roles will be dominant. Which role are you talking about here? I'm not even sure if you are still trying to refute my statement about Petit-Bourgeois not being small-time Capitalists - taken as is everything could be interpreted as a support of my statement about PB role being that of non-exploited/non-exploitative producers. No.7278 >>7276 >Alienable as in Smith. Objects have an existence separate from their owner, so expropriation in this context has a straightforward meaning, but how does one expropriate skills. Land can expropriated even if the landlord tries everything he can to stop that. If the landlord flees or commits suicide, the land is still there. Non-compliance is a much bigger problem when the issue is copying knowledge from inside the unwilling person's head. >>7277 >Before we get into the expropriation of skills, we need to clarify if they can - or cannot - be alienated. Oh boy, it's going to be yet another round of let's redefine things to "prove" you wrong. Who could have expected that !!uLSSnt0y8Q would resort to such a crude rhetorical move? >it looks like you are saying Marxism should not concern itself with the way how society actually behaves This is what !!uLSSnt0y8Q says in reply to the suggestion of using distinct names for distinct concepts. But you know what, he is right. Talent is just means of production, let's go with that and see how much Marx "got wrong" when talking about means of production when we use that definition. No.7290 Do you have something against that notion of "reactionary peoples vs progressive peoples" that one time Marx & Engels held but then changed? A book? A text? No.7291 File: c1773818724919f⋯.jpg (133.92 KB, 716x1024, 179:256, ME Collected Works Vol 8.jpg) >>7290 From the preface to Volume 8 of their Collected Works: >The class criterion was for them decisive in assessing any national movement. For in the course of the revolution, the entire character of a national movement may change depending on the preponderance of the various classes in it. In 1848-49, when the struggle against absolutism and the remnants of feudalism was complicated by violent national conflicts, the ruling classes deliberately sought to fan the flames of national hatred still higher, by deceit or violence to involve individual nations in predatory and counter-revolutionary wars, and to incite them against those peoples who were fighting for the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and for truly national liberation. It was in this sense that Engels spoke in 1848-49 of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary peoples. . . . >However, it must be evident to us today that the articles "The Magyar Struggle" and "Democratic Pan-Slavism" contain some erroneous judgments. . . History has not confirmed Engels' opinion that the small Slav peoples of Central Europe were doomed to be absorbed and assimilated by their larger and more highly civilised neighbours. The tendency towards political centralisation which resulted from the development of capitalism and caused the small peoples to lose their national independence, concealed from Engels another tendency which was not sufficiently manifest at the time, namely, the sharpening of the oppressed peoples' struggle for independence, for setting up their own states. . . >This point of view was not final. Later on, substantial corrections were made which took into account the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples in Europe and in the colonial countries against national enslavement, a struggle which was developing with ever growing vigour. Thus already at the period when the Crimean war of 1853-56 was looming ahead, Engels supported the demand of national independence for the small Slav and other peoples in the Balkan Peninsula who were oppressed by the reactionary Turkish Empire. The phrase "reactionary peoples" is used only once (in the aforementioned "The Magyar Struggle") in the entire Collected Works of both men. That concept (and the concept of "non-historic peoples" who lack civilization and will be destroyed, such as the Irish and Basques) can be found nowhere in the writings of either men outside of a few references in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Engels went from denouncing Irish immigrants in England as "filth" who lowered the intelligence and living standards of English workers, to championing Ireland's liberation struggle. Similarly, Engels went from arguing that the Mexican-American War was "waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilisation" against the "lazy Mexicans," to recognizing (as Marx did) that the war was fought to extend the sphere of slavery. Post last edited at No.7292 >>7291 Thank you main. Two things more: 1) Do you have something on fixing his opinion on Basques? 2) Do you have something of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Komintern w/e on liberation strugge of oppressed peoples in Europe? No.7293 File: 5d22b9bf7176bed⋯.jpg (74.38 KB, 830x276, 415:138, Lenin EU.jpg) >>7292 >Do you have something on fixing his opinion on Basques? I do not. Neither men seemed to talk much about them. >Do you have something of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Komintern w/e on liberation strugge of oppressed peoples in Europe? Engels in a February 7, 1882 letter to Kautsky, in Collected Works Vol. 46, pp. 191-193: >Now it is historically impossible for a great people to discuss this or that internal question in any way seriously so long as national independence is lacking. . . >Generally speaking an international movement of the proletariat is possible only as between independent nations. . . international co-operation is possible only among equals, and even a primus inter pares at most for immediate action. . . Every Polish peasant and workman who rouses himself out of his stupor to participate in the common interest is confronted first of all with the fact of national subjugation; that is the first obstacle he encounters everywhere. Its removal is the prime requirement for any free and healthy development. Polish socialists who fail to put the liberation of the country at the forefront of their programme remind me of those German socialists who were reluctant to demand the immediate repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law and freedom of association, assembly and the press. To be able to fight, you must first have a terrain, light, air and elbow-room. Otherwise you never get further than chit-chat. >Whether, in this connection, a restoration of Poland is possible before the next revolution is of no significance. It is in no way our business to restrain the efforts of the Poles to attain living conditions essential to their further development, or to persuade them that, from the international standpoint, national independence is a very secondary matter when it is in fact the basis of all international co-operation. . . . >Hence I am of the opinion that two nations in Europe are not only entitled but duty-bound to be national before they are international—Ireland and Poland. For the best way they can be international is by being well and truly national. That's what the Poles have understood in every crisis and proved on every revolutionary battleground. Deprive them of the prospect of restoring Poland, or persuade them that before long a new Poland will automatically fall into their laps, and their interest in the European revolution will be at an end. There's a whole collection of Lenin's writings: https://archive.org/details/LeninNationalLiberationSocialEmancipation No.7343 Why did Stalin do the things he did in the Spanish Civil War? I've been reading about it, and i'd like to see what you know about it, I'm sure he had reasons that aren't the "hurr he's just authoritarian" response you'll get from anarchists and libsocs No.7344 File: 337a983fc1f1e12⋯.jpg (93.74 KB, 600x406, 300:203, Koltsov.jpg) >>7343 Can you elaborate? The Soviet government sent essential aid to the Spanish Republic and supported the PCE's calls for anti-fascist unity. Since this was during the Great Purges there was also a lot of suspicion which ended up (as in the USSR itself) targeting innocent people, like journalist Mikhail Koltsov, but the USSR's role in Spain was positive overall. Here's two good reads: No.7345 >>7344 Okay thanks, I meant more along the lines of the elimination of the Trots and anarchists n stuff No.7346 >>7345 like, for instance, were there really active agents of fascists within the trot ranks? No.7347 File: 77d933bed0a7fa3⋯.jpeg (73.21 KB, 980x638, 490:319, Prime Minister Juan Negri….jpeg) >>7346 >were there really active agents of fascists within the trot ranks? Check out page 348 of the second book I linked to. It wasn't that the POUM was in itself a party of fascist agents, but its anti-government activities were clearly made use of by the fascists. As for the anarchists, it's important to remember that plenty of them rallied behind the PCE's call for anti-fascist unity, including Durruti. However, certain anarchists (e.g. the POUM-allied "Friends of Durruti" that formed after his death) indeed denounced the government and engaged in provocative acts, as Landis demonstrates in his book. No.7348 >>7347 thank you smart man No.7438 Do you have any info on the blockade/embargo the British set on Russia during the civil war? I'd like to know more about it but it's practically forgotten, Google hardly brings up anything. No.7439 File: bff0d2f3280b14d⋯.jpg (37.95 KB, 463x344, 463:344, Lenin and HG Wells.jpg) >>7438 Arthur Ransome wrote two books, "Russia in 1919" and "The Crisis in Russia" about the appalling situation the country found itself in as a result of the blockade and civil war: There is also George Lansbury's "What I Saw in Russia" that likewise discusses the blockade: https://books.google.com/books?id=2mVYAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false H.G. Wells' "Russia in the Shadows" talks a bit about the blockade's harmful effects, particularly on the intelligentsia: https://books.google.com/books?id=LV0NAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false While not about the blockade, the following work about imperialist intervention during the Civil War should still be of interest: https://archive.org/details/ArmedInterventionRussia (there's a description of the harmful effects of the blockade on pages 359-360.) Post last edited at No.7440 >>7439 Thanks, I've been looking for this No.7444 File: 0434ded35640d2e⋯.jpg (119.43 KB, 675x1200, 9:16, 0434ded35640d2eb33c26a465f….jpg) Hey guys, I asked this in leftypol and they sent me here so here I go: "Hey guys, I need your help, I've read in some post here time ago a couple of thing about the ussr, the thing is I need a source but google isn't helping I've read that stalin was chosen by the party, and trotsky was voted by >1% the consequences of this was Trotsky organizing counter-revolutionary actions, that's why he was exiled from the ussr and why all the stalin's political purges by then, organizing them even when he was exiled, that's why he was assassinated I remember reading all of this and some source to this, the thing is that I can't seem to find it, so I am asking you, about SOURCES, aside from political ideology, I'm not trying to dissmiss the decisions of the party, just want some historical data Thanks for your help" No.7445 File: 5d875ff4fcdf01f⋯.jpg (36.42 KB, 604x387, 604:387, Stalin and his trusty pipe.jpg) >>7444 "Congress XV opened on December 2, 1927, with 898 delegates chosen by 887,000 members. In the voting, delegates representing 724,000 members supported the Central Committee. The Opposition received the vote of delegates speaking for only 4,000 members, with the balance abstaining. . . In January, 1928, Trotsky was exiled to Alma Ata in Turkestan. Here he hunted, fished, lived comfortably, despite attacks of colitis, gout and malaria, and carried on an extensive correspondence with little interference. Between April and October, by his own account, he sent out 800 political letters, 'among them quite a few large works,' and 550 telegrams, and received 1,000 political letters and 700 telegrams. He also carried on 'secret' correspondence by courier. On December 16, 1928, an agent of the GPU arrived from Moscow with the demand that he cease his leadership of the Opposition. He refused in a long letter to the Central Committee and the Presidium of the Comintern. Stalin's supporters, he said, were 'creatively impotent, false, contradictory, unreliable, blind, cowardly, inept' and were 'executing the orders of the enemy classes. . . . The great historical strength of the Opposition, in spite of its apparent weakness, lies in the fact that it keeps its fingers on the pulse of the world historical process. . . . To abstain from political activity would mean to obtain from getting ready for tomorrow.'" (Schuman, Russia since 1917, 1957, p. 142.) Consequently, he was expelled from the USSR. Stalin thought Trotsky represented a serious threat to the USSR's stability based on the fact that the latter really did try organizing his (pitifully few and unimportant) followers in the country. This is noted by J. Arch Getty in his article "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International." From this fear arose the Great Purges, in which Trotsky's irrelevant following was turned into a gigantic conspiracy in which Politburo and Central Committee members, army and government officials, journalists, diplomats, Soviet agents abroad, astronomers, archaeologists, etc. were all accused of spying, sabotaging, and/or assassinating on Trotsky's behalf. So, to quote Richard Pipes' review of Dimitri Volkogonov's biography of Trotsky: >Trotsky and Lev Sedov, his son and closest aide, frequently said and wrote that Stalin's regime had to be overthrown and Stalin himself assassinated. These were absurdly irresponsible claims, given that Trotsky and his faction numbered but a few thousand migrs and foreign sympathizers, their ranks thoroughly infiltrated by Stalin's agents, and that his followers inside the Soviet Union were being systematically killed off. And yet it turns out from the documents cited by Volkogonov that these empty threats, quickly communicated to the Kremlin, struck terror into the heart of the paranoid tyrant. Stalin became consumed by the idea of getting rid of his rival: his orders to "liquidate" Trotsky, first issued in the mid-1930's, were not, as previously believed, primarily motivated by a yearning for revenge, but rather by the desire to save himself and his regime. The obsessive charges of "Trotskyism" levied against the defendants in the show trials of 1936-38 and the bloodbath of 1937, it now emerges, were inspired by an irrational yet genuine fear of internal subversion. Post last edited at No.7446 >>7445 >Stalin thought Trotsky represented a serious threat No. >From this fear arose the Great Purges, in which Trotsky's irrelevant following was turned into a gigantic conspiracy Neither. >struck terror into the heart of the paranoid tyrant. Stalin became consumed by the idea of getting rid of his rival Much less. No.7447 File: ca2daf9020024fc⋯.jpg (139.25 KB, 445x561, 445:561, Stalin Kirov Shvernik.jpg) >>7446 >No. Then the alternative is that Stalin knew Trotsky wasn't a serious threat, but pretended he was anyway. Either that or the endless calls for "vigilance" and "exposure" of supposed Trotskyist agents all over the USSR from 1936-1938 somehow had nothing to do with Stalin. >Neither. So the Moscow Trials didn't claim a giant conspiracy existed in which Germany and Japan (among other countries) conspired with the supporters of Trotsky and Bukharin to overthrow the Soviet government and cede territory to these respective states? The Moscow Trials didn't claim that the conspirators murdered Kirov, Kuibyshev, and even Maxim Gorky? 1,103 out of 1,966 delegates to the 17th Congress in 1934 ended up arrested (and most of them shot.) Of the 139 members and candidate members of the Central Committee elected at that Congress, 98 were shot. This suggests either: 1. That Trotskyism, instead of being a despised, irrelevant force in Soviet society, was in fact an incredibly powerful, influential force. It means that the masses of party workers sent crypto-Trotskyists to represent them against Stalin's leadership. 2. The overwhelming bulk of the Great Purges was based on bullshit and lots of innocent people suffered. The idea of over half the delegates and CC members elected in 1934 being secret agents of Trotsky, Bukharin, or whomever is nonsense. I'd go with the second option since it's consistent with everything we know about the 1930s USSR. >Much less. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, Stalin personally instructed him to organize the assassination of Trotsky. While Pipes saying Stalin was "consumed by the idea" is a bit much, Stalin clearly attached importance to his assassination. Post last edited at No.7448 >>7445 This is interesting, but yet I want to know about the counter-revolutionary actions taken by the opposition, which is what I'm having trouble finding a source I know I've read something about it, correct me if I'm wrong No.7449 File: f92a69a2eac01ea⋯.jpeg (34.56 KB, 480x420, 8:7, Semyon Budyonny at 15th C….jpeg) >>7448 If you mean "why did the Trotskyists end up expelled from the party," it's because they were accused of forming an underground apparatus with its own printing press and discipline against the party. There was also evidence of the Opposition and Mensheviks aligning and of terrorist acts being discussed among the Opposition's rank-and-file. Check out pages 239-240 and 244-250 of the following work for examples of counter-revolutionary activities: https://archive.org/details/TheBolshevikPartysStruggleAgainstTrotskyismInThePostOctoberPeriod Post last edited at No.7483 I have some territorial questions about 1917. Did the Provisional government control the same amount of territory as the Russian Empire? And how did this change after the October revolution? When exactly did the former Russian empire territory start fragmenting and when did the nationalist and white guard governments appear? No.7484 File: 995c6c400cfd1b3⋯.jpg (110.29 KB, 501x700, 501:700, Lenins Decree on Peace.jpg) >>7483 The Provisional Government "inherited" the Russian Empire's territory. In some regions bourgeois nationalists of the oppressed nations began setting up their own governments which proclaimed loyalty to the Provisional Government in exchange for autonomy (such as the Central Rada in the Ukraine), but the Provisional Government refused to grant said autonomy. It wasn't until the October Revolution that these bourgeois nationalists, not wanting the spread of the soviet system to their regions, started proclaiming independence en masse (almost invariably with the "assistance" of an imperialist country like Germany or Britain.) As for when the White Guards appeared, I'll quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: >During the Civil War and armed intervention of 1918—20, armed formations that were fighting for the restoration of the bourgeois-landowner order unofficially bore the name White Guards (White Guardsmen). In Soviet literature and publicism, and likewise in common usage, the designation “White Guards” applied to several counterrevolutionary nationalistic military formations (White Finns, White Czechs, White Poles, and others), and to counterrevolution in general. The origin of the term “White Guards” is connected with the traditional symbolism of the color white as the color of the supporters of “legitimate” law and order (in contrast to the color red, the color of a rebellious people and of revolution). No.7485 What are your thoughts on Isaac Deutscher in general and more specifically on his biography of Stalin? No.7487 File: caf0369395f6f7c⋯.jpg (294.68 KB, 2000x1500, 4:3, Stalin bio by Deutscher.jpg) >>7485 Deutscher argued that Stalin was akin to prior "revolutionary despots" like Cromwell, Robespierre and Napoleon. He saw "Stalinism" as a temporary historical phenomenon, containing both progressive and reactionary features. What was progressive would end up overturning that which was reactionary. For this he incurred the wrath of both Trotskyists (who considered Stalin the representative of a counter-revolutionary "bureaucratic caste" that had to be overthrown) and anti-communists (who thought the idea of Stalin as a historically progressive figure repugnant.) His three-volume biography of Trotsky, while not uncritical, clearly portrays him with sympathy and regards him as the superior of Stalin in just about every way. His biography of Stalin is based on this same assessment. One can take issue with numerous claims Deutscher makes in the book, and it was published in 1949 so it's obviously a bit dated, but on the whole I'd say it's not bad as far as Stalin biographies go. Definitely read it in conjunction with other authors though (most recently Stephen Kotkin.) You can read Deutscher's biography here: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.463015 No.7488 >>7487 Deutscher was a trotskist and also biographer of Trotsky. It is obvious that the most trotskist can't deny at all Stalin, so there are some parts in which he accepts "Stalinist" realities, that is to say, simply facts. >I'd say it's not bad as far as Stalin biographies go. Ok, I think I just saw everything. That book is complete bullshit as Deutscher. No.7489 File: ac04f58a2a68483⋯.jpg (57.42 KB, 381x499, 381:499, Stalin bio by Deutscher.jpg) >>7488 He wasn't a Troskyist. He was clearly sympathetic to Trotsky as a person and thought him a much better Marxist than Stalin, but then so do many bourgeois historians. His interpretation of Stalin's role in history is shared by no Trotskyists. They criticized his interpretation of Stalin and of Soviet society. As I said, they regard Stalin as a counter-revolutionary. Deutscher regarded him as having a revolutionary function, and that "Stalinism" would fade from the scene after his death simply because it had outlived its historical purpose (which, again, is contrary to Trotskyists who argue that Stalin was the representative of a "bureaucratic caste" which had to be overthrown by the workers.) Other views of his were contrary to those of Trotskyists as well, e.g. viewing Beria as a good guy: >Beria's downfall, announced on 10 July [1953], marks the end of a distinct phase in Russia's political evolution after Stalin. During that phase, which lasted from March till the end of June, the advocates of reform at home and conciliation abroad were on the ascendant, while the die-hards of Stalinism and the ‘anti-appeasers’ were compelled to yield one position after another. . . . Beria took upon himself the responsibility for two major political acts, two unforgivable ‘crimes’ in the eyes of the die-hards of Stalinism and their associates. First, he humiliated the political police when he exposed its practices in connection with the ‘doctors' plot’. Next, he offended, ‘Great Russian chauvinism’ when he, the Georgian, called for an end to Russification in Georgia, in the Ukraine, in the Baltic lands, and in Central Asia. >That book is complete bullshit as Deutscher. Deutscher claimed that Tukhachevsky really did conspire to oust Stalin, among other claims that you'd presumably find little fault with. The book isn't "complete bullshit." You can take issue with many of the claims Deutscher makes (including what I just said about Tukhachevsky supposedly plotting against Stalin), but on the whole it isn't bad for a biography of Stalin written when Stalin himself was alive. You've given no evidence to the contrary besides falsely claiming Deutscher was a Trotskyist. If someone asked me "is Deutscher's book worth reading," I'd say "not really," first because it shows its age and second because I don't agree with Deutscher's interpretation of lots of things, but compared with the biographers of Stalin who came before him (a list that includes none other than Leon Trotsky), he's a definite improvement. As I said though, it should be read (if it is read at all) in conjunction with other authors who had access to far more information and didn't suffer from Deutscher's interpretative idiosyncrasies: Ian Grey, Adam Bruno Ulam, Robert H. McNeal and Stephen Kotkin. Post last edited at No.7490 File: 31ecf97a2d15f6f⋯.jpg (397.43 KB, 980x1569, 980:1569, Screenshot_20180226-135100.jpg) Why did the USSR back Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War? Wikipedia says they were mad about the expulsion of the Tudeh Party but I assume there's more to the story than that. No.7491 File: 209f0fdf787b877⋯.jpg (326 KB, 1600x1080, 40:27, Saddam Brezhnev 1977.jpg) >>7490 There were two reasons: 1. In the 1970s Iraq was more or less pro-Soviet. Saddam formally assumed power in 1979 and began improving ties with the West, but the country still had cordial relations with the USSR (despite the repression Saddam unleashed on the Iraqi Communists.) Considering the quite extensive aid rendered to him by the US and friends during the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviets didn't want Saddam to go completely over to that side. 2. The Soviets welcomed the Iranian Revolution as an anti-imperialist phenomenon, but were also concerned about the consequences of Iran triumphing over Iraq. Khomeini actively supported the Afghan Mujahideen and there were fears in Moscow that an Iranian victory would also start to resonate among Muslims in Central Asia. The USSR's goal in arming Iraq was to prevent Iran from defeating it, while being careful not to send Iraq "too many" armaments that it would start to seriously threaten the Iranian government (since Saddam's chief goal was to overthrow it, hence US support for him.) The official Soviet position on the war was stated by Brezhnev at the 26th CPSU Congress in 1981: >The imperialists are displeased with the fact that the newly-free countries are consolidating their independence. In a thousand ways they are trying to bind these countries to themselves in order to deal more freely with their natural riches, and to use their territory for their strategic designs. In so doing, they make extensive use of the old colonialist method of divide and rule. >Indeed, that is also the Western approach to the Irano-Iraqi war, which has been going on for five months — an absolutely senseless war from the viewpoint of the two countries' interests. But it is of great advantage to imperialism, which is anxious and eager in some way or other to restore its positions in that region. We would like to hope that both Iraq and Iran draw the due conclusions from this. The Soviet Union resolutely calls for an early end to that fratricidal war, and a political settlement of the conflict. In practice, too, we are striving to facilitate this. Post last edited at No.7511 File: 4c57d7f51a0c709⋯.jpg (338.65 KB, 1600x1061, 1600:1061, beauty.jpg) Greetings Comrade I am curious to know how Soviet Law worked, mainly its justice system. How were court cases handled, how were trials handled, lawyers, etc. Thank you in advance! No.7512 File: e9f26fc5a975ae4⋯.jpg (57.65 KB, 800x450, 16:9, Professional elected judge….jpg) No.7527 Why did left SRs and other groups wanted to keep the war going? What did they gain from this? No.7528 File: 2e50d41ee40384c⋯.jpg (56.84 KB, 375x490, 75:98, Leninnnnnnnnnn.jpg) >>7527 The "Left Communists" among the Bolsheviks (headed by Bukharin) opposed signing Brest-Litovsk because they thought that waging a "revolutionary war" against the Germans would inspire the workers of Western Europe (or at least Germany) to rise up and overthrow capitalism. They also thought the treaty entailed capitulation to imperialism. Lenin argued that the Soviet armed forces were simply not in a position to fight the Germans (which was demonstrated after Germany's offensive resumed and a still more onerous treaty had to be dictated to Soviet Russia.) The Left SRs opposed signing Brest-Litovsk because they thought its terms would be disastrous to Russia and (like Bukharin and Co.) that it was a capitulation to imperialism. Lenin argued that the only alternative was the overthrow of soviet power, and that the treaty would give the government breathing room to regroup its forces. Post last edited at No.7570 I frequently see MLs criticizing Khrushchev and Brezhnev, but I know nothing about them or post-Stalin USSR in general, can I get some book recommendations on this era? No.7571 File: 9d5517f1ba0135e⋯.jpg (61.57 KB, 600x449, 600:449, Khrushchev Castro Brezhnev.jpg) >>7570 For an official history of the USSR that goes up to 1981: https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism Nove's "An Economic History of the USSR" covers the Khrushchev and Brezhnev periods: http://b-ok.org/book/2039288/9b6902 William Taubman has written the standard bourgeois biography of Khrushchev: http://b-ok.org/book/851778/3ebd39 The book "Socialism Betrayed" by Keeran and Kenny talks about about how conditions in the 1950s-70s set the stage for Gorbachev's rise to power (and is the most thorough account of how Soviet socialism was dismantled ideologically and economically in 1987-91 period): http://b-ok.org/book/1246151/ea7f45 MLs are not completely united in their views of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Maoists and pro-Albanian types hold that capitalism had been restored in the USSR after Stalin's death, and that the CPSU was in the grip of a "new bourgeoisie." The best overall critique of this is the following work: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying The most common ML view is that Khrushchev was a revisionist and that the CPSU moved to the right after Stalin's death, but the USSR was nonetheless still socialist. Brezhnev is generally considered to have "corrected" some of Khrushchev's more right-wing policies, but nonetheless is also considered to have been to the right of Stalin. My own view is that Khrushchev was inept, hypocritical and impulsive as a leader, but not some guy secretly seeking to destroy socialism from within. Brezhnev was better as a leader, but still not particularly good, and he held onto power till the day he died despite clearly failing health and an inability to confront mounting societal and economic issues. No.7605 The USSR seems to have had a disastrous history when it comes to ecology. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_of_Lake_Karachay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techa_River Was the ecological situation better or worse than in the US? It might not have been much of an issue at the time, but did Lenin, Stalin or other soviet leaders ever explicitly take a stance with regards to ecology? No.7606 File: d61d234561663df⋯.jpg (250.97 KB, 600x937, 600:937, Untitled.jpg) >>7605 Yeah the ecological situation in the USSR wasn't ideal. On paper there were strong laws against pollution, and there was discussion of some environmental issues in the press, but at the same time many such issues were hushed up or downplayed because it'd reflect badly on the CPSU or it'd require adjustments to local or regional economic matters. That being said, here are two CPUSA books on the USSR that talk about environmental regulations in the USSR: * https://archive.org/details/CitiesWithoutCrisis (chapter 9) * https://archive.org/details/DynamicStabilityTheSovietEconomyToday (there's no specific chapter, but it does talk about environmental matters throughout the text.) There's a book that came out a few years back, "Song of the Forest: Russian Forestry and Stalinist Environmentalism, 1905-1953" which someone sent me and which I could send you. Just send me a private message on eregime.org It demonstrates that yes, even in the first decades of Soviet rule, there were debates over the environment and measures taken to preserve it. As for whether the Soviet situation was better or worse than the US, I can't say, although the reasons were fundamentally different: pollution in the US is the consequence of maximizing profit, whereas pollution in the USSR was a consequence of ignorance of long-term environmental impact and the perceived economic and military needs of the country. No.7626 Which article of the Soviet Constitution was it that criminalized homosexuality? When was it added and what exactly was it that prompted such a thing? Why was homosexuality equated to fascism? No.7627 File: 80d3387048721b6⋯.jpg (22.4 KB, 476x500, 119:125, Stalin 1937.jpg) >>7626 It wasn't added to the Soviet Constitution (that would be pretty absurd), it was enacted as a law in 1933. Here's your answer: https://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php No.7628 >>7626 >Why was homosexuality equated to fascism? Can't you see why? It is pretty obvious. You could start with Baldur Benedikt von Schirach. No.7630 How intense was Russification in each era of leadership and how intense was it for each subdivision of Eurasia (Baltics, Caucasus, and Central Asia)? Was it worse or better than the Russification under the Tsar's regime? No.7631 File: 01fb799365a7a04⋯.jpg (268.54 KB, 900x721, 900:721, soviet-republics.jpg) >>7630 In general, Russification was at its height in the final years of Stalin's leadership when there was pressure against historians, particularly in Central Asia and the Caucasus, to emphasize the "progressive" role of Russian conquest and to denounce figures like Shamil as reactionaries. This pressure was eased after 1956. The USSR in the main promoted indigenous cultures and established autonomy for them. >Was it worse or better than the Russification under the Tsar's regime? Under Tsarism, to give just one example, the Ukrainian language was practically outlawed for public use (e.g. it couldn't be taught in schools) and efforts were made to get Ukrainians to identify themselves as Russians. Even the worst examples of Russification in the USSR do not compare to that. No.7634 >>7630 >Was it worse or better than the Russification under the Tsar's regime? That's a myth. If you check Soviet publications on that subject from 20s and 30s it is a black myth done in the West. No.7635 >>7634 Are you arguing that there was no Russification policy under the Tsars? The Bolsheviks certainly argued that there was. No.7638 >>7628 >Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were straight >straight people are fascists Low effort b8 m8 >>>/pol/ No.7643 >>7635 >Are you arguing that there was no Russification policy under the Tsars? Read again. No.7644 >>7638 >>Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were faggots, druggaddicts and fascism = homosexualism. Gorkiy was right. No.7649 >marxism When will this scam finally end? No.7657 File: 02bee7a49a2233f⋯.jpg (65.13 KB, 620x414, 310:207, CominternIV-620x414.jpg) >>7649 This "scam" will continue to be a factor in the world so long as class struggle exists. Neither fascism nor opportunism and revisionism have managed to kill a doctrine that objectively serves the interests of the working people of all countries. No.7663 I'd like to read about: >Religious suppression in Stalinist USSR and the antoginization between the priests and the Soviets >Soviet Youth's perception of the state capitalist countries were in in Stalinist USSR and what they were taught about capitalist countries in school No.7664 File: c7715c6c7fea76c⋯.jpg (58.17 KB, 564x481, 564:481, Brezhnev Orthodox priests.jpg) >>7663 The period of "antagonization" in the Stalin era was pretty much bound up with the collectivization of agriculture in the late 20s/early 30s. There's a pamphlet that covers it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-djlIdERtZXVJQlU/view Relations between the church and state improved once collectivization was carried out, since the church became willing to recognize soviet power. On how the Soviet media (I can't really comment on schools but I'm sure it wasn't much different) portrayed the US, here are two bourgeois accounts: * https://books.google.com/books?id=TLQYApvUfm8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (you're able to view the whole book) There is also this Soviet work I scanned criticizing American historiography on the USSR: https://archive.org/details/HistoryAndPoliticsMarushkin No.7674 What do you think about Russia today? Putin? No.7675 Was the NEP Democratic Socialism? No.7676 File: 9efa27b1479b78b⋯.jpg (436.73 KB, 2037x1491, 97:71, lenin-at-his-desk-in-the-k….jpg) >>7674 He's a capitalist, and says so himself. Russia today is not an imperialist country (see: http://links.org.au/node/4629) but obviously its foreign policy isn't guided by internationalist considerations. >>7675 No, the NEP was a set of policies to promote the reconstruction of the USSR after years of war. Its purpose was to raise the productive forces and grain output to prewar levels and allow the construction of socialism. Since it entailed a partial revival of capitalist elements amid a dangerous domestic and international situation, the Bolsheviks actually doubled down on repressing the remnants of the Mensheviks and other anti-soviet parties. Furthermore, "democratic socialism" is a phrase used by social-democrats to tar the USSR and other socialist countries as undemocratic. It's meant to contrast Marxism with vague, unscientific, reformist illusions of achieving "socialism" without the dictatorship of the proletariat. No.7677 I'm looking for a book on the life of Stalin pre-1917 and Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore seems to be the only result, any thoughts on it? Also any suggestions? No.7678 File: fece69c63429f34⋯.jpg (76.55 KB, 421x509, 421:509, It is young Stalin.jpg) >>7677 None other than Grover Furr has recommended the book, and I've likewise heard it's a good read. The first volume of Kotkin's biography of Stalin should also be of use to you. Likewise there is Robert McNeal's biography of Stalin which, since it was published before 1991, lacks more specific materials Montefiore and Kotkin are able to draw from but which is nonetheless a good account of his early years: http://b-ok.org/book/2670087/ce8254 No.7679 What was the reason for deportation of Caucasians (and others) to Siberia? I’d also like to generally know about the history of the northern Caucasus in the USSR and the changes it went through during periods of leadership. I don’t know if you could help me out with this but I recall reading about an anti-Soviet Ingush fighter named Laisat Baisarova who apparently has become a legend in modern day Ingushetia for never being captured or killed, but I can’t find anything on her besides a few footnotes on some Wikipedia articles and the only other sources I’ve found were written in Russian. No.7680 File: 622806e820c8425⋯.jpg (34.37 KB, 898x446, 449:223, Checen Ingush ASSR flag.jpg) >>7679 >What was the reason for deportation of Caucasians (and others) to Siberia? There were reports of widespread treason (i.e. armed uprisings) by those populations. Hence, the decision was made to deport them as the most "humane" decision possible in wartime (since the other option was mass executions of any suspected males, which could have meant demographic catastrophe.) On the other hand there were many Chechens and others from the deported nationalities who fought in the ranks of the Red Army. After 1956 the deportations were condemned as unjust and the reports of mass treason considered unfounded. The Chechen-Ingush ASSR was reestablished in 1957. I can't really help you with stuff related to the Caucasus. I did have someone scan this for me years back: https://archive.org/details/APeopleRebornTheStoryOfNorthOssetia Post last edited at No.7682 Can you explain the situation of Brezhnev and his medals? Is it true he was awarded himself medals he didn't deserve? He had 4 Hero of Soviet Union which is quite the honour. No.7683 File: 96643b3df0e9a3d⋯.jpg (247.68 KB, 577x600, 577:600, Brezhnev.jpg) >>7682 I was actually just reading a book that discusses this yesterday. He indeed didn't deserve so many medals (that should be obvious), but it wasn't so much that he gave himself them as there were "suggestions" he be given them by his colleagues, who knew he liked receiving medals and titles. I'll quote from the book I was reading (Dmitri Volkogonov, Autopsy for an Empire, pp. 303-304): >His war record was undistinguished, but when he became General Secretary he also became, according to an unwritten law, Supreme Commander of the Soviet Armed Forces. In 1975, as my boss Yepishev told me, he kept raising the issue of his military rank with senior army men: 'People are writing to me and insisting that, as I am the supreme commander, I ought to ave a rank consistent with my position . . . A lieutenant-general [a rank he was given after the war] cannot be the supremo. I don't know what to do . . . The pressure of public opinion, especially among the military, is very strong.' >By May 1976 the Ministry of Defence had arranged to have the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union conferred on Brezhnev. A marshal's uniform, however, needs medals, and they duly appeared, one after the other, as from a magical cornucopia He received Hero of the Soviet Union stars, the highest state wards, four times: in 1966, 1976, 1978 and 1981. He had already been decorated as a Hero of Socialist Labour under Khrushchev, and the sprinkling of gold and jewelled orders on his chest went on being augmented until the end of his days. He never saw the comical absurdity of it all. >In December 1966 Suslov said to Podgorny: 'Leonid Ilyich will be sixty in a week's time. I suggest we make him a Hero of the Soviet Union. It'll be nice for him.' >Podgorny replied: 'I have no objection. We should ring round the members of the Politburo.' >There and then a Central Committee decree was dictated giving Brezhnev 'the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and decorating him with the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star Medal'. There was a proposal from a certain S. Davidyuk in Kiev that a new and even higher order be created, Hero of Communist Labour, and that Brezhnev should be its first recipient. The Politburo seems to have had the common sense not to report this to the General Secretary, otherwise he most certainly would have agreed. . . >Curiously, Brezhnev sincerely believed that he had genuinely earned his decorations, and in time he also came to believe that he had played a historic role in the war, and that his marshal's rank and Victory Medal were really deserved. He even began to feel a sense of rivalry towards Marshal Zhukov and his memory as the Soviet Union's greatest military commander. His toadying entourage constantly assured him that his works, his decisions and his participation in various events were of an epoch-making nature. It was they who made sure that the first six editions of Zhukov's memoirs contained the barefaced lie that Zhukov, when he was with the 18th Army, had wanted 'to consult with the head of the political section of the force, L.I. Brezhnev,' but that this had not happened because the hero of Malaya Zemlya [an obscure battle that was the basis of Brezhnev's status as a glorious war leader] was at the bridgehead. . . >He was as thrilled as a child when he was given a statuette of the Golden Mercury, the Lenin Peace Prize, the Joliot Curie Gold Medal for Peace, the Afghan Son of Victory Order, the Karl Marx Gold Medal, the Lenin Prize for Literature, a new Party card with the number 00000002 - the first having, of course, been issued to the long-dead Lenin - Komsomol card No. 1, or even the first badge marking 'fifty years in the CPSU'. Volkogonov does add that Brezhnev had a friendly, non-confrontational approach toward people and liked to hand out medals as much as he received them. He would watch a TV show or a play and be so impressed by an actor that he'd quickly call people up and ask if said actor could be awarded. But yeah the end result of medal-mania was to cause ordinary people to joke about Brezhnev and not take him seriously as a leader. Chernenko (who was very close to Brezhnev) likewise was awarded Hero of Socialist Labour three times despite being in office for barely over a year. Post last edited at No.7684 File: 305e6d43bc16878⋯.jpg (76.64 KB, 1280x651, 1280:651, 15171347110832.jpg) Were any of you actually born in the USSR or had parents born in the USSR? No.7685 File: 8692bad8ad05aad⋯.jpg (211.96 KB, 950x751, 950:751, 1991 referendum.jpg) >>7684 I know a few Russians (who live in Russia), one of whom was around in the 1980s and another whose grandfather was an enterprise manager. No.7687 >>7684 Yes. No.7699 Someone asked a question on another board that I'd like to know more about: >Can someone explain to me why cybernetic planning was so vehemently opposed in the USSR? For most of the Soviet's existence, having computers plan shit out was impractical (computer technology wasn't up to snuff) but by the 1980's 32-bit processors were being introduced, computers were starting to use megabytes of RAM instead of kilobytes, and I'm sure the superpower that was the Soviet Union could've gathered the resources for top of the line computers. did a quick search but didn't find anything relevant in this thread. halp pls? No.7700 File: 5b4928a53c14b20⋯.jpg (60.86 KB, 740x555, 4:3, A Soviet PC.jpg) >>7699 Cybernetics was most popular in the USSR in the Khrushchev period, when the CPSU was claiming that Soviet citizens would be experiencing communism in 20 years' time, colonizing planets, etc. But supporters of cybernetics had opposition from both "the establishment" (government ministries didn't want to replace existing planning methods and were concerned about issues like unemployment if so much human labor was no longer necessary) and from supporters of a more market-based approach (who argued that cybernetics was a waste of time and resources which would only result in a further centralization of the economy to the detriment of its efficiency.) There's a book about the subject titled From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics, which can be found here: http://b-ok.xyz/book/899907/0135f4 Here's an excerpt from page 273: >Economic cyberneticians quickly realized that it was impossible to centralize all economic decision making in Moscow: the mathematical optimization of a large-scale system was simply not feasible. CEMI researchers estimated that complete optimization of the Soviet economy required solving a gargantuan system of equations with 50 million variables and 5 million constraints. They admitted that even a computer performing 1 million operations per second, which was much faster than any available Soviet computers, would require one month to solve a system a billionth as large. Besides, economic cyberneticians realized that there were some serious conceptual difficulties: linear programming was suited for the problem of resource distribution, but it did not work well for prospective planning, there were different views on what constituted an economic optimum, and it was difficult to agree on a single criterion for optimization. In 1967 Fedorenko unequivocally stated that "the full formalization of the functioning of an economic system and the creation of a fully automated centralized system of planning and management of the economy is unwarranted. With issues like that, it isn't surprising that cybernetics was criticized as impractical. Soviet planners and Party leaders did constantly talk about the need to implement the "scientific and technological revolution," but they envisioned it as assisting current methods to plan the economy rather than anything drastic. No.7702 File: ed3400ec26672f9⋯.jpg (82.47 KB, 800x1100, 8:11, a87d7da9c65140d2b33183b0a5….jpg) >>7700 Thanks. No.7704 >>7700 >government ministries didn't want to replace existing planning methods and were concerned about issues like unemployment if so much human labor was no longer necessary But that's literally the goal of socialism. Unshackling the development of the means of production to reach communism. Also how can there be unemployment in a planned economy? No.7705 File: a3a9b3084edfdea⋯.jpg (38.8 KB, 705x400, 141:80, Viktor Glushkov.jpg) >>7704 Yeah, but from the selfish standpoint of lots of planners they didn't want to lose their jobs or have to learn unfamiliar things. It was "easier" just to make minor amends to planning and have various sectors of the bureaucratic apparatus discuss things forever. >Also how can there be unemployment in a planned economy? It wasn't so much that "official" unemployment existed as that many enterprises hoarded labor despite the economy as a whole suffering from a labor shortage. You thus had situations where a worker wasn't really necessary for the enterprise, but he'd be paid anyway. So the argument could be invoked (albeit it seems without much basis) that cybernetics would result in lots of people with skills no longer being useful. But yeah the Soviet state was good at retraining people and it wasn't really an issue that came up much during the debates over cybernetics. No.7706 >>7705 What do you have of Glushkov? Any text? No.7707 >>7705 >many enterprises hoarded labor despite the economy as a whole suffering from a labor shortage. You thus had situations where a worker wasn't really necessary for the enterprise, but he'd be paid anyway. First time I heard of this. What was the motivation behind it? What did they get for requesting more people than needed? No.7708 File: e378d973be86687⋯.jpg (265.05 KB, 607x800, 607:800, Victor Mikhailovich Glushk….jpg) >>7706 I got nothing. >>7707 To quote one work (The Contemporary Soviet City, 1984, p. 70): >There are several reasons why Soviet enterprises in effect hoard excess labor. First, factory managers are often called on to change the composition and size of their output targets during the plan year. If the enterprise is caught without the necessary additional labor, it faces the possibility of not fulfilling output plans and, as a consequence, losing the coveted bonuses that accompany success. Second, urban enterprises are annually called on to supply workers to collective and state farms to help with planting and harvesting. This also creates an incentive to maintain enough of a labor force at the factory so that production can withstand the temporary loss of workers to the countryside. Third, one of the chronic problems of the Soviet system is the inability to supply inputs evenly over the course of production periods. As a consequence of such interruptions there is often feverish production activity during the last ten days of the month, known as storming, as well as at the end of the fiscal year and certain days designated for intense effort. Finally, as Berliner points out, the fact that Soviet workers can so easily leave their jobs creates excessive mobility. . . As a result there is a powerful incentive to anticipate high quit rates by hoarding labor. No.7709 >>7708 Thanks, Ismail. No.7710 If the germans had captured Petrograd and Moscow in 1917, would they have restored the monarchy? No.7711 File: be2cdbb52529ca3⋯.jpg (16.22 KB, 895x446, 895:446, Russian SFSR flag.jpg) >>7710 I'd imagine they would restore the monarchy under a different member of the Romanov family. No.7719 >>6404 >there's a specific, 400-page history of the Great Patriotic War the Soviets published in English in 1974 but I haven't obtained it yet Any news on this? No.7720 File: b7b632742123049⋯.jpg (54.91 KB, 550x386, 275:193, Great Patriotic War.jpg) >>7719 Still don't have it, since it's relatively expensive. You can find a Soviet overview of the war in chapter seven of the following work though: https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism No.7722 How were veterans of the Great Patriotic War treated by the politburo? I heard they were given special privileges. No.7723 File: 6b394f220bb20d4⋯.jpg (75.3 KB, 427x640, 427:640, Soviet veteran.jpg) >>7722 I don't know the specifics, but yeah I've heard veterans did get special privileges and whatnot. The Great Patriotic War was a regular subject of Soviet movies, TV, fiction and non-fiction books, school activities, etc. to the extent one American journalist claimed that for the USSR the war was only yesterday. Which made sense considering that the US and even the UK emerged relatively unscathed from the war whereas Soviet citizens bore the brunt of Hitler's genocidal campaigns (e.g. when a census was taken in the Byelorussian SSR in the 1950s, it actually experienced a population drop compared to the census conducted before the war, due to Hitler's armies killing people.) No.7748 What was the Cold War era military budget like, particularly in regards to non-nuclear weapons? How much equipment was given or sold to allies, and what was the balance of trade like? No.7749 In this Soviet textbook and also in Stalin's Economic Problems it is said: >Economic accounting is aimed at achieving the best economic results for the smallest expenditure, ensuring the profitability of enterprises through economy and rational utilisation of resources. Profitability means that the receipts of an enterprise from selling its output replace its costs and provide an extra income in addition. Profitability is one of the most important indications of the economic effectiveness of the work of an enterprise in a particular period. “The profitableness of individual plants and industries is of immense value for the development of our country. It must be taken into account both when planning construction and when planning production. It is an elementary requirement of our economic activity at the present stage of development." (Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., 1952, p. 62.) https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch34.htm How is this different from capitalist accumulation? I don't really see how "the law of value doesn't regulate production", as Stalin puts it, when enterprises basically function according to the MCM' cycle. In most social democratic countries, you also have regulations such as a minimum wage, labor rights, labor insurances, lay-off protection, but it's still a capitalist firm. No.7750 >>7749 Additionally, there is this from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/profitability >Socialist profitability differs fundamentally in meaning and in economic role from capitalist profitability, which takes shape under the influence of the spontaneously operating law of the average rate of profit and, in the context of state-monopoly capitalism, under the influence of the law of maximum profit. By contrast, in socialist society profitability expresses the relations among people free from exploitation, and it is regulated by the state in conformity with a plan. Under socialism, the achievement of high profitability in the national economy creates conditions that ensure high rates of economic growth and a more comprehensive satisfaction of the increasing requirements of the working people. During all stages of the development of a socialist economy, the CPSU and the Soviet government have concentrated on ensuring the profitable operation of enterprises and economic sectors. This is emphasized in the Program of the CPSU: “The achievement of maximum results in the interests of society with minimum expenditures is an inexorable law of economic construction…. It is essential to take every possible measure to strengthen economic accountability, to observe the strictest economies and thrift, to reduce losses and costs, and to increase the profitability of production” (1974, pp. 86, 90). In a developed socialist society the decisive conditions for increasing the efficiency of social production are the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, increased labor productivity in all sectors of the national economy, increased returns from invested funds, and a decisive struggle against mismanagement, waste, and excesses. A socialist socialized economy is characterized by economic profitability on a nationwide scale and by the profitability of economically accountable enterprises and associations. These indicators are integrally connected. What do they mean by this? Is profitability just productivity and cost-effectiveness in socialism? >National economic profitability is ensured by the planned, crisis-free development of the economy, the socialist organization of production and labor, and the direct association of labor power and the means of production in expanded socialist reproduction. But if the state is the only actor in the economy that strives for profitability, this doesn't make it immune to capitalist crisis such as the falling rate of profit. No.7753 File: d808943097d20a5⋯.jpg (45.8 KB, 362x483, 362:483, Szymanski book.jpg) >>7748 I don't really have answers for that. >>7749 >I don't really see how "the law of value doesn't regulate production", as Stalin puts it, when enterprises basically function according to the MCM' cycle. Because production was based on use value, not exchange value. Stalin made the point, for instance, that the Soviet state maintained numerous unprofitable enterprises and developed heavy industry at the expense of light industry even though the latter would have been more profitable. >>7750 >Is profitability just productivity and cost-effectiveness in socialism? Cost-effectiveness and producing stuff people actually want to buy. >But if the state is the only actor in the economy that strives for profitability, this doesn't make it immune to capitalist crisis such as the falling rate of profit. It does when the economy is planned, as Szymanski points out: >the level of profits and surplus are a product of the plan, not of any inherent logic of the system. There is no tendency for the organic composition of capital to rise more rapidly than justified by purely technological considerations. Because all prices are centrally determined and basic investment decisions are made by the central authorities, there is no competitive pressure to reinvest profits at a rate more rapid than required by pure criteria of efficiency. Such purely rational criteria for investment, by the way, often dictate the introduction of more efficient machinery which utilizes less raw material than the old process and/or incorporates fewer labour hours in its construction (i.e. capital saving innovations). On the other hand, there is no inherent tendency for the rate of exploitation (the number of hours a worker labours and is paid for, divided into the number of hours worked, but not paid for) to increase. This is because decisions about both direct pay and social benefits,and the proportion of the value of the worker's product to be reinvested and allocated to the non-productive classes, are made centrally on the basis of a rational plan; this plan may, or may not, depending on the criteria of the planners, increase or decrease the share of the product going to workers and the share going to reinvestment and non-productive workers. The rate of profit can be expressed by the ratio of the rate of exploitation to the organic composition of capital. We see that there is no inherent tendency for this quantity to move one way or the other. Szymanski's book in general is a good read on how the Soviet economy worked and how it could not have been capitalist: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying No.7754 I see it everywhere online and it really depresses me. It's probably Western internet but every argument or hate against communism is founded upon misunderstandings or just downright lies about the ideology and its history And vice verse, the same people seem to not have an idea on what capitalism really is. Its about trade, its about "working hard to get you what". It's honestly insane, it's like a religion. Why is this? How can this be such a common phenomenon? Was it similar in the Renaissance period where people thought feudalism was the best? No.7755 File: 93bc977c05f2823⋯.jpg (28.04 KB, 400x247, 400:247, MarxEngelsLeninBush.jpg) >>7754 >It's probably Western internet It isn't. Stuff like "Communism is a Jewish plot" have long predated the Internet. Even Lenin had to contend with the "argument" of "communists want everyone to be literally identical in order to achieve equality": https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm >the same people seem to not have an idea on what capitalism really is. Capitalism is usually presented by its apologists as the natural state of affairs, having existed the moment two cavemen exchanged something. Anything that disrupts this "natural" state of affairs is thus viewed as bad. Slavery and feudalism were likewise portrayed as natural in their time. >Was it similar in the Renaissance period where people thought feudalism was the best? The Illuminati conspiracy stuff got started by supporters of absolute monarchies and haters of the French Revolution, so yes. >How can this be such a common phenomenon? Mixture of ignorance and willful distortion by opponents. Just like evolution is "disproved" by saying "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Post last edited at No.7756 >>7755 Can we ever expect to see a paradigm shift? Also, I meant to question this in the socialist FAQ thread so apologies. I think I see more leftist sympathy in Russian/Chinese internet social circles. Of course, I don't browse them often but i do try a little google translate. No.7757 >>7749 >I don't really see how "the law of value doesn't regulate production", as Stalin puts it, when enterprises basically function according to the MCM' cycle. at the time when Stalin published his pamphlet, profitability was one of the secondary so-called value plan indicators as opposed to in kind plan indicators primary value indicator was costs of production, plan targets for costs reduction were far more important than profitability targets, because it was reasoned that with rising or constant wage costs the only way for an enterprise to raise profitability is to lower other elements in the costs structure planned norm of profitability in a particular industry was calculated as a ratio to the costs of production, plus some spare change for turnover assets etc, but usually no investment fund, those were rationed by the ministries and anyway, all this Stalin talk about how profitability is very important for our party is a typical politician bullshitting nobody closed unprofitable enterprises, nobody laid people off, nobody cut subsidies off when some economists proposed to increase wholesale prices on the means of production as to make generally unprofitable heavy industry enterprises profitable again, those economists got quickly reminded that it would start a chain reaction of price inflation in theory it was agreed that prices should be at their values which were again perceived thru the prism of the average costs of production in a particular industry and enterprises should be made profitable but in reality it was an unspoken rule that you can't solve a profitability problem by price inflation and in general you can look at the soviet budget structure after the war and until the thaw much of it comes from the turnover tax, not from profits of enterprises, tho there was a tendency of rising share of the profits all this applies to Stalin SU of course after Khrushchev's fuckery and Kosygin reform in particular profit becomes the one and only value indicator, and in kind indicators take a back seat completely No.7758 File: 49f8e4871a895f7⋯.jpg (742.34 KB, 1300x883, 1300:883, Alexei Kosygin.jpg) >>7756 Russia has a quite large communist party and, of course, actually experienced socialism, so it's harder to claim stuff like "communists think everyone should be paid exactly the same lol" when that clearly wasn't the case in the USSR. >>7757 >after Khrushchev's fuckery and Kosygin reform in particular profit becomes the one and only value indicator, and in kind indicators take a back seat completely Szymanski shows this wasn't the case. Even during the period when the Kosygin reforms did operate (they were rescinded in the early 70s), profit still wasn't "in command" contrary to Maoist and Albanian claims. Khrushchev denounced Malenkov's supporters in 1955 as Bukharinites for suggesting that as socialism develops the government should focus more on light industry. Many enterprises continued to be unprofitable right up till the end of the USSR, with the planned economy nonetheless continuing to make use of them. Even in Yugoslavia efforts to promote profitability could only go so far considering the government wasn't willing to permit private ownership of the means of production or let enterprises go bankrupt. So, as in the USSR, Yugoslavia had numerous unprofitable enterprises that got on by through government subsidies. Post last edited at No.7759 >>7758 >profit still wasn't "in command" profitability became the main plan indicator, it was calculated as a ration to the value of fixed assets enterprises got their own investment fund, director's fund, because auto-financing, decentralization, The Thaw price inflation, no more periodic price reductions etc etc >Khrushchev denounced Malenkov's supporters in 1955 as Bukharinites for suggesting that as socialism develops the government should focus more on light industry whatever, actions not words wholesale prices on the means of production were raised means of production were sold to agricultural cooperatives and wholesale buying prices on their production were raised so that they could take care of themselves in theory result - price inflation, paid for by the end consumer essentially reduction of the wage costs, monetary reform of 61, civil unrest, Novocherkassk, liver brownies >Many enterprises continued to be unprofitable right up till the end of the USSR, with the planned economy nonetheless continuing to make use of them. pure inertia old fart political decision makers too chickenshit to rock the boat, until some youngster like Gorby came and brought Kosygin reform to its logical end >Even in Yugoslavia, which had by far the most profit-oriented socialist economy "socialist economy" where labor power is a commodity that's quite something >the government wasn't willing to permit private ownership of the means of production meh, cooperative ownership is a type of private ownership just a joint stock company with employees holding stocks especially when they use contracted labor on the side, as they usually do >let enterprises go bankrupt bourgeois governments do this too you know infant industry protection is a thing you know >So, as in the USSR, Yugoslavia also had numerous unprofitable enterprises that got on by through government subsidies. what kind of enterprises? also guess Tesla is socialist huh subsidies aren't enough No.7762 File: 386b865d58c1f31⋯.jpg (25.68 KB, 500x331, 500:331, Kosygin Assad.jpg) >>7759 >profitability became the main plan indicator, it was calculated as a ration to the value of fixed assets Prove it. Every work I've read on the Soviet economy that doesn't come from ultra-leftists, Cliffites, Maoists or 1960s-80s Albanian academics states that profitability was used as a means to increase production; it did not assume the same significance as under a capitalist economy. >means of production were sold to agricultural cooperatives Yes, because the machine-tractor stations, which played an important role when tractors were scarce and peasants were liable to break them from misuse, had outlived their usefulness. This has nothing to do with whether the USSR was capitalist or not. >until some youngster like Gorby came and brought Kosygin reform to its logical end Considering Gorbachev denounced the prior fifty years of Soviet socialism as "Stalinism" and "stagnation," which included Kosygin as an associate of Brezhnev, that seems unlikely. As I said, the Soviet economy under the Kosygin-Liberman reforms was not appreciably different from what came before or after it. >"socialist economy" where labor power is a commodity Due to the way the Yugoslav economy worked, workers in enterprises had an incentive not to hire younger workers since it would cut into their own wages. This has nothing to do with the reserve army of labor that Marx spoke of capitalists making use of to depress wages for the whole working-class. >also guess Tesla is socialist huh There was no capitalist class in Yugoslavia. >infant industry protection is a thing you know Unprofitable enterprises were kept afloat by political decision of the government, not tariffs on imported goods to "protect" these enterprises from foreign competition. So the comparison is silly. >what kind of enterprises? State-owned enterprises which could not be bought, sold, or owned by private individuals. No.7779 >>7762 >Prove it. is wiki good enough for you? <The reform was administered by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers. It consisted of five "groups of activities": <The enterprises became main economic units. <The number of policy targets was reduced from 30 to 9. (The rest remained indicators.)[37] The big nine were: total output at current wholesale prices, the most important products in physical units, the total payroll, total profits and profitability, expressed as the ratio of profit to fixed assets and working capital normalized; payments to the budget and appropriations from the budget; total capital investment targets for the introduction of new technology; and the volume of supply of raw materials and equipment. <Economic independence of enterprises. Enterprises were required to determine the detailed range and variety of products, using their own funds to invest in production, establish long-term contractual arrangements with suppliers and customers and to determine the number of personnel. <Key importance was attached to the integral indicators of economic efficiency of production — profits and profitability. There was the opportunity to create a number of funds based on the expense of profits — funds for the development of production, material incentives, housing, etc. The enterprise was allowed to use the funds at its discretion. <Pricing: Wholesale sales prices would be recalibrated to reflect costs and encourage economic efficiency.[38] <The most important changes resulting from the Liberman/Kosygin reforms involved the role of profit in the Soviet economic system. Rentabelnost' ("profitability", Russian: рентабельность) and realizatsiya ("sales", Russian: реализация) became the twin success indicators for enterprises. Rentabelnost' was defined in terms of the ratio between profits and capital, while realizatsiya (also meaning "implementation") depended on the total volume of sales.[39][40] Success by these measurements led to the allocation of money to a fund, which could be disbursed according to a pre-defined sequence. The funds first went to pay for capital—including interest paid to Gosbank, the State Bank. Then, they went to the new incentive funds. Finally, they could be used by an enterprise to expand its capital for operations. Any profit extending above the maximum for spending would go to the central budget.[41] <The three "incentive" funds were:[42][43] <The material incentive fund (MIF): money for cash bonuses to workers of profitable enterprises; <The socio-cultural and housing fund (SCF): A fund for social and cultural programming; and <The production development fund (PDF): A 'development' fund for the overall organization. you can also check all the directives of Central Committee and the Council of Ministers related to reform if you so want <«Об улучшении управления промышленностью, совершенствовании планирования и усилении экономического стимулирования промышленного производства» (Постановление сентябрьского 1965 г. Пленума ЦК КПСС)[6] <«О совершенствовании планирования и усилении экономического стимулирования промышленного производства» (постановление ЦК КПСС и СМ СССР от 4 октября 1965 г.) <«Положение о социалистическом государственном производственном предприятии», утверждено СМ СССР 4 октября 1965 г.[7] <«О мерах по дальнейшему улучшению кредитования и расчётов в народном хозяйстве и повышению роли кредита в стимулировании производства» (постановление СМ СССР от 3 апреля 1967 г.) <«О переводе совхозов и других государственных сельскохозяйственных предприятий на полный хозяйственный расчёт» (13 апреля 1967 г.)[8] <«О переводе предприятий Министерства гражданской авиации на новую систему планирования и экономического стимулирования» (от 7 июня 1967 г.)[9] <«О переводе железных дорог Министерства путей сообщения на новую систему планирования и экономического стимулирования» (от 23 июня 1967 г.)[10] <«О переводе предприятий Министерства морского флота на новую систему планирования и экономического стимулирования» (от 7 июля 1967 г.)[11] <«О переводе предприятий речного транспорта союзных республик на новую систему планирования и экономического стимулирования» (7 июля 1967 г.)[12] <«О переводе эксплуатационных предприятий и производственно-технических управлений связи системы Министерства связи СССР на новую систему планирования и экономического стимулирования» (8 июля 1968 г.)[13] <«О совершенствовании планирования и капитального строительства и об усилении экономического стимулирования строительного производства» (28 мая 1969 г.)[14] No.7780 >>7762 cont. >profitability was used as a means to increase production it was a typical soviet ritual mantra since the beginning we need to reinforce the khozraschet and material stimulation blah blah blah >the machine-tractor stations >had outlived their usefulness Prove it. all this talk and no proofs about how Stalin era planning was good for industrialization but somehow outlived it usefulness afterwards all I see is that 50s were the golden age of soviet economy, and shit started going downhill coincidentally after various "reforms" and "improvements" got introduced as to the MTS question in particular, the idea was that coops would themselves take care of their machinery, they would themselves replace machinery, introduce new machinery, repair it n shiet but coops appeared too limpdick in reality, who would've thought, huh? result - agriculture became an Achilles's hill of the Soviet Union, by the end times SU couldn't even feed itself truly MTS outlived their usefulness, kek >Considering Gorbachev denounced the prior fifty years of Soviet socialism as "Stalinism" and "stagnation," which included Kosygin as an associate of Brezhnev, that seems unlikely. typical political blah blah perestroika as an economic reform was the logical conclusion of emphasizing profitability and auto-financing >This has nothing to do with the reserve army of labor that Marx spoke of capitalists making use of to depress wages for the whole working-class. you tell me that unemployment doesn't create a reserve army of labor I call bullshit :) >There was no capitalist class in Yugoslavia. except coop shareholders :) >Unprofitable enterprises were kept afloat by political decision of the government what industry are we talking about? my first guess is military No.7782 >>7780 >all this talk and no proofs about how Stalin era planning was good for industrialization but somehow outlived it usefulness afterwards Well, there was a struggle between a mercantilist tendency (in which was Nikita, Brezhnev and also in this forum Dawaldo and Ismail; all materialized through Kosygin's reform and not only) and an antimercantilist tendency (in which was Lenin, Stalin and Malenkov, for the latter check 19th Congress of the PCUS in 1952). No.7787 File: 3ff8037d2b0166e⋯.jpg (98.41 KB, 900x750, 6:5, Kosygin.jpg) >is wiki good enough for you? No, because anyone can write a Wikipedia article. You should have better sources at hand. As Szymanski points out: >The initiative for the goals of the plan comes from the Central Committee of the Communist Party which establishes the basic priorities. The State Planning Commission (GOSPLAN) then formulates control statistics for about 250 product groups which fulfil these priorities. GOSPLAN negotiates with the various industrial ministries and sends the tentative annual target figures to the enterprises. Enterprises evaluate the GOSPLAN proposals and communicate back to the central agencies the extent to which they feel they can fulfil the annual plan. GOSPLAN then puts it all together, checking the consistency of the various inputs and outputs to ensure a 'material balance' (e.g. that the amount of steel that the steel industry is targeted to produce in fact equals the demand from steel consuming industries). Finally, it sends the modified plan to the Council of Ministers for approval and then sends the finalized annual production targets to individual enterprises. Only the basic commodities are fully planned in this way. Large numbers of minor commodities are not explicitly planned by the central planning agencies, but because their production depends on the output of the basic planned commodities, the plan greatly influences their production as well. . . . >Profit, rather than being the sole determinant of production and distribution decisions (as it is in private capitalist economies) is in the Soviet Union merely a lever by which the central planning authorities attempt to increase productivity, efficiency and compliance with planned production targets. Gross realized (sold) output is the primary indicator of managerial success, not profits. As for your actual remarks, >it was a typical soviet ritual mantra since the beginning >we need to reinforce the khozraschet and material stimulation blah blah blah Yes, and the role of profit in the Soviet economy hardly differed from that stated position until the Gorbachev period. >Prove it. Any work on the MTS (such as "One Hundred Thousand Tractors" by Robert F. Miller) will point out that peasants and Soviet economists alike complained how the MTS employees had little incentive to do a good job. >result - agriculture became an Achilles's hill of the Soviet Union That process began under Stalin. Within months after his death Malenkov was pointing out the dire straits Soviet agriculture was in. And if you can give me any work that claims low productivity on Soviet farms was due to the abolition of the MTS, go ahead. >perestroika as an economic reform was the logical conclusion of emphasizing profitability and auto-financing That's like saying capitalism is the "logical conclusion" of having wages and commodities, therefore the USSR never built socialism. >you tell me that unemployment doesn't create a reserve army of labor Not in the conditions of Yugoslavia, where there was no capitalist class that used unemployment to depress wages. >except coop shareholders :) Yugoslav enterprises were not cooperatives. >what industry are we talking about? >my first guess is military According to a Soviet economist writing in 1990, the "share by the mid-1980s [of unprofitable enterprises] has been 40 percent. . . these enterprises have existed for whole decades. . . subsidies to unprofitable and not sufficiently profitable enterprises devoured a substantial part of the state budget revenues and were one of the reasons for its deficit character." (Quoted in Irwin Silber, Socialism: What Went Wrong? 1994, p. 134.) >>7782 Malenkov's economic policy was to the "right" of Khrushchev's. The latter was actually closer to Stalin on this subject. No.7789 >>7787 >Malenkov's economic policy was to the "right" of Khrushchev's. The latter was actually closer to Stalin on this subject. False. No.7790 File: f208ca9062c8f25⋯.jpg (140.55 KB, 815x589, 815:589, Malenkov and Stalin.jpg) >>7789 Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R." was tacitly abandoned as soon as he died; indirect criticisms of it began appearing in the press, and in private Malenkov criticized how Stalin had handled party and government affairs in his final years. Malenkov implied that light industry should develop as rapidly as heavy industry, and placed heavy emphasis on raising consumer goods production. Consumer goods did increase under Khrushchev, but the latter remained committed to the primacy of "production of the means of production" (i.e. heavy industry.) Malenkov also placed greater emphasis on peaceful coexistence compared to Stalin. I don't see how his policies weren't, to some degree, a departure from Stalin's. Molotov and Kaganovich were the "Stalinists" in the Soviet leadership. Malenkov and Beria were the "rightists." Khrushchev was somewhat in between both camps. Post last edited at No.7791 >>7790 We talking on mercantilist and antimercantilist tendencies. Don't change the subject as usual. Malenkov said in 50s the same he said in 30s: transition to communism isn't and can't be under mercantilist way. And such way was defended but Khrushchev, Brezhnev and others. And, yes, Malenkov was "following" in 50s what Stalin wrote in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R." No.7793 File: 34227041c7e2439⋯.jpg (94.37 KB, 780x440, 39:22, Malenkov.jpg) >>7791 >We talking on mercantilist and antimercantilist tendencies. I've never heard Marxists talk about "mercantilism" in the context of a socialist economy. >Malenkov said in 50s the same he said in 30s: transition to communism isn't and can't be under mercantilist way. I can see no evidence Malenkov used the phrase "mercantilist." Elaborate what you mean by this. >And, yes, Malenkov was "following" in 50s what Stalin wrote in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R." How so? No.7801 File: 4c349689c6a97b0⋯.jpg (279.99 KB, 1024x1020, 256:255, 4c349689c6a97b043bdf46bcb5….jpg) What were the pros and cons about each leader of the soviet union in regards to developing socialism and increasing the standards of living? No.7802 File: ec2e2bee2a8b5f6⋯.jpg (1.06 MB, 1878x840, 313:140, Russian leaders.jpg) >>7801 Lenin = inherited a country ruined by imperialist war, only to be ruined still further by civil war. Enacted New Economic Policy as a way of rebuilding the economy so that socialism could be built at a later date. Living standards under the NEP rose, but at the same time there was widespread unemployment. Stalin = socialism was built under his leadership, but in the conditions of the 1930s, with fear of invasion by the imperialist countries, living standards of workers and peasants took a big hit. Malenkov = the state began increasing the amount of money it was willing to pay peasants for their produce, which helped raise living standards for the countryside, but otherwise he didn't get to do much. Khrushchev = Soviet living standards increased considerably and the USSR was at its height in terms of economic and technological progress, but his arbitrary interventions in the economy (done without consulting others and with little thought put into them) was the major cause of his removal from office. Brezhnev = living standards continued improving until about the mid-70s when "the era of stagnation" (in which economic growth was far smaller than in prior years) started to set in. Andropov = wanted to reform the economy, didn't achieve much of anything in his brief tenure. Chernenko = basically just Brezhnev 2.0, entered office a sick man and died leaving no impression. Gorbachev = presided over destruction of socialism in the USSR and a disastrous fall in the standards of living. That's a very brief summary. No.7831 File: 403288a308d103f⋯.jpg (86.96 KB, 397x355, 397:355, Comrade.jpg) Got numbers and stats about gulags and the purges? Not looking for info about what happened during the purges or why people were detained, I seek nothing but hard numbers. No.7832 File: e9954a266a685ec⋯.jpg (48.16 KB, 700x536, 175:134, Yezhov and Stalin.jpg) >>7831 To quote Parenti, "In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. . . Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released. . . . Total executions from 1921 to 1953, a thirty-three year span inclusive, were 799,455. . . the killings of political opponents were not in the millions or tens of millions—which is not to say that the actual number was either inconsequential or justifiable." (Blackshirts and Reds, pp. 79-80.) His source is the article "Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence" by J. Arch Getty, Gabor Rittersporn and Victor Zemskov. Dmitri Volkogonov, who combined near-unlimited access to the Soviet archives with unrestrained anti-communism, writes that over five million were arrested and nearly a million shot during the purges (Autopsy for an Empire, p. 105.) According to Kotkin, "the 1937-38 campaign against 'anti-Soviet elements' . . . would account for 1.1 million of the 1.58 million arrests in 1937-38, and 634,000 of the 682,000 executions." (Vol. 2 of his Stalin biography, p. 448.) Post last edited at No.7833 File: 5eff5de9d53e30f⋯.jpg (212.68 KB, 1440x1256, 180:157, 5eff5de9d53e30fd239c5a5125….jpg) What are some technological innovations attributed to soviet scientists? Bonus points if they're widely used today. No.7838 File: ce8ca8c310b8d1b⋯.jpg (173.08 KB, 900x674, 450:337, Mikhail Kalashnikov the be….jpg) No.7873 Sorry for being unspecific, but what books do you recommend on the history of the USSR? No.7874 File: f40d8d5d9dad744⋯.jpg (48.78 KB, 528x800, 33:50, Lenin book.jpg) >>7873 The list I gave here: >>7836 You can start by reading this: https://archive.org/details/lininandtherussi035179mbp ("Lenin and the Russian Revolution" by Christopher Hill) I always recommend it as an introduction to the October Revolution and the first few years of Soviet rule (as well as Lenin's life and theories.) If you want info on the Civil War, "Red Victory" by W. Bruce Lincoln is good. Another account worth consulting is W.H. Chamberlin's two-volume narrative: Post last edited at No.7875 >>7874 Thanks famrade. No.7885 File: 1f3fd3777ca309d⋯.png (582.47 KB, 663x960, 221:320, 1f3fd3777ca309d408c4bd1c96….png) What were the main issues in 20th century socialist countries and more importantly, how (as MLs) do we avoid them next time? No.7886 File: a4822996ee715bc⋯.jpg (87.36 KB, 402x269, 402:269, Rise up Ivan by Geli Korzh….jpg) >>7885 1. They overestimated the weaknesses of capitalism during the 20th century while overemphasizing the strength of their socialist systems which, for all the progress made, were still built on the foundations of semi-feudal economies and therefore had a long period of "catching up" to the West. This was a problem since it made triumphant rhetoric about the coming crisis of capitalism look hollow as economic problems accumulated in the socialist countries by 1980, whereas the US, Western Europe and Japan could boast about major advances in technology and other signs of continued growth. 2. Fear of the market Obviously all the socialist countries realized that under socialism some sort of market economy still operates (law of value, etc.), but the aforementioned belief in capitalism's imminent doom and socialism's glorious prospects led to ultra-leftist mistakes like heavy wage egalitarianism in the USSR after Stalin (since the Soviets were supposedly going to reach communism in a few decades) or outright blunders like the Great Leap Forward which were supposed to leapfrog socialism into communism. China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and the DPRK have all recognized that greater reliance on market mechanisms are required to develop the productive forces, including a toleration for capitalists during this historically lengthy transition period. 3. Secretiveness I'll just quote Parenti on this (Blackshirts and Reds, pp. 68-69): >For years I heard about the devilishly clever manipulations of communist propaganda. Later on, I was surprised to discover that news media in communist countries were usually lackluster and plodding. Western capitalist nations are immersed in an advertising culture, with billions spent on marketing and manipulating images. The communist countries had nothing comparable. Their media coverage generally consisted of dull protocol visits and official pronouncements, along with glowing reports about the economy and society—so glowing that people complained about not knowing what was going on in their own country. They could read about abuses of power, industrial accidents, worker protests, and earthquakes occurring in every country but their own. And even when the press exposed domestic abuses, they usually went uncorrected. >Media reports sometimes so conflicted with daily experience that the official press was not believed even when it did tell the truth, as when it reported on poverty and repression in the capitalist world. This led to so-called "reformers" like Dubček and Gorbachev gaining their initial legitimacy through promoting "openness," one side of which was genuine (it was objectively far easier to report on negative things in the late 80s USSR), the other side of which was anti-communist (Dubček's "socialism with a human face" and Gorby's "humane and democratic socialism" gave free play to slandering socialist theory, the history of the socialist countries, the international communist movement, and so on.) I think the socialist countries are learning from this, e.g. China's media is far more open today than it was in 1978 (let alone 1968.) But at the same time the intrigues of the imperialist countries (e.g. the US spent15 billion each year on intelligence operations in-re the USSR) provide a rationale (if not a justification) for covering up weaknesses, and the line between "you can't promote this because it is anti-communist propaganda" and "you can't promote this because it makes the local or national leadership look inept or corrupt" has to be carefully drawn. The consequences of failing to do so, as Parenti noted, are cynicism and disbelief on the part of the population.

No.7899

What made Gorbachev tear down the USSR? You talked earlier about how there was no new bourgeoisie and revisionism was the work of single individuals. What did they gain from dismantling socialism?

No.7900

No.7906

File: 8535267470f4ece⋯.jpg (634.93 KB, 1038x504, 173:84, Yuri Andropov.jpg)

>>7899

I'll quote what I wrote elsewhere:

>There was no "ruling class" in the USSR distinct from the working-class. Neither Party officials nor managers owned the means of production or exhibited any of the behavior of the bourgeoisie as Marx defined it. Employees of the state, as should be reasonably obvious, are its servants.

>Now it is entirely possible for employees at the same time to be corrupt, morally lackluster, or whatever. But at the end of the day they're stealing from and otherwise abusing their job, provided by the state whose class interests they must serve unless they want to lose that job.

>What happened in the late 80s was that the black market, which expanded throughout the 1970s and 80s, was practically legalized through Gorbachev's policy of promoting business "cooperatives" in towns and cities which promptly ignored the fairly benign rules regulating them and proceeded to hire labor and exhibit other capitalist practices. This was followed by the dismantling of nationwide economic planning and the privatization of state assets, which allowed managers and Party officials to turn into capitalists overnight.

>Thus developed a situation where state officials had every incentive to "quit their job" by overthrowing the socialist state and the property forms it represented. If you read news reports, books and articles back in the day, the owners of those aforementioned "cooperatives" lived in fear that all the policies allowing them to become capitalists could be revoked at once if the political wind in the CPSU blew leftward again. A new state, sworn to protect the interests of private property and ruled by the bourgeoisie, was necessary.

"Socialism Betrayed" by Keeran and Kenny is the best book on the subject: http://b-ok.xyz/book/1246151/ea7f45

Gorby was able to remove "hardliners" from the leading organs of the CPSU and surrounded himself with revisionist and liberal associates (Shevardnadze, Burlatsky, Yakovlev, etc.) He also enjoyed a high degree of popular support during 1985-87 when it seemed his policies might actually "strengthen socialism" (as he claimed they would.)

But by 1991 he was hated by the average man, and those seeking the destruction of socialism had no reason to support him anymore now that more "acceptable" figures like Yeltsin had come to the fore.

Post last edited at

No.7907

>>7906

That doesn't answer why he implemented the reforms in the first place. Did he conspire with his "revisionist and liberal friends" to become the first party officials to turn into capitalists? Also your description of the state sounds awfully metaphysical. You describe it as some autonomous self-perpetuing entity that acts according to its own laws, much like anarchists do. What makes a state proletarian if not the people who run it?

No.7908

File: d78306896453c5e⋯.jpg (45.47 KB, 394x329, 394:329, Castro and Andropov.jpg)

>>7907

>That doesn't answer why he implemented the reforms in the first place.

It isn't difficult to understand why. The Soviet economy in 1985 was suffering from various problems and there was widespread cynicism among the population. Andropov had wanted to pursue reform, but died before he could accomplish much of anything. Gorby initially posed as someone who would continue Andropov's course, and this is where he got his initial legitimacy, claiming his policies were designed to "strengthen socialism," reaffirm Marxism-Leninism, return to Lenin's teachings, and so on.

The Politburo unanimously chose Gorbachev because of his relatively young age. The "hardliners" (Gromyko, Tikhonov, etc.) figured he would do a good job. Even Molotov, being asked by an acquaintance what he thought of Gorby, was hopeful.

If you mean "why" as in why Gorby personally felt the need to do what he did, that isn't so important. As Marx wrote, "one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself." What personally motivated Gorby isn't the issue, just like we don't judge the English Revolution based on Cromwell's religious interpretation.

>Did he conspire with his "revisionist and liberal friends" to become the first party officials to turn into capitalists?

I don't see what point you're trying to make. Many party officials had to be replaced due to their opposition to Gorby's policies, while others (such as Shevardnadze, head of the Communist Party of Georgia) endorsed Gorby's course until 1990-1991 when most broke with him for not being "radical" (i.e. pro-capitalist) enough.

As I said, in the final years of the USSR it was possible for Party and state officials to become capitalists overnight. With the CPSU's authority in disarray and the USSR starting to break up, there was little reason for careerists and opportunists not to make the jump.

>Also your description of the state sounds awfully metaphysical. You describe it as some autonomous self-perpetuing entity that acts according to its own laws, much like anarchists do.

No, I argue that a socialist state operates in accordance with the economic interests of the proletariat. A bureaucrat who engages in corrupt practices can undermine the functioning of the state, but he's still forced to do its bidding. In the decade following the October Revolution reams of ex-Tsarist officers, Mensheviks, SRs and other non-Bolsheviks entered the ranks of the army, civil service, economic organs, etc., many no doubt being skeptical of Marxism-Leninism but nonetheless feeling obliged to carry out the government's decisions. Their entry didn't suddenly make the Soviet state "non-proletarian."

>What makes a state proletarian if not the people who run it?

To me this is evidence of metaphysical thinking. It suggests that a state is proletarian or bourgeois based on the thinking of its officials, not on the economic foundations of the state. This is what leads to silly analyses like "capitalism was restored in the USSR when Khrushchev made a speech" or "Albania was following the socialist road until Hoxha attacked Mao Zedong, whereupon it wasn't on the socialist road anymore and I guess it was capitalist or something."

If you elected a communist to be President of the United States, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would continue to function. The economic base of that state would continue to be an imperialist capitalism.

Similarly, if you have supporters of capitalism in charge of a socialist country, that does not in itself suddenly mark the end of socialism. They would actually have to carry out their counter-revolutionary intentions to dismantle the socialist economic structure and replace the existing state apparatus (processes that are generally interconnected.)

That's what happened in the USSR. First the counter-revolutionaries supported Gorby's policies of Perestroika, Glasnost and Demokratizatsiya until 1990-1991 when their "limitations" (from the perspective of the new bourgeoisie that was emerging) were apparent. Support shifted to Yeltsin, who ended up outlawing the CPSU and abolishing the Union.

Similar processes could be seen in other countries before 1989, e.g. Dubček's calls for "socialism with a human face" were avidly endorsed by counter-revolutionary forces who were willing to go along with his policies until they could take power for themselves.

Miliukov, who had been Foreign Minister in Russia's Provisional Government, praised the Kronstadt mutiny for its slogan of "soviets without Communists." He knew that the success of the mutineers would lead to a petty-bourgeois "soviet" government comprised of SRs and Mensheviks which would be forced to surrender power to an open bourgeois dictatorship. Counter-revolutionaries similarly bet on Imre Nagy, Dubček, Gorbachev, Zhao Ziyang, and others like them.

Post last edited at

No.7911

>>7908

>A bureaucrat who engages in corrupt practices can undermine the functioning of the state, but he's still forced to do its bidding. In the decade following the October Revolution reams of ex-Tsarist officers, Mensheviks, SRs and other non-Bolsheviks entered the ranks of the army, civil service, economic organs, etc., many no doubt being skeptical of Marxism-Leninism but nonetheless feeling obliged to carry out the government's decisions. Their entry didn't suddenly make the Soviet state "non-proletarian."

Because they weren't the ones making the government decisions. If the people who actually make the decisions all spontaneously decided to start dismantling the economic base and preparing the destruction of that very state of course that puts them in a strong position to do so. This is the explanation you yourself gave: Gorbachev used his power to replace all relevant government posts with people who would support him, then implemented his reforms. And before you charge me with a Kautskyist mechanistic interpretation of the state, I don't think you can take over a bourgeois or proletarian state and keep it like it is and that's not what Gorbachev did either. The Soviet state had to be dismantled. But what made this possible was his ruling position within that state.

>This is what leads to silly analyses like "capitalism was restored in the USSR when Khrushchev made a speech" or "Albania was following the socialist road until Hoxha attacked Mao Zedong, whereupon it wasn't on the socialist road anymore and I guess it was capitalist or something."

But this is exactly what you are doing. The USSR fell because Gorbachev spontaneously decided to implement capitalist reforms and we are not even allowed to ask for his motivations, let alone an explanation based in the economic structure. This is literal voluntarism.

>Similarly, if you have supporters of capitalism in charge of a socialist country, that does not in itself suddenly mark the end of socialism. They would actually have to carry out their counter-revolutionary intentions to dismantle the socialist economic structure and replace the existing state apparatus (processes that are generally interconnected.)

That's what I'm saying. I don't argue the USSR turned capitalist the second Gorbachev took office.

No.7920

File: e66b55cff2e7dba⋯.jpg (33.62 KB, 333x499, 333:499, Ligachev autobio.jpg)

>>7911

>If the people who actually make the decisions all spontaneously decided to start dismantling the economic base and preparing the destruction of that very state of course that puts them in a strong position to do so.

Yes, but my point is that you can't determine the class character of a state merely by its employees, or even leaders. The counter-revolutionary revolt in Hungary in 1956, for example, was a case where the leader of the country and party (Imre Nagy) sought common cause with the armed counter-revolution to overthrow the socialist system, but the mere fact Nagy was head of the country and party didn't make the Hungarian state a capitalist one.

>The USSR fell because Gorbachev spontaneously decided to implement capitalist reforms

I don't see how that's inaccurate as a simple way of describing things. The policy of Glasnost allowed anti-communist propaganda to run wild in the media, while Perestroika decimated the economy. Keeran and Kenny in "Socialism Betrayed" point out Gorby's personal role in these things.

Obviously there were greater forces at work than just Gorbachev, but he became the personification of all the "reforms" going on from 1985-1991, just as Yeltsin became the personification of Russian nationalism and the open march to capitalism in the final years of the USSR.

>and we are not even allowed to ask for his motivations

You're allowed, and many have done so. It just isn't particularly important for a Marxist. From what I've read about Gorby, it seems personal motivations ranged from legit desires to improve the economy, "modernizing" Leninism and creating a world without nuclear arms, but also less desirable motives like vanity (since he was showered with praise by the Western press) and, in latter years, the belief he could build a bridge between Marxism-Leninism and social-democracy as part of his calls for a "humane and democratic socialism."

But again, whether Gorby entered the position of General Secretary with a plan to destroy socialism (which I don't think he did) or simply stumbled around with no clear idea what to do and only later on adopted a definitely anti-communist course (such as praising the downfall of the socialist countries in Eastern Europe as the "collapse of Stalinism"), doesn't matter much.

>let alone an explanation based in the economic structure.

I already explained that the rationale for Gorby's initial policies was to find ways to promote economic growth. In fact his initial slogan before Perestroika was Uskoreniye (acceleration), which entailed a relatively mild series of changes.

Socialism, unlike capitalism, is consciously built. Its construction is a subjective process, in conformity with economic laws. When Lenin looked around at the Soviet economy of 1921, he saw ruin from years of war, and decided the best way to promote socialism in those conditions was via a strategic retreat, the New Economic Policy that would keep the commanding heights of industry in state hands while allowing the rest of the economy to develop on more or less capitalist lines.

That was a decision made by the leadership, just as the decision to initiate the Five-Year Plans later in the decade.

I don't see how the label of voluntarism is accurate, unless you hold to a conception of Marxism that doesn't recognize that the superstructure impacts the base, and subscribes to historical determinism (e.g. Gorbachev couldn't possibly pursue any other course, he did exactly what he did because history willed it.)

A bourgeois class simply didn't exist in the USSR until the late Gorby period, and even then it felt itself hampered by the continued existence of restrictions on capitalist activity. Hence the abandonment of Gorby and desire to see the dissolution of the USSR and destruction of the CPSU. Gorby's policies led to the establishment of this new bourgeoisie, not the other way around. Somewhat similar to how Lenin's policies led to the emergence of NEPmen; it didn't mean NEPmen magically existed before 1921 and Lenin was their representative in the leadership.

The difference, of course, is that the Soviet state under Lenin and his successors kept a firm hand and did not allow the NEPmen political or even much economic power, and eventually ended up putting an end to them with the end of the NEP. By contrast, Gorby's antics fatally weakened the CPSU and Soviet state and allowed the new bourgeoisie far more power in both politics and economics, culminating in state/party officials having an incentive to "quit their jobs" and make common cause with the new bourgeoisie as bourgeois politicians, economists, professors, etc. (if not capitalists themselves.)

I don't get what point you're trying to make in general. Obviously the way the Soviet Party worked had flaws that allowed someone like Gorbachev to wield a lot of power and stifle opposition (although at the end of the day he had to create a new position, President of the USSR, to consolidate power still further independent of the CPSU.) But I don't see what this has to do with attacking my conception of socialism.

Post last edited at

No.7937

File: 7e4c6675b62e660⋯.png (3.9 MB, 1728x2592, 2:3, USSR infograpg A.png)

Is pic related factually correct?

No.7941

>>7937

According to my mother, homelessness wasn't eradicated. Housing takes time to build.

No.7942

File: 3d785c1eb042f52⋯.jpg (95.16 KB, 798x559, 798:559, yuri_gagarin_01.jpg)

>>7937

A few things are a bit exaggerated (e.g. building of homes lagged behind population growth so that most urban dwellers lived in apartments, there was still a large disparity when it came to sharing domestic chores between women and men, there were cases of poverty particularly among old pensioners who lacked family support and among poorer regions like Central Asia, etc.), but no doubt the Soviet period was a major advance for its citizens in every field, unemployment was virtually abolished, education was free, the USSR did indeed play the leading role in the defeat of Hitler, etc., and the collapse of the USSR was a disaster.

No.7953

Few days ago I attended a lecture about russian revolution of 1917. It was basically an examination of points that all modern textbooks mention on why did revolution happen. Lecturer basically started with claim that soviet historiography and modern liberal historiography (more specifically European which was adopted in my country - my country is "ex-socialist" so there was actual transition) is basically the same concerning this points. He even quoted some popular books that are openly anti communist to show his point - all claim the same, russian revolution was historical necessity because of conditions in russia - backward country, feudal regime, court intrigues, losses in world war, peasant poverty, illiteracy, loss of ammo etc. So he is doing criticism of this points and I am sure your all interested what it was but it would be unfair to shorten hour and a half lecture to few words. There were lots of influential "leftist" present and in q&a part they had very little arguments - just to note that his lecture was very convincing. One guy though asked why did it happen specifically in russia if all those points were wrong, to what he completely openly said something that was borderline crazy and he was honest about it because he introduced it as hes conspiracy theory - February revolution was organized by foreign intelligence services he highly doubts that 160 000 people protesting was entirely spontaneous event. I think spontaneous rebellion is more parsimonious approach, but I give him benefit of doubt cause there is element of motive and unlikelihood of that these protest had such attendance and impact without outside help, and theres also intelligence service organized coups that happened throughout 20th century that make this more of a consideration when reexamining this part of history. Since you run those political simulations, what do you think how likely is that?

No.7954

File: 2181fc704a83323⋯.jpg (71.61 KB, 664x491, 664:491, russian revolution.jpg)

>>7953

I haven't read much about the February Revolution, but I've never come across the suggestion that it was instigated by the Central Powers (unlike the October Revolution, which opponents of the Bolsheviks claimed was only possible due to German financing.)

I have heard that the Allies were relieved in a way that the inept regime of the Tsar was replaced with a bourgeois government equally committed to the war effort, but the slogans of the February protests were generally those of disgust with the war. The protesters generally wanted a socialist government, but instead the Mensheviks and SRs collaborated with the bourgeoisie and subordinated the soviets to the Provisional Government.

I think the whole "foreign agents caused this" stuff contradicts the fact that, at the end of the day, both the February and October revolutions were based on widespread opposition to the governments in power.

I would also point out that Russians already had experience in 1905-07 of huge demonstrations and revolts against Tsarism. Working-class strikes were also becoming more common from 1912-14 until WWI erupted.

Post last edited at

No.7976

Any good books/accounts on the following people:

Mikhail Frunze

Felix Dzerzhinsky

Semyon Budyonny

Pavel Lebedev

No.7982

File: c03e4269166e2d5⋯.jpg (318.73 KB, 683x910, 683:910, felix-dzerzhinsky-was-the-….jpg)

>>7976

Besides an English-language Soviet biography of Dzerzhinsky (which you can find badly formatted here: https://archive.org/details/FelixDzerzhinskyABiography) I can't think of anything.

No.7986

>>7982

That will do the job, thanks. I found soviet encyclopedia articles for Mikhail Frunze and Pavlovich Lebedev, so thanks for that too

No.8002

>>4738

Hey Ismail, these links are broken, any chance you could link to these pdfs elsewhere or upload them?

No.8003

File: d8e77013e5eb88c⋯.jpeg (65.19 KB, 300x333, 100:111, J Arch Getty.jpeg)

No.8020

Gun laws and gun control in the USSR?

The Wikipedia article is unsatisfactory, to say the least. Two citations from the same website in Russian that looks like a blog. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Soviet_Union

No.8042

>>8003

Awesome

No.8043

Are you familiar with Sakharov? Nuclear scientist and dissident?

Why so many dissidents in the USSR? Why not many similar cases in capitalist countries?

No.8046

File: 6adf10942d9a921⋯.jpg (111.81 KB, 1496x840, 187:105, Leonard Peltier.jpg)

>>8020

I don't have much info. According to a Russian guy I know, you could own a hunting rifle and there were shooting clubs. He adds, "in school they had lessons on taking apart and putting together an AK, as well as sharpshooting contests, but not every school, depended on locale, like less so in Moscow or Leningrad." Finally, "as far as other firearms, there was some illegal circulation from people who brought guns back from WWII, also military officers and some officials got to keep their pistols after retirement, but they were assigned to them only, could not be inherited, etc."

>>8043

Yes. He supported US aggression against Vietnam to contain the "communist threat." Here's a CPUSA pamphlet back in the day criticizing him and Solzhenitsyn while also explaining the dissident "phenomenon": https://archive.org/details/SakharovSolzhenitsynFraud

>Why so many dissidents in the USSR?

There really weren't that many. Check out chapter 8 of the following book by Al Szymanski: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion

>Why not many similar cases in capitalist countries?

Besides chapter 6 of the Szymanski book, I could point out that there have been plenty of those imprisoned in the US for political reasons. See: https://afgj.org/politicalprisonersusa

No.8112

What made the USSR initially support Israel after its creation and then change their position from 1954 onward?

No.8113

File: 868d85e1f2895c3⋯.jpg (22.24 KB, 273x399, 13:19, Israel in Crisis.jpg)

>>8112

The USSR advocated for a single state in which Jews and Muslims could coexist. If that wasn't possible then the USSR would (and subsequently did) support the UN proposal for two states.

From the vantage point of the USSR back then, Britain was trying to hold onto its Palestinian colony and to use neighboring neo-colonial regimes (Egypt, Iraq, etc.) for that purpose. The Arab armies fighting against the Israelis were led by British officers like Glubb-Pasha.

It was also assumed that Israel would be pro-Soviet due to the avowedly "socialist" politics of many of its politicians.

With Israel's foreign policy obviously veering sharply toward the US by 1951, and the rise of nationalist, Pan-Arab movements against both British colonialism and American imperialism, Soviet policymakers had no problem making the switch as Israel, despite Soviet and Czechoslovak aid having been instrumental in its existence, was firmly committed to an anti-Soviet course.

Having said that, as early as 1948 Ilya Ehrenburg wrote a letter on Stalin's behalf reiterating that the USSR was opposed to Zionism. It supported the Jewish settlers on the belief that they were objectively fighting against British colonial rule, not because the Soviets believed that Jews around the world had a "homeland" in Palestine. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n2/ehrenburg.htm

The CPUSA back in 1950 published a book titled "Israel in Crisis" that reflected the Soviet line, criticizing Zionism as class-collaborationist and unscientific while also arguing Jews in Palestine had a right to their own state and condemning attacks on the rights of Palestinian Arabs to form their own state: https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/magil-israel-crisis/index.htm

No.8120

Are there any personal accounts or war stories of the Russian Civil War from the Red Army perspective? I've tried looking online but only found czarist accounts or articles that focus on the revolution itself and not the following civil war.

No.8121

File: 7b691bb9e2196c0⋯.jpg (27.01 KB, 250x378, 125:189, Mikhail Bonch-Bruyevich.jpg)

>>8120

There's no shortage of them in Russian, since as you might imagine the CPSU encouraged veterans to recount memories of the Civil War. There isn't much in English. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is "From Tsarist General to Red Army Commander" by Mikhail Bonch-Bruyevich, who evidently wasn't your everyday Red Army soldier (and his book isn't online anyway.)

No.8122

>>8120

Here's the collected works of Isaak Babel, which contains a collection of fictional stories of the Red Cavalry. The stories are fictional but based on his experiences.

https://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/isaak-babel-complete-works.pdf

No.8125

I have heard that V.Lenin was a humble and just like Karl Marx was against personality cults. Is there are any V.Lenin's writings or other sources what he wanted to happen with his body and legacy after his death?

No.8126

File: 327d0f92741c657⋯.jpg (342.7 KB, 1300x875, 52:35, Lenin and Krupskaya.jpg)

>>8125

Lenin never wrote about what was to happen with his body, and by the very end, when he presumably knew he was going to die, he wasn't in a position to write anything.

The decision to build a mausoleum was opposed by Trotsky, Bukharin and Krupskaya, but supported by Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Krasin (who thought science could raise Lenin back from the dead at a future date if his body were preserved) and Lunacharsky (who had in prior times argued the Bolsheviks should create a secular religion to win backward workers and peasants over to Communist ideas.)

Krupskaya wrote in Pravda on January 30, 1924: "I have a great request to you: do not allow your mourning for Ilich to take the form of external reverence for his person. Do not raise memorials to him, palaces named after him, solemn festivals in commemoration of him, etc.: to all this he attached so little importance in his life, all this was so burdensome to him. Remember how much poverty and neglect there still is in our country. If you wish to honour the name of Vladimir Ilich, build crèches, kindergartens, houses, schools, librarise, medical centres, hospitals, homes for the disabled, etc., and, most of all, let us put his precepts into practice." (Quoted in E.H. Carr, History of Soviet Russia Vol. 4, p. 349.)

No.8128

>>8126

So Lenin's specific request to be buried is not entirely correct. Thank you for the quote by N.Krupskaya.

Any more quotes against personality cults by Karl Marx, V.Lenin or others?

No.8129

File: aa80a7d273cd696⋯.jpg (30.67 KB, 306x340, 9:10, marx_engels.jpg)

>>8128

The only one by Marx I'm aware of is a November 10, 1877 letter to Wilhelm Blos, in which he wrote in regard to himself and Engels:

>Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves—originating from various countries—to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.

I can't recall a specific Lenin quote against the personality cult as such, although he wrote against the Narodnik fixation on individual heroes who would single-handedly lead the masses to triumph. He also said that "the minds of tens of millions of those who are doing things create something infinitely loftier than the greatest genius can foresee."

Post last edited at

No.8130

What was the Soviet government during the Stalin era like?

Were there ministries or was there other equivalent?

No.8131

File: 0bf74f5838c2309⋯.jpg (17.81 KB, 220x327, 220:327, 0bf74f5838c2309e1c1edff6aa….jpg)

>>8126

>I have a great request to you: do not allow your mourning for Ilich to take the form of external reverence for his person. Do not raise memorials to him, palaces named after him, solemn festivals in commemoration of him, etc.

Why did they do it anyways?

No.8132

>>8131

people loved him, I guess

No.8133

File: 21cfc2f2a71188d⋯.jpg (376.02 KB, 730x520, 73:52, 2017_18_lenin.jpg)

>>8130

Ministers were known as People's Commissars from the seizure of power till 1946.

The Soviet government structure was basically the same from 1936-1989.

>>8131

Pretty much because it was easier to venerate Lenin, and there were legit requests to rename stuff after him, build monuments, allow people to see him dead if they couldn't see him alive, etc.

Of course at the end of the day it isn't like workers or peasants were raising armies ready to overthrow the government if they didn't do such things, so responsibility ultimately rests on Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Krasin, Lunacharsky and the others who were convinced the pros outweighed the cons.

There was also, of course, an ulterior motive for the decision. Stalin and Zinoviev (who as far as I know took no position either for or against the mausoleum) were both angling for the spot of Lenin's successor and chief interpreter of Leninism. So in Trotsky's estimation, they were trying to cloak Leninism in a quasi-religious aura in order to make themselves immune to criticism.

I think that's a bit simplistic of an interpretation, but there's some truth to it insofar as the veneration of Lenin coincided with such things as Zinoviev writing the first history of the Bolshevik party while Stalin wrote The Foundations of Leninism, and both men proposing the "Lenin levy."

No.8134

>>8133

What were the Peoples Commissariats and who were the Commissars at the time?

No.8137

File: 71da54e90427110⋯.jpg (42.63 KB, 589x460, 589:460, Lenin.jpg)

>>8134

People's Commissariats were government ministries. In 1946 the Council of People's Commissars was renamed to the Council of Ministers; it was just a name change.

There were many different People's Commissars during 1917-1946. Wiki lists the first ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin%27s_Cabinet

There's also a detailed book about Lenin's government: http://b-ok.xyz/book/2342211/f6e703

No.8138

>>8137

Sounds interesting, but could you elaborate on Stalin's Cabinet's most important Commissars.

Important include the one's who oversaw Soviet best achievements including economic growth,industrialization,defense,rise of live expectation and literacy.

No.8139

File: 60f4f454b752228⋯.jpg (36.46 KB, 533x640, 533:640, Kaganovich Kalinin Stalin.jpg)

>>8138

Ordzhonikize and Kaganovich for Heavy Industry, Mikoyan for trade, Voroshilov for Defense, Bubnov for education.

Pyatakov, who was Deputy People's Commissar for Heavy Industry under Ordzhonikidze, is credited with being more important in day-to-day matters than his boss.

No.8140

>>8139

Who was the Commissar of Healthcare?

No.8141

File: dbcf72f2ee43156⋯.png (101.72 KB, 236x390, 118:195, Grigory Kaminsky.png)

No.8143

>>8139

How exactly did J.Stalin and Commissariat of Heavy Industry oversaw and did the industrialization?

I heard that, broadly speaking, that Soviets sold raw materials and hired western engineers to help out. How things really were?

No.8146

>>8143

Western engineers were used, although by the end of the 1930s they were pretty much all sent back home due to the suspicion created by the Great Purge plus fact that basic industry had been created as a result of the First and Second Five-Year Plans.

In part the USSR sold wheat and other raw materials to finance industrialization, but a lot of the funds were obtained simply via stuff like belt-tightening and the turnover tax on consumer goods.

This is a generally reliable overview of how stuff worked in the USSR back then: https://archive.org/details/TheSovietsAlbertRhysWilliams

And for a good overview of Soviet economic history: http://b-ok.xyz/book/2039288/9b6902

No.8147

>>8146

Thank you. So western engineers were used by majority of things were by Soviet talent! So how exactly did the process work. Was for example. lock designed by engineers and then design send to factory for for creation and then shop for selling. More or less like that?

No.8148

Would you say that Soviet consumer goods of good quality comparable or better to American?

Was Soviet education system good?

No.8149

Computers!

I have read multiple articles that Soviet had good quality computers until the 70's, when the government decided to stop making own computers and just copy western ones. How would you comment Soviet and overall Warsaw pact computer and electronic industry?

No.8152

>>8147

That sort of detail I don't know about.

>>8148

No, Soviet consumer goods were, in general, infamously inferior to Western ones. There were multiple reasons for this.

As for education, it was indeed good. This book provides a good intro to the USSR of the 1960s, including its educational system: https://archive.org/details/RussiaReExamined

>>8149

That isn't a subject I'm familiar with.

No.8153

>>8152

Do you think the reason why consumer goods were inferior was because Soviets were focused on military to much?

No.8156

>>8153

Yes, another reason was lack of incentives to produce high-quality material, as well as shortages of materials or delays in getting them delivered on time.

No.8157

>>8156

>incentives

Okay, so classic question. What will motivate people to make quality goods under fulll-communism?

Related to the conversation, what do you think would be a good incentive? Motivation by pure patriotism? Wage benefits?

No.8158

>>8153

Additionally, do you think it was necessary to focus on the military so much, but rather focus on economy, science and industry. Use to for diplomacy. Win over the third world +China back, isolate the crapitalist first world. Starve it out forcing into socialism and cooperation, rather than crapitalism and exploitation.

No.8160

>>8157

As Marx noted, under communism "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." In other words, you will work because you enjoy doing it and it defines you as a human being.

>>8158

The focus on the military was necessary in the context of US imperialism threatening the USSR with NATO, the arms race, the space race, and intelligence operations against the socialist countries.

The USSR had many allies in the third world; even avowedly capitalist governments like Peru and Iran under the Shah had relatively cordial relations.

No.8161

File: bf8347d1c36dfd0⋯.jpg (37.49 KB, 620x465, 4:3, 1526897994454.jpg)

>>8160

I understand that arms race was necessary, but once you have 15 thousand nukes, you don't need 15 thousand tanks, especially when it's clear that war would end the entire world. I know that Soviets had many allies, but they should have railed entire Africa and middle and far east, and I believe the best way to do that would be trough literacy campaigns promoting local and Russian languages and helping them to develop self sufficiency. Africa is still not fully literate and suffers from large capital flight.

No.8162

>>8161

You still need an army to defend from conventional warfare, and to defend other countries (e.g. Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia.)

There were plenty of African and Arab peoples who studied in the USSR and learned Russian. The USSR did not neglect such things.

No.8170

>>8162

I heard one interpretation from one contemporary Russian politician that Soviet Union fell because old generals wanted WW2-part 2 and demanded a lot of 'old-school' weaponry like heavy tanks and big ships, which was a heavy burden on the budget at the expense of civilian goods. To a degree I agree with him. In my opinion non-secterian science should be put first. For example electronics-phones, computers, robots, software and AI. This could lead to both better civilian goods, like said computers and more modern military like drones, night vision googles, better body armor and combat medicine. As history shows well motivated guerrilla force is more useful than fifty thousandth tanks half of which are no longer useful, as seen in Vietnam and Cuba.

I know about the students in USSR, but I just feel that Soviets should be more active with sending teachers to those lands themselves, I think if Africa was 100 percent literate all of humanity would be better of right now.

No.8171

What is known about Teletanks and other military robotics of Soviet Union? How advanced were they?

No.8175

>>8170

Demands by the military for more funding were an issue, but as I said there was ample reason for so much military spending in the fact that the US was doing everything it could to undermine the USSR and achieve nuclear and military superiority over it.

>>8171

That I wouldn't know.

No.8179

>>8175

Do you think Soviets could have balanced the budget better, without cousin shortages and under-funding in other areas?

No.8186

>>8179

Presumably.

No.8207

So what actually happened between the USSR/Stalin and the greek civil war?

No.8208

>>8207

Stalin was convinced that the KKE was incapable of achieving victory and that Yugoslav, Bulgarian and Albanian support for it should come to an end.

Yugoslavia provided the most important assistance. After the Soviet-Yugoslav split the latter continued helping the KKE for a bit, but within a year cut off aid because the KKE remained pro-Soviet (and thus vehemently denounced Yugoslavia) and because the economic and political isolation of Yugoslavia following the split caused it to look to the US and UK for help, which required Tito to cease helping communist guerrillas in Greece.

Post last edited at

No.8291

What's with all the artistic censorship in the USSR? I thought artists were supposed to be better off in socialism than capitalism.

No.8293

>>8291

From a material standpoint, they were better off. The government would give artists supplies, housing, and other things to carry out their work.

From the standpoint of the CPSU and similar parties, art and literature under socialism should reflect the new society that is being created, with its achievements and struggles.

Brezhnev, speaking at the 25th CPSU Congress in 1976:

>Our writers and artists seek to bring out the best human qualities like firmness of principle, honesty and depth of emotion, always in line with the sound and solid principles of our communist morality. . . .

>The Party approach to questions of literature and art combines tact with respect to intellectuals working in the arts, assistance in their creative quest, and a principled stand. If some officials take an oversimplified approach and try to resolve matters relating to aesthetic creativity and diversity of form and individuality of style by issuing decrees, the Party does not ignore such cases and helps to rectify the situation.

In the 1930s and 40s the "oversimplified approach" dominated as part of the day-to-day struggles to build socialism in conditions of capitalist encirclement. After 1953 greater creativity was encouraged, but works which demonized socialism or otherwise promoted nihilist or amoral concepts were condemned and not shown by the state in museums, exhibitions, bookstores, etc.

So long as what you painted or wrote wasn't obviously counter-revolutionary in intent, you wouldn't be arrested or anything like that, you'd simply be reprimanded and would have to rely on your own methods of distributing what you created.

No.8305

>>8293

Which Soviet writers are you familiar with?

Nobel prize winners like Grossman and Pasternak seemed famous for their anti-Soviet ideas and their experience under the "ruthless, Stalinist regime." However, writers like Olesha and Sholokhov seemed always positive about the Soviet system.

Wikipedia writes these writers in a very biased way, so it's kinda hard to get some "objective" information. And by biased, using rhetoric like dictator Stalin and whatnot with no sources in some bizarre claims.

Also, do you think it's a good point that most of these writers came from peasant families?

No.8306

>>8305

I'm aware of Gorky, Ostrovsky, Solzhenitsyn Ehrenburg, Mayakovsky and Sholokhov.

Some writers simply never reconciled with the socialist system and either left the country or carried out a vicious campaign against anything Soviet (as Solzhenitsyn did.)

>Also, do you think it's a good point that most of these writers came from peasant families?

Tsarist Russia was a mostly peasant country, the October Revolution gave workers and peasants an unparalleled opportunity to get an education and get a prestigious job (such as a writer, or a factory manager.)

If you mean the fact most writers came from the peasantry made them hostile to the USSR, I don't think that's true. Sholokhov, as you note, seemed to basically accept socialism yet his class background was not proletarian.

No.8318

Ismail, I'm a biologist and I'm interested in Lysenko and the rift between him and geneticists. Do you have any sources analyzing in depth how a hack like Lysenko managed to sway public opinion against scientists with actual correct scientific methodology? I've read some articles that offer an umbrella excuse like "his methodology aligned more with diamat" etc but I think that's not really the case, but simply the political argument he used. I'd like to know if there are some in-depth books about this, but since this is a "black spot " in the history of the ussr most of the stuff i find is from liberal authors.

No.8323

>>8318

Lysenko never joined the CPSU and argued that he was merely a good Soviet patriot whose discoveries were being undermined by a jealous establishment. So as you say, he was a hack who merely used Marxist phraseology as a cudgel against his opponents.

"Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko" is said to be a good read: http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/PS77.pdf (despite the URL the author of the book isn't a Maoist)

No.8333

File: 95fc97582d3b61f⋯.jpg (106.96 KB, 548x366, 274:183, muke v unruhe.jpg)

I'm interested in reading something on democracy and popular control in the Soviet Union, how the system was supposed to work, how it worked in practice, if it changed significantly with time (from the Lenin era, to the Stalin era, to the Khrushchev era and so on), the role of the trade unions and other organizations, etc. What's the go-to book on this subject?

Another thing. What do you think of the liberal theory of totalitarianism, drawing parallells between various fascist states and Stalin-era USSR, etc? My guess is you think it's dogshit, but since you're more willing to admit that Stalin accumulated a huge amount of power into his own hands than most other M-L's, I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

<Totalitarianism is a political concept where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to control every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through rule by one leader and an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance and widespread use of terror. A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an "elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the whole society".

<a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens".

>>7143

>Khrushchev was removed peacefully, via the decision of the appropriate Party bodies. Such a situation wouldn't have been possible under Stalin, just as it wasn't possible under Mao, Hoxha, Ceaușescu, etc.

Did Mao and Hoxha also rule in the autocratic way you describe Stalin doing? It's interesting that the leaders with the most intense cults of personality, that tend to be the favorites among anti-revisionists and hardcore ML's today, are the ones you're most critical of.

No.8334

>>8333

>What's the go-to book on this subject?

"Citizen Inspectors in the Soviet Union: The People's Control Committee" by Jan S. Adams, "Political Participation in the USSR" by Theodore H. Friedgut, and "Soviet Grassroots: Citizen Participation in Local Soviet Government" by Jeffrey W. Hahn seem to be the three standard works on the subject. I have physical copies of each and they're certainly useful, outlining the evolution of popular control and electoral participation as well as how things currently worked as of the book's publishing date.

>the role of the trade unions

"Soviet Trade Unions and Labor Relations" by Emily Clark Brown, another book I own which outlines the evolution of trade unions followed by a detailed examination of how they operate "today" (late 50s/early 60s.)

Also of note is "Soviet Trade Unions: Their Development in the 1970s" by Blair A. Ruble, which can be found here: http://b-ok.xyz/book/2340298/82df3e

>What do you think of the liberal theory of totalitarianism

The point of the liberal use of "totalitarianism" is to prettify bourgeois democracies while demonizing the USSR by equating it with Nazism. It's one thing to say "Stalin had too much power in his hands and began misusing it as time went on," it's another to claim that Stalin and Hitler (let alone their societies) were fundamentally the same.

>Did Mao and Hoxha also rule in the autocratic way you describe Stalin doing?

Pretty much. Mao's personal power apparently waned after the Great Leap Forward, but then he came to the conclusion that a new bourgeoisie had emerged, had seized control of the CPC, and had to be overthrown. Hence the start of the Cultural Revolution which helped him reassert personal control over the government and army. The standard bourgeois account of that is "Mao's Last Revolution": http://b-ok.xyz/book/1054109/d8c0ea

Hoxha never really had threats to his personal rule except in 1945-48 when Albania's domestic and foreign affairs were dominated by Yugoslavia and the Yugoslavs wanted to replace him.

Albania never underwent "de-Stalinization," so for instance if a politician fell into disgrace for political reasons, he was not merely criticized and removed from office (as in other socialist countries in the region during the 1960s-80s), but "unmasked" as a foreign spy and sent to a labor camp or shot.

The most incredible example of this was when Hoxha spoke of how Mehmet Shehu, the leader of the Albanian National Liberation Army during WWII and head of Albania's government from 1954 till he felt obliged to commit suicide in 1981, had been recruited into American intelligence while in high school, joined the International Brigades on the orders of this same intelligence service, was subsequently recruited by British intelligence after the Spanish Civil War ended (with the support of the Gestapo and Italian intelligence who escorted him back to Albania), then after WWII was recruited by the KGB and Yugoslav UDB while still remaining an agent of the CIA.

Post last edited at

No.8341

File: 491c67b0907df02⋯.jpg (18.59 KB, 262x262, 1:1, Oswald-graphic-WSJ.jpg)

Was there nightlife (bars, disco or other recreational activities to do with my lads) in the ussr and socialist countries?

As a citizen of the USSR or other socialist countries how could have me and the lads open a bar?

No.8342

>>8341

Yes, there were bars and discos that played modern-sounding music.

>how could have me and the lads open a bar?

To my knowledge you needed to either convince the city/town/village soviet to build a bar, or convince your trade union or workplace to save up enough money to build one. I don't think individuals were able to run their own bars; they had to be under the authority of a specific enterprise or trade union or local government.

No.8343

>>8152

>That isn't a subject I'm familiar with

I actually wanted to do a project on Soviet computers and computing, especially the ternary computer.

Where would be a good place to start researching?

No.8344

>>8343

I wouldn't know, since it isn't a subject I'm familiar with.

No.8389

What'd the Romanovs do wrong?

No.8390

>>8389

Nicholas II in particular had to be forced against his will to make the slightest concessions to modern bourgeois democracy (the Duma, which even then he tried to sabotage and disperse.)

He also threw the nation into World War I, an inter-imperialist conflict the masses had no reason whatsoever for waging. He did so in part because there was a growing wave of strikes and other examples of unrest that he felt could be stymied through "patriotic" fervor caused by the war.

Andrew Rothstein in his History of the USSR, 1952, pp. 20-21:

>In a speech to delegates of the Zemstvos - moderately liberal landowners and business men, with a certain number of professors and public officials - who came to congratulate him on his accession in 1895, Nicholas warned them against the 'senseless dreams' that they could be called upon to participate in the government, or that the principle of the absolute monarchy might be modified. From the beginning of his reign, Nicholas attacked the democratic and autonomous constitution of Finland, secured by that country as the condition of its union with Russia in 1809. In Central Asia as in Armenia, Russian officials and the Russian Orthodox Church worked hand in hand to Russify subject nations, sweeping away their native institutions, denying them native schools, and imposing on them forced conversion. . .

>Nicholas reacted with particular ferocity against the labour movement. In April 1895 a meeting of textile workers on strike at Yaroslavl was shot down by troops of the Phanagorian Regiment. On the margin of the official report Nicholas wrote : 'I am very satisfied with the behaviour of the troops at Yaroslavl during the factory disturbances'. But this was published only after the Revolution; publicly Nicholas associated himself with the shootings by a telegram which electrified Russia: 'Best thanks to the splendid Phanagorians!' Ten years later the Tsar personally was involved in the military arrangements which on Sunday, January 22nd, 1905, trapped large and peaceable crowds, bearing his portrait and holy images in a procession to petition him for improved conditions, in the squares and main streets of the capital, to be shot down by hundreds. This 'Bloody Sunday' was followed by pogroms, punitive expeditions, and mass executions all over European Russia in 1905-6. The Tsar himself was publicly enrolled in the anti-semitic hooligan organization known as the Black Hundreds, and wore their badge on State occasions.

In other words, Nicholas II was reactionary even by the standard of monarchs.

However, Rothstein also notes of the execution of Nicholas II and his family, a decision taken by local soviet authorities as counter-revolutionary forces were approaching (pp. 102-103):

>The original intention of the Soviet Government had been to put the Tsar and his wife on trial in Moscow, making the occasion an historic exposure of the old regime; and of this the leaders of the Urals Soviets were aware. But they felt they could not take the responsibility of allowing any member of the Imperial family to fall alive into the hands of the counter-revolutionary forces, for whom they would become a banner, as it were. For the same reason that they shot Nicholas II and his family, they also shot a very large number of Grand Dukes and Duchesses who had been concentrated at Alapayevsk, about a hundred miles away.

Post last edited at

No.8391

>>8390

> But they felt they could not take the responsibility of allowing any member of the Imperial family to fall alive into the hands of the counter-revolutionary forces, for whom they would become a banner

Is there any basis for this? Seems a bit paranoiac.

No.8393

>>8391

There was a literal civil war going on between the soviets and the reactionaries.

No.8394

>>8393

I know that, but couldn't a far exile would have been enough?

I think I just don't understand what they meant as the "Tsars becoming a banner" for the reactionaries.

No.8395

>>8394

Just look at what happened when the Paris Commune let the old government escape. Better not take the risk.

No.8396

>>8391

Monarchism was the predominant ideology of the White forces. The Mensheviks and SRs were unable to unite the counter-revolutionaries; every time they made alliances with the Whites, the latter stupidly regarded them as little different from the Bolsheviks and turned on them.

The Whites would have rallied around the Tsar and been able to coordinate their activities under him. When it seemed as if the only options available to local soviet were to either kill the Tsar's family or allow them to be rescued by the counter-revolutionaries, the former decision was made.

Post last edited at

No.8449

Was the USSR affected by the Great depression? Would it have affected the USSR while it was under the NEP? Also, was it just a coincidence that economic planning started a year before the crash?

No.8450

>>8396

>The Mensheviks and SRs were unable to unite the counter-revolutionaries; every time they made alliances with the Whites, the latter stupidly regarded them as little different from the Bolsheviks and turned on them.

That's very interesting, why do people typically say the Whites included moderate socialists and liberals when they were mostly huge reactionaries?

No.8452

>>8449

It was pretty much unaffected by the Great Depression, which was why in the 1930s many non-communists started taking central planning seriously.

The Soviets did expect some sort of economic crisis to occur, so it wasn't totally a coincidence.

>>8450

Because "White" in that case is just a catch-all term for "anyone who opposed the Bolsheviks during the Civil War." Academics are more precise and use it pretty much only to refer to folks like Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, etc.

No.8472

To what degree did the Soviets fight the German army in 1918? I've heard claims that the fighting at Pskov and Narva never took place, what are your thoughts about this?

No.8473