/edu/ - Education

>>7910
no. In all the testimony of Nuremberg, there is not a single of iota of substantiation of anything that was "revealed" at Moscow. The silence at Nuremberg regarding the supposed revelations of Moscow is deafening.

>>7899
>Ah yes I forgot how nationalisations constitute socialism

Who is benefitting from it? It's amazing how little class analysis gets involved in these debates. Capitalists nationalize with the aim of socializing losses, and they will privatize the company back as soon as it gets back to profitability. It happened time and time again, but countries like China do not de-nationalize nationalized companies, they do not aim to give companies back to direct capitalist control.

Next, state ownership can mean many things, with the preferred Western definition being state owning even a share too much of a company. Say, look at Gazprom - how much revenue does the Russian state siphon out of Gazprom, and how much do they invest into it? Despite owning a controlling share, Russia gets extremely little out of such "state ownership"! Because it's a phony capitalist nationalization, which doesn't actually has the aim of serving the public, only the capitalist class - state shields "our" capitalists investments and property against "theirs" capitalists.

>The capitalist system presupposes the complete separation of the laborers from all property in the means by which they can realize their labor. As soon as capitalist production is once on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a continually extending scale." (Capital, p. 714.)

This bit applies perfectly to Khruschev's nationalizations, lol. Laborers got separated from all the property.

I honestly don't get how your point is supposed to explain how China is capitalist.

>>7900
>despite far more pervasive privatization and bourgeois influence.

Dude, Deng literally rolled over liberals with tanks. China is in a NEP-like state right now, but they've never abandoned the goal of achieving communism.

>>7910
If torture was effective at producing real confessions, it wouldn't magically become ineffective at producing false confessions if those were the desired outcome. Sloppy inference, bad anon.

>>7909
>compare what Stalinists and Trotskyists were saying about Fascism in the the early 1930s, without the benefit of hindsight
Any highlights? Besides popular vs united front I guess

>>7897
>Kruschev is an example of a Trot coming to power - denigrating central planning

On the one hand he did nationalizations, taking from the workers, and on the other hand central planning got decentralized, with bosses given bigger freedoms in their factories, in their national republics, in their industries and sectors of the economy, with central planning getting denigrated to the role of cooperating all the industries, who were lobbying the state for certain policies.

>appeasement and cowardice before imperialism in the aim of being able to temper the class struggle etc.

He didn't even order the quelling of Hungary Uprising, it's stalinists who did it! Voroshilov and Molotov were still there, so Voroshilov personally went to Hungary to deal with that mess.

>>7898
>Then how can Khruschev be a Trot if he led the USSR through one of its greatest periods of growth and prosperity

Remind me, when did Novocherkassk happened, and what was the cause for it? Remind me, what happened with Virgin Lands, with Stalin's transformation of nature? With USSR's default on bonds issued to it's workers?

Prosperity was INHERITED from Stalin's times, and everything Khruschev did was SQUANDERING it, intentionally and unintentionally. Lysenko was replaced with West-worshipping careerists, who made kolkhozes to buy out tractors and such from the state, raising lots of money in short term and immediately wasting it on Virgin Lands and corn. As a result, USSR's agriculture didn't grow as fast as it's population. Same shit in industry, with stalinists phased out by careerists, resulting in an amazing policy of heavily preferring heavy production over everything else. "You have to be poor right now for a decade or so, and then we will press the button, and light industries will bloom immediately!" In reality, however, khruschevites were selling products of heavy industry to the West and to former colonies. While Soviets were worshipping Ladas, khruschevites were selling them to UK! While they claimed to produce the means of production for internal development, USSR was selling high quality stuff to WESTERN FUCKING GERMANY! Fucking amazing. But whatever, that primacy of heavy industry sucked agriculture and light industries and even hospitals and schools dry of the labor.

And all of that under the constant brainwashing of destalinization, of claiming that Stalin wasn't great enough, that if not for him USSR would have been 10x times as rich, that WW2 would have been won without enemy ever setting foot on Soviet land, etc. Just like Russia of today is propagandizing heavily how bad it was in USSR, because Russia today is shit compared to USSR, same was true for Khruschev and co against Stalin. Does that coincide with trotskyists' "Stalin killed the Revolution"? Totally.

>>7912
>no. In all the testimony of Nuremberg, there is not a single of iota of substantiation of anything that was "revealed" at Moscow. The silence at Nuremberg regarding the supposed revelations of Moscow is deafening.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Nuremberg was a justice over nazis' crimes, not an investigation into whatever spy operations they had. Nazis were accused of preparing the war, stoking the flames of it, and starting a war - because their common claim was that USSR and Allies provoked them and/or attacked first. Nazi's guilt was proven without a doubt here. Then there were warcrimes, repressions against communists and others and holocaust. Those were proven also.

What this has to do with Moscow? In fact, Nuremberg, with it's proof that nazis did, in fact, wanted to start a war and were commiting to an offensive war, proved that USSR was right to root out fifth columnists.

>>7914
Torture wasn't used either at Nuremberg or Moscow trials.

>>508044
Report it to the mods instead of reposting the image yourself, genius.

>>7917
>What this has to do with Moscow?
You would think that if soviet prosecutors had a golden opportunity to substantiate claims of enormous domestic and international political importance, like that the numerous old Bolsheviks of the left and right opposition were on the German payroll, they would jump at the opportunity broach the topic with the people involved, to produce documents and receipts, etc. But what we find is the body of evidence at Nuremberg does not correlate to the body of evidence at Moscow. The significant findings of Moscow were never even raised at Nuremberg. As I said, the silence is deafening.

>>7911
>Capitulation to who exactly? The bourgeoisie had already been eliminated.
Elements in the party and Soviet society that were bourgeois inclined ie. The managerial strata
By your (and Kruschevs) logic class struggle has ended under socialism. It's why he introduced his moronic and anti marxist theory of the "State of the whole people" instead of the Marxist conception of the State that a State exists for one class to rule over another (ie. Either proletariat or bourgeois)
>The Cuban missile crisis was on the whole a victory for the USSR. They foiled American plans to invade Cuba and secured the withdrawal of nukes from Turkey. What exactly would you prefer? A nuclear war?
Bullshit
Read this then come back to me. Kruschev wobbled 3 times something which the American booj laughed at the time
Compare Kruschevs stance to Fidel and Ches stance of "we'll fight them with what we've got"
An absolute rank cowardly faggot
https://www.lalkar.org/article/165/the-october-crisis-remembered
>Stalin didn't go to war in Korea, he waged a proxy war by sending support to China and the DPRK. Khruschev did similar things in Vietnam, Algeria, etc. Moreover Stalin also made compromises with the West, such as selling out the Greeks to the British.
I'm well aware
The Greek communists were retards in foreign policy from what I recall and shunned support from the Yugoslavs (who were next door) whilst hoping for help from Soviet Union who were far away
>. They did not reintroduce the profit motive, they established profit (I.e. positive input/output ratios) as a key indicator by which firms were judged successful.
With the destruction of central planning and the return of anarchy to production by the 60s and 70s the Soviet economist retards were openly admitting they could no longer form a 5 year plan and the end result of the 5 year plan looked nothing like it was supposed to at the start
>This doesn't remotely amount to the restoration of capitalism as in this case "profit" is not a motive endemic to the system (no capitalists were pocketing these "profits" nor were they competing with each other to achieve them) but simply one metric that planners used to assess a firm's performance.
You're right. The reintroduction of hiring and firing for "efficiency" and turning labour power into a commodity did that
>Khruschev made mistakes sure, but insisting that he was a closet Trotskyist who deliberately sabotaged the USSR is completely ridiculous.
Given the absolute ridiculous circumstances Stalin died in, the immediate ruination of the Dictatorship of the proletariat, ruination of central planning, "peaceful coexistence" capitulation with imperialism, immediate leaking of the "secret speech" which looked like a detente and capitulation to imperialism on its own and the many other complete U turns the Kruschevites did

And lastly, what probably proves my theory right is the fact the Kruschevites rehabilitated Tukhachevsky and insisted in their press that he never admitted guilt. Yet in 2018 the Russian gov released it and he admitted his guilt
Given how the Kruschevites wesponsied all the over archives (the Schervnik commission etc) it shows how every leader post Stalin refused to release the Tukhachevsky transcript which would've buried the Kruschevites

>>7915
>Any highlights? Besides popular vs united front I guess
The main thing is that Stalinists thought circa 1930 held that fascism indicated some sort of weakness among the bourgeoisie, and that fascism would be fleeting and fragile.
Whereas trots were saying that fascism was a weird petite bourgeoise movement that the big-bourgeoisie would always seize onto under particular circumstances.

Trotsky had some good points about the bureaucracy, and his military record in the Russian Civil War should be commended, but the idea we were gonna have endless world wide war and Russian people would be like this unstoppable army that will liberate the world is insane shit and won't have happened.

>>7922
Why not? Napoleon almost did it.

>>7921
Also worth noting that following the victory of the Nazis in Germany the Comintern came a lot closer to the Trot position, especially on the issues of the United front, the role of the petty bourgeoisie in both producing and (potentially) resisting fascism, it's relationship to the monopoly bourgeoisie, etc.

>>7923
>Why not? Napoleon almost did it.
1917 isn't 1812

>>7905
>Fucking 100 year old pissing match.
Shit like Plato vs Aristotle has been going on for more than 2000 years. Get used to it.

>>7916

Hi anon, one issue I need some clarification related to:

> who made kolkhozes to buy out tractors and such from the state

I have heard different regarding this: ObeObe is that kolkhozes were given the mts, the other is that they were made to pay for the service mts provided, and the third is now that they were forced to purchase the stations from the state.

Obviously these are not quite the same thing. Moreover the second just seems like a means to have mts break even while the other two constitute an enlargening of the field of non-state property.

—

Aside, I fully understand the problems with rapidly nationalizing the artels from the planning perspective in that it overwhelms the planning apparatus and introduces more of both opportunists and opportunities for corruption into the bureaucracy.

>>7920
>Elements in the party and Soviet society that were bourgeois inclined ie. The managerial strata
The managerial stratum isn't a class, and it isn't "bourgeois inclined", though it can be pulled in that direction. Regardless, this stratum itself emerged from Stalin's policies, and took control of the state apparatus he created. Pinning everything on Khruschev is idealist as fuck, and avoids actually dealing with how the Soviet system created its own contradictions.
>By your (and Kruschevs) logic class struggle has ended under socialism.
I didn't say that and I'm not defending Khruschev's contention that it did. I'm just saying that it shifted in ways which make it fundamentally different from capitalism, and that these contradictions can't be reduced to "REEEE TROTS REEEEE". It's practically great man theory.
>Kruschev wobbled 3 times something which the American booj laughed at the time
Wtf are you talking about. The American deep state was furious at the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's why the CIA killed Kennedy. They regarded it as a massive capitulation to the Soviets, and they were right. The entire point of the Soviet intervention was to prevent a US invasion of Cuba and neutralize the advantage of American nukes in Turkey. They accomplished both of these goals. What exactly should Khruschev have done?
>The Greek communists were retards in foreign policy from what I recall and shunned support from the Yugoslavs (who were next door) whilst hoping for help from Soviet Union who were far away
Holy fuck this is slimy. They didn't "shun support" from the Yugoslavs. The Soviets forbid them from taking it, and forbid the Yugoslavs from sending it. The USSR wasn't "too far away", Stalin signed a deal with the British to surrender Greece in exchange for staying out of Romania and Bulgaria. You regard the Cuban Missile Crisis as a capitulation, but at least Khruschev actually saved the Cuban revolution from the Americans. Stalin meanwhile literally threw Greece under the bus.
>With the destruction of central planning and the return of anarchy to production
What anarchy of production? Soviet firms didn't compete with each other, they didn't crush one another and cannibalize each other like capitalist firms do. There was no market where individual producers tried to maximize sales. The reintroduction of "profit motive" was little more than the stipulation that firms should work to maximize output relative to input.
>The reintroduction of hiring and firing for "efficiency" and turning labour power into a commodity did that
Labour wasn't a commodity, employment was guaranteed. There was no reserve army of labour. Workers didn't have to roam between employers seeking the highest price for their labour power.

>>7928
>The managerial stratum isn't a class,
I never said it was a class. The lumpen proletariat nor the labour aristocracy is not a class either yet they are riddled with bourgeois ideology.
The managerial strata were the ones that blocked the democratic reforms and expelled the elections Stalin came out publicly pushing for.
>and it isn't "bourgeois inclined", though it can be pulled in that direction.
"pulled in that direction" is literally a synonym for "inclined"
>I'm just saying that it shifted in ways which make it fundamentally different from capitalism, and that these contradictions can't be reduced to "REEEE TROTS REEEEE".
I agree. Broadly called revisonism and is an opportunist trend
>It's practically great man theory.
Nonsense I never said "ree trot man came to power and ruined it all". The Kruschevites represented a particular faction in the Soviet Union that (understandably) wanted detente with the West to avoid war not understanding that imperialism is war.
They wanted more consumer goods to focus on building up the Soviet citizenry and in doing so made concessions to bourgeois inclined elements in Soviet society.
This trend in Soviet society existed in an open contested form against Marxism-Leninism as early as 1948 under Vozhnesky as I showed here >>7890

>Wtf are you talking about. The American deep state was furious at the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's why the CIA killed Kennedy. They regarded it as a massive capitulation to the Soviets, and they were right. The entire point of the Soviet intervention was to prevent a US invasion of Cuba and neutralize the advantage of American nukes in Turkey. They accomplished both of these goals. What exactly should Khruschev have done?
If I give you an article to read SaboFag I expect you to actually read it.
<General David Burchinal, “the Russians were so thoroughly stood down, and we knew it. They didn’t make any move. They did not increase their alert; they did not increase any flights, or their air defence posture. They didn’t do a thing, they froze in place.”
The leadership of the Kruschevites. Further
<Perhaps this appalling picture of military paralysis, if it is to be credited, is evidence that Khrushchev was allowing his revisionist illusions in permanent peaceful coexistence to colour his judgement at this crucial juncture. Having invited Cuba to put its very existence on the line in the name of socialist solidarity, having raised the stakes so high by going head to head with Kennedy on the issue, it was the Soviet leader’s clear duty to see the struggle through. Weakness at such a moment was infinitely more dangerous than standing firm. Yet it seems that Khrushchev preferred to place all his reliance on trying to cobble together a get-out deal via back-channel communications.
<The KGB Station Chief in Washington, Alexander Feliksov (alias Fomin) contacted a journalist on ABC News, John Scali, to ask him to sound out his State Department contacts to see if they would do a deal: the Soviet Union would pull the missiles out of Cuba if the US “promised” not to invade Cuba. Five hours after the two men met, a long letter started coming through the wire. It was a personal plea from Khrushchev offering the same capitulationist deal, a deal that depended entirely on Kennedy’s word of honour not to invade!
<The letter said: “ I propose: we, for our part, will declare that our ships bound for Cuba are not carrying any armaments. You will declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its troops and will not support any other forces which might intend to invade Cuba. Then the necessity of the presence of our military specialists in Cuba will disappear. ” Elsewhere in the letter, Khrushchev tries to coax imperialism over to the virtuous path of peaceful coexistence, in the process merely tying himself up in knots and presenting Kennedy with an open goal. He pleads, “Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose. Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this.”
…
<Khrushchev’s response, broadcast on Radio Moscow on 28 October, was craven in the extreme, stating that “the Soviet government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at the building sites for the weapons, has issued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you describe as ‘offensive’ and their crating and return to the Soviet Union”.
<The 42 missiles were loaded onto eight Soviet ships. The ships had to run the gauntlet of US observers, their hatches left open so they could make sure the missiles were really going.
<Needless to say, US imperialism was cock-a-hoop at this outcome, recognising it as a splendid propaganda victory which revisionist vacillation had handed to it on a plate. As for Washington’s “pledge” to “respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty”, its “pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, ” we need only ask the Miami Five how faithfully this pledge has been observed ever since!
<As it turned out, Washington decided to get rid of the near-obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy the following year, arguably giving Khrushchev’s diplomacy a theoretical victory on points. However, this did nothing in practice to diminish the damaging effects of Khrushchev’s vacillation and public retreat. We can only imagine the shame and disgust of the Soviet engineers, who had seen it as their internationalist duty to go to Cuba to help defend socialism, when they were then ordered to dismantle their handiwork, crate it all up and send it back to the Soviet Union under the baleful gaze of the Yankee pirates. Both the Soviet Union and Cuba deserved better than Khrushchev.
<It is possible that part of Khrushchev’s motivation for embarking so light-mindedly on so serious a course of action was to give the lie to Chinese criticisms of revisionist passivity in the face of imperialist aggression – notably the refusal to assist China in developing her nuclear capability. In point of fact, however, the humiliation and dangers to which this zigzagging revisionist leadership exposed the socialist camp only served to confirm the Chinese comrades’ worst fears.
<The October Crisis happened at a moment when fraternal relations between China and the Soviet Union were reaching breaking point, and Mao’s Marxist Leninist characterisation of Khrushchev’s handling of the crisis as moving “from adventurism to capitulationism” really hits the nail on the head.The criticism is not that one should never retreat – Lenin’s insistence on signing the very painful Brest-Litovsk Treaty with German imperialism wascorrect, and Trotsky’s preferred position of “neither peace nor war” was a disaster. The criticism is that, once so serious an undertaking as confronting US imperialism with nukes 90 miles from Miami was embarked upon, it needed to be followed through to its necessary consequences. Contrary to the view that Khrushchev’s retreat was a statesmanlike tactic which enabled Kennedy to pull back from the brink, the reality is that the combination of light-mindedness and cowardice, of adventurism and capitulationism, actually emboldened US imperialism, making the world a more, not less dangerous place. We should ask ourselves: if Kennedy had met a sterner rebuff from Moscow over Cuba, would he have been so ready to launch the genocidal war in Indochina which cost so many Vietnamese lives?
https://www.lalkar.org/article/165/the-october-crisis-remembered

>>7928

>Holy fuck this is slimy. They didn't "shun support" from the Yugoslavs. The Soviets forbid them from taking it, and forbid the Yugoslavs from sending it. The USSR wasn't "too far away", Stalin signed a deal with the British to surrender Greece in exchange for staying out of Romania and Bulgaria. You regard the Cuban Missile Crisis as a capitulation, but at least Khruschev actually saved the Cuban revolution from the Americans. Stalin meanwhile literally threw Greece under the bus.
I've actually not studied the Greek situation so my knowledge isn't there on this topic so i may be completely wrong… Beyond knowing Stalin basically promised to stay out of Greece in the percentages agreement at the Tolstoy Conference.
I'll refrain from commenting on it until I've researched further but from what I recall of it when speaking to trusted comrades the Greek communists massively erred
>What anarchy of production?
Having bashed the central planning system and given more ability for enterprises of "planning from below" Soviet economists realised that "indeterminancy"(read "anarchy") had returned to production. For obvious ideological reasons I shouldn't have to explain Soviet revisionist economists avoided using directly "anarchy of production"
<"The indeterminacy that is manifested in the probabilistic nature of the anticipated economic result does exist and is objectively inherent even in socialist society".
(L. Veger: "Calculating Economic Effectiveness under Conditions of Indeterminacy", in: "Voprosy ekonomiki" (Prolems of Economics), No. 2, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 15, No. 4; August 1972; p. 41)
<"Centralised planning in conditions of broad independence of enterprise is also faced with the need of elaborating methods of managing the economy marked by growing indeterminacy, probability (stochastics) of its processes".
(A.M. Rumyantsev: "Management of the Soviet Economy Today: Basic Principles", in: "Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems"; Moscow; 1972; p.23).
William Bland, Restoration of Capitalism in USSR http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html
>The reintroduction of "profit motive" was little more than the stipulation that firms should work to maximize output relative to input.
And yet Stalin explained (when defeating Voznesky) in Economic Problems of the USSR why this approach to profit was wrong
Soviet revisionists characterised profit under the Stalin era as
<"The problem which we now face in determining if profit should be the basic index in judging the work of an enterprise can be attributed in no small way to the lack of regard for the immutable law of economic construction during the Stalin era. This immutable law, regardless of the system under which it operates, is universal; an economy must produce more than is expended on production; and it is this principle, however unheeded it has been in the past, that theoretically provides the foundation for the acceptance of profits today in the Soviet Union".
(L. Leontiev: "Pravda" (Truth), July 10th., 1964, in: J.L. Felker: "Soviet Economic Controversies". Cambridge (USA); 1966; p. 77-8).
Which is bullshit because Stalin didn't regard them as immuteable but relative to a particular historical epoch
<"Marxism regards laws of science – whether they be laws of natural science or laws of political economy – as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them, study them, reckon with them in his activities and utilise them in the interests of society, but he cannot change or abolish them….The laws of economic development.. are objective laws…One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, unlike those of natural science, are impermanent, that they, or at least the majority of them, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws".
(J.V. Stalin: "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"; Moscow; 1952; p. 6. 7. 8).
And that profit should be considered not from the point of individual enterprises or even industries… But from the standpoint of the entire national economy and a long period of time (10 to 15 years) compared to profit earned by each individual enterprise on a yearly basis
<"Totally incorrect.. is the asertion that under our present economic system.. the law of value regulates the 'proportions' of labour distributed among the various branches of production. If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why our light industries, which are most profitable, are not being developed to their utmost, and why preference is given to our heavy industries, which are often less profitable, and sometimes altogether unprofitable.
<If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why a number of our heavy industry plants which are still unprofitable.. are not closed down, and why new light industry plants, which would certainly be profitable…, are not opened.
<If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why workers are not transferred from plants that are less profitable, but very necessary to our national economy, to plants which are more profitable – in accordance with the law of value, which supposedly regulates the 'proportions' of labour distributed among the branches of production".
<"If profitableness is considered not from the standpoint of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question, then the temporary and unstable profitableness of some plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of stable and permanent profitableness which we get from the operation of the law of balanced development of the national economy and from economic planning….
<In brief, there can be no doubt that under our present socialist conditions of production, the law of value cannot be a 'regulator of proportions' of labour distributed among the various branches of production….
<The aim of socialist production is not profit, but man and his needs".
(J.V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 28-9, 86)
Economic Problems Of the USSR is so good precisely because the program Voznesky wanted to implement is what the Kruschevites did end up implementing.
>Labour wasn't a commodity, employment was guaranteed. There was no reserve army of labour. Workers didn't have to roam between employers seeking the highest price for their labour power.
Your claim. Meanwhile the Kosygin reforms gave powers back to the managerial class to hire and fire when previously managers were held on a tight leash by the trade unions and had little power over workers. In fact prior to the 1965 reforms workers could only be fired for grave misconduct and with the agreement of the factory and the trade union representing that factory
<"Soviet labour legislation… permits the dismissal of a worker by management only with the agreement of the factory and local trade union committee and on grounds stipulated by law".
(Trudovoe pravo: Entsiklopedichesky slovar" (Labour Law: An Encyclopaedic Dictionary); Moscow; 1959, in: R. Conquest (Ed.): "Industrial Workers in the USSR"; London; 1967; p. 19).
Meanwhile the Soviet revisionist economists reintroduced hiring and firing to manage "labour levels" (ie. reserve army)
<"The firms (transferred to the "reformed" system – WBB) determine.. the wage fund".
<(V. Sokolov, M. Nazarov & N. Kozlov: "The Firm and the Customer", in: "Ekonomicheskaya gazeta" (Economic gazette), No. 1, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1; p. 251).
<"The size of the wage fund will also be determined by the entrprise".
<("Direct Contracts are Expanding", in: "Ekonomicheskaya gazeta" (Economic gazette), No. 3, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1; p. 279).
<"The economic independence of those enterprises (transferred to the "reformed" system –WBB) was expanded; .. they were granted major rights as regards… savings in the wage fund".
(A.N. Kosygin: ibid.; p. 28).
<"From now on the enterprises will not be assigned the number of people they are to employ. The introduction of comprehensive cost accounting… will, naturally, reveal surplus labour at some of the enterprises".
(L. Gatovsky: "Unity of Plan and Cost Accounting", in: "Kommunist" (Communist), No. 15, 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 83).
<"The director.. will hire and dismiss personnel".
(Statute on the Socialist State Production Enterprise", in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.) op. cit., Volume 2; p. 311).
<"Shop heads have the right to hire and fire".
(S. Kamenitser: "The Experience of Industrial Management in the Soviet Union"; Moscow; 1975; p. 40).
From William Blands, Restoration of Capitalism in USSR, Chapter Freedom To Hire and Fire http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap8.html

>>7928
>Holy fuck this is slimy. They didn't "shun support" from the Yugoslavs. The Soviets forbid them from taking it, and forbid the Yugoslavs from sending it. The USSR wasn't "too far away", Stalin signed a deal with the British to surrender Greece in exchange for staying out of Romania and Bulgaria. You regard the Cuban Missile Crisis as a capitulation, but at least Khruschev actually saved the Cuban revolution from the Americans. Stalin meanwhile literally threw Greece under the bus.
From a brief googling looks like I was correct on Greece. However this is a bourgeois institution from USA making this assessment

I've been trying to find KKEs history of the Civil war but they don't seem to have it on their site
<The gravest KKE mistake was the support given (in late 1948) by its leadership to Stalin, in the latter’s row with the “renegade” Yugoslav leader Tito (left). Yugoslavia had been the main training and supply center of the DSE, but the moment the KKE supported Stalin and condemned Tito, the latter severed his military and logistics ties with the DSE (July 1949). Without Tito’s support, the communist forces suffered a defeat three months later in the last battles of the DSE on Greek soil, in the mountains of Grammos and Vitsi.
https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/march-2016-greek-civil-war-1946-1949

>>7929
>The managerial strata were the ones that blocked the democratic reforms and expelled the elections Stalin came out publicly pushing for.
Yes and this managerial stratum emerged and proliferated under Stalin, seized control of the state apparatus he built, and then proceeded to dismantle socialism (though this happened much later than you claim, it was largely the work of Gorbachev and his ilk). Your mistake is in trying to claim that Stalin bears no responsibility for this despite both creating this stratum and providing it with the tools it needed to sabotage the revolution. He may have tried to fight against them, but he not only failed, but left them with a state apparatus that was both unaccountable to the workers and had the tools it needed to prevent the restoration of proletarian democracy.
>If I give you an article to read SaboFag I expect you to actually read it.
That article is a joke. The Soviets achieved both of their major aims in the Cuban missile crisis. They prevented an invasion of Cuba and secured the dismantling of the nukes in Turkey. Again, tell me clearly, what outcome would you have preferred? If this was such a "capitulation" on the part of the USSR, then why did the American deep state literally assassinate their own president in response to it? The article mocks the promise the US made to not invade Cuba, but they actually kept that promise! It cites American covert operations against Cuba as proof of Soviet capitulation, but these operations would have continued even if Soviet forces had stayed, just as they continued against Eastern Europe despite the Soviet military presence.
>Soviet economists realised that "indeterminancy"(read "anarchy") had returned to production.
Again, explain to me how there was an "anarchy" of production when firms did not compete with or cannibalize one another, and still produced according to plans delivered to them by the state.
>And yet Stalin explained (when defeating Voznesky) in Economic Problems of the USSR why this approach to profit was wrong
And? If you think it's wrong that's fine, in fact I'm inclined to agree. That doesn't change the fact that simply introducing profitability as a measure of success isn't the same as restoring the profit motive, or making profit the driving force of the economy. It's still a measure introduced by the state, and can be withdrawn by the state at any time. Moreover in the absence of market competition between firms, it remains merely a means to assess a firm's efficiency rather than a matter of the firm's (and by extension the entire economy's) survival.
>Meanwhile the Kosygin reforms gave powers back to the managerial class to hire and fire when previously managers were held on a tight leash
Sure, and I agree that this was a bad change and a shift to the right. However employment was still a right in the USSR, living wages were still guaranteed by law, as were necessities such as housing and healthcare. Fired workers would not be made destitute, they would not remain unemployed for long, and there was no reserve army of labour to hold over workers' heads. This change was a shift to the right sure, but it by no means created a situation for workers akin to capitalist labour markets.
>From a brief googling looks like I was correct on Greece. However this is a bourgeois institution from USA making this assessment
Interesting how you didn't post the next excerpt from that source:
<The civil war was further complicated by the fact that while the communists may have enjoyed considerable grassroots support in Greece itself, their putative ally, the Soviet Union, had other fish to fry. In an agreement (unknown to the Greek left) Moscow had agreed with Great Britain not to support communism in Greece, apparently in exchange for the Soviets having the upper hand in the rest of Eastern Europe. Deprived of their own great power backing, Greek communists were hardly a match for their British and American-backed opponents
So again, you rave about Khruschev's "capitulation" on Cuba (despite him successfully defending Cuba's revolution) but seemingly have no issue with Stalin blatantly handing over an entire country to imperialism. Your criticisms of Khruschev are sound for the most part, but I think it's a huge exaggeration to say that he actively restored capitalism or that he deliberately sabotaged the Soviet system.

>>7932
>Yes and this managerial stratum emerged and proliferated under Stalin, seized control of the state apparatus he built, and then proceeded to dismantle socialism (though this happened much later than you claim, it was largely the work of Gorbachev and his ilk). Your mistake is in trying to claim that Stalin bears no responsibility for this despite both creating this stratum and providing it with the tools it needed to sabotage the revolution. He may have tried to fight against them, but he not only failed, but left them with a state apparatus that was both unaccountable to the workers and had the tools it needed to prevent the restoration of proletarian democracy.
We've kind of come back full circle to what I said initially. Either you believe - like Stalin did - that Class Struggle continues under socialism in which case we can see a definite struggle continuing that was decisively defeated with the rise of the Kruschevites
Or you believe - as Kruschev did - that class struggle is over and that there is now a State of the whole people and cast the entire Marxist understanding of the State being that of a tool in the hands of one class to suppress another
Marxism is a synthesis. You either have synthesised Marxism to the new conditions - the most obvious one is Lenin synthesising Marxism into Marxism-Leninism with his thesis on a new period of global Imperialism which turned the accepted Marxist thought on its head. Marx believing revolution would break out in the advance capitalist countries when the exact opposite happened in the 20th century precisely because of the new conditions of imperialism..
You have either synthesised Marxism to new conditions are you have gone in an ultra-left direction or right opportunist direction.
It's quite clear the Chinese communists called it right and he was a right opportunist
>That article is a joke.
Sabo I've read your posts long enough and even when you assert something that I'm not even that well versed on (like Greek civil war) I turn out to be right and you're wrong.
>then why did the American deep state literally assassinate their own president in response to it?
Because the American deep state was way, way further to the right than any American at the time.
The US deep state was hiring Nazis Gestapo leaders like Reinhard Gehlen and putting him to work recruiting fascist East Europeans, they were ratlining Nazis (not just scientists) to assist in the Cold War.
JFKs detente with Soviet Union was the main reason they shot him. That alone was worthy of him getting the bullet. The Deep State wanted nothing short of full spectrum dominance
>Again, explain to me how there was an "anarchy" of production when firms did not compete with or cannibalize one another, and still produced according to plans delivered to them by the state.
By the time the economic reforms took hold the "plans" given to each enterprise looked nothing like what it was supposed to at the start
Here's Soviet revisionist economists complaining the plan looks nothing like what it was originally supposed to. Having denigrated the Soviet central planning system as a "Stalinist holdover" the retards realised the plan looked nothing like it was supposed to by the time the "Reforms" had kicked in
<"The work of drawing up five-year plans from the enterprises up to the USSR Gosplan was not completed in the past five years". (N. Y. Grogichinsky: "The Economic Reform in Action", in: "Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems", Moscow; 1072; p.211).
<"t is practically impossible to compile a Five-Year Plan".
Komin: "Problems in the Methodology and Practice of Planned Price Formation", in:"Planovoe khoziaistvo" (Planned Economy). No. 9, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 16, No. 1; May 1973; p.48).
<"An objective assessment of the fulfilment of the plan is impossible… In fact, the planning of distribution never attains completed form.. It is completed only with the end of the planning period… It is impossible to compile a national economic plan that is substantiated and balanced for all value indices.. on the baisis of physical indices and prices… The five-year plan in terms of value indices essentially loses its meaning".
(V. Kotov: "Prices: The Instrument of National Economic Planning and the Basis of the Value Indices of the Plan". in: "Planovoe khoziaistvo" (Planned Economy), No. 9, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 16, No. 1; May 1973; p. 61, 62, 69).
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html
This is exactly why by the 70s and 80s the USSR was beginning to take on an Alice in Wonderland feel in the economy.

>Interesting how you didn't post the next excerpt from that source:
Yes but surely everyone knows about the percentages agreement at Tolstoy? If not read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
It still means the Greek Communists erred.
Stalin wasn't a magic communist that could work the hand of God. The KKE were being logistically supported, trained and equipped by the Yugoslavs. They should've swallowed their pride and ideology and took the side of Tito who was arming, training and providing a porous border for the Communists to retreat and attack from.
>So again, you rave about Khruschev's "capitulation" on Cuba (despite him successfully defending Cuba's revolution) but seemingly have no issue with Stalin blatantly handing over an entire country to imperialism. Your criticisms of Khruschev are sound for the most part, but I think it's a huge exaggeration to say that he actively restored capitalism or that he deliberately sabotaged the Soviet system.
Comrade be serious, is Stalin a God communist that can be everywhere at all times? He was restrained by the new Cold War and a gentlemens agreement with Churchill.
Stalin was also calling for the Communists to "fold up" in Greece. But who in their right mind would listen to that?
It was obvious from early on the KKE should've gone with the Yugoslavs rather than the Soviets. Denouncing Tito whilst Tito is arming, training and giving you hold outs to commit attacks was beyond retarded.
Is this Stalins fault? Or a constraint imposed on Soviet foreign policy in the new cold war?

>>7854
those fucking hairlines though

>>7933
>It was obvious from early on the KKE should've gone with the Yugoslavs rather than the Soviets.

That's the same kind of bullshit as "KPD didn't ally with SPD and that resulted in NSDAP coming to power". KKE lost because they chose simultaneosly to disarm and to continue partisanin'.

Personally, I have a huge suspicion that Tito was the one who ratted out KKE to the British-backed Greek fascists. Tito himself was cozying up to the British, so it makes sense politically, and "porous border" was merely a result of Tito being unable to prevent his local communists from helping brothers in arms. This "denouncing Tito while he arms you" sounds very much like titoists covering their tracks in assisting the murder of KKE, it just smells like that, given the history of anti-communist "communists" - like trots and khruschevites.

>>7927
MTSes were serving multiple kolkhozes, usually, and kolkhozes buying MTS property out meant that kolkhozes had to construct all the shit MTSes did "at home". It was a VASTLY inefficient deal, which "ate up" lots of tractors produced following years with no real increase in productivity of agricultural labor. Kolkhozes were AGRICULTURAL units on top of that, and they didn't have mechanic cadres educated in villages themselves. Just like agronoms and biologists and such who were commissioned from the cities, mechanics and drivers had to be as well. Kolkhozes were forced to do things which are not their profile - on top of spending money to buy out and to create MTSes at home.

>>7935
You got some reading material com regarding this?

>>7937
No, I'm just assuming. Never heard any other POV other than Wikipedia/Titoist/Western Left one. It just glows very brightly, you know?

>>7921
>>7924
Is this why WSWS and CPUSA were so obsessed with voting for Biden? Because they obsessively projected Trotsky's takes on interwar politics onto the present? It all makes sense now

>>7939
>cpusa
>trotsky
doubtful
If I had to guess, it's probably because both organizations are riddled with middle class intellectuals. I don't think nominally marxist organizations can sustain radicalism for very long if they are disconnected from the working class.

>>7939
>Because they obsessively projected Trotsky's takes on interwar politics onto the present?
After 1933 they were the Comintern's takes too.

>>7941
yep, dmitrov would want you to vote for Storm Thurmond's bro

>>7942
Trotsky didn't say that you should vote for liberal politicians, he was calling for a united front of working people under communist leadership much like the Comintern later did.

>>7939
WSWS never promoted voting for Biden. WSWS promoted the working class to vote for comrade Joseph Kishore of the Socialist Equality Party ticket in 2020 US election.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/31/pers-o31.html
Pseudo-left apologists for Biden and the bankruptcy of “lesser-evil” politics
>In the final days of the election, the Democratic Party and its affiliates are going all out to insist that workers and youth opposed to Trump must subordinate their struggles to electing Biden.

>In these elections, the Socialist Equality Party calls on all its supporters to cast a write-in vote for Joseph Kishore and Norissa Santa Cruz for president and vice president, and from there make the decision to join the Socialist Equality Party and build a genuine revolutionary, internationalist and socialist movement of the working class.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/25/pers-n25.html
Joe Biden’s cabinet: A rainbow coalition of imperialist reaction
>The nomination of a series of right-wing women and minority representatives of the military-intelligence complex encapsulates and exposes the right-wing essence of identity politics.

>>7943
There is no use in treating what the trotskyist POUM line as the same line taken by the PCE during the United Front against a fascist class-based coup. In fact, trots opposed the united front tactics of Stalin, especially in the context of the second world war. They still follow this line of logic when attacking various wars for national liberation to this very day.

>>7945
Idk what to tell you m8, Trotsky called for a united front and later on the Comintern did as well. The POUM opposed this policy in Spain sure but its not as if Trotsky was running this party. I find it weird that some people find it impossible to admit that Trotsky was right about a single thing, even when the Comintern literally agreed with him.

>>7946
Blame stalin

>>7946
I don't think you understand. The POUM followed Trotsky's ideas about the United Front by uniting with the various liberal parties, not the "national progressive" forces tallied by the PCE. These national forces include the small landowners and national bourgeoisie totally opposed by Trotskyism. This is a large distinction you seem to be set on ignoring.

>>7949
*rallied

>>7943
He was even more restrictive than the Comintern on this issue, since the Comintern wanted the Popular Front (i.e : grand alliances of all non-right parties against fascism) and not the United Front (the purely anti-imperialist and workers organization alliance). Dunno why the other anon talks about the POUM (who was not trot and followed the spanish popular front in practice).

>>7951
>POUM wasn't trotskyist
big brain
but what I said is that the trots restricted their cooperation to the forces of international liberal capital and regularly opposed the popular front as it was seen as a nationalistic Stalinist thing.

>>7936

Oh so it resulted in a lot of duplication in other words (ie. every kolkhoze having to have its own mts)?

>>7854
>first time coming to /leftypol/ in a few years, I hope you all have been well
Everything has been good anon! Nothing could be better. See how well we are doing?

>>7954
We're not in a bad condition, stop being a drama whore.

>>7955
yeah I agree, everything seems peachy, I don't get why there were all the doomer responses. The new generation of anons must not remember how weird shit was back in the day.

>>7955
>>7956
I'm just joking around, sheesh you guys are uptight. Compared to last year shit is worse though cause of the split and mod drama.

>>7957
what split?

>>7958
Last month lefty (chan) (dot) net split into a separate site because the mods had a meltdown over a variety of things, ranging from "muh /pol/" to avatar-fags. leftypol.org holds strong but suffered a bit and is currently recovering AGAIN. Some older threads are missing posts and the other boards are underused

>>7959
sorry, didn't mean to sage, bump