[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1632333903782.jpg (286.1 KB, 1920x1080, 60006dcc85600a2c5847ac1a.jpg)

 No.7854[Last 50 Posts]

I don't understand the Stalinist response to Trotskyist thought.
Trotsky alleges that during the 20s there was a bonapartist coup where the reactionary forces of the soviet bureaucracy gained control of the political organs of the USSR. He identifies Stalin as the protagonist of this movement. Trotsky says the subsequent shift in foreign policy, (The USSR/third international adopting a defensive, class collaborationist line) is evidence of this degeneration.

But what is the Stalinist response to this reasoning? Do Stalinists argue that bureaucratic Bonapartism is impossible? Or do they think believe that it didn't occur until later? It's an interesting situation, because obviously *something* happened over the decades which diminished the proletarian authenticity of soviet politics. Do Stalinists have some alternative material explanation for what exactly occurred?

Anyway, first time coming to /leftypol/ in a few years, I hope you all have been well.

 No.7855

>>7854
>Anyway, first time coming to /leftypol/ in a few years, I hope you all have been well.
*shits uncontrollably*

 No.7856

>>7854
get out while you still can

 No.7857

After WW2 the Soviets were left in a bad military position due to having to endure the most casualties of the war, hence they couldn't pursue a more aggressive foreign policy against the West.

 No.7858

>>7857
Trotsky dates the policy shift from moscow and the third international as occurring well before ww2
>Entry into the league of nations
>subordinating the chinese communists to the koumintang
there were other examples that I can't remember off the top of my head

 No.7859

>>7854
>But what is the Stalinist response to this reasoning? Do Stalinists argue that bureaucratic Bonapartism is impossible?

No, the argument is that trots are projecting whatever they do onto their enemies. Trotsky was always in the opposition to the "center", allying with rightists both openly and covertly. When Lenin was against nationalizing the land and dekulakization, Trotsky was in favor, when Stalin became in favor of collectivization, Trotsky suddenly started to love upper-middle income farmers who dindunothing wrong. Slimy fuck, which constantly lied and gaslit everyone. 100% bourgeois politiciking.

>It's an interesting situation, because obviously *something* happened over the decades which diminished the proletarian authenticity of soviet politics.


Khruschevites, who are trotskyists, came to power and started doing bureaucratic bonapartism. Google up Khruschev's nationalization, which saw even repairshops getting outlawed, workers getting their wages cut, and bonds not paid, kolkhozes in practice became sovkhozes, - so, by all measures, khruschevites destroyed workers' wealth and the ability to rely on themselves in order to prepare the country for restoration of capitalism.

 No.7860

>>7859
thanks

 No.7861

File: 1632335292029.jpg (15.46 KB, 362x442, 1947328562386.jpg)

>>7859
>Khruschevites, who are trotskyists

 No.7862

>first time being on lefty/pol/
Escape the world of imageboards while you still can

 No.7863

>>7862
not my first time, just my first time in a while. I wasted a lot of my youth with you faggots back in 2017-18.

 No.7864

>But what is the Stalinist response to this reasoning?
Constant screeching about how much Trotsky sucked as a person (he did) without addressing his actual criticisms.

 No.7865

I have thought for some time the next leftypol meme ideology will be a rehabilitation of Trotsky

 No.7866

>>7859
>Google up Khruschev's nationalization, which saw even repairshops getting outlawed, workers getting their wages cut, and bonds not paid, kolkhozes in practice became sovkhozes, - so, by all measures, khruschevites destroyed workers' wealth and the ability to rely on themselves in order to prepare the country for restoration of capitalism.
<abolishing petty bourgeois commodity production for socialist planning is "preparing the country for the restoration of capitalism"
I see you posting this a lot but it simply makes no sense. The construction of communism demands the gradual abolition of all forms of private production, including worker-owned private firms. Khruschev's changes in this area were a step to the left, not the right.

 No.7867

>>7865
stfu wrecker cuck

 No.7868

>>7867
>wrecking another thread with this comment
Ironic

 No.7869

>>7866
Is abolition of kulaks in 1920s like proposed by Trotsky, when they had the whole economy by the balls, a move left or right? Similarly, Khruschev's forced abolition was both too hasty and served the idea of making workers property-less, so that they will be willing to work for a wage capitalism-style.

 No.7870

>>7861
Remind me, who was released from stalinist gulags, reinstated in pre-prison ranks, and who didn't resist and actually supported Khruschev and co afterwards? Who was put in gulags in 1937, 38, 39, 40?

Trotskyists and rightists! That's right!

 No.7871

File: 1632340782841.gif (1.04 MB, 550x330, 1388177159363.gif)

>>7854
>Anyway, first time coming to /leftypol/ in a few years, I hope you all have been well.

 No.7872

>>7854
As someone who went from ML to Trotsky to Trotsky interested in left com back to ML I think I can help make sense of this.

1. There was retreat in foreign policy, although it was pursuant to international conditions regressing. This was unavoidable outside of third period mistakes.
2. Stalin attempted a synthesis in 1927 of left and right factions of the Bolshevik party, and it was actually revisionist of him to suggest this was socialism etc. come the 1936 constitution, SIOC, 'economic problems in the ussr', and so on. It was also built on the bureaucracy and the old state supplanting both the dotp and the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, something Lenin feared.
3. Still, the USSR was undergoing bourgeois-democratic development as outlined by the dotp/ddotpp existing in isolation in a backwards state. This is compatible with Lenin's descriptions of 'one or a few initial victories for socialism'.
4. What really did the USSR in and caused the degeneration of its revolution was not the lack of international revolution meaning there was no permanent revolution (democratic->socialist revolution) or bureaucratization associated with development in isolation, but rather bureaucratization and comintern retreats as forced by the scramble to develop and prepare for war while searching for allies.

In short, it wasn't developing capitalism in isolation and calling it socialism which caused bureaucratization and thus degeneration. It wasn't retreats in the comintern causing a lack of international, socialist revolution that the USSR relied on to 'skip' capitalism and thus degeneration. It was these two becoming part of adaptations to interwar conditions which caused degeneration.

The USSR had to rapidly develop with what means it had and use the comintern to circle the wagons in finding allies. Everything, including the revolution and socialism, became subordinate to surviving the next imperialist war. That and the apocalyptic nature of the war exposing massive divisions is what caused degeneration and ultimately killed the USSR in 1991.

 No.7873

Why do Stalinists argue this?
*Doesn't post what ML's argue*
thanks for the insight

First of all, Trotsky differed from Lenin on many positions. Chief among them being the question of the role of international capital in a revolution. Whereas Lenin saw imperialism as an extension of capitalistic feudalism, Trotsky saw the spread of western imperial capital across the world as tantamount. This is of course more in line with economist trends in Marxism - it's in essence Menshevik. That is what Trotsky means by "world revolution," all encompassing equal development spanning the whole world by capitalist powers, only then to be followed by socialist revolution. This theory was seen in action when Trotskyists actively supported the pillaging of the social-imperialist Warsaw Pact because they conceived of it as a step towards communism through violent empire.
Accusing the USSR of being class collaborationist during the world's most horrific war only makes sense if you follow this warped rationale. These Communists are accepting British aid instead of supporting the brave liberal government of German occupied Belarus?! This must be class collaborationism

Accusations of Stalin coming to power via coup are built zero evidence. He was already Lenin's second in command and a testament thought to be forged by even the most anti-Stalin cold warriors in the west doesn't change that. There is plenty more evidence showing Bakunin and Trotsky forming a clique, they even both admitted it. What Stalin did to make these goons seethe was reject Trotsky's warped imperialist vision of internationalism, and instead build a flawed, yet historically relevant state.

 No.7874

>>7861
Kruschev was literally a former Trot
It came up in conversation with Stalin and Stalin handwaved it away and said "many have wavered in their youth"

 No.7875

>>7874
>stalin was trot tolerant (basically a trot)
fucker

 No.7876

>>7875
Agreed. The one thing Stalin did wrong was make that speech that "not every person who once walked by a Trotskyite should be hounded"

 No.7877

>>7854
>(The USSR/third international adopting a defensive, class collaborationist line) is evidence of this degeneration.
Sour grapes from Trotsky because his ideas had failed. The permanent revolution didn't happen and Soviet Union support for insurrections had gone nowhere for years. There were actually significant attempts while Stalin was ascendant, the most important one run out of the embassy in Germany in 1924. But they were all sussed out by foreign intelligence. Uprisings didn't materialize and all it was doing was alienating what little potential allies the Soviet Union had in the capitalist bloc (namely Germany), on whom they had to rely for importing machine tools and technology to rebuild a totally devastated Soviet Union (from the civil war).

Very easy to whine from his exile that Stalin did not pointlessly sacrifice the Soviet Union on the alter of permanent revolution. Of course some miscalculations were made - supporting the KMT after Chiang turned on the communists was pigheaded. But the original idea wasn't bad, the KMT was a national liberation movement against western colonialism and the then tiny CCP gained a lot from being sweepped up in their ascent - at first.

 No.7878

Stalin unironically need his own cultural revolution.

 No.7879


 No.7880

>>7870
So…Khruschevism is both Trotskyist and Rightist at the same time?

 No.7881

>>7880
No, khrushevism is trotskyism. They are opportunistically align with rightoids, but otherwise keep them on a short leash given the chance. It's the real horseshoe theory - movements to the left and to the right of the Party line ally in opposition to it. Kind of like socdems are social-fascists and have more similarities with fascists ideology-wise ("state is above classes and has to reconcile both classes", but somehow only the bourgeoisie benefits from this approach) than differences.

 No.7882

>>7870
>Remind me, who was released from stalinist gulags, reinstated in pre-prison ranks
Soviets released SPD members from Nazi concentration camps and many of them joined the GDR government. This proves that Stalinism = social democracy.

 No.7883

File: 1632353057118.jpg (225.89 KB, 1400x1400, lvogel_190315_3304_3786.jpg)

>>7881
Stalin(center) used Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov(rightists) then disposed of them after he had power.

Trotsky(left) used Kamenev, Zinoviev and others(rightists) to gain power, then they switched to Stalin(center) at the critical juncture.

We can debate whether Trotsky would have disposed of Zinoviev et al after gaining power as it is a counterfactual.

What we cannot do (regardless of tendency) is pretend only the party that failed to gain by rightist collaboration is opportunistic.

Moral of the story, no Red/Brown alliance lasts, and the Right will always betray the Left for the Center, just as the Left will (probably) always betray the Right for the Center. Far too much credit is given to the men betrayed Stalin and Trotsky both rather than the no name opportunists that switched sides.

Or, Josh Hawley is good for one Stimmy check vote. Then he's useless.

 No.7884

>>7858
Well, WW1 and the civil war left them in a pretty bad shape too

 No.7885

>>7883
>Moral of the story, no Red/Brown alliance lasts
regardless of later policy disagreements, those men were all devoted revolutionists who each did more for the global proletariat in 1917 than you could do in 100 lifetimes. It's retardedly reductive to equate Bukharin, Rykov, etc with fascists.

 No.7888

>>7854
>But what is the Stalinist response to this reasoning? Do Stalinists argue that bureaucratic Bonapartism is impossible? Or do they think believe that it didn't occur until later? It's an interesting situation, because obviously *something* happened over the decades which diminished the proletarian authenticity of soviet politics. Do Stalinists have some alternative material explanation for what exactly occurred?
Please for the love of God go read Gettys Origins of the Great Purges. It's got all the retarded anti-communism Trotskyite cringers love but at least it's (mostly, except for where he veers off and uses some propagandist to make a point as his footnote) correct
You'll see Stalin making a concerted and heroic effort against beaureaucratisation and trying to enable a revolution from below.(Getty, P.105) The 1935 Purge of the Communist Party (expelling all the useless trash that joined the Party just for the perks, counter-revolutionaries that joined the party etc) didn't go particularly well.

The Party was riddled with anti-party and anti-communist elements by the early 1930s and it was full of Kulaks, thieves, trotskyites and other anti-party elements (Getty, p.90)

As the purge of the party in the 1930s failed (1933-1935) the Central Committee intervened publicly on the side of the grass roots crtisicism against the party apparat. (Getty,p.91)
But due to a low level of political education and an unwillingness at the local council level to fully utilise self criticism due to "family-ness" became apparent. (Ibid)
For instance, how effective would it be really to have a Soviet party member who is busting his balls for the party, doing all the work amidst White guardist infiltration of the party, Trotskyite sabotage, kulak infiltration of the party and other bourgeois elements… When this party member himself is not educated to the best degree in Marxist theory and this party member is literally holding the floodgates back against reaction?

Once the Party purge had largely failed due to a combination of inertia, low level of education in the Party even at cadre level, the bourgeois elements whites/kulaks/thieves attempting to worm themselves in the Party (remember, once Marxists have built a proletarian State, the opponents of Marxism must 'adopt' Marxism and cloak themselves in it to worm their way into the Party and positions of power like termites)…

Stalin came out publicly in 1936 and first announced the changes coming to the Soviet State in his Roy Howard interview where he said these elections would be a "whip in the hands of the population against the organs of government". Other party elements considered this an ultra left deviation
<You think that there will be no election contests. But there will be, and I foresee very lively election campaigns. There are not a few institutions in our country which work badly. Cases occur when this or that local government body fails to satisfy certain of the multifarious and growing requirements of the toilers of town and country. Have you built a good school or not? Have you improved housing conditions? Are you a bureaucrat? Have you helped to make our labor more effective and our lives more cultured? Such will be the criteria with which millions of electors will measure the fitness of candidates, reject the unsuitable, expunge their names from candidates' lists, and promote and nominate the best. Yes, election campaigns will be lively, they will be conducted around numerous, very acute problems, principally of a practical nature, of first class importance for the people. Our new electoral system will tighten up all institutions and organizations and compel them to improve their work. Universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage in the U.S.S.R. will be a whip in the hands of the population against the organs of government which work badly. In my opinion our new Soviet constitution will be the most democratic constitution in the world.
-Stalin, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

So we see the CC tried to come out on the side of the grassroots elements and when that failed Stalin comes out directly in an interview publicly to gather support for his new constitution and democratic reform of the way the Soviet Union was governed

Recently U N Zhukov (Russian historian) has been able to discover new Soviet documents documenting how Stalin in 1936 attempted to democratise the party but was defeated by Party elements
<Those documents that were accessible to researchers did allow us to understand . . . that already by the end of the 1930s determined attempts were being undertaken to separate the Party from the state and to limit in a substantive manner the Party's role in the life of the country. (Zhukov, Tayny 8)

<The Party would revert to its essential function of winning people to the ideals of communism as they understood it.

<This would mean the end of cushy sinecure-type jobs, and a reversion to the style of hard work and selfless dedication that characterized the Bolsheviks during the Tsarist period, the Revolution and Civil War, the period of NEP, and the very hard period of crash industrialization and collectivization. During these periods Party membership, for most, meant hard work and sacrifice, often among non-Party members, many of whom were hostile to the Bolsheviks. It meant the need for a real base among the masses.
(Zhukov, KP Nov. 13 02; Mukhin, Ubiystvo)

When the new consitution is released it does not contain the democratic elements Stalin had pushed for
<This could mean only one thing. Not only the 'broad leadership' [the regional First Secretaries], but at least a part of the Central Committee apparatus, Agitprop under Stetskii and Tal', did not accept Stalin's innovation, did not want to approve, even in a purely formal manner, contested elections, dangerous to many, which, as followed from those of Stalin's words that Pravda did underscore, directly threatened the positions and real power of the First Secretaries – the Central Committees of the national communist parties, the regional, oblast', city, and area committees. (Zhukov, Iurii. Inoy Stalin. Politicheskie reformy v SSSR v 1933-1937 gg. Moscow:"Vagrius," 2003.)

If you are going to read 2 things on the oft repeated by Trots "muh bureaucracy" read
Arch Getty - Origins of the Great Purges
Grover Furr - Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%20Furr/stalin_1.htm
Furr leans almost exclusively on U N Zhukovs works but I've yet to see his work translated from Russian. If you speak Russian you can just read him if you're one of the faggots that 'dismisses everything Furr says without ever rebuffing anything he's ever said'

So what you see is the Trots are basically correct, though in the most retarded brain dead fucking way possible(and I still advocate shooting them on sight).
Trotskys theory of "degenerated workers state" is meaningless. It's quite clear history happens in waves. First a revolution and the revolutionary wave and the hope and optimism this new era brings and then a retreat of the wave as the revolution trundles on, capitalist encirclement which forced a lot of the later problems on the Soviets (Whilst Stalin was trying to introduce democratic reforms the Nazis had come to power and Japan had invaded China as far back as 1931. You can see why the Party might consider this ultra left).

 No.7889

>>7888
Forgot to post pics of Gettys book

 No.7890

>>7888
>>7889
Also and to finish - it's clear that Stalin (and Stalin faction around him) lost the fight for the 1936 constitution and it's democratic reforms at that hurdle

After ww2 though a revisionist economist Voznosensky started circulating his thesis (1948) and it became so popular that even Pravda began singing its praises
<"Voznosensky's book…soon became popular amongst economists. Some of its these began to be cited on the same level as theses from Stalin".
(R. Medvedev: Let History Judge; London; 1972; p. 482).
And within a year the group around Voznosensky were all removed from their posts

<Some weeks after the introduction of Voznosensky's "economic reform", its opponents struck back.

<On March 13th., 1949, it was announced that Nikolai Voznosensky had been "released" from his state post as Chairman of the State Planning Commission (being replaced by Maxim Saburov), and that Mikhail Rodionov had been released from his state post as "Prime Minister" of the RSFSR (being replaced by B. Chernousov).
<On March 14th., 1949 it was announced that Petr Popkov had been "released" from his state post as member of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (being replaced by Vasily Andrianov).
<On March 15th., 1949, it was announced that Ivan Goliakov had been "released" from his state post as President of the Supreme Court (being replaced by Anatol Volin).
<On July 15th., 1949, it was announced that Aleksei Voznosensky had been "released" from his state post as Minister of Education of the RSFSR.
<On January 15th., 1950, a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet restored the death penalty (abolished in May 1947) for treason and certain other crimes against the state.
<And in two stages, on January 1st., and July 1st., 1950, the Voznosensky "economic reform" of 1949 was nullified
<This appears to have been the sum total of all that was published in the Soviet Union at the time concerning the counter-attack launched against the opposition groups headed by Voznosensky.
William Bland, Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR https://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm

It took Stalin 4 years to counter attack this but he did in Economic Problems of the USSR
< "It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system. Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist… Does this mean that…the law of value…is the regulator of production in our country…? No it does not. Actually, the sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds… Totally incorrect, too, is the assertion 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 the most profitable, are not being developed at the 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 no 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 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…
<"The law of value can be a regulator of production only under capitalism,…
<"If profitableness is considered not from the standpoint of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the stand point 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".
(J.V. Stalin: Economic Problems of the USSR; Moscow; 1952; p. 23, 25, 27-9).

the point I'm making here is that the class struggle continues under Socialism that there is no formal victory but a long protracted and continual struggle
That anti-socialist elements are continually justifying themselves and the refusal to engage with an honest examination of socialism in real life and not just how the Trots dream it to be (the tricksy Stalinists got in the way of our utopian dreams!") is exactly how prominent Trotskyites equated the Soviet Union with fascism at the height of ww2, declared themselves against "both sides of imperialism" during the Korean war, supported the Vietnam war and even cheered Soviet collapse in 1991 because the Soviet Union was "an obstacle to socialism"
<“During the Korean War (1950-3) the supporters of the Trotskyite Tony Cliff maintained a strict neutrality and blamed US imperialism and ‘Russian imperialism’ equally for the war. In the light of recent revelations of US-backed incursions into North Korea before the war and US atrocities against Korean civilians during it, such a position seems outlandish” (Hearse).
<“A longer-term result of the Soviet collapse has been the removal of the obstacle of Stalinism” (Sheppard).
<Shachtmanites openly supporting the imperialist occupation in Vietnam
https://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-american-party-of-labor.html

 No.7891

>>7888
<Those documents that were accessible to researchers did allow us to understand . . . that already by the end of the 1930s determined attempts were being undertaken to separate the Party from the state and to limit in a substantive manner the Party's role in the life of the country. (Zhukov, Tayny 8)

Revisionist bullshit. Have some critical thinking on this, please. Do you see China separating state and the Party? Do you see China sabotaging Party's grasp over the state, army, economy? It's yet another "stalinist" who believes in all the khruschevite lies about Stalin.

<This would mean the end of cushy sinecure-type jobs, and a reversion to the style of hard work and selfless dedication that characterized the Bolsheviks during the Tsarist period, the Revolution and Civil War, the period of NEP, and the very hard period of crash industrialization and collectivization. During these periods Party membership, for most, meant hard work and sacrifice, often among non-Party members, many of whom were hostile to the Bolsheviks. It meant the need for a real base among the masses.


Just look at this shit, it's pure unadulterated idealism.

 No.7892

>>7883
>Stalin(center) used Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov(rightists) then disposed of them after he had power.

Neither rightists or trots were at any point in time strong LEGITIMATE force in political discussions in USSR. Being weak theory-lets that they were, they always lost debates with "center". Making them agree with the consensus, pushed through by the "center", does not mean "used rightists", it only means that rightists were forced to obey under democratic centralism.

Trots, however, as shown by Moscow Trials, were actively working together with rightists. Rightists had their power base at the bottom and in the military (IIRC), trots had theirs people on the top. They needed each other to COUP USSR leadership UNDEMOCRATICALLY. Just look at all their demands - it's always an abolition of democratic centralism, always an abolition of democracy in favor of "collective leadership", always against the ban on factions.

BTW, Trotsky, being the retard that he was, despite agreeing with the ban because he was forced to, immediately started to promote "interest groups" in the Party. Totally not a factionalism, lol.

So, to sum it up, center was strong because of democracy, leftists and rightists had to oppose democracy itself to come to power, and had to ally because of that. Every left-wing deviation in the end is a right-wing one.

 No.7893

>>7882
Except Khruschev in his self-criticisms during Stalin times was forced to admit that "in early days" he was "influenced" by trotskyists. I don't remember names, but still. Khruschev denounced Doctors' Plot, claiming that Stalin was antisemitic, Khruschev covered up all the Trotsky's appointees into the military (voenspetsy) during Civil War, claiming that they were purged out of Stalin's paranoia and "revenge" and not out of any real crime (Tukhachevsky, for example). Reinstating trots and rightists back to their positons in power is just an icing on the top, really.

I don't think your comparison makes much sense after contextualization, eh?

 No.7894

>>7893
>Khruschev denounced Doctors' Plot, claiming that Stalin was antisemitic, Khruschev covered up all the Trotsky's appointees into the military (voenspetsy) during Civil War, claiming that they were purged out of Stalin's paranoia and "revenge" and not out of any real crime (Tukhachevsky, for example).
He was also one of the primary agents of the purge itself and personally oversaw the expulsion, imprisonment, execution, and repression of those same trotskyist, kulak, etc. elements. Tell me Anon, if Khruschev was a Trot then why did actual Trot parties continue to denounce him as a Stalinist and continue to regard the USSR as a degenerated worker's state, moan about "Soviet imperialism" etc.? If he was so friendly to their movement movement why didn't they actually like and support him?

 No.7895

>>7891
>Do you see China separating state and the Party?
What's the relevance of China and whether it's separating Party and State? For China wanting to separate Party and State they'd have had to continue on a socialist road instead of becoming a slave to the market, aligning with USA in cold war and run by liberals
China since 1978 has gone about every year restoring the market to primacy and reducing the amount of State Owned Enterprises.
By the mid 1990s China had reduced the SOEs by three quarters
In 2001 Gen Sec Jiang Zemin called for "the Party to represent advanced social productive forces and culture - largely understood to be an invitation of capitalists to join the party
By 2006 1/3 of private entreprenaurs were members of the Party. Up from 20% a year before Jiang Zemins speech

In 2021 most upper Party Members are literal bourgeois US dollar billionaires

Why on Earth would the CPC separate the Party from the State?
when precisely this is all they can hope to cling onto (as long as they stick to liberalising economics and bourgeois ideology) until the next billionaire like Jack Ma pipes up and instead of getting imprisoned gets mass support from the population and the CPC is finally overthrown in a bourgeois counter revolution

 No.7896

>>7894
>He was also one of the primary agents of the purge itself and personally oversaw the expulsion, imprisonment, execution, and repression of those same trotskyist, kulak, etc. elements.

Oh gee, how do you think they've managed to hide their agents? Because a lot of them had people covering them on the top. Moscow Trials apart from top ringleaders also exposed lots of rank and file agents, who were covered up by those ringleaders for years, if not decades. Remember Yagoda, remember Ezhov, remember Beria, and how much USSR struggled with making NKVD actually useful at sniffing out those folks, and still failing to do so.

>Tell me Anon, if Khruschev was a Trot then why did actual Trot parties continue to denounce him as a Stalinist


As if they don't denounce each other as authoritarians, totalitarians, etc etc all the time. Main reason being that trots are mostly supported by CIA and pals, while khruschevites were supported by USSR. It's actually amazing how trots ignore the whole destalinization thing, that was aimed at proving their point of view that Stalin was an usurpator, bureaucrat and a tyrant.

>>7895
Oh yes, capitalist China. Pray tell, how come they can just like nationalize entire industries with no resistance from the nationalized whatsoever, no press releases, no lobbying, no nothing. We are materialists here, we understand that power comes from the economy, from the production, and if CPC manages to abolish private enterprises so easily, isn't it a proof that SOE sector of the economy is enormously powerful by capitalist standards? I would even say, blashemously so, to the point they get labelled communists.

 No.7897

File: 1632403443676.png (61.39 KB, 400x273, Trotsky wojak fag.png)

>>7894
>why did actual Trot parties continue to denounce him as a Stalinist and continue to regard the USSR as a degenerated worker's state, moan about "Soviet imperialism" etc.?
You think this is a big contradiction but it's not really.
Firstly because Trotskyism has no real iddeological content besides being against whatever communists are trying to build
2ndly (tied into first) is trotskyite ideology mainstay is utopian: you understand why Trots denounce all examples of AES as "stalinist monstrosities" (even if the content of the States were wildly different under Stalin or Kruschev or Gorbachev or Castro or Mao or Deng. It's why their analysis is fucking terrible - go have a read of this article where Diana Johnstone points out how deluded they are that when discussing Syria they end up using Stalin/Stalinists or Stalinism upwards of 30 times https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/04/trotskyist-delusions-obsessed-with-stalin-they-see-betrayed-revolutions-everywhere/)
Kruschev is an example of a Trot coming to power - denigrating central planning, appeasement and cowardice before imperialism in the aim of being able to temper the class struggle etc.

When Chavez came to power in Venezuela through mass support and a democratic process whilst the economy was on the up and they were being ignored by imperialism (having defeated the coup attempt in 2002) Trot parties the world over sung Venezuelas praise

When imperialism began to turn its eyes back to Venezuela (distracted in ME) in the late 00s and early 10s even CWI affiliated parties like Socialist Party threw Venezuela under the bus as their economy tanked from sanctions and a concentrated imperialist propaganda campaign
if Socialist Party actually came to power in Britain the rest of the CWI would denounce them.

 No.7898

>>7896
>As if they don't denounce each other as authoritarians, totalitarians, etc etc all the time.
So then what us even the usefulness of the term "Trot"? If Khruschev can be a "Trotskyist" despite being hated by the movement as a whole, then what use is the term even? Really seems like you're just using it to mean "people I don't like."
>>7897
>Firstly because Trotskyism has no real iddeological content besides being against whatever communists are trying to build
Then how can Khruschev be a Trot if he led the USSR through one of its greatest periods of growth and prosperity, helped spread the revolution in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, crushed counterrevolution in Hungary, etc? Again, it's pretty clear that a Trot to you is anybody who you don't like or who says mean things about Stalin.

 No.7899

>>7896
>Oh yes, capitalist China. Pray tell, how come they can just like nationalize entire industries with no resistance from the nationalized whatsoever, no press releases, no lobbying, no nothing. We are materialists here, we understand that power comes from the economy, from the production, and if CPC manages to abolish private enterprises so easily, isn't it a proof that SOE sector of the economy is enormously powerful by capitalist standards? I would even say, blashemously so, to the point they get labelled communists.
Ah yes I forgot how nationalisations constitute socialism
Britain nationalised HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008 without any fanfare so I guess I live in a socialist country. Singapore has huge amounts of State owned industry so I guess they're socialist too.

What enabled the Soviets to declare they had built socialism by the 1930s was the fact that labourers were guaranteed jobs and did not meet in a free market of the owners of producers to sell their labour but instead were allocated jobs via a central plan in industries that were State owned or collectively owned
<"The historic conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It [capitalism] can spring into life only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free laborer selling his labor power." (Capital, Vol. I, International ed., p. 170.)
<"In themselves money and commodities are no more capital than are the means of production and of subsistence. They want transforming into capital. But this transformation can only take place under certain circumstances that center in this, viz., that two very different kinds of commodity-possessors must come face to face and into contact; on the one hand, the owners of money, means of production, means of subsistence, who are eager to increase the sums of values they possess, by buying other people's labor power; on the other hand, free laborers, the sellers of their own labor power and therefore the sellers of labor…. With this polarization of the market for commodities, the fundamental conditions of capitalist production are given. 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.)
<The “home market” for capitalism is created by developing capitalism itself, which deepens the social division of labour and resolves the direct producers into capitalists and work- ers. The degree of the development of the home market is the degree of development of capitalism in the country
Lenin, Development of Capitalism in Russia, cw vol III, p.69
In short, labour power wasn't a commodity and they owned the industries they worked for (either through the state or collectively). So they weren't divorced from the means of production
Thus in order to demonstrate that a given society was capitalist, in the scientific sense of the term, it would be necessary to show not merely that articles of consumption were commodities (which was true but proves little), but also and principally that commodity exchange, based on expropriation of the direct producers, embraced and governed the means of production and labor power. If the direct producers, the workers, are not divorced from the means of production, and if consequently neither these means nor labor power function as commodities, then no survivals of "bourgeois right," nor any amount of other inequities and injustices, can allow of such a society being properly termed capitalist.

Inversely, if the direct producers have been separated from the means of production, and consequently both labor power and means of production are exchanged as commodities, then no amount of social welfare benefits, no nationalizations, no statutory curbs on excess profiteering, no ameliorative measures whatever can conceal or modify the capitalist character of such a society. It is important to keep these elementary, but necessary and sufficient characteristics of capitalism firmly in mind in order to grasp the left and right, the forward and backward of Soviet development. There exists an enormous abundance of superficial definitions, half-truths and irrelevant notions in the literature about what is capitalism and what is socialism, all of which either innocently or with forethought serve to mystify or to distort the historical process and the present situation.

The future of China is a Gorbachev style counter-revolution or the Communists (and I believe there are some good ones) in the CPC will need to wage war against the liberals and bourgeois elements in the party

 No.7900

>>7899
You're wasting your time Anon. The person you're replying to literally believes rhag Khruschev restored capitalism in the USSR (because he nationalized some of the collective farms and small private firms) while simultaneously thinking that capitalism hasn't been restored in China despite far more pervasive privatization and bourgeois influence.

 No.7901

>>7898
>So then what us even the usefulness of the term "Trot"? If Khruschev can be a "Trotskyist" despite being hated by the movement as a whole, then what use is the term even? Really seems like you're just using it to mean "people I don't like."
This requires you to understand Trotsky and all of his self-contradictory writings, his repeated vacillations, his waverings on almost every topic
It's therefore no surprise his followers see in him a rorschach ideology that can be anything they wish to interpret it as.
Lenin called this out over 100 years ago
<Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch09.htm

As materialists we should understand why (purely on linguistic terms) that Trotskyites are not Communists and that Trotskyism is not Communism - even linguistically they developed distinctly.

This is also why no Trotskyite can get along with another and famous for splitting. Some trot parties are run like Leninist parties…Some are run like social democratic parties. Some hold to DemCent….Some don't

Most Trots by age 40 have crossed over to Neoconservatism because Permanent Revolution and the Neocon promise of "Spreading democracy" are a match made in hell and fit together like a hand in glove
>Then how can Khruschev be a Trot if he led the USSR through one of its greatest periods of growth and prosperity, helped spread the revolution in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, crushed counterrevolution in Hungary, etc? Again, it's pretty clear that a Trot to you is anybody who you don't like or who says mean things about Stalin.
I don't abuse the word "Trotskyite" like the Trots do "Stalinist".
"Stalinist" to Trots is "things I don't like" or perhaps more adequately "Communists that win a revolution but have the audacity to put down the counter revolution rather than nobly be murdered by counter revolutionaries to retain purity in martyrdom"

Trotskyism is a very specific trend in Opportunism

 No.7902

>the Moscow Trials
If the wild accusations of the Moscow trials were true, soviet prosecutors would have demonstrated as much at Nuremberg.

 No.7903

>bonapartist coup
There was literally no such thing.
Stalin and iirc basically all of his inner circle were elected to their positions by the Supreme soviet or elevated in the same way that any other executive selects their cabinet (probably by just interviewing them for the job and sending a letter if they got it)

'Bonapartist coup' in Trot-speak means 'I didn't get elected'

>Trotsky says the subsequent shift in foreign policy, (The USSR/third international adopting a defensive, class collaborationist line) is evidence of this degeneration.

<Marx Quote About Socialist Societies bearing 'Birthmarks' depending on where when and how they form.
Some thing's like entering the league of nations and actually communicating with other countries was necessary to not get invaded and destroyed. Advising the Internationale to work with the Social-Democrats was in response to what seemed to be a particularly violent and resurgent brand of right-wing politics rising in europe at the time.

>But what is the Stalinist response to this reasoning? Do Stalinists argue that bureaucratic Bonapartism is impossible?

Basically no one asides from Trotsky even uses the word 'Bonarpartism' but yes.
A significant part of the entire Stalin mythos is how he was 'struck down the bureaucratic cornman who led the USSR to ruin'
>Or do they think believe that it didn't occur until later? It's an interesting situation,
Most self-described Stalinists / Hoxhaists i've met basically think the USSR ceased to be socialist after GOSPLAN was delegated to the federal republics and the Kosygin reforms were implemented.
>because obviously *something* happened over the decades which diminished the proletarian authenticity of soviet politics.
The thing i find most historians seem to agree upon that led to the loss of 'zeal' within the CPSU was the fact that about HALF THE ENTIRE PARTY'S MEMBERSHIP DIED IN WW2 and most of the people that joined afterword's were people working in 'white collar' professions or people working in government ministries. A lot of which Stalin and Zhdanov remarked upon once 'Barely even know the basics of Marxism'.
Admittedly Stalin's plan to fix this was pretty silly. IIRC he literally had them all just go to a day class, speed read bullet points of Marxist theory and pass a test afterword's.

 No.7904

>>7901
You're dancing around the point Anon. Precisely what makes Khruschev a Trotskyist? If Trots have no ideological content beyond opposing AES, then how can the leader of an AES state be a Trot? How can a Trot lead an AES state through some of its greatest achievements? How can a Trot be the source of essential aid to revolutionaries around the world as Khruschev's government was?

 No.7905

File: 1632406303169.png (12.38 MB, 4000x2667, ClipboardImage.png)

I read these threads and I get more confused about everything and what actually happened. Fucking 100 year old pissing match.

 No.7906

>>7905
As far as trot-stalin discussions go, this thread is unusually substantive instead of the typical garbage name calling. You should enjoy substantive threads.

 No.7907

>>7904
>You're dancing around the point Anon. Precisely what makes Khruschev a Trotskyist?
He said he was a trot. And immediately after Stalins death he does things that I would completely expect of a Trot (that's if if he didn't have a hand in killing stalin to begin with which I absolutely believe he did)
>If Trots have no ideological content beyond opposing AES, then how can the leader of an AES state be a Trot?
Kruschevs ideological content can be described as
-capitulation in the arena of class struggle to avoid 'authoritarianism'
-elevated the people around Voznosensky who were removed by Stalin in 1949 and the people Stalin was railing against in Economic Problem of the USSR (1952)
-By 1961 was talking about elevating the profit motive and ruination of central planning
-in Foreign policy his was one of rank cowardice. Take the Cuban missile crisis where he blinked not one, twice but three times. Compare this to Stalin who went to war in Korea 1950-1953 by deceiving the Yanqui dickheads into believing he had a whole arsenal of nukes when he only had 4 - thus saving DPRK and possibly China also from MacArthurs necklace of nuclear bombs he wanted to launch at China
-Released loads of trotskyite and rightist prisoners
-Made a shit ton of lies up about Stalin in a "secret speech" (which is immediately leaked to the West) to bury Marxism-Leninism as an ideological and economic trend in the Soviet Union (the Soviet Economists under Kruschevite rule would endlessly cite "Stalinist holdovers in economy" in their economic text books as justification for ruining central planning and restoring the profit motive by 1965)
These are all things I would fully expect of a Trotskyite who came to power
>How can a Trot lead an AES state through some of its greatest achievements?
The Kruschev Coup came when the Soviet economy was roaring. By the time the Kruschevites had implemented their plans culminating in the Kosygin reforms of 1965 they were essentially running on a Marxist-Leninist economy. The stagnations of the 70s and 80s (not only in economics but also ideology) were a direct result of Kruschev
>How can a Trot be the source of essential aid to revolutionaries around the world as Khruschev's government was?
Besides Kruschevs cowardice on numerous occasions (if he had not fucked the Cuban missile crisis there's a good chance Vietnam invasion never happens and that Vietnamese are not subjected to the genocide they were subjected to alongside being coated in Agent Orange. If Vietnam happens neither Laos nor Cambodia is bombed to smithereens too - advancing communism hugely in Asia instead of 2 broken and impoverished countries they'd remain right up til today)
But taking the above into account I would say his foreign policy was OK. It could've been better but wasn't completely shit like everything else he touched

 No.7908

>>7897
Trotsky was decent and represented the left opposition position of the 1920s and where Lenin in 1917 crossed over from supporting the dictatorship of workers and peasants to achieve democratic revolution to supporting dotp and and international socialist revolution. Permanent revolution was just a name given by Trotsky to what he saw in Lenin, which attracted him to bolshevism.
Trotsky, for this reason, has earned his place in Leninist history.
Post Trotsky trots suck ass and have no such place, they degenerate into reproducing liberalism as progressive over and over by accentuating the east as degenerate and the west as ironically more advanced. This continues to the modern day with the western left and its fishhook quality adopted with the confrontation between nationalist populism and liberal capitalism prompted by the crisis in globalization
Rather than try to take Trotsky into the post ww2, post Stalin, post cold war era we should take what he represents within leninism along with stalin, mao, and bits of luxemburg and left coms to create a new leninist synthesis and reproduce ML for the 21st century.

 No.7909

>>7908
Also worth noting is Trotsky’s analysis of fascism. That has also cemented his place in Marxist thought. An interesting exercise is to go back and compare what Stalinists and Trotskyists were saying about Fascism in the the early 1930s, without the benefit of hindsight.

 No.7910

>>7902
They did, though. Nazis were admitting to their crimes after a round of exquisite questioning technics Soviet prosecutors have shown.

 No.7911

>>7907
>He said he was a trot.
No he said he was influenced by Trotsky when he was younger. According to your logic Thomas Sowell must be a Marxist because he said he used to be one.
>capitulation in the arena of class struggle to avoid 'authoritarianism
Capitulation to who exactly? The bourgeoisie had already been eliminated.
>Take the Cuban missile crisis where he blinked not one, twice but three times.
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?
>Compare this to Stalin who went to war in Korea 1950-1953
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.
>By the time the Kruschevites had implemented their plans culminating in the Kosygin reforms of 1965 they were essentially running on a Marxist-Leninist economy. The stagnations of the 70s and 80s (not only in economics but also ideology) were a direct result of Kruschev
The economy slowed after Khruschev because the USSR had completed the process of industrialization, urbanization, and postwar recovery. This was a common trend among developed economies. The so-called "stagnation" that came after is largely overblown anyway, the Soviet economy still maintained 3-4% growth until the 80s. You're also overblowing the Kosygin reforms. 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. 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.

Khruschev made mistakes sure, but insisting that he was a closet Trotskyist who deliberately sabotaged the USSR is completely ridiculous.

 No.7912

>>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.

 No.7913

>>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.

 No.7914

>>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.

 No.7915

>>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

 No.7916

>>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.

 No.7917

>>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.

 No.7918

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

 No.7919

>>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.

 No.7920

>>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

 No.7921

>>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.

 No.7922

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.

 No.7923

>>7922
Why not? Napoleon almost did it.

 No.7924

>>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.

 No.7925

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

 No.7926

>>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.

 No.7927

>>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.

 No.7928

>>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.

 No.7929

>>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

 No.7930

>>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

 No.7931

>>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

 No.7932

>>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.

 No.7933

>>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?

 No.7934

>>7854
those fucking hairlines though

 No.7935

>>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.

 No.7936

>>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.

 No.7937

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

 No.7938

>>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?

 No.7939

>>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

 No.7940

>>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.

 No.7941

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

 No.7942

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

 No.7943

>>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.

 No.7944

File: 1632511803094-0.png (640.08 KB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1632511803094-1.png (1.34 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>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.

 No.7945

File: 1632511877608.jpeg (24.68 KB, 450x345, E8zfwNlXEAASwQS.jpeg)

>>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.

 No.7946

>>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.

 No.7947

>>7946
Blame stalin

 No.7948

File: 1632512388905.png (492.99 KB, 500x701, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.7949

>>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.

 No.7950

>>7949
*rallied

 No.7951

>>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).

 No.7952

>>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.

 No.7953

>>7936

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

 No.7954

>>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?

 No.7955

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

 No.7956

>>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.

 No.7957

>>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.

 No.7958

>>7957
what split?

 No.7959

>>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

 No.7960

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

 No.7961



Unique IPs: 38

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]