>>2920506>Freedom to trade in grain is a return to capitalism, to the full power of the landowners and capitalists, to a savage struggle between people for profit, to the "free" enrichment of the few, to the poverty of the masses, to the eternal bondage we see in all bourgeois states, including the freest and most democratic republics. Lenin,
Freedom to Trade in Grain, August 1919
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/FTG19.html
>[…]we made the mistake of deciding to go over directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution […] The New Economic Policy means substituting a tax for the requisitioning of food; it means reverting to capitalism to a considerable extent […] for the abolition of the surplus-food appropriation system means allowing the peasants to trade freely in their surplus agricultural produce, in whatever is left over after the tax is collected—and the tax takes only a small share of that produce. The peasants constitute a huge section of our population and of our entire economy, and that is why capitalism must grow out of this soil of free trading.Lenin,
The New Economic Policy, October 1921
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htmI don't draw the comparison between these two quotes to say that Lenin was wrong or bad or stupid, on the contrary, I think the contradictions of actually seizing and wielding power are more complex than what revolutionary theory can prepare you for. This does not mean that every last bit of revisionism and opportunism are justified, but it also means you shouldn't dismiss every hard decision that someone makes in real life as revisionism or opportunism, no?
Russia is a big guy.
Lenin admitted the NEP failed in his last congress. Lenin was aware the revolution died with its murder in Berlin.
The distinction is he didn't re-write theory to glorify the status quo like Stalin and others. No Marxist claimed Stalin hit the no communism button. The wheel of history is beyond and whims of one man.
>>2920782Well, the NEP was a massive improvment.
Notice how empirical evidence of Lenin doing Revisionist™ things doesn't bring in all the crazy ultras and maoists like Bloodgasm, Sposter, Bordigaspammer, etc. but as soon as China does anything remotely similar and it's pasted in a thread suddenly The Holy Prophets™ descend from on high to lecture China about treachery. Gee it's almost like this entire website is run by American feds pushing a narrative.
>>2920896why did you have to make this thread about named posters? don't you know they don't deserve attention even when they do show up?
>>2920896the counter arg i usually hear is that the NEP was temporary while dengism was not… however the leftcoms are not gentle on the soviet union and said they were doing commodity production the whole time. also the USSR allowed foreign help from capitalists:
<"The modern factories that defeated the Germans in World War II had their origin in the many technical agreements signed with foreign firms […] By March 1930 the [USSR] had signed 104 contracts. Of the 104, 81 were with American or German companies […] Over 400 American engineers made the architectural drawings for the Magnitogorosk plant, the largest project in the First Five-Year Plan. […] In May 1930, McKee waws hired to supervise the construction as well. By 1931, 250 American engineers were working on the project […] McKee brought in engineers from General Electric to work on the huge electrical installation. New open-hearth furnaces were designed by the Freyn Company […] the American Morgan Engineering Company […] and the German Demag A-G.”- Walter Dunn Jr., The Soviet Economy and the Red Army 1930-1945, 1995
Tbh I think we need a far more rigorous understanding of what progress towards communism actually looks like. We tend to treat it as a random collection of policies (a state of affairs to be established!) and not the sustained achievement of objectively necessary revolutionary tasks according to the context (the real movement that abolishes the present state of things!). Taking OP's example, we can correctly regard the nationalization of agriculture and food distribution as a socialist policy that would be admirable if effectively implemented. However, if we're in a situation where the most pressing revolutionary task is the consolidation of the proletariat dictatorship (as was the case in Russia in 1921), then a state which accomplishes this while forgoing the nationalization of agriculture does not cease to be revolutionary. The only question then is whether the policy under discussion is actually accomplishing this task, e.g. is it a tactical retreat that stabilizes the Soviet Republic or is it a fatal concession to the landowners that compromises the republic's class character. Either way, the discussion should centre on the task and the policy's utility to it rather than the policy in the abstract.
>>2921264>USSR allowed foreign help from capitalistsi never understood that line of criticism, how else would you even build an industrial base? what would the leftcoms unironically have done in this situation? just make believe and try to force material development by having grand ideas like mao tried to do?
>>2920782>Lenin admitted the NEP failed in his last congress. Can I get the direct quote and source pls. Sorry to doubt you but it is better to be skeptical and wrong than to potentially fall for a lie.
>>2920896>Notice how empirical evidence of Lenin doing Revisionist™ thingshe didnt do revisionism because he didnt pretend capitalism was socialism like you do
>>2920896Oh sure let's just ignore the century or so of 'leftcoms' noticing exactly what Lenin was doing and criticizing the USSR as state capitalism because of it. Fucking retard