|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:17 pm
Gallenger Is there an existing article where Trotsky develops his opinions on the Molotov-Ribbentrop (or as he seems to refer to it the Nazi-Soviet or Hitler-Stalin pact) pact? I can find a few articles from the "In Defense of Marxism" collection and a few different letters and things, but I've yet to find an article where it doesn't appear that his opinions haven't already been laid out elsewhere. Was this work done by somebody else that I don't know of? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. A hard question. I will look around, but your best bet is probably to find bound volumes of early SWP propaganda (Militant) or their international stuff. *Looks at the Trotsky archive*
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:46 am
Imma bump this s**t.
BUMP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:34 am
Stalinist Marxism: significant points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:36 am
Stalinism calls itself 'Marxism-Leninism.' The key features of Stalinism are: Socialism in one country (shortened to S1C due to the frequent use it sees in the Chat). This theory says that socialism (the economic formation between the revolution and a full classless society) can be achieved in one country. Two-Stage theory which posited that in countries of belated capitalist development (i.e., the colonial world, or now the 'third' world) there is a need for a bourgeois-democratic revolution to turn the country into a capitalist democracy, and that only after a longer or shorter period of capitalist development could a workers' revolution be allowed to happen. It is important to note that these theories were created in the fight against Trotsky, and in the aftermath of a wave of defeated revolutions in Europe. This is apart from the practice of Bureaucratic Centralism (which they like to call Democratic Centralism. In practice the two are very different) in both their parties and the states they control. [edit]All in all, the "Encyclopedia of Marxism" at Marxists.Org characterises Stalinism decently. [edit2] In another thread I Ahuh... Now let us look at the bullshit in detail: Quote: The idea of socialism in one country was backed up by Lenin The only time anything is said at all on this subject is ONCE in ONE sentence which directly contradicts all of the rest of his writings both before and since. In the context of the article [in a fight over 'united states of europe'] he was obviously talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the groundwork, the ultimate prerequisite for socialism and not socialism itself. Quote: It is stupid to even bring up Marx or Engels here - they were both revolutionary enough to have not said "Oh well, I guess nobody else is in a state of revolution let us throw in the towel." No, bringing them up is valid and not stupid. Unless your point is that Stalinism was not so revolutionary, that for them it was either 'socialism in one country or the death of the revolution'? I doubt you are trying to imply that. No, the dogma of 'S1C' (for ease of repetition) comes from later 1924 when Stalin said that the SU had all that was required to build socialism. And then in the 30's we find the SU proclaimed a 'socialist' state. What this in and of itself is little. But it is symptomatic of all of Stalinism. We find Stalinism at the same time reveting back to the pre-April slogan of the "Democratic Dictatorship" and the menshevik 'stages' strategy in the colonial wold by a political (and not merely military) alliance with the colonial or 'anti-imperialist' bourgeoisie and in the imperialist centres with the 'Popular Front' which was a political alliance with the 'republican' or 'left' or 'democratic' or 'anti-fascist' imperialists. There was a complete lack of PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION in their strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:35 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre Stalinism calls itself 'Marxism-Leninism.' The key features of Stalinism are: Socialism in one country (shortened to S1C due to the frequent use it sees in the Chat). This theory says that socialism (the economic formation between the revolution and a full classless society) can be achieved in one country. Two-Stage theory which posited that in countries of belated capitalist development (i.e., the colonial world, or now the 'third' world) there is a need for a bourgeois-democratic revolution to turn the country into a capitalist democracy, and that only after a longer or shorter period of capitalist development could a workers' revolution be allowed to happen. It is important to note that these theories were created in the fight against Trotsky, and in the aftermath of a wave of defeated revolutions in Europe. This is apart from the practice of Bureaucratic Centralism (which they like to call Democratic Centralism. In practice the two are very different) in both their parties and the states they control. [edit]All in all, the "Encyclopedia of Marxism" at Marxists.Org characterises Stalinism decently. [edit2] In another thread I Ahuh... Now let us look at the bullshit in detail: Quote: The idea of socialism in one country was backed up by Lenin The only time anything is said at all on this subject is ONCE in ONE sentence which directly contradicts all of the rest of his writings both before and since. In the context of the article [in a fight over 'united states of europe'] he was obviously talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the groundwork, the ultimate prerequisite for socialism and not socialism itself. Quote: It is stupid to even bring up Marx or Engels here - they were both revolutionary enough to have not said "Oh well, I guess nobody else is in a state of revolution let us throw in the towel." No, bringing them up is valid and not stupid. Unless your point is that Stalinism was not so revolutionary, that for them it was either 'socialism in one country or the death of the revolution'? I doubt you are trying to imply that. No, the dogma of 'S1C' (for ease of repetition) comes from later 1924 when Stalin said that the SU had all that was required to build socialism. And then in the 30's we find the SU proclaimed a 'socialist' state. What this in and of itself is little. But it is symptomatic of all of Stalinism. We find Stalinism at the same time reveting back to the pre-April slogan of the "Democratic Dictatorship" and the menshevik 'stages' strategy in the colonial wold by a political (and not merely military) alliance with the colonial or 'anti-imperialist' bourgeoisie and in the imperialist centres with the 'Popular Front' which was a political alliance with the 'republican' or 'left' or 'democratic' or 'anti-fascist' imperialists. There was a complete lack of PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION in their strategy. I was reading this and thought to myself "Wow.This is actually a very fair stance coming from Gracchvs" Then i saw your own quotes riddled with Trotskist propaganda and I then proceeded to sigh heavily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:09 pm
Trotskyist propaganda?
Show where my quote is wrong then, where there is an exageration or untruth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:11 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre Trotskyist propaganda? Show where my quote is wrong then, where there is an exageration or untruth. make me rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:21 pm
Comrade Rob Louis-Auguste Robespierre Trotskyist propaganda? Show where my quote is wrong then, where there is an exageration or untruth. make me rofl Then you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:29 pm
I've tried looking everywhere for a clear description of the difference between Socialism and Communism, and have found a lot of crap. As far as I can gather the only real difference is that Socialism is concerned with just the economy while Communism is concerned with the economy as well as politics as well as Socialism not believing a violent revolution must occur for its ideals to be implemented, while Communism says that there will have to be a violent revolution.
So my question is if I'm right in my deductions, or as I suspect is the more likely reality am I wrong? And if I'm wrong, could you give me a clear description of the differences or at least point in the direction of where I can find one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:26 pm
iheartevil I've tried looking everywhere for a clear description of the difference between Socialism and Communism, and have found a lot of crap. As far as I can gather the only real difference is that Socialism is concerned with just the economy while Communism is concerned with the economy as well as politics as well as Socialism not believing a violent revolution must occur for its ideals to be implemented, while Communism says that there will have to be a violent revolution. So my question is if I'm right in my deductions, or as I suspect is the more likely reality am I wrong? And if I'm wrong, could you give me a clear description of the differences or at least point in the direction of where I can find one. I think the most basic description of socialism is "nationalisation of the comanding heights of industry." So that definition implies a planned economy, but does not in any way imply an elimination of private property, nor does it imply the elimination of classes (just the isolation of the capitalist class to certain sectors of the economy.) Communism however aims at the elimination of classes through the elimination of private property. I think that is the most basic way the difference could be put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:35 pm
Thank you! This makes things far more clearer and gives me a better basis for understand the rest of what I've read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:36 am
iheartevil Thank you! This makes things far more clearer and gives me a better basis for understand the rest of what I've read. Cool, I was hoping it wasn't too general to be useful, nor too 'communist-speak' filled to be understandable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:55 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre iheartevil I've tried looking everywhere for a clear description of the difference between Socialism and Communism, and have found a lot of crap. As far as I can gather the only real difference is that Socialism is concerned with just the economy while Communism is concerned with the economy as well as politics as well as Socialism not believing a violent revolution must occur for its ideals to be implemented, while Communism says that there will have to be a violent revolution. So my question is if I'm right in my deductions, or as I suspect is the more likely reality am I wrong? And if I'm wrong, could you give me a clear description of the differences or at least point in the direction of where I can find one. I think the most basic description of socialism is "nationalisation of the comanding heights of industry." So that definition implies a planned economy, but does not in any way imply an elimination of private property, nor does it imply the elimination of classes (just the isolation of the capitalist class to certain sectors of the economy.) Communism however aims at the elimination of classes through the elimination of private property. I think that is the most basic way the difference could be put. i'm not sure how to explain it so you would understand, i am not insult you, but my inability to properly place it. anyway, that is not exactly how i see it. socialism is more of a goal for communism to become, both are supposed to be fully democratic, but communism has ******** that up since the beginning since for socialism to work to you need to erase human nature, specifically greed as capitalism is practically based off it, both in terms of wealth and power. yes, i know i am not arguing against what you said, that is because there is more to it and that is specific to only one part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:24 am
Fenrir Berzerker i'm not sure how to explain it so you would understand, i am not insult you, but my inability to properly place it. anyway, that is not exactly how i see it. socialism is more of a goal for communism to become, both are supposed to be fully democratic, but communism has ******** that up since the beginning since for socialism to work to you need to erase human nature, specifically greed as capitalism is practically based off it, both in terms of wealth and power. yes, i know i am not arguing against what you said, that is because there is more to it and that is specific to only one part of it. I was explaining the difference between what socialists want and what communists want. The key thing to remember about my post is that the definition for socialism is the lowest or most inclusive definition for socialism. For Communists, or rather in communist theory, socialism is somewhat different to what socialists call for. But when communists talk about socialism as an economic formation they are using it as shorthand to refer to what Marx called the 'lower phase of communism.' In this understanding, socialism is what we call a communist society which has won against the capitalists, but has not yet made the gains in productivity to be able to live up to the slogan "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Hoppefully that was clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
